In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
December 21, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
But we all have our favorites. Some people champion unique films (with the caveat that I have yet to see True Grit, The Fighter, The King’s Speech, and Blue Valentine, I’m pretty sure my film to champion this year is Black Swan) to fight off the presumed winner. This year, even going into December, most people assumed that the Best Picture Oscar would be down to two films: The Social Network and The King’s Speech. Both are receiving raves, both are doing well at the box office, but they also represent a generational divide. Would the Academy voters bestow love on an old-fashioned story about the royal family in World War II, or on the story of how one of the most popular sites on the Internet came into existence? Old school or new school? The narrative is exciting, but only if people throw up unlikely victors in the path of these rivals.
As we get closer and closer to Christmas, however, a few movies have indeed stepped up to ward off Mark Zuckerberg and the King of England. There’s the aforementioned Black Swan, which got a heaping helping of nominations from the Broadcast Film Critics’ Association last week. This film, set in the world of ballet, is a dizzying drama about a ballerina at the breaking point. (And, for all you dudes out there, two hot chicks get it on! By the time that scene shows up, you’ll be too hooked by the movie to remember that’s why you came.) Natalie Portman delivers a career-best performance, and is supported by a fine cast and by Darren Aronofsky’s assured, insane direction. In short, this movie may end up being a threat in a few categories, but there’s still the assumption that the Academy won’t go for it because the voters are too old, they don’t get it, and so on.
Black Swan has a chance, but the real underdog is The Fighter. The Fighter ended up with plenty of nominations for this year’s Golden Globes, and is poised to be the uninvited guest in the Best Picture category. To clarify, the movie was always assumed to be a contender, but until the last couple of weeks, it wasn’t clear if The Fighter would be a first-tier or second-tier nominee. As of this writing, it seems like we’re now looking at a three-picture race, in no small part to the awards the movie’s performers (including Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo) are receiving and to the Golden Globes. As you may or may not know, these awards are voted on by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a group of foreign journalists who…well, they love celebrities, it seems. And partying.
I genuinely look forward to the show, hosted once again by British comedian Ricky Gervais, but that’s mostly because I love Gervais’ humor. Having said that, if you look at the nominees in film this year, you are looking at the height of hypocrisy, not just among Golden Globes voters, but among film writers. You may know that the Globes have long been thought of as a precursor to the Oscar nominees. If Movie A gets nominated for Best Picture – Drama at the Globes, it’s nearly guaranteed to do so at the Oscars. With the Oscars doubling the Best Picture slots to 10, the comparison seems more apt. So when Alice In Wonderland, Burlesque, and The Tourist got nominated for Best Picture – Musical or Comedy in place of movies like Toy Story 3 or, you know, ANYTHING ELSE, it caused a lot of anger among the awards watchers.
A quick note on Toy Story 3, though, before I get into the hypocrisy. The film had no chance to get nominated because of the recently added Best Animated Feature category. I appreciate the semblance of having rules (even in an awards ceremony that’s so nuts), but Toy Story 2 won Best Picture – Musical or Comedy in 1999. Why have this new category when at least one slot in the regular race could be filled by something from Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks? But then, why am I asking logical questions when no logic was applied to these nominations? I’ve not seen Burlesque or The Tourist, so I can only assume how good or bad they are. However, I can assume that The Tourist wasn’t meant to be a comedy, and I’m taking a wild stab when I say that Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp don’t sing in it.
Also, I’ve seen Alice in Wonderland, and I don’t care how much money it made. This argument - that the movie making money should equal it getting awards - was made by Disney executives, and I’m sad to see the Golden Globes nominate it just because, hey, they sure love that Tim Burton! Alice in Wonderland was, despite making a lot of money, nowhere as good as it could have been, to put things diplomatically. All of this is beside the point, though. How can we attribute relevance to the Golden Globes in one half of their motion picture awards if the other half is the joke of the town? Some wondered if Inception was in trouble because it didn’t get any acting nominations from the Globes. Should we even care? The Tourist was nominated for Best Picture and it got nods for Jolie and Depp. How can we balance the two sides?
Of course, no one can or will. And, sure, the Golden Globes aren’t voted on by the same people who vote in the Academy. And, sure, the ceremony’s just an excuse for stars to get drunk on national television. But let’s take it seriously. I don’t mean to sound grumpy again, but there’s a point where I wish I could ask an Academy voter if he or she paid attention to the various critics’ awards (which, being fair, do not make any attempt at trying to influence Academy voters, at least not explicitly) or cared about them when choosing what to nominate at the Oscars. The issue here isn’t the various awards; the issue is the legitimacy some people ascribe to them. The Golden Globes are fun to watch. I hope to enjoy myself in a few weeks’ time, but just remember: even if The Social Network wins there and at the Oscars, it’s not because of the HFPA.