Copyright, AMPASThe Golden Globes were this past Sunday, and many on these here Internets were alight with praise for the Hollywood Foreign Press. They awarded either the right people (Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Colin Farrell, Heath Ledger) or didn't award people undeserving of a nomination (yes, Tom Cruise is funny in Tropic Thunder, but give me a break). I'm not too surprised about those awards, though, as the stereotypes hounding the HFPA--that they only award those living outside the United States, that they enjoy beautiful women, that they only want the famous people to drink with them--didn't exactly go away. See the winners and, for that last point, half the presenters and winners (how much had Tom Wilkinson had when he won? Yeesh).
There are, as you know, many places on the Internet to find awards coverage, from AwardsDaily.com to In Contention to Gold Derby and on and on. There's so much to inundate a person's daily life that even Tina Fey, a very well-deserved champ Sunday, slammed a few anonymous posters on that latter Web site. No, but wait...that lead to multiple videos where Tom O'Neil, proprietor of the site, playfully got on her case for mentioning them on national television. And on and on and on. Which leads me to the chief question: why is this season so important to so many people?
It's not a question that hasn't been asked before, and recently, too. And I'm not here to hound on those folks who've been at it for years, and doing it better than me. But why does it matter so much? I can't answer for the David Polands and Sasha Stones, but for myself, it's a personal validation of sorts. I, like many millions, want to know that the people making the movies, the people at the gate agree with me in some way. And so, I am frequently disturbed when I see what some AMPAS voters say about their voting strategies, as noted in a recent post from "Deep Vote" on Scott Feinberg's blog at The Envelope, an apparent Oscar-winning screenwriter who hadn't seen most contenders by the time for the preliminary vote. He had the opportunity to vote on certain categories, such as screenplay and picture, and championed...three movies.
Three movies. That two of them, Slumdog Millionaire and Gran Torino, really don't deserve any awards buzz (though I'll live when the former most likely sweeps the Oscars) isn't actually the problem. The problem is that one of the 6,000+ can't be urged to vote on what is arguably a very important honor, at least in the film world. This person could fill their ballot with films I hate and the discussion could turn to something more substantive. But what frustrates me is the lack of passion in, at the very least, this voter.
The Academy has, for the last few years, been working very hard at eliminating the stigma that people assume most of its members are old and set in their ways. Whether this is true or not is debatable (though I'd argue that any whispers about the Clint Eastwood movie would not help the end of this stereotype). My problem is that the members, whenever interviewed secretly, seem to have views as far away from sanity as possible. I'm not asking for AMPAS voters to stick with the mainstream; I'd just like them to love movies maybe a quarter as much as those of us on the Internet do. Show some interest, get off your butt and watch some goddamn movies.
I do love the awards season, frustrations and all, though I'd admit to loving it more last year, with far more favorite films in contention than this year, where only a few films have even the possibility of getting into the nomination pool. So I'm not hating on those Internet folk, I wouldn't. And now that I've covered my ass from hypocrisy, check out my work at Box Office Prophets: http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=11255
Tomorrow will bring my quick Top Ten of 2008 list and, boy, am I scrounging for films.
No comments:
Post a Comment