Globes don't mean diddily

Globes don’t mean diddily
By Ben Flanagan
Ben Around
January 16, 2009

Those of us who watched the NBC broadcast of the Golden Globes will be pleased to know that the show’s best picture (drama) winner, “Slumdog Millionaire,” will open at our multiplex next Friday. If you’ve had your ear to the grindstone during this movie awards season, you know that “Slumdog” is director Danny Boyle’s much-talked about drama about a young Indian man who improbably wins his country’s version of “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” to impress a girl.

On the surface, this does not sound like your run-of-the-mill Oscar bait, especially when it’s helmed by an edgy filmmaker like Boyle (“Trainspotting,” “28 Days Later”). But for their reasons, critics have hailed this kinetic overseas story as arguably the year’s best film, which is hard for many (including me) to believe, that is, until we see the film. Luckily, our Cobb Hollywood 16 has decided to include us on the discussion and will bring the once-elusive film before us so we can all weigh in on the matter just after Oscar nominations are announced.

And yes, “Slumdog” all but dominated the Golden Globes, racking up wins for best picture, director, screenplay and musical score. Plus, the film has torn through the critics’ awards circuit, taking home 11 best picture wins leading up to the Oscars, followed by “Milk” and “Wall-E” which have each only earned three.

The film continues to do quite well financially, too, earning just over $34 million domestically on just 600 screens, already doubling its budget. With a wider release and its fresh Golden Globe victory, the film will almost certainly thrive and be considered a smash hit if it isn’t already.

But how many of us actually know what to think of this seemingly ultra-popular movie? Unless you’ve scurried up to Birmingham or over to Atlanta, or you happen to find yourself in New York City or Los Angeles, you wouldn’t have had a chance to see it. With all of its raging popularity, its studio Fox Searchlight has only managed to distribute it to a measly 600 screens. Can you blame them, though? Do they think that an unusual, partially-subtitled, Mumbai-set drama will clean up at box offices around the southeastern United States? That outcome remains to be seen, though folks around town have been buzzing about the film as of its recent Globes win. Thankfully, we can now participate in this dialogue and determine whether the Hollywood Foreign Press got it right.

However, some might ask, “Just what is the Hollywood Foreign Press Association?” The quick answer is that it is an organization of journalists who cover the United States film industry but are affiliated with publications outside of the United States. At some point, someone decided that this organization had enough clout to promote itself as the second most “important” film award ceremony following the Academy Awards. Around this time every year, you may hear friends and family members recommend some obscure movie titles that they heard about on the Golden Globes. This isn’t uncommon and is a good thing for the movie industry. It’s one of very few ceremonies that highlights a number of often deservedly acclaimed titles that don’t normally get much attention all year.

But should you hold what the members of the HFPA in high enough of a regard that you let them determine what tops your must-see list? Of course not. Your better bet will be on January 22 when the Oscar nominations are announced. For some dumb reason, we let members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dictate what will forever be perceived as the “best” films of any particular year. We know that artistic competition is undeniably stupid and subjective, but even the biggest Oscar pessimists must admit that the awards season is arguably the most engrossing time of the movie year. At this point, nearly every moviegoer across the nation has reason to pay close attention to what is and isn’t in movie theaters.

So if none of these institutions really matter in the grand scheme of things, whose pompous recommendations should you trust (besides mine)? How about no one’s? Hit up the internet, and get yourself a checklist of everything. Certainly let these award shows operate as a semi-guide of sorts, but don’t let their winners fool you. Just because they won the Golden Globe doesn’t mean they’ll win the Oscar or that they’re any good. You’ll be the judge on that. There are still plenty of titles that won’t merit any wins or even nominations at all that deserve more of your time than the ones that take home the gold. Plenty of passionate movie nerds will tell you on the message boards which of their precious items on their goofy top ten lists got the mega-shaft this year.

A few titles that you ought to throw on your list, based on what I know, follow: “Doubt,” “The Wrestler,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Reader,” “Milk,” “Waltz with Bashir,” “Gran Torino,” “Revolutionary Road,” “Rachel Getting Married,” “Happy-Go-Lucky,” “In Bruges,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” “Paranoid Park,” among plenty others.

That’s solid for a starting point. Now hit the net, and see what else piques your interest.

Quick Oscar reactions

I a sad SNOOZE reaction when they listed the best picture nominees. Apparently, they're not interested in ratings this year. Good grief. And the special Oscar goes for Harvey Weinstein's deep pockets.

- Slumdog Millionaire is now officially a SHOE-IN to win best picture. It's over. Boyle will get it, too.

- On that note, Rourke will win. Guaranteed. Richard Jenkins' performance just became the single most overrated of the year. It just wasn't that special. Anybody can sit there and look sad and then liberally whine about immigration laws for a few seconds. He and/or Pitt stole Eastwood's nod.

- Winslet will win. No doubt. Nudity prevails.

- Ledger. Duh. The Downey nomination is a joke, a big fat one.

- Supporting actress is fairly wide open actually now that Winslet snuck in the other category (fishy). Right now, good money might should be on Cruz, but I wouldn't count out Davis or Adams (although their votes will likely split, but remember 1994!).

- Agreed about The Wrestler getting sound nods. It totally deserves them. But like you said, just hand the awards to Wall-E.

- How was Springsteen's song left out? That doesn't make sense. It was used in the movie just as much as Peter Gabriel's song (over the end credits).

- Visual effects SHOULD go to Iron Man, but stupid Button will probably win.

- Makeup is a tough call. The Hellboy main character makeup is a major achievement in movie history, I think. The rest of the Pan's Labyrinth knockoffs were impressive but just okay to me.

- Looks like Milk may just get the screenplay consolation prize, unless Van Sant steals director from Boyle.

POINT IS: The Oscars are getting way too predictable, boring and phony. I have yet to see these: Milk, The Reader, Frost/Nixon. Only really looking forward to the first and parts of the second.