' ' Cinema Romantico: Golden Globes
Showing posts with label Golden Globes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Golden Globes. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 09, 2025

Who Was the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?


Cinema Romantico retired its longstanding Who is the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes nominee bit last year because, honestly, we thought this whole oft-enjoyable but unquestionably farcical annual excuse for Hollywood to throw its holiday office party by honoring excellence in film and television was dead. I would have sworn I saw Taylor Swift kill it with my own eyes. But no, the Globes, it turns out, are a little like college football’s Bahamas Bowl, nominally international, perpetually on shaky ground, seemingly dead and buried but then resurrected as something called the Xbox Bowl. So, welcome to the 2026 Xbox Golden Globes. And boy, did I find their nominations this year fascinating. Not from a What This Means for Award Season perspective, mind you, but from their own This is a Soiree of Celebrity perspective.

It might seem surprising that “Wicked: For More Money” was not nominated in the Best Picture Comedy or Musical category, but they did nominate its two stars Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo in the acting categories and so the producers can cut to them throughout the broadcast and still maintain the movie’s never-ending marketing campaign which is what really matters. Glen Powell did not make the cut in one of the two Best Actor movie categories for “The Running Man,” but that’s because the Globes voters knew they could slot him in for “Chad Powers” in the TV actor category, and then that movie acting slot could be set aside for “The Smashing Machine’s” Dwayne Johnson in order to put him at a prominent table so he can laugh too hard at all the bad jokes to convey he is willing to play the game and would really, really, really like to be nominated for one of the real awards. If there is any genuine shock, it’s that Sydney Sweeney did not earn a nomination for “Christy.” But then, look who got that nomination instead: Julia Roberts for “After the Hunt.” And you’re damn right, she did. 

Was she good in “After the Hunt?” I have no idea; I haven’t seen it yet; that’s not the point. The point is, the buzz on it has been bad, the reviews have been worse, no one has been discussing her as an awards contender, and yet, she finds herself with a nomination, nevertheless. Sydney Sweeney might be The Discourse Machine, but Julia Roberts is American royalty, our Princess of Wales, who is always invited to the party, irrefutably this year’s Golden Globes-iest. I’ll be happy to see her, whenever this thing airs, you can look up the date and time for the Xbox Golden Globes yourself. 


Wednesday, January 08, 2025

Golden Globes: A Formal Assessment

“I want to start by saying this whole angled camera thing is very weird,” Seth Rogen said at this Sunday’s Golden Globes when appearing midway through the telecast with Catherine O’Hara to present Best Female Actor - Limited/Anthology Series/TV Movie, gratefully giving voice to what everyone was thinking, certainly what My Beautiful, Perspicacious Wife and I were thinking watching along at home about the bizarre close-ups in which all the presenters were too close to the camera while also stranded in something approximating the middle of the room with many of the attendees glimpsed in the background. “It’s inelegant, it’s strange, this whole half of the room can see my bald spot.” Charlie Chaplin, who knew a thing or two about a moving camera, observed that life is a tragedy in close-up and a comedy in a long shot and hey, here were the dumb ol’ Globes living it and having no idea they were living it. Simply amazing. 

On the other hand, they did sort of create some comedy in long shot, albeit unintentionally, as the weird camera angles allowed us to occasionally get glimpses of Ralph Fiennes at the “Conclave” table in the background suffering through these interminable and awkward attempts at humor in front of him, an actor in real time trying to decide between continuing to engage with full award campaign mode and shine it on or just crack and start crying. “I can’t take it anymore!” I imagined him screaming, going full Shakespeare. “It’s not worth it!” That was compelling, at least, and all for naught since Fiennes didn’t win Best Dramatic Actor anyway, losing out to Adrien Brody for “The Brutalist,” which maybe makes Brody the Oscar front-runner, or maybe not, who on earth knows, because the Globes are often not a bellwether. I mean, “Wicked” won for something called Cinematic and Box Office Achievement and I don’t even know what that means. That it made more money than the other nominees? It sounds like one of those movie awards that Alvy Singer jokes about in “Annie Hall.” (“It’s about damn time,” Vin Diesel said as he introduced the award, I guess forgetting that more than a few box office blockbusters have won the Golden Globe for Best Dramatic Picture along the way.) I don’t even want to research it. Where was I?

See Stanley Tucci toss back a glass of fizz in real time. This is what the people want.

The camera angles. I was going to say, this was just proof that enshittification has come for awards shows too, which can’t just stick to the camera angles that have worked for eons, how every ostensible improvement in our lives is the exact opposite, but nobody wants to hear that, least of all My Beautiful, Perspicacious Wife, who hears this every day and is probably rolling her eyes right now. And anyway, I must call myself out; it’s not true! CBS made one discernible improvement to their Globes telecast! As if hearkening back to their coverage of the NCAA basketball tournament of yore, when they would throw it to commercials or come back from commercials by deploying a quad box so that we could see games taking place in all four regions, CBS used a quad box for the Globes each time they went to commercial so we could see interactions between celebrities in four different places rather than one, a la the poor image above taken of my television set. As I’ve repeated ad nauseum, this is what we want from Hollywood’s Holiday Office Party – celebrities! Altcasts are all the rage these days, especially for sports, showing big games through all manner of different perspectives, and for next year’s Globes, CBS needs to get into the alt-cast business by running a concurrent broadcast on another channel, or online, where cameras are trained on individual tables and we can watch the entire show by watching, say, the “Only Murders in the Building” table. Imagine watching Martin Short watch the Golden Globes. It’s the awards show final frontier. 

(All Golden Globes winners are listed anywhere else on the internet.)

Tuesday, December 12, 2023

Who Was the Golden Globes-iest Nominee?


Nominees for the 2024 Golden Globe Awards were announced yesterday. That means it’s time, as annual tradition dictates, much to the chagrin of our longtime and extremely frustrated followers, for Cinema Romantico to determine which nominee is the Golden Globes-iest. The Golden Globes-iest, as our longtime and extremely frustrated followers can frustratedly attest, is not the most deserving nominee, or some such, but the nominee most blatantly nominated by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association solely as an excuse to invite them to the party. But wait! The HFPA was not responsible for this year’s nominations! In the wake of several stories linking the Hollywood Foreign Press Association with The Scum of the Earth, the GG’s governing body disbanded last year and Dick Clark Productions, which has produced the telecast since 1993, took control of the awards and went full for profit. It seems appropriate, quite frankly, finally cutting the flimsy facade that the Golden Globes should be treated like anything other than empty calorie entertainment, a TV show with famous people winning things. True, Dick Clark Productions, in this convoluted late capitalist age, is owned by Penske Media Corporation which owns several Hollywood trades which will no doubt follow orders to try and lend full throated legitimacy to this frivolous affair. But I, for one, happen to think Hollywood’s unofficial office Christmas party will benefit by a merger with some New Year’s Rockin’ Eve spirit. Indeed, while I’m a little unclear on who is even voting for these things now, much like I assume Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve is overseen by Dick Clark’s entombed brain inside the red ball wherever that sits the other 364 days a year, I assume it’s calling the shots on GG nominees too.

So, who’s the Golden Globes-iest? I’m impressed at the classification of Todd Haynes’s “May December” as Musical or Comedy to sneak in a Natalie Portman nod, there, bringing to mind Leonardo DiCaprio’s speech upon winning the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical for, ahem, “Wolf of Wall Street.” “I never would have guessed that I’d have won for Best Actor in a Comedy,” he said. “I’d like to pay some congratulations to my fellow comedians here tonight.” But then, as this goes to show, the extra category is an ancient ploy to work in more nominees. That’s why the 2024 Globes impressively went further and invented a whole new category, one deemed “Cinematic and Box Achievement,” the capitalism category basically, like that one the Academy Awards were going to have until they were shouted down. The Globes just went for it, embracing their own tackiness. And while it allows them space to name check the so-called Barbenheimer phenomenon, and squeeze in some comic book stuff too, mostly it was a way to invite Time’s Person of the Year, the NFL’s new unofficial brand ambassador, and all-around Pop Culture Conqueror by nominating Taylor Swift’s “The Era Tours.” 

A Trojan Horse Taylor Swift. That’s not just 2024’s Golden Globes-iest, that might be the Golden Globes-iest ever. Dick Clark Productions, I think this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. I can’t wait for 2025 when she gets nominated for best Non-Existent Role in a Movie or TV Show. 


Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Who Was the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?


The Golden Globes are back! True, they didn’t really go away last year, even if the fallout from the Los Angeles Times exposing lack of diversity within its governing body the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, not to mention that governing body’s willingness to be feted with prime rib and champagne, so to speak, in exchange for nominations, caused actors to boycott them and NBC to pull the plug on the annual January broadcast. Still, the HFPA announced winners over Twitter in-between, per Cinema Romantico’s faux-sources, gulps from a giant fishbowl cocktail, the whole calamity reducing the Globes to their true essence, that being a desperate cry for attention. Part of me hoped they’d stay that way,  but no, here they are again, diversifying their ranks to some degree and making the all-important cosmetic changes like installing Jerrod Carmichael as host and having Mayan Lopez and Selenis Leyva announce the nominees. (Leyva stepped in for Mayan’s father George Lopez who bowed out after contracting COVID.) I can’t wait until Dave Chappelle and Elon Musk present an award on the actual telecast and the former lectures us to give the new HFPA a chance and Musk stops mid-joke read from a cue card about how badly he is managing to Twitter to explain that, actually, he’s running Twitter quite well, thank you, and you clods just can’t recognize a Genius At Work

Of course, forging ahead with the 2023 Globes will cause great consternation for its nominees, no doubt hashing out this very dilemma with their various public relations teams. Brendan Fraser, nominated as Best Dramatic Actor for “The Whale,” has already indicated he will not attend, and as a long-heralded industry mensch, we have no doubt he is sincere in this vow. Others, though, I’m sure are wrestling right now with the notion of how much virtue signaling is too much. We shall see, just as we shall see if the HFPA is more determined to throw shade at Fraser for this snub by giving Austin Butler the award for “Elvis” (if Austin Butler attends) or retain its role as symbolic Oscar weathervane and give it to Fraser anyway. How all this affects the Golden Globes’ long-standing status as Hollywood’s unofficial office holiday party remains to be seen. Office holiday parties are changing the world over given the Pandemic and it only makes sense that Hollywood’s might too. Maybe it’s time. Until such time, though, when the Hollywood glitterati decides once for all to get off the fence, the blog will maintain its bit of determining the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes nominee. That is to say, not the best nominee (boring), nor the most deserving nominee (lame), but the nominee that most encapsulates the HFPA’s off the record mission statement of starf***ing.


Brad Pitt, there, in the Best Supporting Actor category for “Babylon” comes across pretty Golden Globes-y because the Oscar blogs (I don’t read) suggest his buzz for an Academy Award has been minimal (as far as I know). Ditto Margot Robbie for the same film. Still, that’s a big Christmastime release, an easy cover, and the HFPA works harder than that. Ana de Armas being nominated for “Blonde” is awful Golden Globes-y because without the double barrel Best Actress in a Drama and Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy chicanery it’s doubtful there would have been space for her on the invite list. Speaking of which, there is no way Emma Thompson would have been nominated for “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande” without that convenient second Best Actress category and, hey, Thompson presenting at the 2014 Golden Globes holding a martini in one hand and her high heels in the other is the whole soiree’s vision board. Whether Thompson accepts her award as this year’s Golden Globes-iest, well, TBD. Maybe she and Brendan Fraser can make like Karen and Pam on “The Office” and throw a dueling Hollywood office holiday party down the road at the Beverly Wilshire. I’d livestream that.

Sunday, January 09, 2022

Golden Globes Updated: There Will Be No Golden Globes


Everybody knows the meme. Or, everyone who is plugged in, probably a bit too much, knows the meme. If you, like, see Rocky the rescue cat belonging to Capitol Hill correspondent Lisa Desjardins on the PBS NewsHour, or if you are watching an old “Golden Girls” rerun and suddenly Mr. Wilhelm (i.e. Richard Herd) shows up, you post the picture to your social media account of Leonardo DiCaprio as washed up actor Rick Dalton in Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” pointing himself out on TV in an episode of F.B.I. which he is watching with his friend and consigliere of sorts Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). “I saw it!” you’re comically telling the whole world. I bring it up because the fictional Rick’s house is in the Hollywood Hills, and in December, when the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, elite level hobnobbers, pledged to still hold its annual Golden Globes Awards despite NBC pulling the plug on the telecast over the HFPA’s lack of diversity, this blog speculated the HFPA might still hold its glorified cocktail party in a Hollywood Hills garage. Who wouldn’t at least turn into a livestream of some confused celebs showing for a Costco shrimp platter?

Well, as Decider reported, now the Golden Globes will not even be livestreamed (possibly from an HFPA member’s Hollywood Hills garage). No, an HFPA spokesperson explained “This year’s event is going to be a private event and will not be livestreamed.” The spokesperson continued: “We will be providing real-time updates on winners on the Golden Globes website and our social media.” So, now I’m picturing a few HFPA members, whichever ones decide to show up for this ignominious faux-affair, sitting around someone’s Hollywood Hills living room, a la Rick and Cliff, swigging Whiskey Sours, Tweeting out winners they just sort of randomly decide in the moment (Hannah Waddingham for “Ted Lasso” because everybody loves “Ted Lasso” and now nobody will be mad at us anymore, right?) and then every time they see on of their own Tweets scroll across their own timelines, sitting up excitedly and pointing at it. 

Has the Hollywood Party Planning Committee been formed yet?

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Which Golden Globes Nominee is Most Likely to Attend the (Possibly Non-Existent) Golden Globes Ceremony?


The Golden Globes, Hollywood’s annual office Christmas party, ran into a wee spot of trouble last year when its organizing body, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a cadre of celebrity bootlickers, was outed and then mercilessly criticized for its lack of diversity. It got so bad that NBC, which had televised the Globes since 1996, pulled the plug on this year’s ceremony. Boldly, or perhaps just idiotically, like George Costanza returning to work after quitting in a huff, the HFPA pressed on yesterday nonetheless and announced its nominees for the 2022 Golden Globes

This, of course, would traditionally be the moment when Cinema Romantico then determined which Golden Globes nominee is the Golden Globes-iest, which is to say which person the HFPA most specifically nominated not on any kind of merit but on hobnobbing potential. That person was likely previous Globes-iest winner Emma Stone for “Cruella.” Say what you will about the HFPA, feel free, but that additional Musical or Comedy category is an eternal example of their cunning, a way to always shoehorn more celebs into the festivities.

Possible location for the 2022 Golden Globes

Of course, you can’t have a televised soiree without television. Exactly what the upcoming Golden Globes will be remains unclear, likely because the HFPA has no idea itself. I imagine them taking place in a Hollywood Hills garage, with red and white checked tablecloths over card tables and Three buck Chuck served out of Solo cups, people tripping over mislaid tennis rackets. That means the question for 2021 is not so much which Golden Globes nominee is the Globes-iest but which nominee is most likely to show up for a faux soiree hosted by a bunch of apple-polishing bigots?

Aaron Sorkin, nominated for Best Motion Picture Screenplay for “Being the Ricardo”s, I think. Aaron Sorkin is the most likely to attend the (Possibly Non-Existent) Golden Globes ceremony. Congratulations. 

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Introducing: the Hollywood Party Planning Committee

This week NBC announced it would not be airing the 2022 Golden Globe Awards. This was a major blow to the Globes’ governing body, the infamous Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), since, as the Los Angeles Times exposed in a February piece ahead of this year’s ceremony, the HFPA makes its living wining and dining movie stars almost exclusively from that television money. Without that money and broadcast TV platform, what is the HFPA? A cabal of journalists, give or take, no one knows with, as the L.A. Times also reported, next to no diversity and, per Scarlett Johansson, pervasive sexism. Tom Cruise, meanwhile, announced he would be returning his three Golden Globes in protest. And while that, like NBC choosing to pull the plug not after the L.A. Times story but after the broadcast, might be mere virtue signaling, well, I enjoy envisioning Tom’s Golden Globes sitting outside the Beverly Hilton - because who knows where the HFPA is headquartered - waiting to be brushed away by a street cleaner. Whether this is truly the end of the HFPA or if, after some cosmetic reform, the industry and/or NBC sign back up for more is TBD. 

Cinema Romantico, of course, must stipulate that it has always been a staunch supporter of The Golden Globes. Not, to be exceptionally clear, the HFPA or even the awards they hand out. No, I have long enjoyed the Globes simply as the boozy soiree they are, a glorified cocktail party of movie stars that happens to be on TV, the (un)official, as I have said ad nauseam, Hollywood Office Christmas Party. And that’s why this week’s overdue events brought me a moment of clarity. Why does Hollywood need the HFPA to hold its (un)official Office Christmas Party? It’s Hollywood! It’s an official organization, right there on 1 Hollywood Rd Hollywood, CA! They can do this themselves! It’s time to seize the means of party-planning production! As such, I have drawn up the first ever Hollywood Party Planning committee. We (they) have eight months.  


Introducing: the Hollywood Party Planning Committee

Committee Chair: Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson 

Event Coordinators: Anna Kendrick, Stanley Tucci 

Creative Committee: Maya Rudolph, Gabrielle Union, Awkwafina, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Public Relations Coordinator: Sandra Bullock

Treasurer: Lisa Kudrow

Thursday, February 25, 2021

Legally Obligated Golden Globes Predictions



The Golden Globes cannot always be trusted, to paraphrase Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) of “Jackie Brown”, but you can always trust the Golden Globes to be the Golden Globes. Indeed, last weekend, an L.A. Times investigation exposed the Globes’ governing body, the oft-derided Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), as nothing less than a corrupt cabal. The HFPA operates, it turns out, no differently than your garden variety crooked college football bowl game, ostensibly functioning as a non-profit to redirect compensation to themselves and taking money from a TV network (NBC) that has essentially transformed its ceremony into less of an autonomous awards banquet than a made-for-television event. And though I would like nothing more than to submit the GIF of Claude Rains in “Casablanca” declaring that he is “shocked, shocked to find there is gambling going on here”, The Globes, however frivolous you and I know them to be, have positioned themselves, not least through NBC’s platform, as an industry weather vane. That’s why the L.A. Times also revealing the HFPA’s membership includes zero black members was rightfully excoriated. It’s why so many people were furious when the universally trashed Netflix series “Emily in Paris” landed so many nominations and the critically acclaimed British series “I May Destroy You“ earned none. Award shows matter as much as we say they matter and so I have always wished we would treat The Golden Globes like what they are: a more glamorous version of the MTV Movie Awards or the Blockbuster Entertainment Awards (RIP). And yet, through their avarice and NBC’s insistence, the Golden Globes have attained significance. 

Of course, now we know, by virtue of the L.A. Times, those “Emily in Paris” nominations were, more or less, bought and paid for, the show’s creators flying 30 HFPA members to Paris and putting them at a five-star hotel, akin to “Doctor Dolittle’s” “prime-rib-and-free-booze campaign of dinner screenings”, to quote Mark Harris’s “Pictures at a Revolution” that garnered that stink bomb nine Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, proving the stuffy Oscars and boozy Globes are not all that different. And just as the Oscars have sought reform, not least through diversifying their ranks, the Golden Globes only hope may be reform too. But who on Earth aside from the most craven would want to join the HFPA such as it is? (Will someone from the HFPA get up there on Sunday night and blame Awards Show Cancel Culture, the trust fund cousin of Constitutional Cancel Culture?) No, you’d have to expunge them all, and if you expunged them all, would the HFPA be the HFPA? And would The Globes be The Globes? If your awards are predominantly a farce, how can they be farcical when buffoons aren’t running the show? Granted, if they did reform, for real, the non-profit could potentially be used for altruism. And my despite my recurring proclamation about The Globes merely being Hollywood’s Office Party, so stop taking them seriously, if they took themselves seriously, set an example and did some good for the industry, rather than the bad, well, I don’t want be the one jackass over here telling people to bring back the corruption and greed. 

In that light, the only Golden Globes prediction I will make is this: “Emily in Paris” winning for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy. Because not only would that be the funniest thing ever, it would be the ultimate nail in the HFPA coffin. 

Thursday, February 04, 2021

Who Was the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?



Much like so many office Christmas parties were forced by obvious circumstances to move online, corporations gleefully rubbing their hands together as one more pesky barrier between the separation of home and work falls, the Golden Globes, Hollywood’s office Christmas party, has trundled on too in the form of a bi-coastal event, switching between the Beverly Hilton in L.A. and the Rainbow Room in New York, though likely in some socially distanced, limited person sort of way. This is sad in so much as the best part of The Globes is watching celebrities gossip between commercials and get soused on champagne in close proximity at their tables. On the other hand, the possibility exists that a semi-online Globes could be festive in its own janky way. Maybe Amal could accidentally Zoombomb George; maybe Sacha Baron Cohen and Isla Fisher could parody all the worst Zoom types; maybe Spike Lee could continually get caught streaming the Knicks game on his laptop and yelling at R.J. Barrett. (Editor’s Note: “Da 5 Bloods” earned no Globes nominations. Spike can watch the Knicks in peace. He is undoubtedly happier.) Who knows, I’m just glad it’s going forward (even though I am simultaneously not since holding it in a COVID hotspot is pretty stupid) and crossing my fingers that it is perplexing and ridiculous in all the best ways since that’s what we want from the Globes. Ok, ok, apologies; that’s the royal we, or the blogging we, I just slipped in there, when I meant it’s what *I* want from the Globes. In 2021, believe me, I am less interested in your pseudo-hot takes about a glorified cocktail party getting things wrong than ever. If they didn’t get things wrong, they wouldn’t be the Globes! Which, of course, in the wake of the 2021 Golden Globes nominations, brings me around to our annual exercise of determining the Golden Globes-iest nominee. Not the best nominee, or the most deserving nominee, but the nominee that most succinctly summarizes the HFPA’s mission statement to f*** stars.

First things first, three years after Natalie Portman righteously dropped a cherry bomb in the whole Globes toilet in announcing the Best Director winner by caustically noting all the nominees were male, the Globes have nominated three women for Best Director. More women than men! Then again, maybe that’s just because at some point even idiots cannot deny the truth. Then again, they did nominate Aaron Sorkin in the passably directed “Trial of the Chicago 7”; that’s more Globes-y. Plus, all that “Mank” love makes it clear Netflix was sending myriad members of the HFPA fruit baskets. (This is pure speculation! Do not report as fact!)

Kate Hudson?

As always, the categories of Best Actress and Actor in a Musical/Comedy in addition to the more formal Best Actress and Actor in a Drama cagily allowed for the Globes to sneak in a few extra party guests: namely, Lin-Manuel Miranda for “Hamilton” and James Corden for “The Prom.” That is so Globes-y. Nicole Kidman in all likelihood would have scored a nod for “The Prom” too as a way to ensure she could attend the party if she had not already scored a nod in the TV category for “The Undoing” which means Kidman’s nomination retains more classiness but I repeat myself. At the same time, Kate Hudson earned a nomination in the Best Actress Musical/Comedy category for “Music.” Which, what? The Madonna music video? Is it like one of those Living Planet movies but for art: Music? [Googles.] No, it’s a new movie that has yet to be released. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps this is like the Hollywood Film Awards? Whatever it is, Kate Hudson’s nod is pretty damn Globes-y.

But what’s this over here? Jared Leto for Best Supporting Actor in “The Little Things”? Where did that come from? That’s not even Globes-y; that’s insane. Who wants to invite Leto to the office Christmas party? Leto’s the guy who you tell the party is at the Holiday Inn out by LAX and then turn off your phone. Did HBO Max send fruit baskets too? (This is pure speculation! Do not report as fact!)

Glenn Close in “Hillbilly Elegy” feels like one of those moments when the HFPA was just conforming to the tedious awards handbook. Not near Globes-y enough.


And so. That brings us back to Best Supporting Actor and Bill Murray in “On the Rocks” who wins this year’s honorary Meryl Streep Award for the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes nominee. Look, I liked “On the Rocks” and I liked Bill Murray in it. I have no idea if he’s a true awards or contender or not. But this has nothing to do with any of that, understand. Go debate ‘worthiness’ somewhere else. Ensuring Bill Murray gets to attend the We Don’t Even Know How The Hell These Are Going To Work, Let’s Wing It Golden Globes is inspired work from the HFPA’s Cruise Director. We want him at these Globes; we need him at these Globes; I’m picturing him remoting in while doing some variation of Brad Pitt in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” up on the roof fixing the satellite feed and guzzling beer and just sort of hijacking the entire telecast for 10 minutes. We should be so lucky.

Tuesday, January 07, 2020

Is Brad Pitt a Titanic Truther?


The Golden Globes, a cocktail party hosted by fawning junketeers, are an iffy barometer of their more formal non-counterparts, the Academy Awards, and so I hesitate to draw too much from a result of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association naming Brad Pitt Best Supporting Actor for “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood.” But still. If this next month is just a predictable, inexorable march to Pitt’s first Oscar (not to mention Laura Dern’s, who earned the Globe for Best Supporting Actress), I’m here for it. I did not do a Favorite Performances of 2019 list this year but Pitt would have been near the top, maybe at the top, giving a supremely, innately physical performance as Cliff Booth, befitting the character’s stunt man nature, evincing this almost preternatural ease in his body, going from cool swagger to sixty in the blink of an eye. Pitt’s past due for his Academy Award and I think it’s a fine time for it to finally be his Time.

But wait! What was that Mr. Pitt said in his Globes acceptance speech? Let’s check the tape. “I also have to thank my partner in crime, LDC.” (We’re calling Leo ‘LDC’ now?) “He’s an all-star. He’s a gent and I wouldn’t be here without you, man. I thank you. Still, I would have shared the raft.” This, as astute Internet users quickly pointed out, was a reference to the former Box Office Champion of the World, “Titanic” (1997), where Leo – er, LDC’s – character perishes in the icy North Atlantic when he deduces, his mind perhaps clouded by said icy water, that there was not enough room on the door-as-makeshift-raft for both he and Kate Winslet’s Rose.

This, of course, is the Internet’s foremost cinematic conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory  prominently flouted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who spends significant time in his areas of expertise combating so many tinfoil hat wearers, the kind of people who prefer elevating conspiracy theories simply because it makes them feel smarter than so many would-be sheeple. And that’s precisely why deGrasse Tyson peddling “Titanic” Truther flimflam has always perturbed me so much. Like, say, an astrologist telling an astrophysicist he just doesn’t get it, we cinephiles are forced to endure deGrasse Tyson ignoring aesthetics in the name of artistic truth to cherry pick scientific inaccuracies to ensure we all know he’s smarter than us. Bo-ring. And so I wondered, does this mean Brad Pitt is a “Titanic” Truther too? Will I have to root for Joe Pesci?

I don’t think so. Pitt’s line and Leo’s giggly reaction suggested something less than smirking superciliousness and more like a simple inside joke between co-stars. And besides, if Pitt’s Cliff Booth and Leo’s Rick Dalton had, for some far-fetched reason, wound up stranded in the icy North Atlantic I have no doubt they would have staked out that makeshift raft for themselves, while taking swigs from the margarita pitcher they had managed to pack while abandoning ship, and sunk straight to the bottom, whining about steerage scum the whole way down, just going to show once and for all that the scientific principle of buoyancy is no match for overbearing male wiseasses.

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Who Was The Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?


Nominations for the 77th Golden Globes were announced Monday. And hey, look! One year after the Hollywood Foreign Press Association failed to nominate a woman for Best Director one year after Natalie Portman memorably, righteously threw a stink bomb right in the middle of an awards announcement when she called out the HFPA for failing to nominate a woman for Best Director the HFPA failed to nominate a woman for Best Director even though, I dunno, like, Marielle Heller, as we’ll get to later this week, did some damn fine directing for “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.” Not that the HFPA (motto: none of you know who any of us are anyway) would ever be contrarian. I don’t mean that as snark. The HFPA would never be contrarian – like, truly, really, honestly. They’re not here to impress their taste upon anybody; they don’t have taste; they’re here to paaaarty!

The Globes, as we remind everyone every single year complaining about what the Globes got “wrong”, like this is a MacArthur Genius Grant (I watched “Marriage Story” too!), are all about hobnobbing and rubbing elbows, not getting things “right”. And that is why, once again, Cinema Romantico is here not to contextualize this set of nominees in any meaningful way but merely to examine them and then determine which Golden Globes nominees is the Golden Globes-iest. It is a pre-awards show award we have deemed The Honorary Meryl Streep HFPA Award, so named for Meryl Streep having been nominated for 77 consecutive Golden Globes because the HFPA always wants her at the party. (Ms. Streep was, of course, nominated this year in the TV category for “Big Little Lies.”)

Nominating Taylor Swift, as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber, for Best Original Song for “Beautiful Ghosts”, a new contribution to “Cats”, initially appears pretty Golden Globes-y. I mean, my God, man, it’s “Cats.” This is such excessive pandering, in fact, that it ceases to be festively self-serving and just becomes degrading. We have to eliminate it from consideration.

This is low, even for the HFPA.
The Getting It Wrong faction is likely to pinpoint Todd Phillips for getting a Best Director nomination for “Joker.” I cannot speak to the veracity of his nod because I am deliberately waiting to watch this one some summer night when it’s too hot outside and I have literally nothing else to do. But then, who wants to hang out with Todd Phillips? Dude sounds like a faux-victimized drag. I assume the Golden Globe bar will have too many microbrews for his taste and, gawd, you know, beer being too hoppy now is just another sign of PC culture run amok. No, this nod smells conspicuously like the GGs assuring us they are part of The Discourse. That’s been happening more in recent years and I, for one, am disappointed by it seeing as how it runs afoul of the HFPA’s star-***ing mission statement.

The “Bombshell” nominations are of particular note and speak to the HFPA’s clever nominating strategy. Charlize Theron and Margot Robbie were both nominated for “Bombshell” but Nicole Kidman, her eminence, was not. But that’s because Nicole Kidman was nominated for “Big Little Lies” under the TV umbrella, ensuring all three women are at the party. Had, say, Robbie been nominated for some TV show in where’s she trying to solve a small-town crime then Kidman would have nominated for “Bombshell.” I see you, HFPA!

Undoubtedly Eddie Murphy was nominated so every member of the HFPA could snap a selfie with him, but he is pretty damn good “Dolemite Is My Name” and so that’s not Golden Globes-y. Ditto Awkwafina for “The Farewell.” Everybody wants Awkwafina at the party. I invited Awkwafina to my Christmas party! (Response still pending.) But she’s good and so is “The Farewell.” No, we have to look elsewhere in Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy, where Awkwafina was nominated and which, of course, is a category entirely invented to allow for ten Best Actress/Actor spots rather than five to extend more party invitations. And that’s where we find Cate Blanchett in “Where’d You Go, Bernadette?”


This was not a well received movie. You will not find this movie nominated for anything by any other voting body. But as the Mia Vicino noted in her “Where’d You Go, Bernadette?” review, “The mistake Linklater and team make is putting the should-be-missing Bernadette in nearly every scene, a choice seemingly hinging on the star power and talent of multi-Academy Award winner Blanchett”, essentially describing what the HFPA is doing too. Star power is what counts for everything in our pre-awards show award. You think someone else deserved to be nominated (Elisabeth…cough, cough…Moss) and maybe they should be. But you can’t have the Hollywood Office Christmas Party without Cate. So, here she is. She’s the Golden Globes-iest.

Monday, January 07, 2019

Post-Golden Globes Oscar Predictions

The Golden Globes, Hollywood’s official Office Party, were last night. There were a lot of unexpected results. You can scroll through news, in a manner of speaking, relating to those and what they may or probably do not mean in the vat of sulfuric acid that is Film Twitter. Or you can just go see a movie and, like, form your own opinion, man. Either way, in lieu of the Golden Globes, we have officially revised our Official Oscar Predictions.

Best Picture: .....

Best Director: .....

Best Actor: .....

Best Actress: Lady Gaga, “A Star Is Born”


Best Supporting Actor: .....

Best Supporting Actress: .....

Best Original Screenplay: .....

Best Adapted Screenplay: .....

Best Foreign Language Film: .....

Monday, December 10, 2018

Who Was the Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?


Nominations for the 76th Golden Globes were announced last Thursday. If they were, as pundits noted, diverse, one year after Natalie Portman memorably, righteously threw a stink bomb right in the middle of an awards announcement when she called out the complete lack of women in the Best Director category, well, hey, look! There are no women nominated for Best Director! And this in a year when the Best Director of 2018 was Lucrecia Martel for “Zama” (not that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has seen it). What’s more, nearly thirty years after “Driving Miss Daisy” won Best Picture at the Academy Awards while “Do the Right Thing” was snubbed from being nominated at all, we have a Best Director showdown between Spike Lee for “BlacKkKlansman” and Peter Farrelly for “Green Book”, or “Driving Miss Daisy 2.” The arc of justice bends...how does that go again?

But reading the tea leaves of Hollywood’s Office Christmas Party is difficult and sometimes dangerous. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association speaks for itself, no one else, even if they often seem to operate from some place of doing in advance what they think the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is going to do so as to appear part of the big kid’s club. No, the HFPA is mostly interested in mingling with stars. And that is why, once again, as we do every year, Cinema Romantico is here not to contextualize this set of nominees in any meaningful way but merely to examine them and then determine which person the HFPA most likely nominated to simply to schmooze. I am here, in other words, to determine which of The Golden Globes nominees is the Golden Globes-iest.


Cinema Romantico’s own Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee is a tie between Eventual Oscar Winner™ Lady Gaga and Nicole Kidman, her eminence, for Best Actress. This is the award show equivalent of Jupiter aligning with Mars. Cinema Romantico strongly suspects the only reason Keira Knightley was not nominated for “Colette” in the same category was to prevent this blog’s head from exploding. But this is not, from the HFPA perspective, the Golden Globes-iest set of Golden Globes nominees. That is because, as intimated, Lady Gaga is going to win the Oscar (we have this on authority from the cosmos) and the last time Nicole Kidman gave a bad performance was – [checking notes] – oh, right, never. The HFPA surely wants both Gaga and Kidman at the party, but they also didn’t have to bend their rules to make it happen.

On first glance, Christian Bale’s Best Actor nomination for playing Dick Cheney in “Vice” might appear like the very bending of rules to which we just referred since his nod comes in the Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy. But, while I’d like to think that’s just a drag on Cheney himself, it was probably a way to maneuver more room for nominations for Rami Malek and Lucas Hedges, which is the predominant purpose of having Both Dramatic and Musical or Comedy categories – that is, more invitations to go around. And anyway, I struggle to believe the HFPA wants to mingle with Bale. He strikes me as, shall we say, anti-mingle.

Robert Redford for “The Old Man and the Gun” feels a little Globes-y because he, too, is in the Musical or Comedy category, does not come across necessarily like an Oscar front-runner and his star power makes him a definite Would-Want-To-Mingle-With person. But, his presence also seems designed to elicit an appearance onstage along with Bob Woodward in the face of, well, everything, which, right or wrong, is antithetical to cocktail party ethos. No, there is another.

I have not seen “Dumplin’”. I might not see “Dumplin’”. It is the end of the year and I am busy, in life and at the movies and there are other movies I need/want to see first. And so I do not mean to cast aspersions against “Dumplin’”. But whatever the reason for Dolly Parton’s Best Song nomination for her “Girl in the Movies” for “Dumplin’”, it adheres to Southern Living® Magazine’s #1 rule for hosting a party. Rule #1 is: if Dolly is available, invite her. The HFPA did. She is Golden Globes-iest.


Monday, January 08, 2018

The Meaningless Golden Globes


When Natalie Portman took the stage with Ron Howard to present the Best Director Award at Sunday night’s Golden Globe Awards, the duo concluded their scripted banter and then Natalie Portman leaned into the mic to introduce the introduction of the nominees and said, with emphasis in just the right place, “Here are the five male nominees”, dropping the mic by merely stepping back from it. Any air that was not subsequently sucked from the room was filled with laughter, a little of it uneasy, perhaps, but a lot of it liberated, the kind of unfettered guffaws you sometimes hear when a comedian simultaneously threads the comic and social needles so dexterously that the zero fucks clarity of the truth engenders the laughter. After all, at an awards show where women were wearing black in solidarity after a year of reckoning that was a long time coming in an industry eternally besieged by egregious males and sexual harrassment, no women were nominated for Best Director despite several worthy candidates.

In the wake of Portman going Activist at the Improv, the camera cut to Guillermo del Toro, first nominee, and he had this dazed look on his face, one that sort of said, “Oh. Well. I guess it’s all our [as in, the nominees] fault.” And del Toro, to be fair, was caught off guard, and he directed a fine movie and gave a fine victory speech, but he himself is Mexican, and so I think he must be coming from a place of understanding, and so even in the midst of that taken aback facial expression I would like to believe that deep down and after the fact he knew this moment was, simply, bigger than him. Indeed, if awards shows like the Globes – particularly like the Globes – are often lamented as meaningless, well, Portman, in that ad lib, gave glorious life to that lament. She rendered the Best Director award as meaningless. It felt so good.

It was that kind of night, one where women did not steal the show but assume control of the show from the outset. Women walked the red carpet with activists, like Michelle Williams eschewing Busy Phillips as her All-Time Awards Show Date to bring Tarana Burke, founder of the #MeToo movement, to transform vapid pre-awards show small talk into conversation. Frances McDormand, who won Best Dramatic Actress, shunned hair and makeup, and in a world where women so often can’t even leave the house for a cup of coffee without applying makeup for fear of the paparazzi snapping photos for the whole world to scroll through and judge in a half-second, probably while stuffing frozen pizza in their mouths and watching Reality TV, this felt like the most radical act of the night. Ashley Judd, bonafide hero, was seated right down front, rightfully taking the role of First Awards Show Guest from Jack Nicholson. Laura Dern won Best Supporting Actress for a TV Series and asked – nay, demanded – that the industry promote restorative justice. Dudes simply wearing Time’s Up buttons, in other words, was not enough. Dern was telling them to give women who were suppressed goddam jobs, and I thought of Judd, whose seat was nice, sure, but who deserves a leading role in a primo movie and deserves it right the hell now.

Ah, but this was still the Golden Globes, and they, to paraphrase Rose DeWitt Bukater, can always be counted upon. When Ms. McDormand took the stage, she said she was going to say some things, which apparently freaked out the lily-liver with the bleep button so much he kept jumping the gun and sort of inadvertently silenced her. Allison Janney won Best Supporting Actress for “I, Tonya”, which fair enough, but the film’s real-life subject, former figure skater Tonya Harding, was in attendance. And if Ms. Harding was unfairly put through the wringer by the media, well, so was Nancy Kerrigan, a victim just as much, if not more than, Harding. Then there was Kirk Douglas, brought on stage in a wheelchair to bask in adulation for the simple fact, I guess, that he is 102. Except that Douglas’s past where women are concerned is, uh, dubious, and even if some of that is, shall we say, innuendo, and even if Douglas has acknowledged his sins, on a night when Oprah Winfrey called upon men to “listen” to women, his appearance came across rather tone deaf. (Recently christened Dame Olivia de Havilland recently turned 101. Was she not available?)


Ah, but Oprah. Her speech took the baton from Meryl Streep’s speech last year, which was fine in its own right, though Oprah’s felt more expansive and considered, talking about Recy Taylor as well as the activism of Rosa Parks beyond merely refusing to give up her seat on that bus, which seemed a moving, necessary reclamation of the legacy of Parks after a certain jackanapse a couple years ago cited her as the person he would put on the ten dollar bill (well, after his daughter) though I doubt he could have even told you anything she did other than refuse to stand. Then Winfrey mentioned Recy Taylor’s death 10 days ago as a means to meld the whole night’s theme with the larger theme. She said: “(Taylor) lived as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up.” With that last line reading Winfrey could have drawn blood.

Maybe she’s right. I hope she is, though I suspect Winfrey would be the first to tell you that for all the positive, if difficult, steps taken in just a few months that the entire guts of the industry must be exhumed and laid to waste, which will not be easy, for true change to unfold. Still, Oprah is a grand orator, and when she spoke of a new day on the horizon, it was hard not to believe.

Oprah, by the way, was there to collect the Cecil D. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement, but by the end of the speech, that statue seemed so far beside the point. So did all the awards. And if I have never quite understood those who roll their eyes at the pointlessness of awards season, since the pointlessness is just sort of baked in from the beginning, this pointlessness felt different. At the end, “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri” won Best Dramatic Picture, seeming to ignite debate among the pundit ranks, but while I normally loathe the “Who Gives A Shit?” riposte since something so inherently pointless anyway in the so-called Grand Scheme would seem to naturally cancel out that question, in the wake of all these awesome women speaking their minds, all I could think was, Who Gives A Shit?

I turned off the telecast with visions of Portman attending the Academy Awards and putting cherry bombs in all the toilets in the men’s bathrooms. Here’s hoping.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Who Was The Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?


Nominations for the 244th Golden Globes were announced on Monday, and in an effort decode their meaning in advance of the forthcoming Academy Award nominations, pundits worked late into the night, maneuvering potential front-runners, dark horses and also-rans across their awards season battle maps. And while in a year where so many women have made so many superb movies, it is disconcerting to see no women nominated for Best Director, just as it is disconcerting to see the conspicuous lack of Jordan Peele love. But then, as a voting body the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is about as trustworthy as a baseball team’s fanbase stuffing the online ballot box for its favorites at the All-Star game. Why anyone takes All-Star game appearances into consideration for the Hall of Fame is beyond me, just as it is beyond me why anyone would take the whims of the Hollywood Foreign Press Assocation seriously.

After all, The Globes were a ceremony dreamt up by Queen Marie Antoinette and held at the Palace of Versailles where she would bestow awards to theatre players with whom she most wanted to eat chocolate and drink champagne. (The Hollywood Foreign Press Association took control of the Golden Globes, of course, during the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947.) The Globes, as I am forced to say every year, are a glorified cocktail party, a means to hobnob, and nominations correlate less to artistic quality than who the HFPA wants to invite to their soiree.

And so while some wring their hands over what a glorified cocktail party got “right” and what a glorified cocktail party got “wrong”, we here at Cinema Romantico are far more interesed in determining the most Golden Globes-y Golden Globe nomination of this year, the nomination that most blatantly re-exposes the HFPA’s desire to rub elbows with the A-listers. It is a pre-awards show award we like to the call The Honorary Meryl Streep HFPA Award, so named for Meryl Streep having been nominated for 88 consecutive Golden Globes because the HFPA always wants her at the party. (Ms. Streep was nominated this year for “The Post.” By rule, Ms. Streep is no longer eligible for her own award. Plus, Dame Meryl was f***ing good in “The Post.”)

At first blush, Mariah Carey’s nod for Best Original Song for The Star might seem a contender, but that song has emerged, per the punditry, as a legit Oscar contender. And so even if I am certain the HFPA is teeming with joy at getting to mingle with Mariah, it is a nomination given to the prevailing trends, which does not have that necessary quizzical Globes-iness. Christopher Plummer might seem another possible contender, given that his nod for “All the Money in the World” is the role he re-shot in a mere one week’s time as a replacement for Kevin Spacey in the wake of the latter’s rightful plummeting into the abyss. That, however, seems like a deserved middle finger to Spacey as much as anything, and evidence that HFPA does at least sometimes consider real world concerns, if only in a reactive, we-gotta-do-something kinda manner. No, the co-winners of this year’s Honorary Meryl Streep HFPA Award are Emma Stone and Steve Carell.


“The Battle of the Sexes”, in which Stone plays Billie Jean King and Carell plays Bobby Riggs in a re-creation of the lead-up to and playing of their infamous 1973 Battle of the Sexes tennis match, was critically well-received, though its box office was not compelling, and these are not performances that will stick around for the tough late winter months of awards season. No, that Stone and Carell earned nominations for, respectively, Best Actress and Best Actor in the Musical or Comedy category give away the game, as this acting category has long served as the HFPA’s sly fail-safe for when certain beloved attendees might not be able to score an invite otherwise.

And while Carell is always a solid awards show guest, good for a comic presenting gig, it is Emma Stone, more than most, who needs to be at the Golden Globes. Because as Jack Nicholson prepares to celebrate his 81st birthday next April, it has become apparent that the awards shows special interest groups are pushing hard for Ms. Stone to assume the mantle of First Awards Show Guest. That means you get her to the ceremony by any means necessary. In that light, we here at Cinema Romantico whole-heartedly endorse this nomination.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Best Performance(s) at the Golden Globes

Movie awards shows are littered with performers, naturally, yet movie awards shows themselves are so often unperformative. That’s how you wind up with teleprompter-aided introductions where actors botch names or give acceptance speeches where they speak off the cuff, awkwardly reciting names no one knows. And while the 74th Golden Globes that aired this past Sunday night mostly stuck to that script, aside from, say, Kristen Wiig and Steve Carrell fervently committing to their bit, they also eventually emerged as something else.


Presentations of lifetime achievement awards usually involve a broad overview of the recipient’s career with a few light wisecracks thrown in just to keep the mood jovial. It’s a roast, basically, just more P.C. In presenting Meryl Streep with the Cecil B. DeMille Award, however, Viola Davis decided to forgo such standard issue nonsense. She gave a performance as much as an introduction, like a mini-one woman show, honing in on a theme, utilizing pauses to let her varying points linger in the air, even playing different parts, including a brief turn as her own husband. More importantly, Davis played the parts of both herself and Streep, deftly alternating personas in voice, facial expressions and posture, in a conversation about Streep dispensing apple pie making advice, imagining Streep as something like a less sinister Miranda Priestly crossed with that moment in “Doubt” when Streep, while interrogating Philip Seymour Hoffman, goes “hmmmmmmmmmmm.”

But Davis gradually allowed it to emerge that this conversation was less about recipes than an opportunity for Streep to observe behavior, filing mental notes about that behavior, waiting, as Davis said, “to share what she has stolen on that sacred place, which is the screen.” And in drawing on other attitudes and experiences rather than merely her own to sculpt a character she is, essentially, empathizing with others and, by extension, allowing us to empathize with all those attitudes and experiences too.

Taking Davis’s baton, Streep did not so much run with it as settle into place and wield the baton like an actorly weapon. Streep had notes in her hand, which she read from, or appeared to, for a second, before ignoring them, like they were a prop to reel us in, to lower our guard so that when she went there all our mouths would be left that much more agape. She’s a performer, see.


“An actor’s only job,” she said, “is to enter the lives of people who are different from us, and let you feel what that feels like.” This tied, inadvertently or not, directly back to what Davis had cited as Streep’s supreme skill. But Streep wasn’t talking about herself so much as him. You know…him, our President Elect. Streep equated our President Elect’s run to the most respected position in our country to a performance, but suggested that it was the opposite of what great performers do, shunning the desire to even try and consider other attitudes and experiences and what they might mean. She accused Trump of turning his back on empathy.

Meryl Streep can sometimes feel like a deity, underscored incessantly, from someone even as incessantly disagreeable as Seth MacFarlane deferring to her reverence at the Oscars to The Onion article in the wake of Sunday night. It’s so easy to put movie stars on a pedestal, which is so many dislike movie stars, writing them off as cultural elites or coastal elites or liberal elites, or whatever the trendy elite is these days. They can emit that elitist air, admittedly, as they often do at awards shows, which might be why some people dislike bestowing gifts on one another galas so much. That’s what was so great about Streep’s speech. She did not get up there to pat her own back but to issue an even-keeled call to arms.

“Escape” gets cited in the popular discourse as such a vital reason for the movies, which was what “La La Land”, winner of so many Globes represents. But empathy is important too, creating work that is not important, per se, but an invitation to, as the esteemed Roger Ebert once wrote, walk a little bit in someone else's shoes. That, if you ask me, is this magic of the movies. Meryl Streep not only used her Sunday night platform to hold our President Elect accountable, she used it to cite “the responsibility of empathy”, directing it at all those performers in the room in rapt attention, holding them accountable to their art going forward too.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Legally Obligated Golden Globes Predictions

Tonight the Hollywood Foreign Press Association hosts Hollywood's official office party at The Beverly Hilton. People will win, people will lose, but one thing is for certain - that is, people who say the Golden Globes don't matter will get really, really, really mad at people who act like the Golden Globes matter, while people who act like the Golden Globes matter will get really, really, really mad when certain people win and certain people lose. The stars will simply be drunk, of course, because this is an office party. I'll be drunk too. I don't care who wins and who loses. Still, as a movie blog we are legally obligated to make predictions.

Legally Obligated Golden Globes Predictions

Best Picture, Drama: "Moonlight." If there is one thing the HFPA likes more than hobknobbing with celebrities, it is appearing to influence the Oscar race, and they know a "La La Land" v "Moonlight" showdown is coming and they want a gaggle of Monday Morning think pieces to center on the HFPA "establishing" the "Oscar narrative".

Best Picture, Comedy or Musical: "La La Land." See above.

Best Director: Mel Gibson, "Hacksaw Ridge." In victory, Gibson issues an apology. He never clarifies what the apology is for nor explicates to whom he is apologizing. When pressed backstage to explain the actual intention of his apology, he launches into an expletive filled tirade against the biases of the Lamestream Media™.

Best Actor, Drama: Casey Affleck, "Manchester by the Sea." After employing his victory in the Best Actor category at the New York Film Critics Circle Awards to read blurbs from old reviews citing Affleck's bad performances to get one over on those miserly film critics who clearly have it out for him, Affleck takes this Golden Globes opportunity to read from Amy Zimmerman's Daily Beast article discussing the sexual assault allegations against Affleck to which Affleck adds his own pithy asides. NBC cuts the feed.

Best Actress, Drama: Natalie Portman, "Jackie", who accepts the award and spends the whole evening completely in character as Jackie Kennedy. Afterwards, Daniel Day-Lewis telephones Portman to offer congratulations on her win. "Natalie?" says Jackie (Natalie). "Who's Natalie?" "Impressive," replies Day-Lewis. "Most impressive." Day-Lewis hangs up and begins plotting a film in which he stars as Sacha Baron Cohen and Portman stars as Isla Fisher.


Best Actor, Comedy or Musical: Usain Bolt, "Rio Press Conference." You're simply not supposed to get away with such theatrics. You're simply not supposed to literally dance your way into your Olympic press conference in advance of your attempting to win your seventh, eighth and ninth gold medals. This is the sort of histrionic hubris that has invited the wrath of karma of so many athletes before. Not Usain Bolt. Karma defers to Usain Bolt. He danced and he won every race. You can't stop him, you can't even contain him, you can only cede the stage and watch him samba.


Best Actress, Comedy or Musical. Everyone becomes so worn out with Jimmy Fallon's boyish enthusiasm and Diet Faygo Pop version of Trump putdowns that presenter Nicole Kidman finally decides to tell Fallon that she regrets ever wanting to date him, improvises and names Tina Fey the winner for "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" so, to quote Kidman, "we can get some real hosting going on here." President-Elect Trump, while thumbing through security briefings with Kentucky Fried Chicken grease on them, tweets his disappointment. "Failing Golden Globes just got rid of amazing fallon for dopey fey! Ratings are tanking! Not watching!" 197 seconds later he tweets something to betray that he is watching.


Best Supporting Actor. Aaron Eckhart's Mustache in "Sully." The win incites controversy on two fronts. One, supporters of Tom Hanks's mustache in the same film demand to know why his facial hair did not receive a nomination. Two, anti-category fraud militants are irate, explaining that while Eckhart's performance was clearly supporting, his mustache was clearly leading, and how dare they.


Best Supporting Actress. Penelope Cruz's Hair, "Zoolander 2." This one goes without saying.

Best Screenplay. Kenneth Lonergan, "Manchester by the Sea." Lonergan is denied entrance by Golden Globes security when he is mistaken for a sandwich artist at the Subway on Santa Monica Blvd. Jennifer Lawrence, who is not scheduled to attend but is waiting at the Subway on Santa Monica Blvd eating a meatball sub in case she is needed, shows up to accept the award on Lonergan's behalf.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Who Was The Golden Globes-iest Golden Globes Nominee?



Nominations for the 243rd Golden Globes, a ceremony dreamt up by Queen Marie Antoinette and held at the Palace of Versailles where she would bestow awards to theatre players with whom she most wanted to eat chocolate and drink champagne, a foundation emblemizing their frivolousness (the Hollywood Foreign Press Association took control of the Golden Globes, of course, during the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947), were announced on Monday. "La La Land" got a bunch and so did "Moonlight", which was expected and could be argued as a harbinger for a forthcoming Academy tussle, with critics lining up behind the latter and Jayden Schmadens lining up behind the former.

But, of course, the Globes are not about that! The Globes are about hobknobbing! Like I say every time this year, if I was a member of the HFPA and I had the opportunity to put Nicole Kidman's name on the ballot as Best Supporting Actress so I could schmooze with her, I'd do it. And if you say you wouldn't, well, good for you and for your vigilance in wanting to keep a glorified cocktail party on the up and up which will no doubt prevent you from suffering vengeance in eternal hellfire.

Yet while some wring their hands over what a glorified cocktail party got "right" and what a glorified cocktail party got "wrong", we here at Cinema Romantico are far more interesed in determining the most Golden Globes-y Golden Globe nomination of this year, the nomination that most blatantly re-exposes the HFPA's desire to rub elbows with the A-listers. It is a pre-awards show award we like to the call The Honorary Meryl Streep HFPA Award, so named for Meryl Streep having been nominated for 87 consecutive Golden Globes because the HFPA always wants her at the party. (Ms. Streep was nominated this year for "Florence Foster Jenkins." By rule, Ms. Streep is no longer eligible for her own award.)

That's why the biggest snub, per HFPA tendencies, did not seem, to these eyes, to be Tom Hanks or Martin Scorsese but Warren Beatty for "Rules Don't Apply." I was flabbergasted the ol' Hollywood coot didn't get a nod. Then again, Annette Bening, Beatty's spouse, was nominated for "20th Century Women" and the HFPA probably figured that by nominating her, he'd still show up and then they could give a nomination to Ryan Reynolds for "Deadpool" too so he and Blake Lively could be at the party. The HFPA's savvy. And while I have no doubt that the HFPA would have done absolutely anything to extend an invite to as dapper a dude as Tom Ford so he can have a spot reserved at the highest ranking Beautiful People table, and while there is some documented evidence of aromatic bribery on Ford's behalf, well I saw the shot of Michael Shannon smoking a cigarette beneath a Budget Motel sign in "Nocturnal Animals." I'm not saying one shot alone should earn anyone a Best Director nod, but the standards of a glorified cocktail party should not have to be higher than anyone else's.

In the end, however, The 2016 Honorary Meryl Streep HFPA Award recipient was pretty cut & dried, going to Jonah Hill for "War Dogs", who was nominated for Best Actor, Comedy. Is he deserving on actorly merit? I have no idea. I have not seen the movie. But I know that per Vulture, Warner Bros. has recently mounted a campaign on Hill's behalf, which included "an intimate party for voters at the Chateau Marmont, hosted by Hill’s pal Leonardo DiCaprio", which sounds like a pretty open and shut case of nomination entrapment if you ask me. And I know that that the HFPA knows that Jonah Hill is the life of the party, not to mention that Jonah Hill is surefire awards presenter gold. And so while I have no insider knowledge telling me that Mr. Hill might have skipped out on the festivities if he wasn't nominated, it's reasonable to unfairly presume that the HFPA wanted to take necessary precautions and just officially invite Hill anyway. What, you think Scorsese was going to dress up like a bear?


Sunday, January 10, 2016

Golden Globes Predictions

Tonight marks the 242nd annual Golden Globes, a ceremony dreamt up by Queen Marie Antoinette and held at the Palace of Versailles where she would bestow awards to theatre players with whom she most wanted to eat chocolate and drink champagne, a foundation emblemizing their frivolousness, a frivolousness from which their current day incarnation (the Hollywood Foreign Press Association took control of the Golden Globes, of course, during the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947) has strayed. Indeed, if Ms. Antoinette were alive today and saw how seriously some people took these excuses to dress up, mingle and eat caviar, she would be aghast. Still, this is a movie blog, and a movie blog is obligated by social order to make awards shows predictions, and so we offer a few predictions about who will walk away with what tonight when the Hollywood Foreign Press Association bestows its Globes upon the industry's heavy hitters.


Best Motion Picture - Drama: "Spotlight." Because the HFPA fancies itself as "media" which means I'm sure they see a little of themselves in these crusading journalists and would like to recognize themselves as behalf of who they think they are.

Best Performance by a Motion Picture Actress – Drama: Cate Blanchett, "Carol." Because every member of the HFPA is already planning his or her Selfie Face for when they make Cate take one with them at the glamourous after parties.

Best Performance by a Motion Picture Actor – Drama: Bryan Cranston, "Trumbo." Confusion ensues when the HFPA realizes they were not just voting for Cranston in "Breaking Bad" again.

Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy: "Danny Collins", which was not nominated but takes the prize when presenter Al Pacino goes off script and gives the prize to his own movie.

Best Performance by a Motion Picture Actress – Comedy or Musical: Ariana Rockefeller as Herself in her Life. Rockefeller's on point behind the scenes hobnobbing probably puts her over the top of this year.

Best Performance by a Motion Picture Actor – Musical or Comedy: Bill Murray, "Rock the Casbah." Steve Carrell wins for "The Big Short" but pulls a semi-Christine Lahti by being at the CVS buying chewing gum remover next door when his award is announced. Bill Murray crashes the stage and accepts for what he terms his "globally hailed performance of actorly excrement" in "Rock the Casbah." Carrell enters, sees what's unfolding and charges the stage. A fist-fight ensues. Ricky Gervais faux-intervenes in order to crack wise only to have Carrell's co-star Christian Bale ascend the stage, place a bag over Gervais's head and whisk him away. In the midst of the melee a camera cuts to Michael Shannon who is asleep at his table. NBC goes to commercial. When the show returns, Billy Crystal is hosting and no one acknowledges the preceding events.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture: Lori Petty, "Point Break." Jennifer Lawrence high-fives Petty and cries "Tyler Endicott was the truth!"

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture: Paul Dano, "Love & Mercy." Despite winning, the category is officially flagged for Category Fraud on account of Dano potentially being mis-labeled as "supporting" when he was really "leading" prompting an investigation by the HFPA's Watchdog Committee into the validity of this accusation. The Committee just gets drunk at a bar. Dano stealthily absconds with the Globe post ceremony. Anti-Category Fraud Militants demand he give it back.

Best Director – Motion Picture: Cecil B. DeMille, "The Greatest Show on Earth." Because it's still the HFPA's favorite movie.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture: The envelope gets lost in the hors d'oeuvres. No one wins.