If you’d like to read a full throated defense of Comcast’s decision to put the Globes in a time out for a year so you can read Clayton Davis’ piece at Variety. But I’m going to offer a different view.
I’ll start by saying that whatever the HFPA and the activists have to do to work out a solution to the problems they have named and are addressing, that is up to them. It is not for any of us to say what they should do or what people should protest. In America, everyone has a right to protest anything they want, and that includes awards shows. What I will do, however, is clarify one thing that is not really talked about much because it is just too hot to touch. That is intent.
There is a debate that rages online about intent. The new agreed upon tactic among many is that intent does not matter. You are still the thing you are accused of being whether you intended harm or not. If you are a professor and you say “the n word,” even just that, you can be fired for harm whether you intended it or not. It’s a slippery sucker too. It sort of pops up anytime someone feels harm. They can make the accusation that you caused it, whether you intended to or not and there must be consequences.
But I think intent does matter. I think it’s the difference between hate speech and speech others might find offensive. There is a difference. One is intended as a direct attack, and one is said by someone who either doesn’t know they shouldn’t say it or doesn’t want to play by the ever-changing rules of language. To that end and as far as the Golden Globes are concerned, I do want to say that intent matters. Like so many other institutions in Hollywood now, intent matters. Did they intend not to hire any black members in all of their history? Clearly no. Did they think about it at all? Probably not. The reason being, the market has been making the decisions for Hollywood for a long time. Clearly, the market has changed as the younger generations have demanded visible, concrete change. What you are seeing now with massive corporations like Nike or Coke or Comcast are companies shifting to what they think are market decisions – as in, what will drive their profits higher – being well thought of or being tainted.
But prior to now, as the rise of feminism and Black Power movements of the 60s and 70s shifted film to become much more diverse, the market in the 1980s drove white-dominated films to the top of the pile once again. I remember when they would not even put a Black woman on the cover of a fashion magazine because they said it would not sell. Now, of course, that simply isn’t the case. The explosion of content competition means no one has a monopoly on eyeballs or Gen-Z bucks. Being diverse is a major plus now.
It is hard not to notice, in fact, just how white the Oscars have been up until the last decade or so with a few notable exceptions. Back in 1999, the percentage of Black Americans was 13%. Now, it’s still roughly 13-16%. The population that will see the most growth heading into 2050 would be Hispanic or Latino citizens, but it is expected that the Black population will stay at roughly 13%. Social media, however, has given the Black community an unprecedented amount of voice and power online for the first time in American history. That has generated the kind of change we’re seeing now. But in fact, as of now, white people are still 75-79% as of this census report, which is roughly the same percentage of white Oscar voters. The majority of ticket buyers were likely white. This is changing, albeit slowly. From Statista:
The only thing I know about the Hollywood Foreign Press is that they’re lifers. They have under 100 members, and they don’t let people in very often. They’re not like the Academy that invites new members every year or the DGA or the PGA or SAG. They have mostly maintained their same numbers for years. And they’re old. A lot of them have been in the organization for decades. What they have cared about, as the saying goes, is the biggest stars being at their show. Up until the last decade or two, those big stars have been primarily white. Those who get the nominations, so the saying goes, are those they want at the show. Ergo, more white stars, higher ratings. In this case, I do not think their INTENT was to block Black people from their membership or their show, nor do I necessarily think their nominees would have changed much had they included Black members, not to the degree people want to see.
Whether the HFPA can do what is demanded of them so that activists and those who are protesting them are satisfied remains to be seen. But let’s put aside for the moment and focus instead on why I think they matter just in terms of the Oscar race itself, from my perspective. For many who read this site and cover the Oscars, none of this will matter because to them representation is the only thing that matters, and if it isn’t inclusive and fair, there is no point to the awards. The market still matters where television shows are concerned. That will require people to be interested in the show — how to do that and also satisfy the activists and the growing calls for change is the conundrum.
But here is what I value with the Golden Globes, especially lately: they are a bulwark against the groupthink that film criticism has become. It isn’t really criticism now. It is a hive mind. Each person is their own brand online, which means they can’t risk that brand by stepping out of line. If Film Twitter likes A Star is Born you pretty much have to be on board. The more you agree, the more liked you are, the more your posts get likes. And voila – brain drugs. It is extremely difficult to step outside the group – you can, but you’ll be punished for it.
This has been true for a while now with very little exceptions. But the thing is, the HFPA and maybe the National Board of Review (they’re probably the next group to get interrogated) are somehow not plugged into the group think. That, along with their early date schedule, makes them highly influential in the Oscar race, even more than film critics. Why? Because they offer both some of the critics choices but also some of the mainstream choices like Bohemian Rhapsody or Green Book that the critics ignore. So you might say GOOD, those movies sucked. But here’s the thing, they didn’t suck, not to the people outside the bubble of the awards race and film criticism.
The critics, for the past year or two, have been very much an activist group making change. They have been pushing women directors and filmmakers of color for a while now – both to be good people and do good things but also to be admired by their peers because if you don’t do that you can be accused of being a misogynist, a homophobe, or a racist. It is a protective measure across the board.
The Globes, up until now, did not care about that. They aren’t Film Twitter aka Rotten Tomatoes. They are separate. Of course, to most, they see them as easily wooed by big money and movie stars. Put them in a room with George Clooney and what can’t they get from them. I once stood in line in Cannes with an HFPA member, one I have seen in some of their videos, and she told me she was off to a yacht party with Natalie Portman. No group has been more courted and seduced by celebrities and perks than the Globes. Even by many of those who are now pearl clutching, shocked SHOCKED that gambling is going on here. Yes, even by them.
Films and the Oscar race are micromanaged. The films are grown like hot house flowers, made specifically for the awards race, given awards strategists who work like lobbyists to woo critics and bloggers to keep the film “in the conversation,” if it’s good enough. Sometimes if it isn’t good enough but has enough of whatever it needs to keep it going. The films are decided upon by a hive mind of film twitter, critics and now, a growing chorus of voices that scrutinized all movies and TV shows to make sure they are “correct” in their casting, their themes, their inclusivity, etc. Last year, for instance, the costume designer of Mulan was a white woman, which caused a mild controversy. She was still nominated for an Oscar.
So, movies have to be good, they have to pass the intersectional, inclusivity and fairness test, and they have to be film Twitter friendly to stay “in the conversation.” Sometimes all of these things are enough to push a movie through, even a bad movie. Believe it or not, that happens a lot. Gone are the alpha voices who were not afraid to make waves like David Carr or Roger Ebert. In are those who go along to get along both out of fear and a need for survival. So it is all one big snake eating its own tail.
But here’s the thing. The HFPA represented something separate and different. Up until now, they were left alone to do that. They did not apologize for their choices, and they gave us roughly the same voting body for maybe 30 or so years. It wasn’t that they were easy to predict so much, but it was that they winnowed down Drama to five, rather than ten. They showed what films were the strongest, or what actors were the strongest. And to that extent, in terms of predicting anyway, they were the best barometer for opinions that could vary from the critics.
One of the problems with the Oscar race now is that they have been disconnected from audiences – like the Bates Motel from the interstate – cut off, in a world of their own, forgotten and ignored as life moves on around them. But movies are still meant for AUDIENCES, not necessarily only art house audiences or film critics. Granted, the majority of movies offered up are bloated genre movies that Oscar voters can’t stand, but still. How does anyone justify a national television broadcast meant for millions that revolves around an insular utopian diorama they aren’t connected to in any way? The ratings for both shows will continue to tank unless they think about the people outside of the tiny world online. Can they? I do not know.
So what am I trying to say in way too many words? Basically, it’s this: while it’s a good thing to push for change, always, and even to demand it, it might be a bridge too far to accuse them of overt, intentional racism. I don’t think it squares with their nominees, and I don’t think it’s fair because it isn’t anything anyone can offer a defense for. It is, once accused, forever guilty.
I think the Globes matter. I think they matter because they offer up, at their best, both a better view of what people really think about the offerings in the Oscar race outside the bubble of Film Twitter and Rotten Tomatoes, but also because the show itself has been traditionally fun. After a miserable gut punch of a year, we were all looking forward to a little bit of fun for one night.
They also matter because they are the only major group that singles out musicals (other than the Ace Editors awards). That is a big deal, especially this coming year with so many musicals on offer. They now have no way to showcase themselves – and this year, that will be a major bummer. Honoring the musical is a relic of Hollywood’s past but one that is making a return.
Taking the Globes out of the Oscar race, we’re going to have to look for other ways to break up the hive mind that the awards race has become. Some were suggesting the Critics Choice could take their place, but they are exactly the opposite of what the Globes are. Where the Globes offer exclusivity as their value, the BFCA offer inclusivity and not in a demographical sense. They invite everybody. They have six categories for acting, ten for Best Picture, all kinds of added categories like action and comedy star. If everybody gets in, then it’s harder to winnow down the choices. The other problem is that they aren’t a bulwark against Film Twitter. They ARE Film Twitter. They could rebrand their awards show and call it the Film Twitter Awards (honestly, that isn’t a bad idea…someone should do that).
The Critics Choice seek to please everyone. The Globes did the opposite. We do have the guild awards, and they will likely rise to become more prominent like the PGA or the DGA. I would say the SAG Awards, but probably no group has given themselves over to politics more than they have of late. The bigger guilds are less concerned about their brand.
I guess we’ll see how it goes. As always, I try to offer you my honest opinion, whether I get screamed at or not (usually I get screamed at). I’ll here here covering it as long as I’m able. The show won’t go on but it must and as Samuel Beckett would say, I cannot go on. I’ll go on.
I agree with Sasha, here.
I dunno. To me, it’s a movie awards show. It’s not the be all & end all of anything.
Yes, nominations and wins can affect box office and create movie stars (although, not really, anymore). But on the whole, I just don’t take this group seriously.
Should they add more POC members? Of course. Should they be chastised for what’s been going on? Sure. Can I believe that, as a group, they’re a bunch of buffoons that the industry hasn’t respected for a long time? Yep.
But they’ve also gone out on a limb over the years for some real deserving winners that the Academy just wouldn’t go for. They can be nutty. But they have also been a springboard for the rest of the season and, I would miss them if they dissolve or don’t have a ceremony on TV somewhere.
Weblink on this huuuge tidal wave seismic moment- for the worse- i may add in Big Studios siding with some political correctness by accepting excessively of online streaming splitting profits and communal engagement of their films with cineplexes all sounds to me frankly big studios are exploiting shamefully the pandemic..instead they should have parked their big prodjects for longer and held their nerve ..
here the link dissecting motives for Nolan’s decision i want point out it was dated march 2021..no doubt industry insiders will be watching this space very very closely esp as unknown what Nolan next move will be..
https://collider.com/christopher-nolan-low-budget-movies-better/
I also want to point out the rumoured potential departure of Warner Bros greatest asset to them since the late 1970’s to decade leading into the 90’s in the great Christopher Nolan..is a flashpoint moment to watch here.. If Nolan leaves it Nolan reflecting public sentiment against the notion that online social media/ streaming should drive the potential future of the film industry or notion that big screen entertainment should be compromised..It absolutely not Nolan fault if he feels so disgusted to leave..the studio.
THE STUDIO WARNER BROS OWES NOLAN NOT VICE A VERSA..AND FURTHERMORE NOTWITHSTANDING A FEW INDIVIDUAL FILMMAKERS UNDER WARNER BROS..THEY BOUT TO LOSE THEIR MOST PROFITABLE..CONSISTENTLY BRINGING IN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS CLOSE TO A BILLION AND EVEN A BILLION IN RETURNS AND WHO GARNERED WARNER BROS TO LEVEL OF RESPECT AND BELIEF WARNER BROS STRONGLY BELIEVED IN BOLD INVENTIVE VISIONARY FILMMAKING RELFECTIVE THROUGH THE LANDMARK ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN..WELL WHAT DOES THAT SAY MOREOVER ABOUT THE LACK OFCARE AND REGARD BY WARNER BROS TO INVESTING IN THE TRADITIONAL MEDIUM OF FILM AND REFUSING STUBBORNLY INEXCUSABLY UNFORGIVEABLY LISTENING TO THEIR MOST SUCCESSFUL FILMMAKER THEY BEEN PRIVELEDGED TO HAVE IN THEIR RANKS THAT WARNER BROS NOT HAD FOR 20 YEARS AT LEAST!
So,..IF Christopher Nolan leaves Warner Bros this will diminish and taint and damage potentially irrepairably Warner Bros reputation for investing and looking out for and championing the traditional big screen industry base. you can argue that Warner Bros is much more than Nolan..BUT let look at fact lack of consistency of high quality films that please BOTH audiences and critics consistently at high levels in cineplexes in the pre- Nolan era shall we?
Bar for Clint Eastwood..there been no other filmmaker who delivered on their contractual obligations and exceeded Warner exec expectations reflected through the success both critical and commerical of films..Warner Bros have grossly neglected and ridden roughshod over the damn right of a filmmaker as smart and game changer auteur genius as Nolan…and only reason they turned on their greatest asset? is they could not handle or respect Nolan absolutely legitimate right of freedom of speech a view he does not deserve to lose respect amongst us and his industry peers for.
I read but only rumour Nolan has said after this clash and intolerance by a studio he trusted to accept / tolerate differing view to the studio’s agenda…. that he in doubt if he ever trust a big film studio again… if the big studio industry loses Nolan then it be long time before we see big budget priveledge of Nolan non franchise event critically acclaimed superflous landmark films at epic scale again..for Nolan said..again not verified so anyone out there who can? pls do!
“The situation as it stands due to attitudes and way i was mistreated at Warner Bros means if i decide to terminate ties with Warner Bros… i be more encouraged by low budget multi cultural films..of small intimate stories for a while…until i feel climate is more.. tolerant in big studios to my views”
IF NOLAN LEAVES THIS SOUNDS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER NO SHIT IN PRECEDENT FOR SOME OTHER ESTABLISHED BOLD FILMMAKERS TO VACATE STUDIOS THAT SACK SOMEONE FOR NO REASON OR THREATEN THEIR CAREER AT THEIR STUDIO OTHER THAN THEY HAVE ALTERNATE OPINION TO THE STUDIOS SOCIOLOGICAL POSITIONING..
WARNER BROS CAN ILL AFFORD TO LOSE NOLAN..EVERYTONE WILL MARK WARNER BROS DOWN ON IT..SURE THEY SEE ITERATIONS OF SUICIDE SQUAD FRANCHISE, JUSTICE LEAGUE ETC BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT EVERYONE WARNER BROS WILL BE DIMINISHED AND HISTORY SAYS IT ALMOST ALWAYS LEADS TO LOSS OF REVENUE , PROFITS AND MASS APPEAL.
Mind you this is near unprecedente din modern times at least for the no.1 most in demand filmmaker to be driven to possibly leaving Warner Bros. what are Nolans plans here now does anyone else deeply fear Nolan could vacate the Big screen film industry for small budget stuff as result losing faith in lack of integrity and opinion diffrence intolerance by big studios?
THAT GRAPH that Sasha researched from clearly a very reliable source puts into perspective the harsh inconvenient embarassing for awards season esp the academy and the guilds truth proven BEYOND ANY DOUBT (not that there was much really for mine and number of others online here atm)…. that as much as awards season wants us to think so it a gross misrepresentation of the TRUE demographic nature of cinemaplex attendees for through manner awards are given that according to the delusional minority that have a stranglehold on the current trend outcomes in awards season that alternative ethnicities actually attend cinemaplexes just as much as whites? it NOT racist is my blunt msg to awards season to take into consideration the demographic proven facts of the ethnic makeup and breakdown of cinema attendees..the fact is despite slight slight increase in alternative ethnicities majority of film goers are white caucasian so..the notion that awards season taking this self righteous self entitled ‘we are right and it film goers who are disconnected from reality ‘ is laughable, shameful and embarassing for awards season part.
You simply Oscar Guilds and BAFTA can ill afford to continuously stupidly stubbornly dismiss the higher quality blockbuster – critically acclaimed films that film goers attend and that also reflect the majority of type of film goers who follow and care about high quality cinema. I WARN AWARDS SEASON sidelining big screen cinema accidental event films and sidelining the big film studios and ONLY pandering to the sociological idiotic misguided idealists who believe that only films that reflect societal problems are the films that should take precedent in awards seaosn which they damn well have for over a decade now… will only end in tears and anger by educated insightful filmgoers like most of you online here…and the traditional industry foundations that once when awards season took heed of these aspects of film industry saw Awards season more enthusiastically followed and revered in the past.. this graph puts to bed this idea that diversity for sake of diversity repeatedly winning/ being favoured in nominations ad nauseum reflects film goer sentiment and attendances..it a fabrication and awards season have been as a whole like that remaining pig stranded from the herd stuck in the pen unable to get out of it own pig sty – stubbornly siding excessively with sociological online idealists.
Samantha Ofole-Prince, a black reporter from the United Kingdom, has spoken out to Variety about what it was like to be rejected for membership by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. She has been writing entertainment stories from L.A. for publications in the U.K., Africa and the Caribbean. The HFPA claims Ofole-Prince was rejected based on the number of her magazine clips, but she says she was met with resistance by other HFPA members who feared she would compete on their turf. Interestingly, a name that comes up is Margaret Gardiner, the white South Africa journalist who recently mistook Daniel Kaluuya for Leslie Odom Jr. at the Oscars. Gardiner denies campaigning against Ofole-Prince.
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/samantha-ofole-prince-hfpa-golden-globes-1234970951/
No one outside of this “bubble” you love so much cares about film awards shows. No one under 35 cares.
Then why are you here? I’m 33
I’ve been here for 15 years.
It is hard to fathom someone 33 uses the term “interwebz”.
And yet here you are writing your shit in our little bubble. Weren’t you supposed to not care?
Honey I’ve been here for at least 15 years. And I’ve watched the demise. You don’t even understand what I’m talking about.
Don’t consider yourself special in that depertment. There are plenty of people who have been here since the very beginning of this site, including myself. So next time you make an assumption, be sure you know what you are talking about and who you’re talking too.
I know exactly what I am talking about and I couldn’t care less who I’m talking to.
I know a lot of people younger than 35 who care. 🙂
I also want to point out the rumoured potential departure of Warner Bros greatest asset to them since the late 1970’s to decade leading into the 90’s in the great Christopher Nolan..is a flashpoint moment to watch here.. If Nolan leaves it Nolan reflecting public sentiment against the notion that online social media/ streaming should drive the potential future of the film industry or notion that big screen entertainment should be compromised..It absolutely not Nolan fault if he feels so disgusted to leave..the studio.
THE STUDIO WARNER BROS OWES NOLAN NOT VICE A VERSA..AND FURTHERMORE NOTWITHSTANDING A FEW INDIVIDUAL FILMMAKERS UNDER WARNER BROS..THEY BOUT TO LOSE THEIR MOST PROFITABLE..CONSISTENTLY BRINGING IN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS CLOSE TO A BILLION AND EVEN A BILLION IN RETURNS AND WHO GARNERED WARNER BROS TO LEVEL OF RESPECT AND BELIEF WARNER BROS STRONGLY BELIEVED IN BOLD INVENTIVE VISIONARY FILMMAKING RELFECTIVE THROUGH THE LANDMARK ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN..WELL WHAT DOES THAT SAY MOREOVER ABOUT THE LACK OFCARE AND REGARD BY WARNER BROS TO INVESTING IN THE TRADITIONAL MEDIUM OF FILM AND REFUSING STUBBORNLY INEXCUSABLY UNFORGIVEABLY LISTENING TO THEIR MOST SUCCESSFUL FILMMAKER THEY BEEN PRIVELEDGED TO HAVE IN THEIR RANKS THAT WARNER BROS NOT HAD FOR 20 YEARS AT LEAST!
So,..IF Christopher Nolan leaves Warner Bros this will diminish and taint and damage potentially irrepairably Warner Bros reputation for investing and looking out for and championing the traditional big screen industry base. you can argue that Warner Bros is much more than Nolan..BUT let look at fact lack of consistency of high quality films that please BOTH audiences and critics consistently at high levels in cineplexes in the pre- Nolan era shall we?
Bar for Clint Eastwood..there been no other filmmaker who delivered on their contractual obligations and exceeded Warner exec expectations reflected through the success both critical and commerical of films..Warner Bros have grossly neglected and ridden roughshod over the damn right of a filmmaker as smart and game changer auteur genius as Nolan…and only reason they turned on their greatest asset? is they could not handle or respect Nolan absolutely legitimate right of freedom of speech a view he does not deserve to lose respect amongst us and his industry peers for.
I read but only rumour Nolan has said after this clash and intolerance by a studio he trusted to accept / tolerate differing view to the studio’s agenda…. that he in doubt if he ever trust a big film studio again… if the big studio industry loses Nolan then it be long time before we see big budget priveledge of Nolan non franchise event critically acclaimed superflous landmark films at epic scale again..for Nolan said..again not verified so anyone out there who can? pls do!
“The situation as it stands due to attitudes and way i was mistreated at Warner Bros means if i decide to terminate ties with Warner Bros… i be more encouraged by low budget multi cultural films..of small intimate stories for a while…until i feel climate is more.. tolerant in big studios to my views”
IF NOLAN LEAVES THIS SOUNDS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER NO SHIT IN PRECEDENT FOR SOME OTHER ESTABLISHED BOLD FILMMAKERS TO VACATE STUDIOS THAT SACK SOMEONE FOR NO REASON OR THREATEN THEIR CAREER AT THEIR STUDIO OTHER THAN THEY HAVE ALTERNATE OPINION TO THE STUDIOS SOCIOLOGICAL POSITIONING..
WARNER BROS CAN ILL AFFORD TO LOSE NOLAN..EVERYTONE WILL MARK WARNER BROS DOWN ON IT..SURE THEY SEE ITERATIONS OF SUICIDE SQUAD FRANCHISE, JUSTICE LEAGUE ETC BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT EVERYONE WARNER BROS WILL BE DIMINISHED AND HISTORY SAYS IT ALMOST ALWAYS LEADS TO LOSS OF REVENUE , PROFITS AND MASS APPEAL.
Mind you this is near unprecedente din modern times at least for the no.1 most in demand filmmaker to be driven to possibly leaving Warner Bros. what are Nolans plans here now does anyone else deeply fear Nolan could vacate the Big screen film industry for small budget stuff as result losing faith in lack of integrity and opinion diffrence intolerance by big studios?
I just saw Interstellar and as much as i definitely want to do a thorough review i keep it simple..
Christopher Nolan in course of making the most powerful influential positive statement to the film industry to advocate for fusion of Science in cinema and pur unadultarated artistic licence of creativity and boldness..has we discussed before single handedly redefined the ORIGINAL IDEA AND STORY BASED FILMS TO LEVEL OF UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR GENERATION CINEMATIC SIGHTS, SOUNDS AND INSPIRATIONAL LEVELS OF CINEMATIC MASTER CRAFT ACHIEVEMENTS
But it the second time i seen Interstellar and one of those movies you have to see twice to absorb the scale in its story and the magnitude of its execution to marvel at the fact this is Christopher Nolan’s Best Work..marginally better than Inception and The Dark Knight.
Interstellar watching it reminded me of a fusion of 2001 a Space Odyssey and Apollo 13- with no disrtespect at all to the other great filmmaker of our time in Steven Spielberg but as it stand not even Spielberg has accomplished a feat of filmmaking as deft as uplifting, moving and compelling quite as Nolans masterpiece in Interstellar.
There ONLY ONE FUKED UP DISGRACEFUL REASON INTERSTELLAR DID NOT GET BEST PIC NOMINATION AND NO ACTING NOMINATIONS- (id ont think anyway).. and only barely thimble full of tech nods. It at start of the movie..it cos McConaghey’s incredible performance – which he should have won best actor for- was a character wh0 motivation and drive was to hope for a better world for his family…beyond i try remember a quote in first 30 mins of the film as he objects to the teacher ‘so now you tell us what our kids can or can’t do, ill be damned to accept those terms in this world we in’ ..
This goes to the heart of what the cancer rotting away at Awards season credibility as a whole.. ESP THE GUILDS, GLOBES, ACADEMY AND BAFTA: These elites and ratbags within critics groups and industry..these.. PARASITES that taking up sense of self entitlement and control corrupting all that AMPAS ought to be…eating away at its life blood..extrapolate as is case of INTERSTELLAR a (despite being) lesser aspect of the film..and blowing it way out of porportion using it to taint and discredit the film to paint a film that bout far more than sociological meanings…to being ‘out of touch with todays societal standards’ and why? cos the central character said one line against this,..against a backdrop of the most spectacular unforgettable science fact- fiction epic journey adventure drama since 2001 a Space Oddysey.
So there you have it.. Nolan is against political correctness and th reason Interstellar got snubbed is the reason Nolan is treated amongst number of over due established filmmakers i may add are snubbed and at best sometimes get occassional all too rare best pic nomination- the film ‘ does not comply to our societal expectations” pull your head in AWARDS season before you self implode like a collapsing singularity- black hole- like in interstellar !
Well it looks like the reviews are finally in for The Woman in the Window – 40 so far on Metacritic. Those Who Wish Me Dead is at 58.
The Killing of Two Lovers is the first movie of this year I’m really excited to watch.
And I made the very big mistake of watching it. Such an awful movie.
I watched ‘The Woman In The Window’ last night. And read some reviews this morning. Not every movie is going to be an Oscar winner! Geez the critics have beaten it about the head. I quite enjoyed it, but then i am a huge Amy Adams fan and seeing her with Julianne Moore in their one scene together was just one of the good reasons to enjoy it. I do concede that somewhere in the writing or the re-edits, the other characters are reduced to one dimension (Oldman, Leigh are wasted), but it is Amy’s story and she as usual is marvellous. She gives it her all. It is a genre pic to be sure; and not one that I usually go for; hence maybe why I’ve gone easy on it. It’s a workable and workmanlike thriller. I liked the visuals and the use of the spaces. Amy Adams is always a pleasure to watch.
Agreed.
I remember when this project was announced, numerous people on this site predicted “Amy Adams is a lock for a nomination, if not the outright win!”
That’s why you see the films FIRST, folks, otherwise you look very, very foolish.
Joe Wright is a wonderful filmmaker but he’s got to stop doing the studio trash. This film commits suicide in the first 15 minutes.
Boy, I bet the Broadcast Film Critics Association must be gleefully gloating with schadenfreude at the Golden Globes debacle. Will their Critics Choice awards grow more important to fill up the vacuum? The BCFA, which consists of a few hundred members, seems to average about one film tie a season. This year, it was ”Sound of Metal” and ”Trial of the Chicago 7” for Editing. Wonder what the odds are of that? (Even among the Critics Choice awards for TV, they had a tie for Best Comedy Special.)
One thing about the BFCA that makes me cringe is that they proudly brag on their website: ”Historically, they are the most accurate predictor of Academy Award nominations.” Well, it helps when the BFCA nominates more artists than the Oscars do in each category. This year alone, Critics’ Choice had 7 nominees for Best Actress and Best Director, and 8 for Best Actor; 6 for most other categories.
The BFCA can never turn into the Globes. They want to predict the Oscars so badly that they’ll never develop a personality. And no award show without its own personality should ever exist.
And they still failed to predict the winners in actor, actress, supporting actress, adapted screenplay, cinematography, and song. And they had a tie in editing.
Another thing that’s interesting is that we don’t even know how the BFCA is tabulating votes. Is an accounting firm involved at all? A lot of their ties are kind of … interesting.
Ah, but BFCA claims to be ”the most accurate predictor of Academy Award NOMINATIONS.” Not WINS. And for the record, they DID predict all 20 of this year’s Oscar acting nominations, but they nominated 27 names in the Best Actor/Actress and Supporting Actor/Actress categories. … My issue is that critics should nominate based on their personal tastes, not their predictive abilities in second-guessing the Academy.
No, they didn’t. They didn’t nominate LaKeith Stanfield.
I stand corrected. I totally forgot about Stanfield. In fact, the Oscars were the only group to nominate him in Supporting. According to imdb.com, his only other acting nomination for ”Judah” came from the Black Reel Awards, and there he was up for Outstanding Actor. … Even so, the BFCA can still boast that it predicted 19 out of the 20 Oscar acting nominees, which can sound pretty impressive ….
Well, SAG had 20 nominees and predicted 16 out of 20 nominees.
The BFCA predicted 19 by having 27 nominees. The Screen Actors Guild’s percentage is still higher.
They have some relevance today as I remember the days that they were an absolute joke in the industry. They were laughed, ridiculed and dismissed to TNT or whatever. They have cleaned up their act since days gone by, but my major complaint is simply their existence. I can’t prove it, but my strong thoughts are they and maybe some others have only diluted the interest, the ratings and the prestige of the Academy Awards, the only real film awards of any importance in American society. I’ve often speculated if they also don’t have an effect on Oscar voting. Sometimes the Academy has gone out of their way to be “different” from awards given out prior to them. They don’t want to be predictable. I think Golden globes still exist today because some part of the media wanted them to simply to suck off some of the Oscar ratings. There is really no other reason why an award from some 80 or 90 people who no one has heard of should be of relevance.
Globes exist since 1944 so if anyone is responsible for decline of the interest in the Oscars, it surely isn’t them.
Sasha went ALL IN on the scandal in her email this week, and I am here for it. This must have been what it was like under the Hays Code, where every film had to satisfy inscrutable moral standards. Cheaters and unwed mothers must suffer. Gays must turn straight or die. Sluts never survive horror movies. Glenn Close must be killed in Fatal Attraction! It never ends! Only now we are experiencing the woke flipside of it. The Academy promulgating complex diversity rules in order for films to qualify for Oscars. Everyone being canceled left and right for what’s going on in their personal lives (obviously some cases are more extreme and more justified than others). Listen, we all know the Globes have their issues, but we’ve all KNOWN this. That doesn’t change that their awards have yielded more black winners than the Academy, as Sasha recounted. When will this insanity end?!? They can do what want to self-police, to virtue-signal, if it makes them feel good. But they must realize that the general public DOES NOT CARE, IS NOT CONVINCED, and none of this is a substitute or a band-aid for Hollywood’s increasing failure to ENTERTAIN. Without entertaining films that audiences love, whether they win (or are even designed to win) Oscars or not, THE PROTESTS AND WITCH HUNTS DO NOT MATTER.
Variety reports that Hollywood Foreign Press members are reeling and feeling scapegoated by the current controversy. Let’s face it: NBC, the stars, the studios and the publicists all knew about the ethical and journalistic lapses of HFPA for decades, but they were complicit in kowtowing to them for P.R. In the article, publicists say they urged the Golden Globes to diversify their membership for years, but some HFPA members say those same press agencies aren’t very diverse themselves. Anyway, as times and racial sensitivities have evolved, the Academy chose to pursue younger and more ethnically varied members; the HFPA did not, keeping its ever-aging club private and proudly protecting its privileges.
In a separate Variety column, Clayton Davis argues: ”It’s time for NBC to step in and ask for resignations of all its current 87 members. The name is tainted. There is nothing “golden” about the group and not “global” either. Their questionable and unethical practices should not be rewarded, nor should any talented and worthy journalists that could be added be guilty by association. Clearing the chessboard and giving the org a clean slate will only improve the public perception. It’s well-known in the industry that many of the “foreign press” members have not been working for decades.”
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/golden-globes-hfpa-members-racism-1234970298/
Of course they have to keep it private.
Of course they have to lockdown membership.
How can they trust new members to be invited into the grift and not blow the whistle on the corruption the newbies would discover?
How has nobody ever even questioned how the Globes voters vote, or wondered who counts the 80 ballots?
“Oh but they make interesting choices!”
Yeah. Just like any 80 con artists can do if they check out the speculation at Awards Daily or Gold Derby.
Personally I was never under the slightest illusion that the Globes don’t tinker with their ballots and meet up to rig the winners each year for maximum gasp and glam melodrama effect.
How hard would it be to send out a memo about how the votes on 80 preodained ballots should go?
Who’s gonna know? There’s no oversight or integrity whatsoever.
Heck, just meet at Denny’s and push a half dozen tables together while they order their Grand Slam scrambled eggs and sausage patties.
So how can they invite new members when they can’t be sure whether a new member will be disgusted by what they see happening behind the scenes?
You’re creating false claims now. 🙂
You don’t know shit about how they function so…
I’m not making claims.
I’m speculating.
Nobody knows how they function.
That’s my point.
$60 million a year for prizes handed out from behind a dubious facade by “journalists” who never seem to write anything.
Sorry if I find it hard to regard them as essential.
Here’s the Golden Globes mystery I want solved: How did ”Music,” Sia’s movie about an autistic girl, get 2 nominations: Best Musical/Comedy and Best Actress (for Kate Hudson)? ”Music” got 8% at Rotten Tomatoes and then won 3 Razzies.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e8c5dea564f8aae896cbcf71a2323502fdea1924c33b3634a070ea5787f8dbfb.jpg
It can all be traced back to here…… on the way to The Tourist in 2010
Keep on speculating, that’s very constructive and helpful. I don’t know how Awards Daily functions on the inside neither, where do you get your money from and so on. The site seems to have a very clear agenda, so maybe articles presented by other editors are being shot down for not being “in line” with the sites direction? And how exactly does you advertising revenue work? I know nothing about it. Do you have something to hide? If you don’t, you probably wouldn’t mind a little oversight, right? And what actions did Awards Daily undertake to introduce diversity among it’s members? Could you please share what is the percentage of people of color among your editors and how it has changed in the last 10 years?
The HFPA is a tax-exempt non-profit organization, and therefore (much to their apparent dismay) they need to follow guidelines in order to maintain their tax exempt status, and in order to continue to enjoy the many advantages and privileges of being an NGO.
In contrast, Awards Daily is a business. It’s Sasha’s own business, so its internal operation is nobody’s business but Sasha’s.
Agendas? Of course Sasha is very often upfront and forthright about having agendas and so is everyone on staff here. We all express ourselves with virtually no oversight at all, in everything we write. Do you see us always agreeing with each other? No you do not.
I’ve been lucky to work as a writer and editor most of my adult life and I guarantee you that no other place I’ve ever been has offered the extraordinary freedom of expression to its writers and editors as we have here. In 14 years. I can’t think of a single time any AD writer has ever been “shot down” or told that we couldn’t say or write whatever we want. That kind of free reign is unheard of in publishing.
At the risk of sounding like I’m talking to a 1st grader, here’s how advertising revenue works: it pays the bills.
It’s not cheap to run a site like this, the costs are substantial, and advertising revenue keeps it running so that you and all our other valued reader can enjoy if for free. Whatever form your enjoyment takes, you take it for free. Thanks to advertising revenue.
There might be some truth to your speculations, especially given the very low number of ties. Has there been a tie at the Globes this century? I doubt it. And they have 87 members. This is mathematically unlikely.
Unfortunately, the Globes aren’t just movies. The HFPA truly embarrassed themselves with the Emily in Paris series and actress nominations this year. It’s not shocking after the LA Times investigated to learn that 30 members visited the set and got a free stay at the posh Peninsula Hotel. Let’s not pretend the Globes have ever been just about the quality of work.
People now act as if Emily in Paris was a surprising nominee in both categories. It wasn’t. Right after its premiere, everybody expected it to win at least one of the two categories. People kept saying: That’s the kind of show the HFPA loves. It’s bound to win awards.
I imagine quite a few HFPA members have been to Paris. And if one has, one could NEVER nominate that abomination.
I have a serious question about HFPA brouhaha. They are gone mostly due to #sowhite membership outrage yet everyone who is spearheading their demise is white. I only see headlines touting pro-active white stars who are leading the change, I see no PoC returning their Globes like Tom Cruise. Names that are in the spotlight are all white stars. So what gives? Where are the PoC? Are their efforts underreported (by woke media? NO!) or have they thrown the towel now that white saviors are saving the day as usual whether anyone asked to be saved or not? I really want to know why #HFPAsowhite is taken down only by #saviorssowhite?
That said, good riddance. the less awards shows and awards the better.
I don’t think they have been cancelled just because they lack PoC members in the organization.
The Industry apparently weren’t in love with the HFPA – just to put it mildly…!
Ava DeVernay has made a devastating case against the HFPA in a series of 12 or 15 tweets.
She rips into them on several levels from several angles.
And by the way, it sickens me to see people say “Ava DuVernay isn’t grateful for the nomination the Globes gave her.”
Fuck that. She is not fucking obligated to feel gratitude.
She sees them behaving like trash and she calls them out for being trash.
Ava DuVernay doesn’t need to refrain from expressing how she feels about their decades of corruption just because they nominated her for their trashy little gold-plated tchotchke.
so why aren’t media reporting this but are putting the spotlight on Cruise, Scarlett, Ruffalo? I wouldn’t have known without your post. Wherever I turn, headlines are blaring only about that particular trio. Oh and the insta of some TV actress (also white duh) who keeps her Globe on her toilet.
The LATimes blew the lid off this a few weeks ago, but they’re behind a paywall.
The media laziness is terrible too, I agree.
If a story is too complex they know that most of their lazy readers and viewers won’t be interested… so the media is lazy too, so they just throw big famous names in clickbait headlines.
To be fair, there are 5000 more important things happening in the world today so I can’t be mad that this tawdry slop is not a top story on CNN.
But nobody in entertainment media seems to care much either. It’s so easy to screech about RACISTS and CANCEL CULTURE, since that’s guaranteed to rile up a reliable crowd.
The Globes problems are much much more than a failure to have any black members.
On the other hand, it could be a lot simpler that any of this tangled complexity.
It could as simple as this:
NBC execs realize: “Well, fuck, unless we let Ricky Gervais smear shit on Hollywood every year then nobody on YouTube watches, so why do we keep throwing $60 million at this mess every January?”
I don’t think twitter is to blame either.
Nobody gives a fuck about twitter except for other people on twitter.
All of you here who are not on Twitter (god bless you) know that’s the truth.
Well said!
OK, I’m from Europe and we have better standards of behaviour, that’s true. Therefore I cannot understand how someone can be so egoistic and ungrateful.
But whatever: DuVernay shows only that she didn’t deserve this Globe nomination. She is far beneath the prestige of those awards.
I understand your perspective. I truly do.
You respect the HFPA. And that’s fine!
Not everyone does, though. Especially when their congame grift gets more and more blatant with each passing year.
It certainly appears that Ava does not think the Globes are prestigious.
She thinks they are corrupt turds .
So why should she be flattered to be nominated to maybe receive a turd to take home with her?
HFPA: “But we nominated you for a Golden Ball of Rat Shit!”
AVA: “Keep that mess away from me please. I’m done pretending that it doesn’t stink.”
Whatever. Awards are symbols of appreciation. I’m pretty sure that not all members of HFPA have issues. Yeah, maybe they get gifts like all other members but later vote for something else. For example I’m pretty sure that Weinstein wanted them to vote for “The King’s Speech” but they chose “The Social Network”. Unlike the Oscars.
And whatever someone may think about their nominations (they are sometimes ridiculous, that’s true, but I actually like even this because this makes them less predictable), their winners are usually solid. Yeah, you might not like “Bohemian Rhapsody” or Pia Zadora but such questionable choices are actually very rare. They rewarded “Brokeback Mountain”, “Boyhood” and “The Social Network” when the Academy preferred worse movies. And their comedy/musical category let them reward such classics as “Some Like It Hot”, “Cabaret” or “Moulin Rouge!”.
I actually like their winners. Sometimes even more than Oscar winners.
And I know that they are organization that is attacked all the time but let’s be honest: BFCA and most critics’ groups exist for exactly the same reason: to show themselves sometimes with the Hollywood stars. And why exactly a blogger from a critics’ organization, without the suitable knowledge about cinema, should be more respectable than HFPA members? I don’t see a reason, to be honest.
So yeah, I hope that Globes will survive. I mean: they probably will survive as long as HFPA exist. They can simply inform about their winners, like critics’ groups or Satellite Awards do, without the ceremonies. But obviously wouldn’t be as influential as they are now.
But would it be good? Would Hilary Swank win her deserved Oscar for “Boys Don’t Cry” if she didn’t win the Globe first? I doubt it. Would Marion Cotillard? Probably not. I even think that “Moonlight” win over “La La Land” was possible mainly because they rewarded it in ‘best drama’ category, making it the only real competition for “La La Land”. But I may be wrong. We’ll never know. (Yeah, I know that it did win many critics awards but it usually doesn’t matter much.)
But the fact is that Globes created the Oscar race. Guilds are too similar to the Oscars in their demographic to really make a difference. And I liked that. I like the Oscar season when there is a race. Andra Day was a contender this year because she won the Globe. If she wouldn’t, she probably even wouldn’t be nominated.
Without the Globes, there won’t be a suspens about who will win the Oscars (as probably guilds and BAFTA will decide who is the winner far before the ceremony) so the Oscar telecast will be even more uninteresting than it is now and uninteresting things don’t have big viewership.
…
And actually, in the case of The Social Network, the Academy preferred a Harvey Weinstein film while the Globes, the assumed Weinstein pet, didn’t.
I disagree that the guilds are similar to the Academy in terms of demographics but they’re way too big for alternative voices to be heard and usually go with the flow most of the time.
The issue isn’t that she is attacking the Globes. It’s her right. But when the Academy had similar issues a few years ago, Ava DuVernay was much more reluctant to speak out. This is the hypocrisy on display here.
Exactly. DuVernay is ungrateful and hypocritical.
It’s notable that you love to single out the black woman to repeatedly insult.
Firstly, the problems with Globes are much different than the problems with the Oscars.
Secondly, the Oscars made huge immediate strides to do better while the Globes initially made nothing but weak gestures.
Finally, Ava DuVernay is not “attacking the Globes.” She is supporting efforts to guide the Globes to do what they need to do to regain their former integrity and rebuild their image of prestige.
It sounds to me like you have no clear idea what Ava DuVernay is doing or saying.
It sounds to me like you think this is only about wanting the Globes to have more black members in the HFPA.
Nope, it’s about trying to get some of the current HFPA members to stop acting like creepy trash.
Stop groping filmmakers at Globes events. Stop asking stupid and crude questions that are homophobic and misogynistic. Stop refusing to watch the work of potential nominees made by astonishing and brilliant TV talent. Stop fucking taking bribes and stop fucking skimming the financial opportunities like a sleazy gang of corrupt elderly grifters.
Sorry to hear that all that is fine with you, Sontag. Sorry to hear you think all that shit is fine as long as you get to watch their little TV show once a year.
Actually I don’t see any problems with HFPA and all those accusations are unimportant. 🙂
Because, you see, even if they weren’t “bribed”, they could still nominate exactly the same movies and the same performances. Maybe not but this can’t be proved.
Still, I don’t see how anyone can speak about ‘bribes’ in the context of nominating people or movies to awards that they do not respect. If Globes are so unimportant and HFPA is laughable then why do you care who is nominated by them? And what’s the problem if they take some gadgets as a present?
And what homophobic or sexist questions did they ask? Because it looks to me that now everything is sexist for everybody so I no longer care.
Yes, you’ve made it clear that no amount of sleazy trash behavior by 80 nobodies whose lifestyles are predicated on corruption should interfere with your ability watch a fancy TV show once a year.
Your oblivious attitude and superficial needs are noted and understood. Thanks.
Your hatred towards the Globes (which is ridiculous – how can anyone hate something that in his eyes is unimportant?) is understood too but you repeat this in every comment. 🙂
Your hatred towards the Globes …
I don’t hate the Globes at all.
I’m just disgusted by the habitual corrupt behavior of some of its members and I’m glad they are being encouraged to clean up their sleazy little clique so that they can reestablish some semblance of the integrity and class that they once had. So then we can all enjoy them again.
Yes, it’s obvious that you don’t know what sexism is and that you don’t care to know.
One of the reason the Disqus filter tagged you as “TOXIC” and threw the past 30 days of your comments into the spam folder is because of your hateful sexist attitude.
This is one of your comments that I left in the spam folder:
I know you like to use the excuse that you’re in Europe and you therefore can’t grasp the complicated US standards for speaking about women.
But I believe most European men would have no fucking trouble noticing what a crude sexist thing that is to say.
Whatever. I don’t held DuVernay in high regard. Till now, she hasn’t directed anything worth remembering. Her nomination for “Selma” wasn’t particularly deserved: it was good but unremarkable historical drama that wouldn’t be remembered at all if it wasn’t directed by a black woman.
But still, she was nominated by the HFPA. You might think that these awards are racist if you want but the fact is that they at least once nominated black female director for their award. Oscars haven’t done this till now. Globes rewarded three black women with the Globes for best leading actress (drama or comedy/musical), Oscars only one. Etc.
And yeah, everything is sexist nowadays. The sexual revolution is almost dead and buried and #meToo is responsible for this. Sex is once again a tabu subject (well, maybe not in the dating apps 🙂 but everywhere else). Everything is censored and there’s no true free speech. If you can’t tell a joke because people might get offended and ruin your career, then what does it have to do with the real democracy? So yeah, I prefer HPFA over Time’s Up. At least HFPA has balls to be themselves and doesn’t censor anybody.
I usually speak quite calmly though yeah, I sometimes am vulgar and unapologetic. Still – look at yourself first. 🙂 You are always cynical and egocentric. If anyone is toxic on this page, it’s you.
Good to know how you feel about me.
I’ll bear that in mind the next time Disqus kicks you off the site.
I’ll need to decide if I have time to rescue you again — the way I spent 90 minutes helping you 2 days ago.
“You might think that these awards are racist if you want …”
That would be good point if I had ever said the Globes are racist. But I never said that.
“And yeah, everything is sexist nowadays”
“…everything”
and yet you’re the only person at AD for the past 14 years that has ever called a renowned female filmmaker a “worthless bitch”
somehow you’re at the top of the sexist insult list.
(and nobody else here is on the list at all)
“sexual revolution is almost dead and buried”
speak for yourself.
it’s quite possible that you’re the only guy here who can’t get laid.
I wonder why that might be.
Actually, it’s more sincere to call someone ‘worthless bitch’ than insinuating (but not speaking directly) that someone “can’t get laid”. At least I’m a sincere person, you’re not. 🙂
And don’t think too much about my sex life, it’s quite OK.
It isn’t sincere to call someone that. It’s repugnant. You are correct when you call yourself vulgar. You are a vulgarian.
And that’s good. 🙂
Your superficial needs and your willingness to tell people what their needs is kind of disgusting as well. Noted but not understood.
“you’re way too preoccupied with me”
Dream on.
It sounds to me you’re way too preoccupied with telling me who I am and what I think and what flaws of character I have, which is something I won’t allow anybody.
I wrote what I wrote. Yes, Ava DuVernay is most likely a hypocrite. Yes, it’s not about race only. But I don’t care.
Because Ava DuVernay is part of the gang now. She’s part of Hollywood. The same Hollywood that knew about Weinstein all along. The same Hollywood that’s trying to tiptoe around the big fat disgusting issue called Scott Rudin.
Last time I checked, the Motion Picture Academy didn’t punish its members for refusing to watch films for purely homophobic reasons. And they felt no remorse for stating it in public.
Judging from the secret ballots published everywhere, a lot of Academy members are xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, sleazy jerks, but Ava, as a Board member, has failed to speak about that.
So excuse me if I don’t buy everything she says as prophetic and life-altering.
And yes, her Netflix show didn’t get any Globe nods. Frankly, I couldn’t finish it either. Maybe I should be canceled as well.
“Last time I checked, the Motion Picture Academy didn’t punish its members for refusing to watch films for purely homophobic reasons.”
It took the Academy far too long to respond, but they did eventually suspend the voting privileges of Academy members that are too old and washed-up and out-of-touch — and they did it by taking the ballots away from Oscar voters who haven’t worked in decades.
If the voting rights of Globes “journalists” who have not written anything in years were suspended, there would only be about 25 Globes voters instead of 80.
You compared the Oscar voters (who are filmmakers voting for their peers) to Globes voters (who are nobodies who leech off of filmmakers)
I wanted to point out the distinction. So I did.
You write whatever comments you want and I’ll do the same.
Everyone has seen you show your ass here for months, Sontag, and everyone has seen me show my ass at times too.
So we’re even. You can sneer at one of Hollywood’s most brilliant talents if you want, and I’ll praise her if I want. Alright?
Readers here have made up their minds about you, based on the ridiculous fits you throw, and they make up their minds about me based on my fits too.
It’s not a competition, darling. You already won the Fit-Throwing Crown.
I don’t care about your fits and who you are. I can tell you what I think of you but I’ll spare myself the nerves.
I’m discussing the issue at hand, you’re engaging in personal attacks. Of course. This is all you do when you can’t argue a case. Not that I care…
And about Ava DuVernay: When she makes a great film, I’ll recognize her as a brilliant talent. So far, I’ve seen her only do solid yet unremarkable films.
You are a truly nasty piece of work.
yes lol you can easily say the lurch to social ideology manner of thinking as consequence of diversity card academy have pushed has gone TOO far by FAR whereas the Globes mentality is frosen in time where the bloody equilibrium middle ground..? this is the heart of the dysfunction eating away at deteriorating public respect and fuelling industry division on what and what type of movies awards season should embrace year in and year out.
The answer lies in the foundation of what motion pictures are about. It simple..the two pioneers one of actual motion picture before the academy era at time yet to be embraced and known of in it most primeval form..publicly broadly scross the nations solely as invention was the fusion of science by one most influential scientists of all time ppre- Einstein anyway in the great Thomas Edison. as shown in the brilliant masterpiece ‘ a current war’ fuse this with the Great Ziegfeld who extrapolated people PERFORMANCES FROM BROADWAY into the motion picture invention and adapted from Edison from a decade ago prior TO THE DAWN OF THE BROADER MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY AND ENTERTAINMENT.. it WAS THE FUSION OF SCIENCE AND PEOPLE/ PERFORMANCES THAT GAVE LIFE TO MOTION PICTURES.
and it well and truly past time AMPAS get with what they supposed to be about not politically correct bulldust and excuses from some of most blatantly obvious deserving oscar winners ESP in last 15 years at LEAST of those you can safely say 70% of best picture winners were not the most deserving best picture winners jointyl embraced by films critics AND the film public.. the critical sociological idealist elite control the agenda with there bleating and whinjeing and protest activism ..it take frankly courage , common sense and little sacrifice in grand scheme of things to pull back from this sociological politically correct madness corrupting and destroying the very sould and fabric almost each year for over a decade now in to awards season and reinvest in AMPAS and show pay and owe respect to the founding forefathers.
Can you just imagine the extent that Thomas Edison and the Great Ziegfeld would be feeling if they were to be alive today? for fuk sake they be turning in their graves!!
SCIENCE
Why isn’t this on the main page?
It’s the most important article written here recently and should be visible.
Variety reports that Hollywood Foreign Press members are reeling and feeling scapegoated by the current controversy. Let’s face it: NBC, the stars, the studios and the publicists all knew about the ethical and journalistic lapses of HFPA for decades, but they were complicit in kowtowing to them for P.R. In the article, publicists say they urged the Golden Globes to diversify their membership for years, but some HFPA members say those same press agencies aren’t very diverse themselves. Anyway, as times and racial sensitivities have evolved, the Academy chose to pursue younger and more ethnically varied members; the HFPA did not, keeping its ever-aging club private and proudly protecting its privileges.
In a separate Variety column, Clayton Davis argues: ”It’s time for NBC to step in and ask for resignations of all its current 87 members. The name is tainted. There is nothing “golden” about the group and not “global” either. Their questionable and unethical practices should not be rewarded, nor should any talented and worthy journalists that could be added be guilty by association. Clearing the chessboard and giving the org a clean slate will only improve the public perception. It’s well-known in the industry that many of the “foreign press” members have not been working for decades.”
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/golden-globes-hfpa-members-racism-1234970298/
Some great moments in those clips shown here in the post. Loved seeing Whoopi win and Barbra Streisand. Those two moments were so impactful.
Barbara Streisand over Ingmar Bergman is as Golden Globy as possible! LOL
I know it really is apples and oranges to the max! But it was an important win for Babs and for Women Directors even if she is not on any par with Campion, Coppola, Marshall and many others. I had forgotten that Robert Altman won there over David Lynch, Ron Howard, Peter Jackson, Baz Luhrmann & Steven Spielberg. Isn’t Altman considered the Bergman of American cinema?
True, and I liked to see him on stage – even if I wouldn´t necessarily consider “Gosford Park” as one of Altman´s best films, but of course you need the right timing. I just checked the Oscar lineup of that particular year: Altman was up against David Lynch for “Mulholland Drive” and Peter Jackson for “Fellowship of the Rings” – all three would have been well-deserved winners, but the Academy chose to give it to Ron Howard for “A Beautiful Mind”, ouch!
i think that term will stick ‘Golden Globy’ – I love it.
I do want to say…
The world was different 50 years ago.
Hollywood was different.
The Oscars were different.
The Globes were different.
But even back then, the Globes were always a bit of a joke.
At least they were harmless though. They were not egregiously gross. They were actually good campy fun.
But the world has changed in 50 years. Even as the Globes stubbornly refused to change.
They saw no reason to change because the 80 members were living the highlife and mingling with pretty people who pretended the 80 hacks in the HFPA were important
(And maybe 50 years ago they were not hacks! Maybe they actually had jobs as journalists back then.)
But they no longer do. They’re just a 80 feeble old clingers who have become fairly accurate pundits with 50 years of experience.
But Movies and TV have evolved. And the HFPA has not.
Now it’s just 80 fading twits who can’t even handle their cushy grift without bungling it.
Keep the concept of the Globes!
Keep the trophies and the glitz!
Regain the glossy ideals that they once aspired to!
And retire these 80 weird old relics.
Find 80 new HFPA members.
Find 80 real movie journalists who are actually still employed at some of the vibrant new media outlets all around the world.
Keep the House that Globes Built.
Find 80 new inhabitants.
And if the greasy retired Globes members feel rejected and nostalgic, Ricky Gervais can go visit them and piss in their faces. Just like the good ol’ days.
Absolutely, usher (pardon the pun), in the new guard. It has always been a bit of silliness every season, and they’ve all lived the life of Riley (whoever Riley is :), incl the stars and the wanna be stars. I have no problem with them having a good flush; a purge, a colonic if you like. But still go ahead. They are still part of the race. They don’t have to be, but they can be.
Just realised we both used urinary symbols. Perhaps they should be re-named The Golden Showers. (sorry – delete this if too naughty)
/Pee-uh/
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/08c383b2814a1f5c2ede2e31a0f1f4bf91fa2df70d4b10a827ddb2a9f56eaf6c.jpg
I’m not sure what I need after seeing that, Maybe never seeing it again.
What a cheek that woman has! Two in fact.
I’m not sure what I need after seeing that, Maybe never seeing it again.
What a cheek that woman has! Two in fact.
The only thing I know about the Hollywood Foreign Press is that they’re lifers. They have under 100 members, and they don’t let people in very often. They’re not like the Academy that invites new members every year or the DGA or the PGA or SAG. They have mostly maintained their same numbers for years. And they’re old. A lot of them have been in the organization for decades. What they have cared about, as the saying goes, is the biggest stars being at their show. Up until the last decade or two, those big stars have been primarily white.
Hmmm….for years I watched the GGs and read somewhere that they wined and dined actors and producers. And I thought, this went on for years, and not one (white) actor or producer noticed that not one of the GG BOD was non-white? And as much as Asian movies are loved, not one Asian journalist is a member of the GG?
Hmmmm…..now all of a sudden actors are “woke” and giving back their GGs. But if it was the Oscar, I don’t think you’d see them give it back.
Anyway, I liked the GGs because the movies and Tv shows they nom’d were ones I never knew about and when those shows/movies won a GG, I would go out and see it.
“So, movies have to be good, they have to pass the intersectional, inclusivity and fairness test, and they have to be film Twitter friendly to stay “in the conversation.” Sometimes all of these things are enough to push a movie through, even a bad movie. Believe it or not, that happens a lot. Gone are the alpha voices who were not afraid to make waves like David Carr or Roger Ebert. In are those who go along to get along both out of fear and a need for survival. So it is all one big snake eating its own tail.”
Honeslty..i do not need to say much as clearly thanks to awards season determination getting to the point of being HELLBENT on not so much changing their own tradition in form of natural evolution but DESTROYING THEM and as of now.. i tell you this right now…the twitterati need to BACK THE FUK OFF this once sacred most globally eventful awards season in its entirety- as Sasha says furthermore:
” none of the guilds more so than the SAG have bec0me beholden to political ideology” yea Sasha spot on take not everybody…for an agent and force of change takes precedent over film audiences more broadly – who as you point you Sasha: “film audiences are whom films are made for” this is where your demographic argument of America- which some have grossly and recklessly misunderstood here..it not issue about as some like to think Sasha is implying racism by highlighting true demographic facts she simply trying to outline put in perspective on any given day- esp. weekends during the 365 days a year what the demographic makeup or type of people attending films full stop…is it racist as some foolishly may think Sasha is doing to site intelligently as she has sensus data to outline who majority are type of people who attend films? she only highlighting the alarming disconnect between actual filmgoer demographics to the exxesses of noise twitterati and social media make- to misrepresent demographically that by OSCAR and the AWARDS SEASON complying to social media demands they are blatantly disregarding and misrepresenting in their excessive advocacy online it a complete and total disgraceful mismatch between not what they advocate for but the EXTENT TO WHICH SOCIAL ONLINE MEDIA ADVOCATE FOR v.s the reality that OSCAR And awards season ONCE adhered to- namely common sense based on the ACTUAL attendee demographics that attend cinema– as much as social media clowns have you believe- lord knows why AWARDS season elevated them front and centre or the guilds SAG now increasingly the PGA AND DGA are fallng more in line with misplaced ideological misrepresentation demographically that who they award is the reflective of the TRUE DEMOGRAPHIC MAJORITY that attend cinemas?
the debate is NOT RACE IS TRUTHFUL FACT VS. FABRICATION AND THIS IS ABSOUTELY JUSTIFIED IN SASHA AND AD;S DEFENCE AND CONTEXT DEMOGRAPHIC DEBATE IS RIGHTFULLY HIGHLIGHTED ‘oscars so white’ was ALWAYS gonna be taken way out of proportion the heart of the problem with social media activism ? is there are no constraints nor self of sense ownership thjat a msg can be too broad and too generic and too universal and then ultimately exploited by anyone not ‘so white’ who makes themselves out to be a ‘victim’ of racism well there are in social media dialect REAL VICTIIMS of racism and self proclaimed ‘victim’
So there were always gonna be grave dangers for the deteriorating public respect and appeal and relevance of awards season to the MOST IMPORTANT DEMOGRAPHIC AWARDS SEASON MUST CAN ILL AFFORD TO LOSE US! FUKIN US! There has been a dismal failure across the board by not just OSCAR but i take aim incresingly at rapidly gullible excesses and sympathising beyond belief but unfortunately it happening of the GUILDS and awards season is being invaded by an alarming chorus of irrational extreme sociological idealism..replacing once consistent common sense methodology – indeed there always was a case for the ACADEMY, THE GUILDS to have more diversity in their membership- until they crossed a publicly siulent majority- US – who rightfully making more noise than EVER in awards season history…i mean can’t awards season see we trying to SAVE IT FROM IT OWN SELF SABOTAGE??!
I wonder by the by how manmy film critics as they write a film review noawadays as sense strongly been case over last several years if not last 13 years hence sociological idealist scewed diminished best pic oscar winners overall – (some esculded but most NOT… ) but how many film critics have in split window on their monitors when they write a review actually have there conversations of dialogue on twitter feed or ‘fukedbook ‘ to drive their reviews? MERIT does not matter for what deserved best picture winner ..MERIT means nothing unless it conforms to the new sociological idealist online militia new world order..namely- it has to have overwhelming ‘cry for the minority, scream political correctness and be a msg film about the cause that mirrors precisely in that moment in that year social media do not shut the hell up abouit issues to do with gender or race- ok bit exztreme rather temper their views to be more measured and realistic and respectful of once sacred pubicly revered awards insitution.
watch as awards season do a mad scramble to save its image by going for big screen epic publicly endorsed large scale cinematic film (note not necessarily the Eternals or Marvel or DC) to save their hide and when they do that- it inevitable now watch as new policies seek to undo the damage that pressure of going beyond common sense diversity and confomity to social media madness and lunacy is undone.
finally to quote Sasha once more ” long days gone of likes of Ebert as a template for measured educated and informed reviews’ to guide awards season- this is the shift in its mentality that has diminished the globes and killed awards season relevance to us..
time to clean up the self inflicted carnage..time for critics to SHUT DOWN social media feeds when they write their reviews and reinvest in whole purpose of film critics not to persuade people or take sides on social issues of a film..but look at film as cinematic achievement and relevance to the masses but let public decide dont tell them what to fukin think when they read a review..critics are the mouthpiece for twitter..and awards season has become the mouthpiece for the twitterati,
most you genuinely are growingly concerned about the trajectory of awards season significance to us..as for the globes well they are morons for resisting natural evolutionary change to diversity in memberships but time to purify and hit reset button in terms of tka9ing twitter out of equation or reducing their influence to what whole point of social media for these puirposes is about soundbites not dictating awards season outcomes!!
So, when the whole OscarSoWhite thing first happened (definitely kickstarted by the Idris Elba snub), the almost reflexive response was “So what, do better work, make better movies” and variants of that. Jump ahead and non-white filmmakers did that very thing. They MADE better movies. They DID better work. I think the smarter talent realized that they needed more control so you saw more auteurism from Coogler and Peele. Actors like Regina King and Michael B Jordan moved into producing and directing. Chloe Zhao maintaining FIRM creative control. And you saw more networking (Ryan Coogler lifting Shaka King up with Judas). So what’s the response? They’re smeared as “woke” or “affirmative action nominees/winners”. And in some extreme cases they’re being OPENLY BLAMED for the decline of Oscar’s ratings. Don’t think for one bloody second that non-white talent in the industry hasn’t spotted this circular logic, this no win scenario.
Not throwing stones but when you cite census statistics about race and % of population and then immediately follow that with “Social media, however, has given the Black community an unprecedented amount of voice and power online for the first time in American history. “, some readers might interpret that as bemoaning outsized black power (more so after six months of “black people at Oscar anger white television viewers” blasts. Don’t think you meant it like that, but you do seem uncomfortable with the changing power dynamic, and I’m really puzzled as to why that is. )Ideally my puzzlement is just telling me I misread or misunderstood your overall thesis the last six months or so. As I said above, I find this circular argument incredibly unfair to non-white talent who frankly don’t deserve the scorn from some circles.
I also seem to recall that black talent was complaining about being denied HFPA screenings and pressers, and that’s a lot more serious an accusation than the hard to explain all-white for decades HFPA membership. Winning a Globe is completely dependent on pressers and screenings and the borderline unethical schmoozing. So if non-white talent was being denied those opportunities, then the Globes are not entirely on the level. Is there a possibility that THIS is what set NBC off especially with all the TV awards given out? Oh yeah, and the accusations of rampant financial corruption as well. These extra wrinkles make me think some of this dispute is being oversimplified in the film press.
And I’m going to say this once again until I’m blue in the freaking face. A film that wins Oscar can only win against the films that enter the competition. No one put a gun to anyone’s head to move so many films into 2021 and 2022. Frankly, the overly crowded field is going to result in a crapton of snubs and people won’t be able to blame the blacks and asians for that.
And again…if your rationale for nominating a film for an Oscar is to boost television ratings for the ceremony, then the award is meaningless and you’re doing nothing but slapping around a lot of people who otherwise are trying to tell stories that they want to tell and stories they hope people want to see.
And for all we know, NBC (that wasn’t remotely subtle when you called them Comcast) and the HFPA might rethink this and come to a truce in the next month or so.
HFPA isn’t “all-white”.
No black members doesn’t mean that they are only white. 🙂 They have many Asian members and from Arab countries.
And therefore don’t have to have black ones. It’s rather obvious. “Diversity” means more than just “black”.
No black members for DECADES is a bad look, especially when combined with the accusations that black films were getting denied screenings and pressers.
Who cares?
They still rewarded many black artists, even this year.
And this is far more important.
There are many organizations in the world that don’t have black members for decades. Some have never had black members.
And HFPA represents FOREIGN press. They don’t have to look like typical American organization because they are not exactly “American”.
Then their expectation of American network coverage of their organization is foolish as fuck.
They are part of the Hollywood history right now so I’m not sure if it is foolish.
“And HFPA represents FOREIGN press. They don’t have to look like typical American organization”
ahh… yes, the HFPA is international… so they should look like a global organization…?
Demographic projections indicate that Earth will soon be 9% White and 25% Black.
Little bit creepy that you don’t know that, or that you don’t even stop to consider that it’s possible.
But they need members that write about cinema and live in Los Angeles so this complicates things. 🙂
And most of the African countries don’t have even film industry so probably don’t have people that write about cinema either.
Are you really that stupid, Ryan? Reading you always make me laugh. 🙂
‘”And most of the African countries don’t have even film industry so probably don’t have people that write about cinema either.”
Disgusting thing to say.
The HFPA has members from France, Canada, and the UK.
Are you truly so stupid, Someone, that you don’t think any black people live in those countries?
The HFPA has members from various South American countries, including Colombia and Brazil.
Are you truly so stupid, Someone, that you don’t think any black people live in those countries?
One of the countries with the most HFFPA members is Germany, with 11 or 12 members.
Are you truly so stupid, Someone, that you don’t think any black people live in Germany?
There are are in fact a handful of HFPA members from the continent of Africa. Those members are all lily white.
“And most of the African countries don’t have even film industry so probably don’t have people that write about cinema either.”
That’s a deeply stupid thing to say. I pity you and your ugly crude stupidity if you’ve never seen any movies from African countries.
I’ve seen African movies, probably more than you did (because we all know that you watch only American ones as all American people do). 🙂
But whatever. You are piece of trash. 🙂 We all know it. If not Sasha’s point of view sometimes, no one would read this page, surely not for you. 🙂
I’ve seen African movies, probably more than you did (because we all know that you watch only American ones as all American people do). 🙂
But whatever. You are piece of trash. 🙂 We all know it. If not Sasha’s point of view sometimes, no one would read this page, surely not for you. 🙂
Then you’re not ignorant about many African countries having nascent but vibrant film industries.
You just deliberately choose to mock African nations and African people as cinematically illiterate.
With your nasty insinuation that Africa can’t possibly have any black film writers who are equal to the absolute verifiable hacks who are white HFPA members.
Maybe they have. But the fact that South Africa, Nigeria or Senegal have film industries that are quite OK doesn’t mean that all African countries have. And even in Nigeria or Senegal there might be not too many journalists writing about movies (even in some European countries it’s more problematic nowadays than it was in the old times; sure, there are bloggers but I’m not sure if this is enough).
OK, maybe I exaggerated. I was angry because even my quite sensible and objective comments were deleted. And I’m pretty pissed off at the cancellation of the Globes. Sure, there are bigger problems in the world but I like them (even with their flows and anonymous voters) as I’ve watched them for years (as Oscars) and they are part of the Oscar season that always interested me.
I don’t care about Critics’ Choice and Oscars are more and more boring every year (for example this year they were almost unwatchable) so killing the Globes is like killing Oscar season for me. Once again: maybe not the biggest problem in the world right now but during the pandemic every kind of entertainment is valuable. And even after the pandemic year without the Globes won’t be as fun as it was before.
“But whatever. You are piece of trash. :)”
Someone, I woke up at 6 a.m, to find that overnight the Disqus auto-filter has tagged you as “Toxic”
It’s automatically marking all your comments as spam. And at a glance it appears to me that it has marked the past 30 days of your comments as spam.
I didn’t do that. You did it to yourself, Someone.
Disqus has automatically thrown your past month of comments into the spam filter because of the foul language that you spewed at me overnight while I was asleep.
You did that. I had nothing to do with it.
You and I have never clashed before.
But for some reason yesterday you decided it would be fun to shit your pants and go off on me.
I had said nothing to you at all. You barely ever register with me.
But I know you comment a lot, and now I have the extra task to try to help you get past the Disqus filter.
You have caused Disqus to label you as Toxic.
That’s not something that I or any admin can do.
It’s just the way Disqus is set up. You pulled the trigger on yourself.
I have to be on the road in 10 minutes to get to a distant spot for my dayjob.
I don’t have time right now to try and retrieve all your comments that have been thrown in the spam filter.
(I could clear the “Toxic” tag — but why would I? So that you can cuss at me with your weird hateful filth all day, while I’m too busy to respond to you?)
Nope. I’m not inclined to help you right now.
I have no idea why you thought it would be a good idea to lash out and attack me yesterday.
You did this to yourself. I’m genuinely sorry to see it happen.
I’ll see if I have time to manually approve a few dozen of your recent comments that Disqus has tagged as spam.
This is lot of extra fucking work for me. What a pain in the ass you have turned out to be. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/46604940302a9b0cfc7fb6eeca6ea071c18b0454a9c459d1a92088e44f610a60.jpg
“And most of the African countries don’t have even film industry so probably don’t have people that write about cinema either.”
Are you truly so stupid that you think most of the HFPA are “journalists”?
I have a list of 75 of their names.
It’s virtually impossible to find anything that most of them have ever written.
I can give you names and you can try to see if you can find the slightest trace of any “journalism” most of them have ever done.
Good luck with that. No evidence of their “journalism” exists.
How are you so stupid that you don’t know that?
– Toronto Star, Jan. 18, 2011
https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2011/01/18/what_is_the_hollywood_foreign_press_association.html
Here’s Golden Globes voter Noemia Young.
She is supposedly a “journalist” from Canada.
Good luck finding a shred of her “journalism” anywhere.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01f0ebca650cbfad78efcc7fd1d714fbe2d1b384bda70b972f1b0c4ee8838cf5.jpg
https://www.noemiayoung.com/articles
Took me 15 seconds to find this
Cool historical collection of articles from years ago.
Now find an article she wrote in the past year. Or the past 2 years. Or in the past 3 years.
Can you please comment on how well this sentence of yours stood the test of time?
Of course. I meant a shred of journalism that’s not as old as 2017.
I said, “good luck” and you had some luck.
With that kind of luck, you should play the lottery, if you can find a way to buy a lottery ticket that’s 4 years old.
I feel there is a big difference between “A shread of something…” and “A shread of something that is not as old as 2017.” By these standards I guess I could say that there is a so called director named David Lynch, but good luck finding any movies he directed.
Fun. I’ll let you know if you ever write something that’s imperfectly phrased or indulges in an everyday rhetorical device called hyperbole.
I’ll keep an eye on your phrasings too.
No, wait. No I won’t.
Because I’m not that petty, and I’ve got more important things to do than waste a fucking hour bickering about the hilariously skimpy journalistic resume of a grifter Globes hack.
I somehow feel that hostility is a major theme among the administrators of this site and a tool that is very quickly used by them the moment an opinion is presented, that is not aligned with their own. One might call it a lack of professionalism or even administrating psychologial violence. Is this a kind of website you wish to create?
Here’s former Golden Globes voter Ray Arco.
He died 6 weeks ago, god rest his soul.
He was 91 years old.
For all we know, he might have been born a HFPA member.
He was supposedly a “journalist” from Canada.
Good luck finding a shred of his “journalism” anywhere.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f1500180d7ddb8a5f1e1f01e429c60a0f2f07057aea18b470f26e19f24e56f7.jpg
I know it hardly tyhe point of the pic but my g-d
Angelina Jolie gets hotter with age…(no disrespect to the bloke we paying tribute to g-d rest is soul) err..it is Angelina Jolie right?
“I know it hardly the point of the pic but my g-d”
Aaron, my friend, you’re often at your best when you go off point.
We don’t thank you enough for all the time and effort you put into your lengthy deep-dive comments, but once in a while I like to let you know that I always read them all.
You’re never afraid to be controversial and yet you have that rare but admirable knack for writing provocative things that nonetheless are never rude or abrasive.
Awww thanx Ryan i presume u thoughts also reflective from Sasha too ? Well assumimg implied in u thoughts they inclusive of Sasha sentiment to me as well as yourself… your both like the elder brother and sister i never had i mean that…
Broadly speaking those who not rude disrespectful and abusive to other members here to … i like take opportunity to say you largely esp. the semi -regular reappearing long term members online here who been here to navigate both the highlights and
( all increasingly worryingly trend) to low lights of Oscar and Awards season ..for..( slightly ) longer or alllmost as long as me …i had great priveledge and honor to ..no matter differing views and movies each year we cheer and hope to win …whether we agree with direction awards season is headed or not..YOU ALL like my extended second family…
But…. i put to you Ryan and Sasha ‘controversial ?’ Must ask you tjis challenging question on that point : what does it tell you that my advocacy for common sense and re engaging with the truespirit of AMPAS as to future films to be favoured in future oscar races is out of step with awards season oscar voters( not the members online on this site ) sociological dictated groupthink ?
Does it NOT raise serious concern to yourself that my view for ‘common sense ‘ in considering which films make the cut during awards season more seriously reigniting the true spirit of AMPAS over sociological activist blind idealism… is regarded within industry as ‘ controversial ‘? You and Sasha increasingly seeimg importance of what i advocating for irrefutable fact clear to see that regardless of option to live stream even b3fore that oscar ratings and public respectability for oscar has been in decline ?
A gigantic measured cross reform / restoration to reconnecting with some progreessive societal issues wirh creative bold cinematic vision storytelling type films at its heart of oscar season is key how is this mantra ‘ controversial ‘? Who with me here?
Took me 1 minute to google this.
But still: most African countries don’t have film industry so probably don’t have people writing about cinema that could be members of HFPA.
And they are FOREIGN press so they cannot take African Americans.
Diversity means more than just ‘black and white’ and they are pretty diverse.
Not enough discussion about this. Thank you, Pete.
“They have many Asian members and from Arab countries.
And therefore don’t have to have black ones.”
“Relax and shut up, Black people. We’ve got a Saudi Arabian voter! Now are you satisfied?!”
Brilliant argument.
So is it about black people or not? I’m confused.
I doubt that you’re confused.
But the lack of black members is only one of several reasons that the HFPA is taking urgent measures to reform.
Their own plans to show their intentions to do better involve addressing numerous issues, and the lack of black members is one of those issues.
Are there many black members in the Awards Daily team of editors?
The racial diversity of Awards Daily almost exactly matches the racial diversity of the country.
10 years ago it was just Sasha and me, and now we are proud that the 10 people on staff include our incredibly talented writers of color.
That diversity happened naturally, because Sasha doesn’t chose writers based on race but simply on the basis of their talent.
Lo and behold, when that is the standard for being part of a group, the diversity happens organically, same as it does in the real world.
Ok, but how many black people?
One of us. One out of ten.
(In America it’s 13 out of 100. But it’s not possible to have 13% of 10 people.)
Would it be too much to ask who would that individual be? I can find some photos of the editiors at AD, but I can’t seem to find one of a black person.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I aslo see that 7 out of 10 editors are male. Can you comment on how do these proportions reflect the male/female proportions of the American society?
I’m tired of playing your tedious game, Koleś.
You and I have always gotten along great.
Why are you treating me like I’m your enemy? I thought we were friends. But now I’ve reevaluated my naïve assumption.
As much as you seem to enjoy playing like you have any authority to interrogate me, you’re not an investigative reporter or a prosecuting attorney.
No reporter or attorney would be dumb enough to prance into a business anywhere in the world and act like they have a right to question why the proportion of employees is not 50/50 male/female.
Unless that reporter or attorney was making a special effort to be a silly little asshole.
“In 2020, it was found that 68 percent of Academy voters were male, and 32 percent were female, unchanged from the previous year.”
That’s virtually identical to the ratio here at AD, that you have uncovered with your scathing research.
Awards Daily is a private business, not a public institution. Besides, millions and millions of businesses and institutions around the globe don’t have a 50/50 ratio of male/female employees.
Hell, millions of marriages don’t have a 50/50 male/female requirement either.
It’s weird that you think you have nailed AD for a crime or violation of some sort.
Our brilliant TV and Emmy specialist Jordan Walker is Black.
Hope you had fun pretending this was a press conference, but all press conferences have to end at some point, and I’ve got a day ahead of me whether you do or not.
I’m very sorry you do not wish to talk about the diversity issues of Awards Daily. I do not feel I am an authority, but as an avid reader and a concerned individual I believe that a certain ammount of oversigh might help adress these issues. Do you feel that the overwhelming hostility of the administrators of this website might have something to do with it being a mostly male staff and mostly white?
I also do not feel that 50/50 percent female/male proportion is a “dumb” idea and I feel that the very fact that you suggested that, might be offensive to a lot of people. It’s also funny and ironic that you would compare the sexual diversity of the AD team to that of the AMPAS, that is still very often considered a “male dominated” group. It’s also not at all impossible to actually meet that 50/50 standard by an organisation that comprises mostly of film critics. One of such organisations is The HFPA that has a roughly 50/50 ratio of female/male members.
I have read a few articles by Mr Walker and I did enjoy them very much. But I see that the earliest one that he has written for AD was in July 2020. Does that mean that Mr Walker became a member of the AD team in July 2020? If so, does that mean that before this date AD did not have a single black person on their team? And if so, then for how long? I also see that Mr Walker is an author of a total of 12 articles on AD and only two of them were written in 2021. Somehow I don’t feel that the personal representation of black people in the AD team transfers to a content representation that black people have contributed to this website. Would it be fair to say that a vast majority of articles on AD are written by white authors and because of this fact AD represents a mostly white point o view?
I’m also wondering how do your advertisers respond to the type of content they are associated with on this site? Do they really fell ok with they way traffic is generated on this site? Are agressive and angry comments made by the administrators a driving force behing this sites clickability? Do they realise they contribute to a hostile and unfriendly environment managed by a predominantly white and male staff?
I do wish you would restrain yourself from hostility in your further responses.
Great answer.
Conclusion: Awardsdaily is less diverse than HFPA. Yeah, they have one black person but they do not have any Arab journalists if I’m not mistaken. They have bigger percentage of men than HFPA (which is closer to 50:50) and it is kinda sexist.
And Ryan Adams thinks than he can lecture HFPA and the world about diversity?
Well, he cannot.
Awards Daily does not collect 60 million tax-exempt dollars per year (like the HFPA does), nor do we hand out golden trinkets that are supposed to represent some semblance of integrity and valuable judgment of quality (like the HFPA pretends to do.)
We at Awards Daily don’t grift. We don’t give or accept bribes that determine who gets useless golden trinkets that the public has been gaslighted into believing mean something (like the HFPA does.)
We at Awards Daily don’t make creepy demands on studios and filmmakers. We don’t slobber on filmmakers and we don’t grope movie stars (like the HFPA does)
Of course all you racists want to bug your eyes out and act like this all about race.
Not surprisingly, a lot racists are mad that the HFPA is being asked to invite Black members. But none of those racists want to talk about the decades long fraud and ever-worsening blatant financial scam of the HFPA.
All you racists want to do is screech like hysterical maniacs: “WHY DO THEY NEED TO HAVE TO BLACK MEMBERS!!??!!”
I’m not lecturing anyone. Least of all would I ever think the sleazy HFPA would sit still for a lecture from me or anyone else.
Awards Daily is a private business, with less than a dozen staff, so it’s the height of stupid-ass ignorance to wag your idiotic finger and say: “Why don’t the 10 Awards Daily staff represent 25 different minority groups!??”
It’s not just that you’re too stupid to see that HFPA has disgusting problems far beyond matters of race.
You’re showing everyone here that you’re too stupid to know that 10 people can’t represent every race and gender on earth. You’re too stupid to understand arithmetic.
3 women at Awards Daily write over 200 articles every single year for this site.
All 50 women who vote for the golden globes have not written a total of 200 articles in the past 50 years combined.
But go ahead. Keep talking about how you think it’s cool and perfectly normal for the Golden Globes to have only one Black former member in their entire 80-year history.
Keep announcing that you see no need for Black voters.
That way we can all see what a truly creepy racist you are.
We see that you’re proud to be a racist.
Smart: attacking someone for supposedly ‘being racist’ and later blocking him so he cannot answer.
I’m not racist.
You are.
As you don’t see any other races except black and white people.
World is more complicated and therefore diversity can be achieved differently than just by adding black members as tokens to satisfy such mindless morons as you.
“You’re showing everyone here that you’re too stupid to know that 10 people can’t represent every race and gender on earth.” The same might be said about 87 people from HFPA. 🙂
But whatever. We all know that you are sociopathic, psychothic and doesn’t deserve to be treated like a human being. 🙂
You are piece of trash. 🙂
And whatever you’ll answer we’ll only confirm this. 🙂
I didn’t ban you. Sasha did.
Good luck telling this to Americans! They might have good intentions but they’re blind to nuance.
What’s going to happen is the GG is going to get a token black from England or Africa to be a member. Betcha.
super-cool attitude
so the current 80 HFPA voters (a bunch of random nobodies) are somehow all eminently qualified distinguished experts?
but you expect any new Black movie journalist member to surely be nothing but a token ornamental nonentity?
the pejorative word “token” sounds good to you, does it?
It sounds as it should.
They will add black members just to answer Time’s Up’s hysteria so they will be tokens.
Time’s Up is the reason for this: that black people are treated as tokens.
Well-said, Pete! … As for Asian actors, historically, the Academy has always had a curious blind spot about them. Even when they star in Best Picture winners and nominees, they’re often invisible at nomination time. ”The Last Emperor” (1987) starred John Lone, a Golden Globe nominee. It got 9 Oscar nominations, but none for its actors. ”Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” received 14 BAFTA nominations, including 2 acting nods for Michelle Yeoh and Ziyi Zhang. It got 10 Oscar nominations, but none for its actors. ”Slumdog Millionaire” (2008) won SAG Ensemble and Dev Patel was nominated for a SAG and a BAFTA. It got 10 Oscar nominations, but none for its actors. ”Parasite” (2019) won SAG Ensemble and L.A. Film Critics cited Kang-ho Song for Supporting. It got 6 Oscar nominations, but none for its actors. … Finally, this year, the Academy nominated 2 Asian actors from a Best Picture nominee (”Minari”), and one of them even won!
The Academy as well as film lovers in general ignore the current generational talent coming from Asia at their own peril.
The thing I find the most interesting is that Black Americans make up only 15% of the population. The way that it’s being portrayed in the media makes it feel like it’s 40% or more.
And so what if it is? Are we a caste system where you only get a share appropriate to your demographic size? Either we’re “all men are created equal” or we’re making spreadsheets so folks know to stay in their lane. statistically speaking. I know what I’d like.
When will a black or brown or yellow person win an Oscar without all the self-flagellation that it might not be legitimate. What has to happen for this to be the case.
Calm down. I just thought that that was interesting since I’m Canadian and never knew the percentage of Black Americans until reading this article.
Sorry. No offense intended.
I get VERY uncomfortable personally when some pundits use demographics as a “yeah but” when it comes to discussions of racial matters or social justice or similar.
Did not intend to paint you with that kind of brush, sincere apologies.
I think the 40% is more for the people of color, which of course we never get 40% of POC winning. Not even remotely close.
The problem is that they have 10 films directed by women a year (a random number, of course) but they force the Academy to recognize a woman. To nominate two or three or five women. To have at least 40-50% Black nominees.
The problem is not with the Academy or the HFPA. It’s with the industry that didn’t give minorities a fair shot. But it works for the industry to pretend that it’s the Oscars or the Globes that are responsible for this injustice.
If you want Black women to win lead actress, write great parts for them. Not just for Viola Davis who’s not even close to being the best Black actress around. Write great parts for the many wonderful women of color. If you want female directors to win Oscars, give them a shot. Allow them to make great films, give them money. But of course, it’s the Oscars or the Globes that are the anti-heroes here. And Hollywood can indulge in fake woke tweets while the next Weinstein is inviting young wannabes to his hotel suite and the next Scott Rudin, who might even be a woman, is ruining lives.
” Write great parts for the many wonderful women… If you want female directors to win Oscars, give them a shot. Allow them to make great films.”
Yes! That will most certainly solve the problem! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/08ec9c8e04bde874aaf7208a720bf60984cc0902163300210c6afc6df4a9da70.jpg
”They also matter because they are the only major group that singles out musicals.”
I agree. This will be a ”major bummer,” especially in a season that promises ”In the Heights,” ”West Side Story” and ”Dear Evan Hansen.” Musicals nowadays rarely get much respect at the Oscars. The last one to win Best Picture was ”Chicago” (2002), and only 2 musicals have been nominated for the top prize since: ”Les Miserables” and ”La La Land.” But the Globes LOVE musicals. In that same period, the HFPA has nominated over 15 musicals, and 4 of them won the Golden Globe: ”Dreamgirls,” ”Sweeney Todd,” ”Les Miserables” and ”La La Land” (which won an historic 7 out of 7 Globe nominations).
Another genre that gets little respect at the Oscars is Comedy. ”Some Like It Hot” couldn’t get nominated for Best Picture, but at the Globes, it won Best Comedy, plus prizes for Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe (who wasn’t Oscar-nominated either). Granted, sometimes what the Globes categorizes as a comedy can be a joke: like ”The Martian” WINNING in this category. But because the Globes has this Comedy/Musical category, it’s nominated other recent fine films that went totally unnoticed at the Oscars, like ”(500) Days of Summer,” ”Dolemite Is My Name” and ”Crazy Rich Asians.”
The Globes nominates musicals b/c they have a full separate category for it so there’s more room. Les Miserables was also nominated as BP at the Oscars when they expanded the field.
I’m sure Dreamgirls and Sweeney Todd would have made the cut if the field was expanded.
I also like the fact that the Golden Globes sometimes recognizes performances in comedies and musicals often overlooked by the Oscars. For example, Hugh Grant won for ”Four Weddings and a Funeral,” and Richard Gere for ”Chicago.” Yet despite their extensive filmographies, they have yet to be even NOMINATED at the Academy Awards.
Annette will break that stat big time
At least Bening has won a Golden Globe twice and has 4 Oscar nominations.
Gere has appeared opposite Julia Roberts in ”Pretty Woman,” Debra Winger in ”An Officer and a Gentleman,” Renee Zellweger in ”Chicago,” and Diane Lane in ”Unfaithful.” Each one of his female co-stars got Oscar nominated, but never him.
let me ask…
1) can’t the HFPA still go on with another Network?
2) are the Globes actually cancelled or just the aired ceremony?
3) don’t Oscar need the Globes first, to increase the hype on their own ceremony?
1) Yes, it can. But good luck with that.
2) Aired ceremony on NBC
3) Debatable. The Oscars is the last ceremony and in recent years there are talks that by the time the Oscars roll around, there’s an award shows fatigue; so with the absence of the Globes, it will be less so?
well, the less precursors, the higher the stakes at Oscar. For example, this year, the Supporting Actress race derailed – in excitement – when Youn started winning most. And Actor and Supporting Actor became boring races in the last month – however we had that final twist with Sir Anthony Hopkins!
Actually, less precursors, more obvious choices because there won’t be Globes to mess things up.
So without them everything will be BORING.
Not necessarily true. This year’s Globes were outliers but in the past, Globes often started the trends in the four acting categories. In the last 20 years, 3 to all 4 Globe winners went on to win the Oscar. During the same period, they had a better track record than the SAG Awards. If you take a look at numerous races in the past 10 years, they were all decided by the Globe winner. And the BFCA made sure to move its date after the Globes to be able to copy their winners most of the time.
Ironically, Youn didn’t even win at the Globes.
Because the Globes considered ”Minari” a Foreign Language film, I believe Youn wasn’t even considered eligible to be NOMINATED for Supporting Actress.
She was considered. 🙂 Awkwafina won acting Globe last year for a movie that was nominated as foreign language.
That isn’t true. It only disqualified from competing in BP lineup. Bong was nominated for BD and screenplay and Parasite was in FL category.
You’re right. But the Globes seldom seem to nominate actors from foreign language film. Do you remember the last one? … I guess there was some buzz about Sophia Loren (”The Life Ahead”) getting nominated, but that didn’t happen.
And don’t think that weirdness with Minari at the Globes wasn’t noticed by, oh, everyone.
And don’t think that weirdness with Minari at the Globes wasn’t noticed by, oh, everyone.
Remember on Oscar Night when the clueless “journalist” asked Daniel Kaluuya what it was like to be directed by Regina King?
That was HFPA “reporter” Margaret Gardiner who confused Daniel Kaluuya with fellow nominated Black actor Leslie Odom Jr.
Not only does she apparently think Kaluuya and Odom look too much alike to tell them apart. .. She can’t even be bothered to pay attention to which role in which movie had just won the Oscar.
Beyond embarrassing. It was disgraceful.
That’s the caliber of Golden Globes voters.
But hey, at least Margaret Gardiner is from Africa!
… South Africa… White South Africa… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d86674dbc77c2157db722c6baea121d07a92cb2dcc383b445c388547d59d8c3.gif
Remember on Oscar Night when the clueless “journalist” asked Daniel Kaluuya what it was like to be directed by Regina King?
That was HFPA “reporter” Margaret Gardiner who confused Daniel Kaluuya with fellow nominated Black actor Leslie Odom Jr.
Not only does she apparently think Kaluuya and Odom look too much alike to tell them apart. .. She can’t even be bothered to pay attention to which role in which movie had just won the Oscar.
Beyond embarrassing. It was disgraceful.
That’s the caliber of Golden Globes voters.
But hey, at least Margaret Gardiner is from Africa!
… South Africa… White South Africa… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d86674dbc77c2157db722c6baea121d07a92cb2dcc383b445c388547d59d8c3.gif
It’s a big time mistake by NBC not to make some of this stuff front and center when they made the decision they made
none of the nominees won at the Globes… lol
Oscar moved back to January. This makes Telluride and Toronto white hot important
Yes, and this will make the season even duller, as voters won’t have the time to watch anything. This year, a film like The Father could only muster enough support for two wins because voters had the time to actually watch it. A February date is critical in this regard. A January date would be a nightmare of bandwagon voting.
Campaigns will need to adjust their tactics then. Release contenders in September right after Telluride. Get screeners or the digital links to the films sent out as early as possible. Book SECOND theatrical runs after the nominations are announced to get the films back in front of audiences who may have missed.
Campaigning for Oscar is almost as important as making the damn film to begin with.
What audiences? Such a short award season absolutely eliminates audiences from the picture.
And this would never work. It’s all about timing. Asking Oscar voters to watch a lot of films over their Christmas break (at the end of a traditionally busy December — because studios won’t give up on cashing on their big movies on Christmas Day, no matter what the Oscars do) would never be a wise idea. Because we all know that they simply won’t watch them. This year, voters had time to actually watch the films and they went their own way in several key categories. And this happens… well, almost never in the universe of February Oscars.
I think BP winner comes out of Telluride or Toronto. I will be curious which of the bigger budget films will have their premieres there.
It’s insane to me that intent doesn’t matter to these puritanical wackos. It’s one of the most anti-intellectual things from a group (progressives) that think of themselves as intellectuals.
Where are Edward R. Murrows and Joseph N. Welches when you need them?
Do they even exist in modern day USA? To confront this new witch-hunting, inquisiton madness and blacklisting?
This was published in Harper’s:
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
I was signed by Noam Chomsky, Gloria Steinem, Cornel West, Matthew Yglesias, and Fareed Zakaria, among many others. The notion that journalists and leftists aren’t talking about this is inaccurate.
Gosh, if only those uppity colored people would just understand their place, amirite?
And who is talking about people of color ? Twitter inquisition and their high priests are …like 90% white.
I think there is much much more to this topic than something as superficial as % of nominees/winners vs. % of population. There is a tendency of people to avoid drilling deeper and that accomplishes nothing when talking about topics as sensitive as this.
“Twitter inquisition and their high priests are …like 90% white.”
False.
Is it not painful to pull such a weirdly inflated number out of your butthole?
We all know that you are moron, Ryan, you don’t have to prove it once again.
“Someone”
Why bother to hide like a coward behind a fake disqus nick?
Fake disqus IDs to pretend you’re more than one person aren’t allowed at AD, and unprovoked personal insults aren’t allowed at AD.
They are eating their own. I just don’t get it. It will be interesting to see how things will go this next year…..but it will also be interesting to see the consequences of these radical decisions to dismantle all these awards voting bodies from Globes to BAFTA….soon there may be nothing left, but ashes. It’s sad.