Tangled Up In Wires

Since we missed out on the Golden Globes nominations, we decided we’d talk about them through a new feature, TUIW Conversation:

Michael: In all this end of the year/decade list making, I didn’t even notice the Golden Globe nominations were out until several hours later.

Jonah: Yeah, it feels insanely early to me for some reason. And, of course, the Globes are kind of a joke anyway (a theme I feel like we may return to). What did you think?

M: I agree. The Emmy’s have already dolled out praise for the TV world, and the Oscars are far more significant in the film world. This year especially just feels like a reiteration of every other list and award show out there. The nominees didn’t really wow me.

J: Totally. Starting with the film categories, there were more nominees from Best Animated Feature that ended up on our Top Ten List than Best Comedy and Drama combined. Even the weird choices like Avatar and Inglorious Basterds are the ones everyone expects to get Oscar nominations. And that Comedy category is pretty dire. The Hangover? (500) Days of Summer? Really?

M: I think the problem there is too many categories. In TV, it makes sense to have separate Comedy and Drama categories because the format of the two is often so radically different. While The Hangover and (500) Days of Summer might be enjoyable, they’re not award caliber movies. Even in the acting category, there are 8 nominees between Comedy and Drama acting, I mean it’s serious overkill.

J: Yeah, any system that comes up with two nominations for Sandra Bullock and zero for Jeremy Renner is deeply flawed. Looking at the films, I have a hard time whipping up too much enthusiasm for 2009. So many of these movies feel calculated to win awards. From Nine to The Last Station, its just hard to get that excited about any of them. Do you think we’re starting to approach a point where, just like how summer movies are engineered and test screened more like a product than a creative work, prestige films are starting to be made according to a formula to try and win awards? Does that even make sense?

M: I think you make a good point, and I think that we might be heading that way, but I don’t know if the Golden Globes are the best indicator. I think the Sandra Bullock – Jeremy Renner example just shows how insignificant these awards are. Just like there’s no reason The Hangover should have gotten any nominations, Sandra Bullock in The Proposal shouldn’t have gotten any nominations. It just backs up the notion that the Globes serve no other purpose than to fuel Hollywood hype machine. I think we can call it a bigger trend if the Oscar nominations are similar. At least it seems they got there TV nominations right. The two Best Show categories look solid, don’t you think?

J: Well, given how crazy they can sometimes be I think they did a decent job, it just depends on how full you see the glass as being. On the bright side, it was nice to see Big Love get big upped and Mad Men (even though that was predictable). And, since I was pretty sure I’m the only person who still watches Damages, I was pleasantly surprised to see Glenn Close and William Hurt get nominations. And boy, that NPH vs. Michael Emerson match-up is pretty tough. Which way would you go there? And what other praiseworthy stuff am I missing?

M: Man, that one is a tough call. NPH hasn’t won yet, so he probably deserves it as far as that’s concerned, but Michael Emerson is just so good on Lost. It’s not really praiseworthy, but I don’t know how I feel about Entourage getting a nomination. One one hand, it’s not that good anymore. On the other, it’s still better than some of the crap that CBS puts out there (How I Met Your Mother excluded). It’s interesting in light of the film nominations. Would you rather have something with a pedigree (a higher concept HBO series, a film made for awards) or something that is more popular than high quality (a run of the mill sitcom, a fairly standard R rated comedy)?

J: That’s a really good point, and its interesting to see the Globes try to walk the line between Serious Award Show (and Predictor of the Oscars/Emmys) and a star-studded ratings fest. For every Glenn Close nod, there’s something like Simon Baker getting in for Psych 2: The Squeakquel. Its awfully telling that it’s Glee and Modern Family, the two big fall hits, that were the only two brand new series to get nominations, instead of something like Parks and Recreation or Community. And its so random that they’ll cast out old shows like Lost and 30 Rock, past nominees who still had solid seasons, while leaving in Dexter, House, and Entourage, which are all pretty clearly past their prime. Do the Globes want to be taken seriously? Is that beside the point? And is that even a worthwhile question to ask when talking about something as arbitrary as awards for art?

M: Well let’s not forget that the it hasn’t been that long since the Writer’s Strike, and that reduced the ceremony to a press conference. In a way, it seems like they’re still trying to recover from that. And honestly, they’re still above made for TV crap like the People’s Choice Awards and actually established crap like the Grammy’s (that’s a whole different ballgame). I think the biggest gripe I have is that the Golden Globes try to be a combination of the Oscars and Emmys, but really, they’re just holiday and awards season PR tools. What sells movies and DVDs better than “nominated for…”? Do you think maybe we’re just too over saturated with awards? Is that the downfall of the Golden Globes?

J: I agree there’s just too damn many awards, especially given that not a one has veered from the Hurt Locker/Up in the Air script. But the Globes still seem to be the most popular non-Oscar ones thanks to the can’t-miss combo of celebrities and booze. And you’ve got to give them credit for not taking what they do too seriously; as upset as people get sometimes, I think this stuff should still be about having fun. Honestly, regardless of who was nominated and who wins, they’ve pretty much guaranteed my viewership by bringing in Ricky Gervais to host, which may be the smartest move they’ve made in a while, although I’m not sure if a pudgy Englishman spells instant ratings success. Do you think the addition of a host is a good move for them? Will you be watching?

M: Yes, we can’t forget Ricky Gervais, the redeeming quality of the awards. I agree, he’ll be the only reason I watch. Maybe picking him as host is a step in the right direction for the awards? We’ll see I suppose.