Golden Globes: the aftermath
January 21st, 2002
Well, the awards have been given out. To care whether one wins or loses -- or even if ones favorite film or actress took the prize -- is to miss the point. But there were some pleasant surprises and triumphs at the awards, as well as some mind-boggling decisions. As for my predictions, I came out about fifty-fifty.
The pleasant surprises:
Jennifer Connelly -- best supporting actress.
Jim Broadbent -- best supporting actor.
Jennifer Garner -- best lead actress (TV).
Rachel Griffiths -- best supporting actress (TV).
Six Feet Under -- best TV series (drama).
The less-than-spectacular choices:
Sarah Jessica Parker -- best lead actress (TV; comedy).
Sex and the City -- best TV show (comedy).
Akiva Goldsman -- best screenplay.
Moulin Rouge -- best musical or comedy.
A Beautiful Mind -- best drama.
I forgive the Golden Globes all of their mistakes for awarding the two Jennifers: Jen Garner and Jen Connelly. If there were two people I wanted to see win this night, it was them. Especially Garner, whose show was actually aired against the telecast! (A morbidly overweight Quentin Tarantino guest-starred.) Garner is doing beautiful work on a show that manages, through good writing and acting, to be a cartoon with a soul. She holds the show on her toned shoulders and everyone takes her able lead. As for Connelly -- it was as much for the performance as for her. Shes been good for years, but the only ones who noticed were overstimulated youngsters like myself who couldnt get over the knock-yourself-senseless comeliness that she possessed. Finally her work has jumped to the level of her looks, and, with this movie and many more to come, I dont think Connelly will ever look back.
Jennifer Garner, by the way, looking simply and adorably sumptuous with a minimum of make-up and a casual red dress, shook her head in true bewilderment and admiration when she won. For once, it looked like an actor actually appreciated the award. On stage, possibly uninhibited thanks to a few glasses of wine, Garner exposed an amazingly sweet and refreshingly real nature. She was touchingly sincere in her thanks to her cast and TV-series creator. Her beauty, if youll allow me, is only matched by her genuine pleasantness and consideration. (I guess Garner, like any other celeb who doesnt come off blase and full of themselves, is a breath of fresh air.)
Rachel Griffiths win was another victory for good taste. That Six Feet Under took the prize for best TV drama was icing on the cake. It stoked my faith in man that Six beat out thoughtless always-winners The Sopranos and The West Wing. Now if everyone else would change their ways...
David Lynch unfortunately didnt win best director. The prize went to Robert Altman for his impeccable Gosford Park. If Lynch couldnt have it, I guess it might as well have gone to old master Altman, but...damn! Lynch really deserved to win. His film, along with his directing, is an uncorrupted masterpiece, and represents a confluence of manifold destinies and talents that forms a stunning vision.
Im glad to see Jim Broadbent, who was the only tolerable thing in Moulin Rouge, win for best supporting actor. I never thought hed get it because so few have seen his movie.
Keifer Sutherlands win was a surprise. For all thats going on right now with 24, Keifer is really the least of it. After the first episode he hasnt been able to act; his character is getting yanked violently from various people, so hes whoever they want him to be. I think Peter Krause should have taken it home.
Charlie Sheen beat out Ed (Tom Cavanaugh). What a railroading. Well, at least they recognize the show ED and its lead actor. Right...?
Nicole Kidman beat out Thora Birch, Cate Blanchett and Renne Zellweger for her awfully stiff performance in that brain-popper Moulin Rouge. Though Im not a fan of his, the only one who came through in Rouge was Ewan McGregor. Everyone else, including Kidman, could not keep up with Baz Luhrmanns schizoid tone. The actors in that movie were forced to go from lugubrious dying-love anthems to roaring slapstick and back again within sixty seconds.
Sissy Spacek took best actress in a drama, which is just fine with me. Russell Crowe won for best actor in a drama, beating out a worthy Denzel Washington (who I thought was a lock).
And now to the egregious choices:
Sarah Jessica Parker takes home another award, and her show Sex and the City grabbed the best comedy TV prize. Am I the only one who sees through this show? Im guessing people think of this as daring because of the dreadful state of network TV. I say I guess because -- otherwise -- I just dont get it. This is a juvenile romper that has the opposite effect of shock, and uses its actors bodies to help itself out. Its weak and its worthless, so let the awards roll in...!
The most shocking moment was when Akiva Goldsman won for best screenplay over Chris Nolan. Could it be that Memento came out too long ago? What other reason could there be? If there was one award I thought Nolan was a lock for, it was screenplay. And considering his writing on that project was as strong as anything in the last ten years, I think he deserved it. For no other reason than for its supreme inventiveness and intelligence -- two things missing from most scripts nowadays.
Moulin Rouge didnt have much competition -- Gosford Park and Shrek are better flicks -- but couldnt the people giving out the awards see beyond this bumptious movies glitzy facade? Rouge is exhausting for all the wrong reasons. Its less a movie and more a burst of colorful confetti shot into the air. Director Baz Luhrmann mistakes style and confidence with a never-stops-zooming camera and cuts so fast youll swear youre being snapped into a fit.
The sets are opulent and beautiful; the costumes, design, make-up and other showiness are all spectacular. But Mr. Luhrmann cuts in and out of it so fast you cant gage more than an impression.
Luhrmann represents the worst of the music-video instincts. And Nicole Kidman calling him a visionary is scary.
Its all a shame, too, because Rouge could have sounded the return to the musical.
As for the show itself, the Golden Globes are, basically, what they are. I always admired the no-frills way they get the celebs onstage, skip the bad jokes, and announce the winners. Thats all we want. We dont want Billy Crystal or whoever hamming it up with dance numbers. Save for the bizarrely lame and hokey song at the end of the preshow, the evening was (thankfully) quick and lacking the usual self-absorption and folly that makes these things so vexing.
One of the best moments, by the way, came when Jim Broadbent forgot who had given him his award. And thanks, he said, to the... -- he searched his mind for the name, and when he couldnt come up with Foreign Press Association, said -- ...the Golden Globes.
There was a touching and brief mention of Ted Demme by friend Kevin Spacey. Thought that was fitting and nice.
And on a superficial subject --
Thora Birch looks like she lost one hundred pounds. With her luminous white skin glowing like burnished ivory, she regained the baby-cheeked splendor she exposed in American Beauty. Helen Mirren, with a bad haircut, bad hair color, and horrible make-up, looked fifty years older than she really is. Helen is an attractive woman. What the hell happened?
And finally...
What in the hell was up with Angelina Jolies eyebrows? Was this some sort of homage to the late artist Frida Kahlo? Shes playing right into the hands of the people who scorn her.
Anyway, my friends, have a good one.
-- Darwin Mayflower (darwinmayflower@yahoo.com)
The pleasant surprises:
Jennifer Connelly -- best supporting actress.
Jim Broadbent -- best supporting actor.
Jennifer Garner -- best lead actress (TV).
Rachel Griffiths -- best supporting actress (TV).
Six Feet Under -- best TV series (drama).
The less-than-spectacular choices:
Sarah Jessica Parker -- best lead actress (TV; comedy).
Sex and the City -- best TV show (comedy).
Akiva Goldsman -- best screenplay.
Moulin Rouge -- best musical or comedy.
A Beautiful Mind -- best drama.
I forgive the Golden Globes all of their mistakes for awarding the two Jennifers: Jen Garner and Jen Connelly. If there were two people I wanted to see win this night, it was them. Especially Garner, whose show was actually aired against the telecast! (A morbidly overweight Quentin Tarantino guest-starred.) Garner is doing beautiful work on a show that manages, through good writing and acting, to be a cartoon with a soul. She holds the show on her toned shoulders and everyone takes her able lead. As for Connelly -- it was as much for the performance as for her. Shes been good for years, but the only ones who noticed were overstimulated youngsters like myself who couldnt get over the knock-yourself-senseless comeliness that she possessed. Finally her work has jumped to the level of her looks, and, with this movie and many more to come, I dont think Connelly will ever look back.
Jennifer Garner, by the way, looking simply and adorably sumptuous with a minimum of make-up and a casual red dress, shook her head in true bewilderment and admiration when she won. For once, it looked like an actor actually appreciated the award. On stage, possibly uninhibited thanks to a few glasses of wine, Garner exposed an amazingly sweet and refreshingly real nature. She was touchingly sincere in her thanks to her cast and TV-series creator. Her beauty, if youll allow me, is only matched by her genuine pleasantness and consideration. (I guess Garner, like any other celeb who doesnt come off blase and full of themselves, is a breath of fresh air.)
Rachel Griffiths win was another victory for good taste. That Six Feet Under took the prize for best TV drama was icing on the cake. It stoked my faith in man that Six beat out thoughtless always-winners The Sopranos and The West Wing. Now if everyone else would change their ways...
David Lynch unfortunately didnt win best director. The prize went to Robert Altman for his impeccable Gosford Park. If Lynch couldnt have it, I guess it might as well have gone to old master Altman, but...damn! Lynch really deserved to win. His film, along with his directing, is an uncorrupted masterpiece, and represents a confluence of manifold destinies and talents that forms a stunning vision.
Im glad to see Jim Broadbent, who was the only tolerable thing in Moulin Rouge, win for best supporting actor. I never thought hed get it because so few have seen his movie.
Keifer Sutherlands win was a surprise. For all thats going on right now with 24, Keifer is really the least of it. After the first episode he hasnt been able to act; his character is getting yanked violently from various people, so hes whoever they want him to be. I think Peter Krause should have taken it home.
Charlie Sheen beat out Ed (Tom Cavanaugh). What a railroading. Well, at least they recognize the show ED and its lead actor. Right...?
Nicole Kidman beat out Thora Birch, Cate Blanchett and Renne Zellweger for her awfully stiff performance in that brain-popper Moulin Rouge. Though Im not a fan of his, the only one who came through in Rouge was Ewan McGregor. Everyone else, including Kidman, could not keep up with Baz Luhrmanns schizoid tone. The actors in that movie were forced to go from lugubrious dying-love anthems to roaring slapstick and back again within sixty seconds.
Sissy Spacek took best actress in a drama, which is just fine with me. Russell Crowe won for best actor in a drama, beating out a worthy Denzel Washington (who I thought was a lock).
And now to the egregious choices:
Sarah Jessica Parker takes home another award, and her show Sex and the City grabbed the best comedy TV prize. Am I the only one who sees through this show? Im guessing people think of this as daring because of the dreadful state of network TV. I say I guess because -- otherwise -- I just dont get it. This is a juvenile romper that has the opposite effect of shock, and uses its actors bodies to help itself out. Its weak and its worthless, so let the awards roll in...!
The most shocking moment was when Akiva Goldsman won for best screenplay over Chris Nolan. Could it be that Memento came out too long ago? What other reason could there be? If there was one award I thought Nolan was a lock for, it was screenplay. And considering his writing on that project was as strong as anything in the last ten years, I think he deserved it. For no other reason than for its supreme inventiveness and intelligence -- two things missing from most scripts nowadays.
Moulin Rouge didnt have much competition -- Gosford Park and Shrek are better flicks -- but couldnt the people giving out the awards see beyond this bumptious movies glitzy facade? Rouge is exhausting for all the wrong reasons. Its less a movie and more a burst of colorful confetti shot into the air. Director Baz Luhrmann mistakes style and confidence with a never-stops-zooming camera and cuts so fast youll swear youre being snapped into a fit.
The sets are opulent and beautiful; the costumes, design, make-up and other showiness are all spectacular. But Mr. Luhrmann cuts in and out of it so fast you cant gage more than an impression.
Luhrmann represents the worst of the music-video instincts. And Nicole Kidman calling him a visionary is scary.
Its all a shame, too, because Rouge could have sounded the return to the musical.
As for the show itself, the Golden Globes are, basically, what they are. I always admired the no-frills way they get the celebs onstage, skip the bad jokes, and announce the winners. Thats all we want. We dont want Billy Crystal or whoever hamming it up with dance numbers. Save for the bizarrely lame and hokey song at the end of the preshow, the evening was (thankfully) quick and lacking the usual self-absorption and folly that makes these things so vexing.
One of the best moments, by the way, came when Jim Broadbent forgot who had given him his award. And thanks, he said, to the... -- he searched his mind for the name, and when he couldnt come up with Foreign Press Association, said -- ...the Golden Globes.
There was a touching and brief mention of Ted Demme by friend Kevin Spacey. Thought that was fitting and nice.
And on a superficial subject --
Thora Birch looks like she lost one hundred pounds. With her luminous white skin glowing like burnished ivory, she regained the baby-cheeked splendor she exposed in American Beauty. Helen Mirren, with a bad haircut, bad hair color, and horrible make-up, looked fifty years older than she really is. Helen is an attractive woman. What the hell happened?
And finally...
What in the hell was up with Angelina Jolies eyebrows? Was this some sort of homage to the late artist Frida Kahlo? Shes playing right into the hands of the people who scorn her.
Anyway, my friends, have a good one.
-- Darwin Mayflower (darwinmayflower@yahoo.com)
Comments
Only logged-in members can comment. You can log in or join today for free!
Advertisement
