The Golden Globes and Screen Actor's Guild have made their nominations and several critics societies have made their choices on this years outings. It looks as though "The Artist," "The Descendents" and "The Help." I'm dying to see "The Artist" so I am happy to hear the buzz (haven't caught "Descendents" yet, but want to). I was pleased to see nominations for "Midnight in Paris" - one of my favorites this year. Also happy to see some nods for "Bridesmaids," "50/50," "Ides of March" and "Moneyball."
I was, however, very disappointed not to see nod for "Ides of March" and "Moneyball" for ensemble cast at that SAG awards. I also think the show and cast of "Parks and Rec" was snubbed. I was also hoping against all odds to see some acknowledgment for "Raising Hope" in the TV department, because I love the show, but nobody watches it.
What are your thoughts? Good picks so far, bad picks so far?
Yeah I was looking over the list of the Golden Globe noms, and it reenforced my feeling that this year had a bunch of decent movies, but not too many great ones. I hope 50/50 wins things. I also really want to see The Artist. I don't know, the Globes aren't that interesting to me, they tend to nominate odd choices for the most part, and usually give a forgettable film the big award over the deserving one (Atonement won best picture over No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood... I was unaware the voting committee was made up of my mom and her friends).
I've given up on awards, as far as Oscars and Emmy's and Golden Globes go. I feel they don't really represent any reliable objective rating of one film over another, and if they could do that, they don't, because they are all so politicized as to make them irrelevant as critique.
You can say all the winners are good movies, but you could say all the nominees are generally as good, too. In this case, the old saw: "it's an honor just to be nominated", I think is as far as I'm interested in going. Nominated means it may very likely be worth my time to evaluate. Not gettign nominated means I would give it a lower priority in my list of things that I might watch, but it wouldn't stop me from seeing it.
But since films are so different from each other in so many ways, to rank one "over" another subjectively from that nomination point onwards, is, to me, nonsensical. People like to compete, they like "horse races', fine. But it makes no more sense than "competing" a Monet and a Picasso against each other.