Subscribe To Golden Globe Nomination Surprises: What Does It All Mean? Updates
I've already subscribed
This morning's Golden Globes announcements arrived, as usual, with a bunch of surprises in tow. WIth so many different categories the Globes always manage to nominate some out-there pick, but even the savviest industry insiders probably wouldn't have predicted three whole nominations for Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, or for Tom Hooper to miss out on a Best Director nomination for Les Miserables, or for Bill Murray's Hyde Park on Hudson performance to somehow make the cut.
To go over the biggest surprises from this morning's announcement (see the full list of nominees here), Katey and Sean got together to go over their own reactions, figure out if this "Nicole Kidman in The Paperboy" thing is really happening, and wonder if the fact that the Globes went so crazy for Django Unchained could mean stronger Oscar chances than expected. Read below and let us know your own thoughts in the comments!
KATEY: Sean, the Golden Globes are always known for their crazy nominations, whether it's padding out the Comedy/Musical category with nonsense or picking random celebrities they adore for nominations they totally don't deserve. But while this morning's nominations are less embarrassing than usual-- Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is no The Tourist-- they're no less surprising. What really dropped your jaw?
SEAN: Kidman. Clearly, Nicole Kidman for The Paperboy. Yesterday, I laughed. Today, I'm actively campaigning on her behalf for an Oscar. It's amazing how quickly one can swing like a weathervane. I still don't think she gives a good performance. It's brash and trashy and not part of the movie ... she's off in her own little world. And there are other performances I'd want to see nominated above her, if we were judging on talent. But "talent" isn't always a factor in the awards season, and now I'm hoping Kidman wins. Not just :gets nominated." Wins.
KATEY: Alright, let's separate your hatred of Les Mis from what's actually happening with Nicole Kidman here. She gave a fantastic, totally uninhibited performance in a terrible movie- and while I know the Globes are known for nominating celebrities beyond all reason, her nod here still feels like a wonderful miracle. Something surprising! In the awards season! How can you even be cynical about that?
SEAN: You are TOTALLY misreading me. I am not trying to be cynical about it at all. If Kidman ONLY got a Globes nomination, I would lampoon it the way I bitched about Jolie and Depp. The fact that SAG recognized her, also, though, is a whole new ballgame. I honestly believe she has a chance. Honestly!
KATEY: But if you want to talk Les Mis hate-- Tom Hooper didn't get nominated for Best Director at all. Whatcha think about that?
SEAN: The snub is bad. But not terrible. With the Globes, obviously, you have 10 pictures total (from two categories), but only five director slots. Five have to be left out. Is it a bit of a slap in the face that Ang Lee likely took his seat at the table? Sure. Not getting in is a deal. Not a big deal. But a deal. It's a chink in the armor of Les Mis' awards chances. And if we're being honest, Life of Pi is a much better directed film than Les Mis, so I'm thrilled by his inclusion in the category. But David O. Russell also was left out of that category, and I still think he's one of the five who gets in.
KATEY: Wait you think Ang Lee took Hooper's spot? I think it's Quentin Tarantino. Django Unchained showed up WAY more in this list than I ever expected, and I wonder if it's a factor of just how many stars are in that movie, or if Django is going to wind up being more popular with non-critics than I ever expected.
SEAN: Django did surprise me ... sort of. One reason I think it might have received a lot of love plays into something we said yesterday. There are far less members of the HFPA than there are actors in SAG. It was much easier for Weinstein to get copies of Django into their hands. And Tarantino's films play better to international critics. I really, really don't think it will play to the Academy.
KATEY: I still don't think so either, but it will be fun to see what happens when all the actors are there at the Globes-- and though the Globes will happen after Oscar noms go out, if DiCaprio gets the Oscar nod then wins at the Globes, we could see a really interesting turn there.
What the Globes are good for more than anything is showing Oscar voters how fun it would be to have this person win-- and that's a really powerful thing. So while I think Django still won't make it in for Picture or Director or anything, there could be some strength in that Supporting Actor category that the Globes boost.
SEAN: More than anything, though, I can say that nothing in today's nominations angered me. Just about every movie that was recognized could be argued for. Lincoln still feels like the frontrunner, and it led all with 7 nominations. Meryl Streep showing up for Hope Springs isn't a travesty. She's actually fantastic in that film. Emily Blunt deserves all of the love that she gets. Jack Black gets recognized for Bernie. Anna Karenina finally got a few nods. Is there anything on the list today that flat-out angered you?
KATEY: ParaNorman getting snubbed in Animated Feature. And Matthew McConaughey left out of Supporting Actor. They should love him!
SEAN: They should. Totally agree. He seemed like a slam dunk for the Globes. Don't they normally eat stuff like Magic Mike up? I have to say I am THRILLED for Richard Gere. If there were any justice, he'd be getting far more consideration. But that's the ups and downs of the annual awards season, no?
KATEY: Totally-- and that's the nice way to think about the Globes, as a way to give some awards to people who won't make it into the Oscars. That's at least far less frustrating than trying to figure out if the Globes predict the Oscars. They're a sideshow! But a fun sideshow, lucky for us.