What the Golden Globes mean for the Oscars

I don't watch the Golden Globes because the organization that hosts it is a complete joke and their picks are rarely adventurous and often ludicrous. However, it's become a staple of the movie awards season and all the big stars turn out for it.

It is, officially, an "event."

Receiving a GG is now considered second only to the Oscars in terms of a career boost, with probably a Screen Actors Guild award coming in third. So although the awards themselves are imho just this side of a joke, they undoubtedly have an influence on the Oscar race.

The Globes can solidify a film or performance that is already seen as a frontrunner. More notably, it can also shore up someone who's on the bubble and put them over the line of getting an Academy Award nomination.

Here's how I see the impact of this year's Globes:

• A lot of people were surprised by "1917" winning best drama and Sam Mendes taking director, but I said right after I saw it that it would be a leading Best Picture contender. It has all the ingredients of a classic Oscar pedigree: period picture, wonderful production values, antiwar, previous winners on the creative team or cast, etc.

• Renee Zellweger is now the frontrunner for Best Actress. It's a very competitive category with lots of terrific performances. But nostalgia for a Hollywood icon wins the day.

• Ditto for Brad Pitt for best supporting actor. I disagree strongly with this win because I don't see his performance as much of a stretch for him. He's just playing himself: coolest mother-effer in the room.

• I feel the same for Jennifer Lopez, who has been lobbying hard for awards. Laura Dern's wins looks like a career capper for her. A real pro who's been around a long time doing good work.

• Joaquin Phoenix seems to have a solid lead in the Best Actor race. I don't see Taron Egerton, who won the award in the comedy/musical category, as a serious threat. (I would've rather seen that award go to Eddie Murphy.) Adam Driver is the main competition, though I think Christian Bale is the best of the lot.

• Speaking of "Marriage Story," its failure to win a single award doesn't bode well. It even lost the original screenplay award to "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood," which must be cringe-worthy to every screenwriter who can actually string scenes together. Its win in the best musical or comedy (a real stretch of the definition) means "Hollywood" is also among the frontrunners now for best pic.

• REALLY surprised by the best animated film win for "Missing Link." I've been a big Laika fan but this was the weakest film they've produced. If this finally wins the Oscar for them after "Kubo and the Two Strings" failed to, it'll be like Martin Scorsese getting the Oscar for "The Color of Money."

• I liked "The Farewell" even though it's not terribly ambitious. Awkwafina winning best actress in the comedy/musical race probably ensures her a spot on the Oscar nominees list. My girl Emma Thompson, who I think gave the best performance in any category this year, male or female, will probably be shut out.

• There's been a lot of talk about "Parasite" becoming the first foreign language film to win the Best Picture Oscar, so I find it richly ironic that it couldn't even accomplish that in an awards given out by foreign journalists. (It wasn't even nominated, so maybe their rules are different.) Personally I think it's a fine film but nowhere near the best of the year, even among the foreign movies. Its win in the foreign language race would seem to seal its chances at the Oscars, though.

• "The Irishman" is not going to be the awards juggernaut people thought a few months ago. Ditto for "Marriage Story." Netflix had a really good year this year -- "Dolemite Is My Name" is also quite swell-- but as the industry disruptor they're experiencing pushback from traditional Hollywood powers. Giving "Irishman" a BS theatrical run -- handful of big cities for a month, medium cities for a week -- ruffled feathers. Also, more people are recognizing it as an overlong rehash of Marty's 50 years of gangster flicks.

• I did happen to flip on the TV just in time to see Tom Hank's speech, which was touching and nice. He's officially Hollywood's elder statesman now, protector of its mythology.

• I read negative stuff about Ricky Gervais' scorched-earth monologue. Personally I'm all in favor of forcing showbiz types to be confronted with a mirror of their own arrogance. Now do D.C. 

SAG awards are Oscar harbinger

A week ago, I wrote in this space assessing how much the Golden Globes are an indicator of the Academy Awards. Short version: Not very much.

Last night's Screen Actors Guild Awards, though are different. Unlike the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which is basically a phantom organization, the SAG is the powerful actors union. Like the Producers Guild, Directors Guild and Writers Guild, these groups' awards are notable because of the overlap with Academy voters.

People who are members of one of these guilds are often (though certainly not always) also voting members of the Academy. The SAG awards are especially notable because actors make up the largest voting bloc of the Academy.

So as the guild awards go, so often go the Oscars.

There wasn't too much surprise in last night's awards: Jeff Bridges won Best Actor for "Crazy Heart," Christoph Waltz took supporting actor for "Inglourious Basterds," Mo'Nique won supporting actress for "Precious."

At this point, those three should be considered heavy favorites to win the Oscar. Colin Firth didn't get a lot of traction for "A Single Man," mainly because few people saw it. And everyone loves George Clooney in "Up in the Air," but I think there's a sense floating around that he was playing a version of himself -- or at least his star persona.

Whereas Oscar voters love to award actors (actresses, not so much) lifetime achievement awards. So, often a respected actor will take home the statue for a movie most reasonable people would agree is not their best work. Thus, Paul Newman finally won for "The Color of Money" and Al Pacino for "Scent of a Woman" -- fine movies and fine performances, but hardly the pinnacle of their careers.

Essentially, there's a movement underway pushing the idea that it's Jeff Bridges' time. I don't mind, since in this case I think "Crazy Heart" does represent some of his finest work.

The real surprise was Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress for "The Blind Side." Her SAG win is starting me to changing my mind that she can't win the Oscar.

Unlike the Globes, the SAG awards and Oscars don't split up the acting category into dramas and comedies/musicals. So the fact that Bullock won over award favorite Meryl Streep is an indication of genuine respect for Bullock's performance. I think we could dismiss her Globe win to her film's excellent box office performance -- the Globes are the epitome of favoring the most popular over the best films. Not SAG.

The other big contender, Carey Mulligan, appears to be sliding. Not very many people saw "An Education," which was a critical darling. And given Mulligan's youth and inexperience -- "An Education" represents her first starring role -- there may be a willingness to view an Oscar nomination as its own reward for a rising star. Even Hilary Swank, who seemed to come out of nowhere a decade ago to win for "Boys Don't Cry," had headlined a couple of small movies prior to that.

This is one occasion where it helps to be the established actress in her 40s rather than the ingenue in her early 20s.

Personally, I still think Streep gave the best performance of the year. But it's starting to look more and more like Bullock's turn in "The Blind Side" has come out of nowhere to take the lead.

Golden Globe=Oscar? Not!

"Avatar" will not win the Academy Award for Best Picture.

Write it down, set it in stone. It. Will. Not. Happen.

I say this with confidence despite the blockbuster film -- which is nearly at $500 million domestic, and $1.6 billion worldwide -- winning the Golden Globe for best drama last night.

Why? Because historically, the Golden Globes have been a poor predictor when it comes to the top award.

For Best Picture, I still say "Up in the Air" is unstoppable. And while the Globes may respect boffo box office, the Oscar voters still have enough self-respect to vote for the better film over the popular choice (most of the time).

Although I will say the supporting acting winners from last night -- Mo'Nique for "Precious" and Christoph Waltz for "Inglourious Basterds" -- will likely mirror who wins the Oscar on March 7.

Jeff Bridges winning for "Crazy Heart" is also a good bet for the Oscar. He's got some strong competition in the Best Actor category -- Colin Firth in "A Single Man" and George Clooney in "Up in the Air" -- but momentum for the four-time nominee seems to be building.

But I believe the other acting category winners in the Golden Globes won't take home the Oscar. In Robert Downey Jr.'s case, I don't think he should get a nomination for "Sherlock Holmes," which is a piece of puffery that he's not even all that good in.

Meryl Streep will get her 1,078th nomination for "Julie & Julia," and Sandra Bullock may squeak in with a nomination for "The Blind Side." But despite each winning a Golden Globe -- Streep for comedy, Bullock for drama -- Carey Mulligan from "An Education" remains the front-runner.

I also doubt James Cameron will take home the Best Director statuette. I think it's a race between Kathryn Bigelow for "The Hurt Locker" and "Up in the Air" man Jason Reitman.

"Up" winning the Golden Globe is probably an indication that it will prevail over "Fantastic Mr. Fox."

Among serious cinephiles, the Golden Globes are something of a joke. They're given out by an organization of dubious journalistic reputation that seems to exist solely for the purpose of staging the big red-carpet affair once a year.

I won't totally discount the influence of the Globes, though.

The nomination ballots for the Oscars close this Saturday, meaning there's a chance Academy voters could be influenced by Globe winners. It would be a shame if some of yesterday's winners -- I'm thinking of Bullock and Downey -- push out a more deserving nominee from the top acting categories.

But I just don't think Globe mojo will result in Oscar gold. If for no other reason, the Academy couldn't bear another spectacle of James Cameron labeling himself king of the world.

Whither Oscar?

I, as a rule, do not pay very much attention to the Golden Globe Awards. They are to the Academy Awards as arena football is to the NFL -- third-tier contenders, derided deservingly for their lightweight status.

Still, the huge wins yesterday by "Slumdog Millionaire" could portend for this year's Oscars, the nominations for which will be announced this Sunday. The GGs may be nothing more than a popularity contest of Hollywood insiders, but, well, those same Hollywood insiders are the ones who vote for the Oscars.

"Slumdog" would be a very multicultural choice for a Best Picture, as it has an amazingly diverse pedigree: Irish director and screenwriter with a mostly Indian cast and crew, but with a large American pop culture influence. Somehow, I can't see the septuagenarian Academy voters jumping over themselves to give this movie the top award.

Movies like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," "Milk" and "Frost/Nixon" have classic Oscar pedigrees -- big, serious dramas with stars and big-name directors.

There's been a lot of hype about "Wall-E" getting a Best Picture nod on top of one in the animated film category. Anyone who's read my Top 10 List knows that I would heartily support such a move.

But again, I don't see it happening -- only one animated movie, "Beauty and the Beast," has ever been nominated for Best Picture, and since they created the animated film category, it has come to be seen as the proper setting to recognize quality cartoons. It's the same reason why foreign language or documentary films rarely get a Best Picture nomination -- they've already got "their" award.