Following the announcement of the 2007 Golden Globe nominations early yesterday morning, I watched three entertainment "journalists" discussing the choices of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) as if they meant significantly more than the outcome of good marketing tools.
In all fairness, the same can be said about nearly every other group, no matter how self-important, that gives out film awards. After all, their choices are usually the result of p.r. and marketing strategies, past or expected box-office revenues, and personal or professional politics.
That said, those types of biases — who, when, where is giving out awards to which films and individuals — are exactly what make those myriad film awards worth reporting. By looking at the choices, one doesn't come up with the greatest movies or performances or screenplays of the year (even if taste were something absolutely objective), but one does learn about the machinery that, much more often than not, makes film academy members, festival jurors, and journalists and pseudo-journalists opt for those they believe should get their vote.
Generally speaking, that translates into films and personalities that, for a variety of reasons, will catch the attention of media outlets everywhere. Else, why bother voting?
So, who's Globe-trotting hot?
Brad Pitt (top photo, with Cate Blanchett) is such a scintillating star that I wouldn't be surprised if he alone was responsible for Babel's 7 Golden Globe nominations — more than any other motion picture. Pitt, of course, received a nod for himself in the best supporting actor category.
Leonardo DiCaprio is such a shining star, he received two best actor (Drama) nods, for The Departed and Blood Diamond (above, with Jennifer Connelly). Even if Blood Diamond turns out to be an under-performer, it'll still make about 10 times more money at the box office than Half Nelson, in which Ryan Gosling (who lacks a Titanical following) delivers the sort of performance that, had his movie earned $50 million instead of $2 million, would have made him the front runner both with the HFPA and U.S.-based critics' groups. Needless to say, Gosling did not get a Golden Globe nomination.
(True, best actor – drama nominee Forest Whitaker's film, The Last King of Scotland, also underperformed at the U.S. box office. However, Whitaker has had phenomenal buzz, partly because of his performance, partly because of a well-oiled p.r. machinery. The Whitaker buzz, in fact, long preceded the opening of his film in the U.S.)
Mel Gibson is a brilliant star — and a controversial one at that. Sounds like a great way to receive lots of media attention and arouse the curiosity of TV viewers? Gibson's Apocalypto was nominated in the best foreign language film category.
Jack Nicholson is a veteran star — and one who does unexpected things when he wins. His horrendous turn in The Departed has been honored with a Golden Globe nod in the best supporting actor category.
Now, once the HFPA have their star-power guaranteed, they can throw a few nominations to lesser-known individuals, especially in less competitive or "lesser" categories. Thus, Chiwetel Ejiofor, a determined transvestite in Kinky Boots (above), is competing in the best actor – comedy or musical category, and Adriana Barraza, who plays a nanny in Babel, showed up in the best supporting actress shortlist. (Paramount Vintage has been relentlessly pushing fellow Babel player Rinko Kikuchi, who also received a supporting actress Golden Globe nod.)
But perhaps the Golden Globe nominations' biggest surprise was an omission: Globe fave Sharon Stone didn't get a best supporting actress nomination for her performance in Emilio Estevez's political drama Bobby. Either Stone has done something really mean to displease the HFPA voters, or they thought that giving the box-office flop Bobby a best film – drama nod was enough of a favor for the actress.
And I'm assuming that Faye Dunaway hasn't worked this year. Her name is nowhere to be found in the Golden Globes' 2006 list.