The Golden Globes

[mrsl]

I know most of you have no use for these award shows, and Oscar is the only one I really watch faithfully, but since there was nothing else on, I left it on for noise and was surprised in some ways, disgusted in others.

One thing I can say is that 'grown up' movies were the winners. By that I mean no 'Cars' or 'Panda's'. I was pleasantly surprised to see both Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney win as best dramatic male and female leads, for John Adams (TV). One thing that irritated me was the fact alone that Heath Ledger was nominated, and in addition, he won. I personally have no use for druggies who overdose. There were 4 other men whose careers could have used that GG boost instead of giving it to a guy like Ledger. Let me at least explain. I looked him up and his career started when he was 17 in Australia (1996). Unfortunately he did not get parts he wanted so he made his way to H'wood. There within 2 years he was getting better parts, had a lot of friends, and was nominated for Brokeback Mountain, which he followed up immediately with Casanova to be sure not to be earmarked as gay. So after a 4 year 'struggle' to make a name for himself, he overdosed one night on sleeping pills, and anxiety pills - all doctor prescribed. But he had made references to friends he didn't like where his career was going. Poor thing :!:

The other thing that really bit my butt was Mickey Rourke winning Best Actor in a Drama (Movie). Another hop-head who walked away about 15 or 20 years ago, lived in the dumps coming up occasionally to be reported as arrested on various drug charges. Then this clown make a movie his friend 'forced' him to make and he gets the GG. Then to compound the matter, in his acceptance speech he starts by making nasty comments about the people there, and using words that even he should know are not acceptable on TV, and since this was live it came out loud and clear.

Finally some moron from SNL embarrassed not only himself but all of his co-stars with stupid remarks about how with Obama, now black will be powerful or some other such mindless trash.

They had a nice tribute to Stephen Spielberg, and in a 3 hour show, those few things that irritate me, were not enough to say the show was bad. Dealing with some of those people on live TV is difficult to keep in hand.

So that's my scoop, does anyone else have any opinions?

Anne

[bryce]

One thing I can say is that 'grown up' movies were the winners. By that I mean no 'Cars' or 'Panda's'. I was pleasantly surprised to see both Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney win as best dramatic male and female leads, for John Adams (TV). One thing that irritated me was the fact alone that Heath Ledger was nominated, and in addition, he won. I personally have no use for druggies who overdose. There were 4 other men whose careers could have used that GG boost instead of giving it to a guy like Ledger. Let me at least explain. I looked him up and his career started when he was 17 in Australia (1996). Unfortunately he did not get parts he wanted so he made his way to H'wood. There within 2 years he was getting better parts, had a lot of friends, and was nominated for Brokeback Mountain, which he followed up immediately with Casanova to be sure not to be earmarked as gay. So after a 4 year 'struggle' to make a name for himself, he overdosed one night on sleeping pills, and anxiety pills - all doctor prescribed. But he had made references to friends he didn't like where his career was going. Poor thing :!:

I have nothing but indifference for most of Ledger's career; however, Casanova was filmed before Brokeback Mountain. Plus, I take contention with the fact that Ledger had "anything to prove" after Brokeback Mountain, as I'm not sure anyone with their wits about them, or even those with only half of them still intact, would ever consider it to be anything other than a great role for an actor to take. Regardless of your feelings of the film (mine are incredibly negative), the subject matter was timely and it all but guaranteed him better acting offers down the road. It was a smart decision, and I applaud him for furthering his career.

Furthermore, I am unsure how you came up with the timeline you did. Perhaps it was because you were in a rush to make an ill-conceived point in an ill-advised rant. He came to Hollywood in the late 90s, made the usual Hollywood fare that newcomers do, then found himself getting better roles. Surprise, surprise, like most young actors, he played ball and it got him where he wanted to be fast. While it took him six years from coming to America to get the high-integrity challenging role of a lifetime, he was all ready acting in dramatic works as early as 2001 (Monster's Ball), 2003 (Ned Kelly) and early 2005 (Brothers Grimm). Then came Brokeback Mountain.

Heath Ledger made a name for himself in his very first Hollywood movie. It might not have been a name known to you, but all actors start somewhere, and they most often start in their own demographic. Who did you care about as a youngin', the old guy or the hot kid? Gee, I wonder. I also question where you got your information regarding his career and the path it was taking, as he viewed the Joker as most actors would: a challenge, and a hell of a fun role to play. Nevermind that I hated the film and thought he did a piss-poor job of it, but facts are facts. While I am sure his death has had the typical Jimmy Dean effect, I'd argue that with the in-built comic fanbase and with "Dark Knight" being one of the first films to tackle the superhero genre's dark nature it was guaranteed to be a success. I do not think his performance was award worthy but you'd be hard-pressed to get me to name a worthy contender for Best Supporting Actor 2008, so I take no contention with him winning - doubly so considering the other four men all ready have successful careers and the nomination will bolster them enough. Can you imagine the controversy had Ledger not won? I wouldn't wish that on an actor I didn't like.

A good man with a wife and a child died. Actors, those rich and famous and those not, are just as human as we are, faced with the same troubles and faults, many of which they draw on to deliver performances that fill us with wonder. Unfortunately, for this man, his troubles were getting the best of him, and worst yet, his death was accidental. That's not something anyone should belittle, and you, especially, should be ashamed of for doing. I absolutely cannot believe how bloody sexist and cold-hearted you are.

The other thing that really bit my butt was Mickey Rourke winning Best Actor in a Drama (Movie). Another hop-head who walked away about 15 or 20 years ago, lived in the dumps coming up occasionally to be reported as arrested on various drug charges. Then this clown make a movie his friend 'forced' him to make and he gets the GG. Then to compound the matter, in his acceptance speech he starts by making nasty comments about the people there, and using words that even he should know are not acceptable on TV, and since this was live it came out loud and clear.

You are so incredibly tough on people it is unreal. Who p****d in your cheerios? It's one thing to criticize an actor for their performance but you are down-right mean-spirited sometimes and this is coming from the King of Mean. Get over it. Your perceptions are so warped it is unreal - you have so misinterpreted his acceptance speech (which was incredibly thankful and playful towards his good friend Darren Aronofsky) that it almost appears as if you were watching the Golden Globes from another universe. Furthermore, he was never arrested for "drug charges," let alone "numerous ones," he was arrested for a DUI. That's it. End of story. Had "driving under the influence" been a crime back in your hey-day I'd not even dare think of how many of your favorite actors would have a rap-sheet a mile long. Big deal. People make mistakes. It's not your place to pass judgment on them - let alone once and for all.

Have you even seen the movie? Wait, don't answer that, I think we all know you haven't, and won't. You're just up on your high horse, ripping people to shreds for character flaws that they either succumbed to or have worked their hardest to put behind them. Mickey Rourke's role in The Wrestler could very well be the story of his own life, for all we know it could have saved his life. Redemption is one of the toughest paths for any of us to follow, whether in the eyes of God (if you are religious) or in our own hearts. Criticize his performance if you wish, but keep your own opinions about the road this man's life has taken to yourself.

Lastly (and least important in the scope of things), "Son of a B***h" is a perfectly acceptable phrase for use on TV. One of the things about this country is that we have a "living constitution" - something you desire - in the form of the Supreme Court and its decisions. One of its many landmark decisions defines obscenity, and in its definition it references "community standards" as the basis for obscenity. "B***h" and "ass" have long been acceptable on TV. I am sorry you disagree. Times change. Let go.

[Dewey1960]

Anne, I’m really appalled by the utter lack of compassion in your post about the Golden Globes and, in particular, those distressingly misguided comments directed at Heath Ledger and Mickey Rourke. My first thought was that perhaps your intention was to incite people to respond to your post by saying the most blatantly thoughtless and reprehensible things possible about people you don’t even know, but then I thought, no, this is just who she is. More’s the pity, I guess.
I have a question for you, Anne. Why is it that your beloved “druggie” Bob Mitchum gets a free pass for his 1948 conviction and incarceration on marijuana charges? Mean-spirited intolerance and a lack of human compassion is one thing, but when it’s couched in hypocrisy it is yet another.

[moira finnie]

Both Anne and Bryce need to get some perspective on your thoughts, feelings and words now, before you post again. Stop with the uninformed personal attacks on the dead such as Heath Ledger and the nearly dead, such as Mickey Rourke and cease all inflammatory language against any members here and now.

Don't try to backtrack, over-explain one more time, or take it all back. You can't take back words that you've already written. Just stop this and focus on making positive contributions here. Now.

[srowley75]

Didn't see the show and hadn't planned to watch it, but with regard to the stars and how they behaved (or didn't), the Globes have been known for a long time to be far less inhibited than the Oscar ceremony. I forget who said it, but I do remember reading one star's remark that "the Golden Globes are fun, but the Academy Awards are business." I've seen other stars act up on camera during the presentations (Bette Midler and Robin Williams are two examples I can think of easily) and I'm sure there've been other wild moments. And I remember another insider (or performer - perhaps Helen Mirren?) remarking that stars often get drunk at the show.

But all that aside, I'm happy for Mickey Rourke. Forgive me for speaking from ignorance, but I'm sure the last few years have not been kind to him. Today, Hollywood (at least the business end) places less value on its stars as they age, and whether they're male or female, no doubt good roles become more and more evasive as a performer gets older and loses his/her looks and charm. And the machine is no kinder to you if you're also bearing the weight of bad publicity. That Rourke was able to make such a comeback from virtual obscurity is astounding. I can't imagine what a rush he'll be feeling if he wins an Oscar for this role. And I do hope if he's still struggling with substance abuse or whatever that he uses this opportunity to get his life together.

His story made me think of another classic Hollywood film: A Star is Born. Would that Norman Maine (and his real-life counterparts) had Mickey Rourke's opportunity. Unfortunately, in those days, people weren't as open-minded and forgiving as we are today.

[Hollis]

Just one thing Anne (and with all due respect)

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

As always,

Hollis

[jdb1]

Didn't see the show and hadn't planned to watch it, but with regard to the stars and how they behaved (or didn't), the Globes have been known for a long time to be far less inhibited than the Oscar ceremony. I forget who said it, but I do remember reading one star's remark that "the Golden Globes are fun, but the Academy Awards are business." I've seen other stars act up on camera during the presentations (Bette Midler and Robin Williams are two examples I can think of easily) and I'm sure there've been other wild moments. And I remember another insider (or performer - perhaps Helen Mirren?) remarking that stars often get drunk at the show.

This is how I've thought of that particular award show, after reading more than one report to the effect that the whole Golden Globes idea was begun and organized by about fifteen perpetually drunk European entertainment reporters.

I saw just a little bit of it last night, wherein someone I didn't recognize rattled off a list of "thankyous" to multitudes I've never heard of. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging those who helped you get where you are, but such speeches are really meaningless to the rest of us. Maybe they should hold their "thankyous" for in-house professional ceremonies, and do something else for the part that is they feel is necessary to broadcast to the general public.

Frankly, I've had it with these overinflated, self-important awards shows. And why is it that the viewing audience is willing to sit through these, but won't watch a variety show any more?

[Lzcutter]

Anne,

Though at the time of his death, there was much speculation about Heath Ledger and drugs, the final verdict was much different than all the speculation.

From most accounts he had a very hard time shaking the character of the Joker when filming was done. He seems to have gone to a very dark place in finding the characterization needed for the role. The Joker in The Dark Knight is a very different villain than the one from the old Batman series or even Jack Nicholson's turn twenty years ago.

Ledger had a hard time sleeping and was taking pain-killers. He may have been injured during the filming of Brokeback, I can't remember now.

Anyways, it was a bad combo of drugs to mix and it was the sleeping pills that ultimate did him in.

As for his film roles, have you seen him in the The Patriot as Mel Gibson's oldest son?

[knitwit45]

He was quite good in Ten Things I Hate About You. What a shame to lose such a good actor so soon.

[srowley75]

I saw just a little bit of it last night, wherein someone I didn't recognize rattled off a list of "thankyous" to multitudes I've never heard of. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging those who helped you get where you are, but such speeches are really meaningless to the rest of us. Maybe they should hold their "thankyous" for in-house professional ceremonies, and do something else for the part that is they feel is necessary to broadcast to the general public.

My favorite award acceptance speech is Pia Zadora's at the end of The Lonely Lady. (Can't reprint it here - look it up at the IMDB.) If only they were all that honest and direct. If nothing else, I guarantee there'd be no concern over awards show ratings.

Frankly, I've had it with these overinflated, self-important awards shows.

I understand and sympathize, but to an extent I appreciate their current function as advertising and marketing tools for significant films that, without the added attention of awards ceremonies, would probably be passed over by the general public. No, the societies and academies aren't infallible, and the various groups still overlook many a significant film and filmmaker, but (generally speaking) they do steer the public-at-large away from the fodder and toward the more worthy (though not necessarily the most worthy). And they have helped the bankrolls of some promising filmmakers. Sure, the sight of Hollywood patting itself on the back for months on end may have you reaching for the Pepto-Bismol long before it's over, yet I have to wonder many studios would risk bankrolling the artsy-fartsy fare were it not for the possibility that certain projects might eventually pay off come Oscar time.

[charliechaplinfan]

Anyone who has trouble sleeping has my complete sympathy. It's such a shame to think someone with success and riches to access best doctors couldn't find inner peace and a good nights sleep.

[stuart.uk]

Only saw Kate Winslet accept two awards

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Anne,

Your old buddie, Larry, will not condemn you for your thoughts and feelings; this is 'freedom of speech' after all...

I, personally, have never seen a Heath Ledger movie and never will based solely on that horrible makeup job for his last role. I am all for a nice little Cary Grant (Ingrid Bergman / Grace Kelly / Irene Dunne) film myself and Batman et al can go to Hell......
I'm sorry he had troubles and died but I feel sorry more for the child he left behind.

As for Mickey Rourke - also, I have never seen one of his pictures and hope never to either....
But, consider this -- if Hollywood didn't or doesn't give these poor humans a "second chance", then what would have become of Ingrid Bergman (adultry) or Lana Turner (murder) or Mercedes McCambridge (alcoholism)???
On a personal level, the last two are very dear to me, so I can't really begrudge Mickey Rourke his award and 2nd chance....

Love Ya, Annie!!
Larry

[klondike]

Hey all!
Please allow me to chime in here with my reactionary 5.5 cents.
Although I am certainly in sanguine agreement with the great majority of opinions expressed in the last 5 or 6 postings here, I do need to point out just a couple of pivotal clarifications:

1)The inclusive concept of "freedom of speech" does not have any practical relevance here @ SSO; as Jon has pointed out before (quietly & gently), this website is his property, and is not, nor ever has been, a public forum. This is why we moderators put our noggins together in the Spring of '07 to frame & formulate a pretty darn respectful, & simple, Code of Conduct.
A Code which all members here viewed & agreed to when they joined this merry little circus.

2) No one, even those who were in disagreement, had any intention of "condemning" Anne; we might not be the steps of the U.S. Capital, but neither are we the village of Ingoldstadt, awash in rioting villagers brandishing torches & pitchforks. This point actually brings us right back around to our Code of Conduct: along with unlimited carte blanche of personal expression, you are also denied any sort of platform from which to slander or abuse anyone.

So in review: bombastic graffiti= good, toothbrush shanks= bad.
And don't forget to turn-in your menu cards before retiring to the club car.

[srowley75]

And don't forget to turn-in your menu cards before retiring to the club car.

Will do, chief!

Duh da DA da da DA da da DA! A hunting we will go! (boom!)

Hey, toss those crackers!