Elisberg Industries
Decent Quality Since 1847
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Products
    • Books
    • Movies
  • About Elisberg Industries
    • Our Corporate Board
    • Information Overstock
    • Elisberg Industries Entertainment Information
    • Elisberg Statistical Center of American Research
    • Consultancy Service
  • Contact
    • How to Find Us
  • Kudos
  • Good Things to Know
    • The BOB Page
    • Sites You Might Actually Like

What Will Be, Will Be

4/17/2021

0 Comments

 
Back in college at the beloved Northwestern, they would have a campus movie night where they'd show a different film every Friday night in the big Tech Auditorium that probably seated 1,000 people.  Sometimes it would be a fairly recent movie, sometimes a classic.  One night, they showed a Hitchcock classic, the 1956 thriller, The Man Who Knew Too Much, that starred  James Stewart and Doris Day.  It's a wonderful film that even won an Oscar.  (It's also a remake from an old black-and-while movie that HItchcock had made in England.)

James Stewart, of course, was very well-known and much loved.  Doris Day was popular herself, though that at point her persona wasn't as high with a college crowd, more known for her cheeriness and singing, in particular her huge hit, "Que Sera Sera," written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, which she seems to sing everywhere.  It even was used as the theme song for when she had a TV sitcom.  Like Bob Hope with "Thanks for the Memories" and Jack Benny with "Love in Bloom" -- and any president with "Hail to the Chief -- wherever Doris Day went, it seemed there was someone there to play her song, "Que Sera Sera."

So, anyway, back to movie night on campus.  The Man Who Knew Too Much was going along, very well done, interesting, and then, somewhat early on...there it was -- "Que Sera Sera" started playing, and there was Doris Day, of course, singing it and dancing around the room.  And most of the 1,000 college students began laughing in ridicule.  Even in an Alfred Hitchcock movie, she had to sing "Que Sera Sera."  Ha ha ha.

And the laughter got even more scathing later in the movie, deep in the third act, when the plot was coming to a tense head, she and her husband Jimmy go to a party because it's where they know their little son has been kidnapped and is being held, and -- because she plays an entertainer in the film -- she's asked to sing for the gathering.  And their plan is that if she sing Really Loud Enough, her voice will carry through the mansion, and they child will hear it and also recognize the song and know that his parents are there.  And so, she sings -- yes, you guessed it, "Que Sera Sera," at the most tense point of the movie.  Of course.  And not only did she sing it, but she virtually shouts it as loud as she can, so that her voice will carry to her son, but it's so loud that even party guests give each other glances, like "Hey, this is pretty weird."  Which is what those 1,000 college students were doing, hooting it up.  That even in the climax of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller, Doris Day insists on singing, "Que Sera Sera."

Except --

What I wanted to do from the audience was stand up and shout as loudly as I could, "YOU IDIOTS!!!  Doris Day isn't singing this song because it was so famous and her signature song and it had to be in everything she did.  No, THIS WAS THE MOVIE THAT INTRODUCED THE SONG!!!!  It had never been heard before!  She'd never sung it before!  This is the first time it was ever sung!!!  All those other times you've heard the song -- it came from this movie, this moment!!  And the reason she's singing it a second time and Really Loudly is because it's part of the plot!"

And by the way, do you remember that Academy Award that I said The Man Who Knew Too Much won?  It was for Best Song!  For "Que Sera Sera"!

That's what I wanted to yell, but I didn't.  I just sat and watched and enjoyed the movie.

I mention this all because TCM is running it's annual "31 Days of Oscar," when every movie they show during these 31 days days either won or got nominated for an Oscar.  And The Man Who Knew Too Much was on last night.  Because of its one Oscar -- for...oh, you know.

(As a footnote, I should add that Livingston and Evans won three Oscars for Best Song, the other two being "Buttons and Bows" and "Tammy."  The also wrote the song "Silver Bells" for the Bob Hope movie, The Lemon Drop Kid.)

This is the scene that introduced The Song.


And this is the climatic scene at the party, where Doris Day is invited to sing at the piano, and as the guests watch her with rapt -- and bemused -- attention (from her intentionally singing Really Loud), James Stewart waits for his chance to sneak away.  If you haven't seen the movie and think you may want to, then don't want the full clip.  It isn't the whole final sequence, but it's a lot of it.  However, you'd be fine watching the first two minutes.
​
0 Comments

That Thing They Did

4/8/2021

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, I posted a Zoom reunion with the cast members who made up the band The Wonders, 24 years earlier for the movie, That Thing You Do, written and directed by Tom Hanks. 

This is another reunion of those same castmates -- well, three of them -- who got together in 2017 to actually perform the title song on stage.  This was from "Live at The Roxy" in Hollywood on April 25th, 2017, done as part of The Goddamn Comedy Jam.

The three actors participating were --
Jonathan Schaech - Guitar
Ethan Embry - Bass Guitar
Tom Everett Scott - Drums

There's only one downside to all this.  It's that the onstage host participates, as well, as lead singer despite the fact that a) the group's actual lead singer, Jonathan Schaech, is there -- and even tries at one point to take the lead, and b) the reunion is entirely about those three, not Josh Adam Meyers.

Other than that, the occasion is still fun.  It just could have been more so.


0 Comments

That Reunion They Did

4/7/2021

0 Comments

 
This is another of those Zoom reunions done during the pandemic, and it's a real treat.  It was put together by Rolling Stone magazine, and is a reunion of the cast of That Thing You Do, 24 years after they made the movie.  What makes it all stand out is that it is SO affectionate.  The interviewer is unfortunately sort of lackluster, although very clearly a big fan and so most-definitely engaged.

So, here are Jonathan Schaech, Ethan Embry, Steve Zahn, and Tom Everett Scott back together again, doing that thing they do.
0 Comments

Writers Talk

3/21/2021

0 Comments

 
On this week’s episode of 3rd and Fairfax, the official podcast of the Writers Guild of America, the guests are screenwriters Chris Matheson & Ed Solomon who have written all three Bill & Ted movies, most recently Bill & Ted Face the Music.  Separately, Ed Solomon has written Men in Black, as well as Now You See Me and its sequel, among others. franchise about what it takes to update a comedy franchise and deliver laughs in 2020.  Chris Matheson’s credits include Mom and Dad Save the World, A Goofy Movie and Mr. Wrong.  Together, they talk about what it takes to update a comedy franchise and also write comedy in a difficult year like 2020.
 
0 Comments

No Riskin, No Reward

3/20/2021

1 Comment

 
A few weeks back, I mentioned that the paperback edition of Fay Wray and Robert Riskin:  A Hollywood Memoir by my friend Vicki Riskin was just being released.  It's a wonderful book about her parents -- the star of King Kong and the Oscar-winning screenwriter of It Happened One Night, along with Meet John Doe, Lost Horizon and You Can't Take It With You.  You can find the book here.

What I also noted was that she would be doing a Facebook Live conversation about the book, and it was terrific.  Vicki is a smart, accomplished person on her own -- a former president of the Writers Guild of America and former president of Human Rights Watch, as well as a former practicing psychologist...and yes, that's a lot of "formers," but she's got a lot of "currentlys," as well, including that she's on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch.-- and one of the most gracious people I know.  So the talk was charming and interesting, with a great deal of insight to go along with the interesting tales of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Fortunately, the video of the Facebook Live event is available, and I've posted it below.  All the stories aren't just about her parents (though those are fascinating), but is wide-ranging.  For instance, happily she tells my favorite story from the book which is not about her parents, but the writer Jo Swirling, one of her father's best friends, who was the book writer of the musical Guys & Dolls.  It's a really funny tale about his time at Columbia Studio and a run-in with the reviled studio head Harry Cohn.

By the way, if you do watch and stick with it all the way through, I have a sort of hidden guest-appearance.  They ask for questions from viewers, and I sent one in very early on.  Because they don't get to the questions until much later, I thought they were going to overlook it, especially since I could see they were getting a lot of questions in the interim.  But happily, they not only asked my question, but it was the first one.  Vicki had talked about her mother's unhappy marriage, but wasn't clear that she was referring to her first marriage, so I asked if she could clarify it.  When she got the question, she was so happy for it, thrilled for the chance to explain what she meant.  Later, I sent her an email and explained where that question had come from.

So, here's the conversation.  If you like movies and especially movie history, I highly recommend you give this a look for 15 minutes or so.  And you might find yourself sticking around for the whole thing.
1 Comment

Media Alert

3/19/2021

0 Comments

 
Yesterday, I wrote a long piece about the wonderful movie No Man's Land, which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 2001, beating what was considered the favorite, Amelie.  I mentioned that after years of looking for it so that others could see this gem, I just discovered that it was available for streaming on Amazon Prime.

Sharp-eyed reader Douglass Abramson sent a note that on the Amazon Prime page for the movie, it says -- "Leaving March 31."  So, you still have just under two weeks (from today...) to see it.

Hopefully No Man's Land will return to Amazon Prime eventually.  But if not, there's still time to stream the film.  If you want to read more about it, you can find my article here.
0 Comments

Their Land is Made for  You and Me

3/18/2021

2 Comments

 
Back in 2001, I saw a Serbo-Croatian movie, No Man's Land at an “awards screening, since it had been nominated for an Oscar as Best Foreign Language Film.  Also nominated that year was Amelie, that was not only wildly popular, but one of the most successful foreign language films ever.  Most people knew Amelie.  No one had ever heard of No Man’s Land.  In fact, most people who saw Amelie absolutely loved it.  (Not all, there was no gray area, some people hated it for the overly-sweet nature of the main character.  But by and large, audiences loved the movie, which is why it was only of the most successful foreign language films ever.)

Every once in a while, I would come across a discussion about the Oscar office that pool people were having, trying to decide what to vote for.  What tends to be traditional in most such pools is that people mark down their choices on the bulk of the awards, but "Best Foreign Language Film" is used as the tie-breaker, since most people haven't seen any of those nominated, and so it's like tossing a dart blindfolded.  Although that year, a lot of people had actually seen Amelie -- or at least heard about it.  And so that's what they were voting for as their tie-breaker. 

(In fact, to this day, 20 years later, I am absolutely certain that there are a great many people who have never seen Amelie, but know about it.  And equally certain that most people have never even heard of No Man's Land.  Furthermore, there was a Broadway musical a couple of years ago based on Amelie, which I saw in Los Angeles and thought was wonderful, in fact I liked it more than the movie.)  

However, when I was in one of those Oscar office pool conversations, I'd say, "No, pick No Man’s Land.’”  Everyone would looked at me like I was absolutely nuts, because they knew that Amelie would win.  But I just liked No Man's Land that much.  The thing is, it was just that I liked it that much -- I explained that to those in the group that I I had seen No Man’s Land at an awards screening where the audience was made up of people who actually vote for who wins the award, and I said the reaction of those people, who actually vote for the awards, was so visceral that you could feel it in the room.  And I reiterated that people should vote for it in their office pool.  And they still looked at me like I was nuts.  They had seen Amelie and loved it.  Or knew about it and how extremely successful it was because others loved it.
 
This is where I note that I was right -- that No Man’s Land, in fact, did win the Academy Award as Best Foreign Language Film. And a lot of people afterwards said to me, "Er, isn't that the movie you said that I should pick in my office pool to win the Oscar and beat Amelie?"  Yes, I would answer, it was.
 
Here's the oddity of all this and my love for the film.  To this day, as much as I’ve praised No Man's Land, I’ve never told anyone the plot.  And I won’t here.  That’s because it has a twist that’s so great that to tell the plot would give that twist away, and the discovery of that twist is too brilliant.  Here's how brilliant the twist is -- when I was at that original screening and saw where I thought maybe-possibly the story was going, I remember the hairs on my arm tingling because if the story did go there, it would be SOOO great.  Yet I hoped that it didn’t go there, because what I also thought was, “If it doesn’t tell that story, I’m going to go home when this is over and write a story with that twist myself.”  But it did go there.  And it’s so smart and so clever and so well-done.
 
I mention all this because for years it wasn’t available (at least it wasn't included for free in any streaming service).  But the other day, I just checked several of the video services I subscribe to, and although No Man Land wasn't available for a very long time -- one of the added frustrations for my not talking about the plot to anyone -- it is actually available these days for streaming on Amazon Prime!  If you subscribe to Amazon Prime and are interested in watching it, a caveat:  make sure to watch the 2001 movie because there are others with the same title.  (There's even a new one this year for Hulu.)  And this one is about the Bosnian War.  But don’t even read the description, out of risk of them giving anything away.  
 
The only thing I will say is that the first 10 minutes looks like it’s an ordinary war film, although a very well done one, so you might wonder what’s the big deal.  Just know that it is not an ordinary war film.  The direction of the story changes after those first 10 minutes, and it's extremely good.  Just know, though that that change of direction is not the plot twist.  That comes later.  At which point, it then goes off to another level.

Know, too, that if you're someone who avoids foreign language movies because you don't like reading subtitles, No Man's Land won't likely have that same hurdle for you.  That's because, even though it’s a foreign language film, much of it centers around the United Nations inspection unit that's on the ground there during the war, and therefore when all the sides meet, they speak in English.  So, about a third of the movie is in English.
 
(And it even has one British actor in it who you might recognize, Simon Callow.  He’s had a long, admired career.  Among a great many things, he was in Shakespeare in Love as the theater manager, and in Four Weddings and a Funeral -- playing the flamboyant Scotsman for whom they had the funeral.  And has done a one-man stage show about Charles Dickens’ life.  In No Man’s Land, he plays one of the representatives from the U.N.)

A sort of postscript to all this is that my 93-year-old aunt was looking for things to stream during the pandemic, and so I brought up No Man's Land to her last week.  She'd loved foreign films for a lifetime, but at this point has put them in the back seat since she's one of those who now doesn't prefer to read subtitles if there are other films to watch.  But I explained to her about the U.N. subplot and all the English, she streamed it -- and became the first person in 20 years I could actually talk about the movie to!  And happily, she thought it was excellent.  So, I'm off the hook with her, after pushing it so hard...

Usually at this point in an article I'll embed the trailer.  However, in this case, I will not be posting the trailer for No Man's Land.  That's because as good as the trailer is, as solid a job as it does giving a pretty good sense of the movie, it also gives away much too much of the plot and gives away the plot twist.  (I don't criticize them for it, though, since as I said, it's impossible to tell the story properly without doing so.)  But it does show that the movie is not only dramatic and tragic as war is, but also absurdly funny in large parts.  I should mention, too, that in addition to the Oscar, it also won best screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival.

It's only an hour and 37 minutes, too, so it flies by.

After all this praise, I hope it can live up to that.  But I think it can.  I really love the movie.  And it’s been tough loving it for 20 years, but refusing to tell anyone anything about the story.  
 
For those who access Amazon Prime movies on your laptop and then hook it up to your TV with an HDMI cable, this is the link here to find it.
​
2 Comments

Have Another Go, Joe

3/3/2021

0 Comments

 
The other day, I got into an discussion with someone and quoted a line from one of my favorite movies -- a film that is also a favorite of my friend Myles Berkowitz, although a great many people not only don't like it even remotely as much as we do but pretty much hate it.  It's the 1990 film, Joe Versus. the Volcano, that starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and was written and directed by John Patrick Shanley, who won an Oscar for writing Moonstruck and years later wrote and directed Doubt, based on his Broadway play for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.  Also, Steven Spielberg was one of the executive producers.

After having referenced the movie in my conversation, I realized that the young woman likely hadn't heard of it, given that Joe Versus the Volcano was released 31 years ago, and so I later sent her the link to an article I wrote back in 2008 for the Huffington Post that's about not only why I dearly love the film, but why most people who hated it were wrong.  To be clear, I don't mean subjectively wrong, since of course everyone has their personal taste and if someone dislikes the movie, so be it, but empirically wrong, because what I've found over the years is that most people who hate Joe Versus the Volcano do so because they miss the point of the movie -- even though it's a point that Shanley explains to the audience in the very first thing you see on screen.  And then tells you again what the movie was in the very last thing you see on the screen.  And if you miss that, which he tells you (!), then you end up watching a totally different movie than what it actually is.  And likely hate it -- albeit for the wrong reason.

Anyway, to go along with the article I also tracked down the trailer to the film, and decided to watch it myself again, just for the heck of it.  And it's one of the rare trailers that actually gives a pretty good idea of the movie.  In fact, it even includes Shanley's line that begins the movie and tells you what it is.  The trailer was wonderful, so I decided to post it here.  And as long as I was going to post the trailer, I figured I might as well dive in and first re-post that original article from the Huffington Post.

By the way, there's a sort of addendum to this all.  John Patrick Shanley most recently wrote and directed the movie, Wild Mountain Thyme, that was released a month or two ago.  It starred Emily Blunt, Jamie Dornan, Christoper Walken and Jon Hamm.  I thought it was wonderful, for many of the same reasons I loved Joe Versus the Volcano -- not as good, but still a pleasure.  And Myles thought so, too.  Again, the movie flopped bigtime.  And again, Myles and I were right.  Though not for the exact same empirical reasons as with "Joe," but close.

?Okay, then, here's the article from December 30, 2008.  Followed by the trailer.  (By the way, if the bit-part actor with one line at the 1:10 mark seems somewhat, maybe familiar in his native island make-up, that's Nathan Lane very early in his career.  I suspect that he and Shanley, who as I noted is a Broadway playwright, knew other from their New York stage work.)

I highly recommend you track it down on Netflix or Amazon Prime.  You may not like it -- but if so, you'll dislike it for the right reason, personal taste.  Not because you didn't realize what it was.  But then...you may love it.

Because it's great.

                     The Best Flop Movie:  “Joe vs. The Volcano”
 
 
One of the pleasures of this holiday movie season is the film, “Doubt.”  Not because it’s so wonderfully done – which it is, on every level – but because it’s allowed the great, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright John Patrick Shanley the opportunity to once again direct a movie.
 
Therein lies the tale.
 
John Patrick Shanley is an accomplished writer best known to the public for his Oscar-winning screenplay of the movie “Moonstruck,” as well as his Tony-awarding winning play, “Doubt.”  In between them, he made his movie directing debut with “Joe vs. the Volcano,” an offbeat comedy he also wrote that has the distinct honor of being the only movie to star Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and flop.
 
Given that the other two are “Sleepless in Seattle” and “You’ve Got Mail,” that’s quite an accomplishment.  Especially consider the executive producer was Steven Spielberg.  And yet – flop it did.  Huge.
 
It shouldn’t have.  And it killed Shanley’s directing career.  And it shouldn’t have done that, either.
 
I've discovered that life is divided into two groups – those who utterly hate "Joe vs. the Volcano" and those who absolutely, unequivocally love it.  And it's about 90-10 against.   I’m with the 10%.
 
BUT...this is one of the few, totally subjective, personal opinion matters when I feel comfortable saying that I'm right – and right for an objective, demonstrable reason.  And this reason is that most people who so-dislike the movie not only missed the point – but it's a point that John Patrick Shanley wrote in black-and-white.  I don’t mean metaphorically wrote.  I mean he literally wrote it in black-and-white.  Plastered it across the screen.  And people miss it.
 
A moment first to explain “Joe vs. the Volcano.” It concerns a man who’s feeling miserable with his life, lost, adrift, when three things happen:  he visits a new doctor, he meets a wealthy industrialist, and three women cross his path.  As a result, Joe makes an outlandish decision to alter his life and heads off on his adventure to accomplish it.
 
As I’ve meandered through my days and tried to sneak the movie into the conversation of  polite society, the main complaint against “Joe vs. the Volcano” is that it's stupid and silly and unbelievable and ridiculous and over-the-top.  And it's perceived that way because the movie is very crisp, very stark and looks very realistic.  And if viewed realistically, the movie IS stupid and silly and utterly ridiculous.  BUT --
 
In the first image of the movie (and this is not giving anything away, because it is the very first thing you see), Shanley tells the audience in black-and-white that this is not supposed to be viewed realistically.  The very first image of the movie is a graphic with the words, "Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe..."  
 
Okay, here’s a pop quiz:  what stories begin "Once upon a time..."?  They are – well, okay, you know the answer – fairy tales!!  In fact, to nail this point home further, Shanley creates yet another, similar image that reiterates This Is A Fairy Tale.  I won’t mention that one because it does give away a major plot point.  But it’s as blatant as the first, all the more so because it’s a major plot point, and even harder to miss.  And just as hard to misinterpret.
 
Stories that begin "Once upon a time" and have that other, second image are fairy tales.  Pure and simple.  And Shanley is telling everyone that that's how you should look at this story.  As a magical fairy tale.  And if you DO look at it that way – like you're watching a tale by Hans Christian Anderson, or the Brothers Grimm, or Aesop, or whatever – then the goofiness of the movie, the off-beat icons, the intentionally repeated images, the stylized patter, the fantastic occurrences (like 'brain clouds'), life-changing bolts of lightning, and one actress playing all the different women who show up throughout Joe’s life, all of these fairy tale circumstances fit together and make perfect sense.  This isn't the real world, it's a fairy tale world.
 
I've watched the movie at least eight times, and almost each time I see more images and points I missed before. 
 
One example – the movie has a recurring image of a crooked line, but it's always blended into other images and easy to overlook until repeated viewings.  It's the logo for the company where Joe works.  And it's the same patterned path that the lemming-like employees take as they drudgingly march into the factory.  And it's also the pattern that we see at a distance that the island natives take when they are walking up the volcano.  And then Joe even makes a comment about how his whole life has been walking a crooked path.  So, it all comes full circle and fits impeccably together.  The movie is full of richness like that.  All part of the fairy tale world that is consistent with itself.
 
Recently, I cautiously mentioned “Joe vs. the Volcano” to my friend Myles Berkowitz (mentioned in these pages previously for his deeply thoughtful, encyclopedic and outspoken reactions to…well, just about anything), and it was with great relief to discover how completely thrilled he was to find another soul who loves the movie as much as he does – and he’s seen it 20 times, making me look like a piker.  That he agreed with everything I'm saying here is not offered as proof, just that the mutual and independent thought by a highly-perceptive fellow was comforting.
 
To be clear, it's of course possible to dislike this movie, any movie because you think it's not well made.  No question.  Or because you don’t like fairy tales.  To each their taste.  What I'm saying, however, that my experience is that that's NOT why people ever say they don't like "Joe vs. the Volcano."   (And boy, have I talked to a lot...)  They don’t comment on the characters, dialogue, plot structure or craftsmanship.  No, all they say is, "It's so stupid, it's so unbelievable."  If people accept the movie for what it is and still don't like it -- fair enough.  I have no quibble with that.  My point is that I've never found that that's why most people don't like it.
 
It is my experience that most people don't like “Joe vs. the Volcano” because they totally miss the point.  They miss that John Patrick Shanley has told them, blatantly, clearly – this is a fairy tale.
 
That returns us to my pleasure at seeing the movie “Doubt,” which Shanley directed, based on his play. 
 
Regardless of what one thinks of the story of “Joe vs. the Volcano,” it’s still a beautifully directed movie.  (The breathtaking scene when the full moon rises above the ocean may possibly be my favorite scene in any movie, ever.)  But the way Hollywood works, if a movie flops, executives in charge believe the movie has to have been poorly directed.  That's an attitude so small-minded and wrong.  Same thing conversely with the screenplay of a flop, or an acting performance.  All can be wonderful, but a movie fails for many reasons, and often they are unrelated to quality, talent and craftsmanship.  And that's why I said I was so pleased that John Patrick Shanley got another chance to direct with "Doubt” – and is now demonstrating what I knew years ago, that he's not just a tremendous writers, he’s a wonderful director, as well.
 
For those who get that “Joe vs. the Volcano” is a fairy tale but simply don’t like it – so be it.  For those who wish to continue dismissing the movie for all the wrong reasons, it’s your right to be completely wrong and not realize it.  But for those with an open mind, go back and watch "Joe vs. the Volcano" again.  And for those who’ve never seen it before –you’re in for a treat.  But the only thing to keep in mind when you do watch it is –
 
You are watching a fairy tale.  About being adrift in your often-strange life and following a crooked path to get to where you are finally supposed to be.
 
And that’s why “Joe vs. the Volcano” is the best flop movie.  Without a Doubt.
​
0 Comments

The Golden Oldie:  2021

2/27/2021

0 Comments

 
Yes, it's that time again.  I posted this last year -- and have, in fact, posted it annually, here and on the Huffington Post, where it initially appeared in 2007, for the past 14 years.  So, with the Golden Globes broadcast set for tomorrow night, here we go again.

Yet before we do, I even have another update -- which yet again shows another controversy with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that runs the Golden Globes...and it shows (again) that all this isn't just about my opinion.  Because just days ago, the Los Angeles Times had an investigation lead by Josh Rottenberg who wrote --


"...Times reporting revealed the group is still struggling to shake its reputation that the voters are easily swayed by high-priced junkets in exotic locales and cozy relationships with studios, networks and A-listers. Even as the HFPA fended off allegations brought in an antitrust lawsuit by Norwegian journalist Kjersti Flaa, some of the group’s own members have raised mounting criticisms of its alleged ethical lapses and self-dealing. The HFPA has said the allegations are unproven and “simply repeat old tropes” about the organization. (Flaa’s suit was dismissed by a federal judge in November. An amended motion is pending.)

"The Times investigation also highlighted the fact that the group currently has no Black members, further fueling criticism over this year’s Globes picks, which didn’t include any of this year’s Black-led awards contenders..."

No Black members.  That on its own is bad enough.  But as you read the articles below, it's context of the HFPA's history makes it all the more Standard Operation Procedure, and all the worse.

By the way, to be clear, though the lawsuit referenced above was dismissed but is under appeal, just because someone brings up your old problems -- whimsically called "tropes" or not -- doesn't mean those old problems weren't very real and didn't exist, nor does it mean that some of them, or most, or all, don't still exist today.

​On with the show...

                                                                                 *   *   *      ​
                     The PreCurse of the Golden Globes Rides Again

'​​Tis the season for awards - and that means on Sunday it was time to read and hear (repeatedly) how the Golden Globes matter because they are "precursors to the Oscars," remarkable for their mystical ability to predict the Academy Awards. Of course, if you repeat any mantra enough, people will believe almost anything But then reality rears its pesky head and gets in the way.

Indeed, the dirty little secret about the Golden Globes is that they're the biggest flim-flam scam on the American public today. Okay, other than "Mitt Romney is a far-right conservative."

(And one of the main reasons that keeps it such a "secret" is because most people don't have the slightest clue who in the world the Hollywood Foreign Press is that gives these awards. That's a little sending a congratulations gift to someone who was named "Man of the Year" and not realizing that the honor was given by an online website that sends out the certificates for $18.)

I have absolutely no idea who "won" what last night. Alas, the depth of human caring simply doesn't stretch that low. Mind you, it's not because they're just awards - hey, awards are entertainment, and can be as fun as anything. It's because the Golden Globes are to awards what a Black Hole is to French toast. There's no connection, but at least with French toast you can pour on syrup and not have human existence sucked out of the universe.

When someone said, "The show must go on," clearly the Golden Globes hadn't been invented yet.

Four years ago, I wrote about the Golden Globes, and because they keep coming back unrelentingly like a crazed zombie, I updated and edited it a year later. And now it's become a bit of an annual tradition, the same as one calls in a gardener to stop the crab grass from spreading any further. Because the foolish hype gets more out of control each year - and since if I saw someone crossing the street into an oncoming truck I'd always yell to stop - I figure it's worth revisiting that piece.

Until recently the Globes were so comatose that even a new health care system couldn't have diagnosed them to life. But three things changed: movie studios realized they could get massive free publicity. Television recognized that if celebrities attended, people would watch anything. And actors grasped they'd get to appear on TV and receive awards. It was the Holy Trinity of PR.

Before even attempting to dismiss or defend the Golden Globes, however, it's important to understand what exactly what it is. And it starts with a bit of flim-flammery.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which presents the Golden Globes, has always had only one thing going for it - an incredible-sounding name. That name comes across like A-list journalists in trenchcoats from Paris Match, Die Welt and the Neptune Gazette. In fact, however, the HFPA, while representing many fine, individual, full-time reporters, is largely comprised of stringers (part-timers whose day job is other than journalism). And many are neither foreign, nor active in the press. Membership is whimsical: some get permanent status; others are inexplicably refused even entry. (The London Times is not a member. A reporter from the renowned Le Monde has been turned down for years. Happily there is a representative from the movie hotbed of Bangladesh. Honest.)

Yes, of course, movie awards are utterly pointless to all human life forms, except the winners. It's just faflooey. Nothing more than fluff. And the Globes are the fluff on top of the fluff. But before dismissing them further, remember: around 20 million viewers tune in to the Golden Globes. If that many people are going to spend their time on Earth watching the circus, it's at least nice to know who sent in the clowns.

And that's the kicker. At last count, the Globes are voted on by just...get this...86 people. Yes, you read that correctly. 86. For comparison, the Oscars, Emmys, and Writers Guild/Directors Guild/SAG awards are each voted on by about 6,000 professionals of their respective industries.

The good news is that with only 86 people voting it cuts down on the hanging-chad problem.

Any club is entitled to give awards. But most don't get to take over three hours of prime time on national network television.

The history of the Golden Globes is peppered with so many scandals about buying awards that Frequent Shopper points should be instituted. The most famous is when Pia Zadora's then-husband gave lavish parties to the HFPA, and she won New Star of the Year - for the ridiculed disaster "Butterfly." For the 2000 Awards Sharon Stone's representative sent gold watches to all then-82 voters. Only after this became a public embarrassment was the plunder returned. And Ms. Stone received a best actress nomination for The Muse.

But the big myth about the Golden Globes - indeed their one false hope to even a wisp of validity - is that they are an impeccable predictor of the Academy Awards.

(Why anyone cares about predicting the Oscars is another matter entirely.)

But the reality is - the Golden Globes as a "Precursor to the Oscars" is not only not close to true, it's worse than not close to true. Which is near-impossible.

Keep in mind that six of the 13 Globe categories are split into drama and musical-comedy - which allows for twice as many chances to be "right." Some categories have had as many as nine nominees. People watching at home eating cheese dip probably get half the Oscar winners right by pure guessing. (My mother correctly predicted Philip Seymour Hoffman's win, and she hadn't even seen "Capote" at the time.) Yet it's almost impressive how wrong the Globes are at "precursing."

Last year, the Golden Globes did well in all the acting categories, picking all four winners (keeping in mind that they give twice as many acting awards as the Oscars, so they have twice as many chances to be right). But they got Best Picture wrong, Best Director wrong, Best Screenplay wrong, and Best Foreign Language Picture wrong.

Going back to the year before, here are all the Golden Globe categories.

Best Picture (drama) - right
Best Picture (comedy) - wrong, not even nominated for an Oscar.
Best Actor (drama) - wrong
Best Actor (comedy) - wrong, not even nominated for an Oscar.
Best Actress (drama) - right
Best Actress (comedy) - wrong, not even nominated for an Oscar
Best Supporting Actor - right
Best Supporting Actress - wrong, not nominated for an Oscar.
Best Director - right
Best Screenplay - right, but the Oscar-winner for Original Screenplay wasn't nominated by the Golden Globes
Best Foreign Language Film - wrong
Best Animated Feature - right
Best Score - right
Best Song - wrong, not nominated for an Oscar.

It is unlikely that these results over the past two years would win your office pool. If you want to be considered a precursor, that would seem to be the minimum requirement.

And these were both pretty good years for the Golden Globes.

In 2006, the Oscar for Best Picture was "Crash." The Golden Globes didn't even nominate it among their 10 finalists!

It becomes scary bad when you delve deeper. But having a limit on my Care-o-Meter, with zero interest to go back and check year-after-every-year, I decided to try an experiment. To be very clear, there is absolutely nothing even remotely scientific about it. Rather, it's the testing equivalent of throwing darts. No scientific meaning. Just picking a totally random year. But in its randomness, it has a separate meaning: it could have been any year.

I closed my eyes, pointed at the screen blindly and grabbed a year. The lucky winner was 2001. It looked good - it even had the name of a movie ("2001") about it. Alas, "lucky winner" turned out to be a contradiction.

The Globe winner in 2001 for Best Picture musical/comedy (Almost Famous) wasn't even nominated for the Oscar. The two Golden Globe winners for Best Actor were Tom Hanks and George Clooney. Swell actors, but the Oscar went to Russell Crowe ("Gladiator") - and Globe-winner Clooney didn't even get an Oscar nomination.

Renee Zellwegger ("Nurse Betty") won the Globe's Best Actress, musical/comedy. Alas, she didn't get nominated for an Oscar either.

It gets worse.

For supporting actress, Marcia Gay Harden won the Academy Award...but didn't even receive a Globe nomination.

In fairness, that was a random choice and therefore hardly definitive, as I said. Not proof of anything. Unfortunately, to be fair, I figured I'd at least go back one more year, and the results were as dismal. The year before, in 2000, the Golden Globes gave their two Best Actor awards to Denzel Washington and Jim Carrey - but the Oscar winner was Kevin Spacey (and Carrey wasn't nominated). Tom Cruise won the Globe for Supporting Actor - but Michel Caine got the Oscar. And remarkably, although there were nine Globe nominees for Best Original Score, their winner didn't even get nominated by the Academy, and the Oscar winner (The Red Violin) wasn't nominated by the Globes!!

Not good as far as precursors go.

Certainly, other years may show better results. Or...okay, maybe not. But the bottom line is not whether the Golden Globes are right some years or really wrong others. It's that if you're doing to be a "precursor," if you're going to be predictive, then you have to have a steady standard that can be relied upon. Every single year. And the only thing steady about the Golden Globes is that they do not "predict" anything. Set that in granite and plant the gravestone, once and for all.

All this said, this year the Golden Globes actually do have a reason to watch. Ricky Gervais is hosting again. It's why God created the DVR and fast-forward button.

Of course, underlying all of this is that the Golden Globes or Oscars are all just awards. They have no real meaning, except to those who win. For the rest of the planet, they're just entertainment. Still, even entertainment is more substantive when we value those behind it. There's a reason TV doesn't broadcast your office pool.

Further, for as little meaning that all awards shows have (including those given out by an industry to itself), the reality is that people watch the broadcasts. And they watch them because there's a perception - as in the Emmys, Tonys, Grammys and Oscars - that the people giving the awards know what they're doing. It's a perception the Golden Globes have falsely milked for decades, scamming the public.

In the end, for those who insist on watching the Golden Globes, watch them and accept them for what they are, and you can live in blissful peace - 86 members of a shaky organization that stumbled onto a goldmine with studios and networks, and who present a lively TV kegger.

And that's why Globe winners appear so goofy on the air. Because they understand what you now know. Everyone loves a good joke.


UPDATE:

One day after writing this above, Patrick Goldstein in the L.A. Times, wrote an article about a story broken by The Wrap about the longtime, former publicist of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association suing the organization.

"Michael Russell, who ran press for the show for 17 years, has charged the HFPA with fraud and corrupt practices. He claims that a number of members of the organization accepted money, vacations and gifts from studios in exchange for nominating their films in addition to selling media credentials and red carpet space for gifts. He also says the HFPA accepted payment from studios and producers for lobbying other members for award nominations."
0 Comments

Media Alert-ish

2/11/2021

0 Comments

 
Last week, I wrote here about the wonderful memoir that has just been released in paperback which my friend Vicki Riskin wrote about her parents -- the actress Fay Wray (of King Kong, of course, and a great many more) and screenwriter Robert Riskin (who got five Oscar nominations and won for It Happened One Night), and helped found the Writers Guild.)  It turns out that this Sunday -- February 14 -- she is going to hold a Facebook Live Chat at 5 PM Eastern time (or 2 PM here on the West Coast.)
​
Picture

This is being done in conjunction with Classic Movie Hub, and you can find the page by clicking here.  Or mark down the URL address directly to copy/paste in later -- http://facebook.com/ClassicMovieHub. 

There will be a conversation and then a Q&A later for people sending in questions.

Vicki is a smart, eloquent, profoundly personable speaker, in fact one of the most kind-hearted, nurturing people I know.  And she's accomplished in her own right -- including writing such TV movies as My Antonia,  producing Member of the Wedding and serving as President of the Writers Guild of America, as well as being a former practicing psychologist, an international board member for 12 years of Human Rights Watch -- at one point, its president -- and recipient of the WGA's Valentine Davies Award for "bringing honor to writers everywhere."

So, if you're interested in the classic period of the Golden Age of Hollywood or an interesting discussion about movies (which I'm certain this will be, having heard Vicki participate in such events before), mark the day down and bookmark the Facebook page.

For anyone interested in the book itself, you can find it here.
​

0 Comments
<<Previous
    Picture
    Picture
    Elisberg Industries gets a commission if you click here before shopping on Amazon.
    Picture
    Follow @relisberg

    Author

    Robert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. 

    Elisberg is a two-time recipient of the Lucille Ball Award for comedy screenwriting. He's written for film, TV, the stage, and two best-selling novels, is a regular columnist for the Writers Guild of America and was for
    the Huffington Post.  Among his other writing, he has a long-time column on technology (which he sometimes understands), and co-wrote a book on world travel.  As a lyricist, he is a member of ASCAP, and has contributed to numerous publications.



    Picture
           Feedspot Badge of Honor

    Archives

    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    Categories

    All
    Animals
    Audio
    Audio Land
    Books
    Business
    Chicago
    Consumer Product
    Education
    Email Interview
    Entertainment
    Environment
    Fine Art
    Food
    From The Management
    Health
    History
    Huffery
    Humor
    Internet
    Journalism
    Law
    Los Angeles
    Media
    Morning News Round Up
    Movies
    Music
    Musical
    Personal
    Photograph
    Piano Puzzler
    Politics
    Popular Culture
    Profiles
    Quote Of The Day
    Radio
    Religion
    Restaurants
    Science
    Sports
    Technology
    Tech Tip
    Theater
    The Writers Workbench
    Tidbits
    Travel
    Tv
    Twitter
    Video
    Videology
    Well Worth Reading
    Words-o-wisdom
    Writing

    RSS Feed

© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2021
Contact Us    About EI    Chicago Cubs