Last night, I went to a screening at the Writers Guild of a Foreign-Language film, The Promised Land. This isn’t about that, thought it’s a starting point to a couple of tales and an embedded short film. I’ll just say that it was recommended to me by a friend who’s in the Motion Picture Academy and has inundated himself with the International Film Committee for years. (This is no small thing. Unlike other Oscar categories, to vote for International Films, members have to register that they’ve actually seen a certain number of the submitted movies.) It was a great recommendation: The Promised Land is superb – a sprawling, at times exciting epic from Denmark about a man’s effort to expand the country in 1755 by cultivating a desolate section of the country. It stars Mads Mikkelson, who most recently was the villain in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. I had thought it was one of the official Writers Guild evening screenings, but to my mistake it wasn’t, which I discovered when I got to the Guild theater. Rather, it was a Los Angeles Scandinavian Film Festival screening, and they wouldn’t let me in. After a few minutes of trying, I left to go home -- but before getting to my car, something was nagging me, and I tried to figure out what the problem was. I checked through my phone for the Guild Screening List email, but couldn’t find it. And the list on the WGA website didn’t have it there either. Confused, I did an email search another way – and found the the problem. What I’d forgotten was that my Academy friend had sent me an email a month ago about there being a screening of the film at the WGA Theater – not a Guild screening, but a promotional one. I’d totally forgotten that I had written to the PR agency handling it to see if I could RSVP, and they were happy to say yes, since they were trying to get not only world of mouth, but also awards votes within Guilds. And I had the email back from them approving me. So, I went back in to show them the email exchange, sure that this would resolve everything. But… But it didn’t, the woman at the desk was still being an authoritarian, even checking my phone and looking at the email exchange. (This is the short version of the story.) It was very annoying. I kept saying that I should be on the RSVP list, “Don’t you have one?? Just check it.” Yes, they did have a list, but said it was a mess, so they wouldn’t check. I got more specific and said, “I was approved because they wanted Guild members to attend so that they could vote for the awards.” (And we were at the WGA Theater, after all.) That didn’t phase them. This went on for a while, and was all the more stupid because, while it had a nice-enough crowd, the theater was 60% empty, so they could have just said, “Fine, whatever, you’ve driven all the way here, go in.” Eventually, I said something like, “Look, here’s the email from them saying they’ve been accepted, from “Josh Haroutanian.” I thought this was an unnecessary thing to say, because they’d spent the past minute scrolling through the email threat on my phone, but apparently they’d been more interested in scrolling than reading what the messages said. Because when they heard that, the woman said. “Ohhhh, from Josh, well, that’s okay then.” But still she wanted to see the email, asked for the phone again and kept scrolling through. Until eventually she said, “Ah, yes, I see, it’s from Josh, well, that’s very different.” As very politely as I could, but bluntly, I said, “No, it’s exactly what I’ve been telling you, just that now you can see the name.” And they let me in! O huzzah. This is all prelude to the larger point here. Before the film, they showed a very good Danish short, Knight of Fortune. Initially, I was annoyed at having to sit through a short, and just wanted to get to the main feature – not because I didn’t want to see a short (I actually like them. For years, when he lived in Los Angeles, my Academy friend would bring me to the days when the Academy would show the nominated short films, short documentaries and animated shorts), but for another reason entirely. As it happened, before leaving for the movie last night , I set the DVR to record four hourlong TV shows, plus with the second half of the Detroit-Rams Wild Card football game, and wanted to get back home early enough in the late evening to watch as many of them as I could before collapsing. But in the end, I’m glad they had the short, since I very much enjoyed it. I mention this because it turns out the short is from the “New Yorker Screening Room,” and they have it posted on YouTube. So, I’ll embed it below. It’s 24 only minutes and very good. I don’t want to give away too much, but it takes several unexpected and offbeat turns. It's eligible to be nominated as Best Feature Short, so we'll see what happens there. Having sat through all the screenings of others that have been nominated, I think it's good enough to be considered.
0 Comments
This is a fun, charming interview with Barbara Billingsley -- who famously played ‘June Cleaver’ on Leave It to Beaver -- talking about her iconic and wildly-unexpected scene in Airplane! as a translator of jive. But first, to refresh your memory (though I suspect most everyone who’s seen it has it indelibly etched in their mind, even after 43 years) or for those who don’t know the movie, here’s the scene. And here she is discussing how it all came about, and how the mere 37-seconds impacted her. 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 17years. I almost didn't post it two years ago, though -- that's because no TV network would broadcast the Golden Globes due to a major racism scandal in the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. The HFPA basically said, oops, my bad, we'll fix that, for sure, really, honest -- never mind all the other scandals and emptiness and problems and utter meaningless of the Golden Globes and its parent organization -- and NBC, the network that brought you Donald Trump on The Apprentice pedestal, figured, okay that sounds good enough for us, and decided to bring it back, just because. So, with the Golden Globes broadcast set for Sunday night, here we go again. * * * 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 nominatedby 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." On this week’s Naked Lunch podcast, hosts Phil Rosenthal and David Wild continue their slight detour. As they write, “Phil & David continue to reveal and pay tribute to their favorite movies ever with all of you and with each other. Come for the hot Stanley Kubrick talk, stay for Phil & David discussing Almost Famous by Cameron Crowe, The Last Waltz by Martin Scorsese as well as The Ten Commandments, Klute, Network, A Hard Day's Night, Tootsie, Rushmore and so many more significant films that shaped their tastes in cinema and their lives in general.
If you missed Part 1, you can listen to it here. For the Holiday Music Fest tonight, we have a lovely song that most definitely is largely unknown for a very good reason. It was cut from the film and has been lost for over 20 years. The song is "When Love is Gone," for The Muppet Christmas Carol. It was sung by Meredith Braun, who was appearing in Les Miserables in London at the time, and... Michael Caine. Yes, Michael Caine. She plays Scrooge's lost love Belle, and Caine as Scrooge comes upon her with the Ghost of Christmas Past. Director Brian Henson loved the song, as did the songwriters Paul Goodman and Miles Goodman -- as well as Caine. The issue was that executive Jeffrey Katzenberg thought that test screenings were showing that kids in the audience were getting antsy by the mature ballad. He didn't require Henson to cut it, but made a strong case, and so Henson reluctantly agreed. And so, the song was dropped from the 1992 film. Because of his love of the song, director Henson put it back in for the 2002 VHS release. But it's that pesky "VHS" that caused the next problem. Because when DVDs came along, the negative for the song was lost, and so it couldn't be added into the new DVD release. And so hasn't been seen since. Every six months or so, Henson said that he'd ask about the footage and even put together a task force of sorts to find it, but with no luck. The film was recently being remastered for re-release in 4K. And Henson showed up for a screening. It turns out that the technicians hid something from him. As he told BBC News, "I went down and they said, ‘But before we show it to you, we’ve got something else we want to show you.’ And they put up reel four of Christmas Carol with ‘When Love Is Gone,’” I was like, ‘No, you did not!’ and they said, ‘Yes we did! We found it!’ I was so happy, I was so happy.” The scene is also included in the "full extended cut" option in the Extras section for the movie on Disney Plus. And so finally, after 21 years since the VHS release -- and 31 years since the feature film was show in theaters -- "When Love is Gone" will be back in the movie. Here is the scene and song. No, that's not just a holiday greeting, but something else entirely. Let me explain... My Holiday Music Fest postings have made me think of one of my favorite, little-known holiday movies which I figured I should mention, giving folks time to perhaps get it from Netflix or whatever online service you subscribe to before the season is out. Though it's great any time of the year. It's a foreign language film, Joyeux Noel, which was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Oscar in 2005. Honestly, I thought it should have won, but the Oscar that year went to a South African movie, Tsotsi. That was quite good, but for my own taste Joyeux Noel stood hand-over-fist better. Tsotsi told an important story, in an important country at an important time in its history. And it told it well. But Joyeux Noel was just...joyous. And wonderful. It tells a fictionalized version of a story you may have heard -- how in World War I, four armies faced each other on Christmas Eve, ready for battle, but among themselves decided to call a truce for that one night. The movie isn't just "feel good," there's a great deal of drama and intense tension, and it's all told superbly. It was also the first movie I'd seen Diane Kruger in, though I didn't realize it at the time, since she wasn't a well-known star in the U.S. then. She plays an opera singer, and interestingly he singing is dubbed by someone who was one of my folks very favorite, Natalie Dessay. (I should note for those wary of foreign language films that one of the armies at a crossroads is British, so a good part of the movie is in English.) Here's the trailer. It doesn't give a sense of the rich, tense drama at stake and tends more to focus on the warmth. But you should get a sense of it all, most especially how extremely well-crafted it is. By the way, here's a link to it on Amazon Prime, by clicking here. You'll note that it has four stars -- and a 7.8 rating on iMDB. On Rotten Tomatoes, the critic rating is a high 74%...but the audience rating is 89%. So I'm not alone on this... |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|