When Dax Shepard co-wrote and directed the movie CHIPS, his wife Kristen Bell had a small, supporting role in it. This is a fun “Funny or Die” video that they did about her auditioning for the role.
0 Comments
Well, the Oscar nominations were released yesterday – which means it’s time for all those upset to start complaining about “snubs.”
I don't want to get into a debate over specifics this year and whether or not the Academy "snubbed" anyone, because people rant about it so much all the time, and honestly...I just don't care enough. But the general concept of “snubbing” is one that does interest me. And I did write about that elsewhere last year when people were upset at Greta Gerwig not getting a directing nomination for Barbie, despite the movie grossing a phenomenal $1.5 billion worldwide, and they claimed she was “snubbed” (the argument went) presumably because she is a woman. And Margot Robbie who played the title character in the massive hit apparently also got “snubbed” for not getting a Best Actress nomination – though the reason for that “snub” was never made clear, since (given that the category was for “actress”) it couldn’t have been because she is a woman. But no one was able to come up with another reason, so it was largely just left as an undefined “snub.” What I wrote at the time was – “Barbie got a bundle of nominations (eight, in fact) including Best Picture, two Best Supporting nominations for actor and actress, and Greta Gerwig herself got a nomination for the screenplay. As ‘snubs’ go, it did really well.” Furthermore, she had already been nominated as Best Director for the movie Lady Bird, which also got a Best Picture nomination…and another nomination for her with Best Original Screenplay. So, with those three nominations, and this new one for screenplay, and Best Picture (giving her two Best Picture nominations), it strikes me as incredibly hard to say the Academy doesn’t like her and snubs her simply because she’s a woman. Should Ms. Gerwig have been nominated as Best Director for Barbie? Personal choice, the Motion Picture Academy who voted said no, other people's mileage may vary. But I’m absolutely sure, as disappointed as Greta Gerwig likely was at not getting an Oscar nomination for directing, she not only was extremely happy at getting nominated for the screenplay, and (most of all) ecstatic beyond all measure at the movie grossing $1.5 billion. It made her career. I'm certain that "Getting nominated for an Oscar" was near the bottom of the list, if on the list at all, when she sat down starring at a blank page to co-write and then direct the movie -- but rather, "Can I pull this off script and make a wonderful movie that people will love and actually go to??" That’s what she made the movie for. If she’d been nominated for director, and the movie flopped or even just broke even, that likely would have raised a hurdle to her future directing work. Now, she can do pretty much whatever she wants. Having both box-office success and Oscar nominations is better. But Hollywood studios cares most – overwhelmingly by far – for the box office. And of course, when it comes to nominations, all things are not equal. A lead actress might be brilliant -- but there might be a half-dozen brilliant lead actresses that year, and one is going to be left out (sorry, "snubbed"). On the other hand, there might only be three really standout Best Supporting Actor performances that year, so they'll all get nominated -- with two "also-rans." The same holds true for Best Director, even if the movie got a Best Picture nomination. If there were 10 great directors that year, five are going to be left out (sorry, "snubbed"), even if one of them directed the movie that won Best Picture. Fun Fact: this year, the movie Wicked got nominated for 10 Oscars including Best Picture. However, its director John M. Chu was not nominated. Another thing he was “not” is a woman, so that couldn’t have been the reason for him being “snubbed”. And another Fun Fact: the movie that made Steven Spielberg’s career was Jaws. And it not only made his career, but it was a phenomenon that changed how Hollywood operated, creating the concept of a tent-pole Summer blockbuster that studios would plan their schedule around. The movie was nominated for Best Picture – though none of the actors were, since clearly it wasn’t an “actors” kind of movie. It was a masterwork of action, special effects and suspense, overseen by the wunderkind Steven Spielberg. And do you know another category that Jaws also didn’t get an Oscar nomination for? That’s right, Steven Spielberg was not nominated as Best Director for Jaws. Honest. (Side Note: Not getting nominated didn’t hurt his career.) I’ll toss in one more. When you think of the movie musical The Music Man, nominated for Best Picture, what first comes to mind? For most people, it’s probably two words – “Robert Preston.” After all, he had won the Tony Award for Best Actor in a Musical when he played the role on Broadway, and it’s a tour-de-force performance that carries the stage show and movie, one of the legendary performances. And – you guessed it – Robert Preston was not nominated for an Oscar in The Music Man. Really. (The actors who were nominated were Burt Lancaster for The Birdman of Alcatraz, Jack Lemmon for Days of Wine and Roses, Peter O’Toole for Lawrence of Arabia, Marcello Mastroianni for Divorce Italian Style and Gregory Peck – who won for To Kill a Mockingbird. That was a really good year! And so Robert Preston didn’t get even nominated for The Music Man.) People often look at something as "snubbed" because they don't know several of the other nominees. So, the presumption is that, gee, those others must not be any good. But that's on them for not seeing these other movies. Academy members are sent links on the Academy website – or sent DVDs or sent invitations to screenings -- ) to almost all the eligible films with a chance. So, they do see them. And may decide, "Overall, I loved this movie...but man, the direction of this other movie was spectacular, even if I didn't care for the story as much, or the production design or costumes or whatever." By the way, I want to be clear: the film industry has a terrible history for employment of women. And this carries over to Oscar nominations. And Best Director is high on that list of poor representation of women. And there have been, I’m sure, actual snubs – of women and others, for a range of reasons. But when someone doesn’t get a nomination, women or otherwise, it is not inherently a “snub.” As a said, there may be others who voters thought were better. And as filmmakers themselves, Academy voters look at a movie differently than as an audience. It at times overlaps, but they understand that what makes a Best Picture encompasses many disciplines – the performances, writing, production design, music score, editing and so much more, all of which may involve the director, but ultimately they each succeed on their own professional level of craftsmanship. And box-office has no place in determining how, to professionals, a movie was crafted – as was the writing, acting, design, music – and what made it overall, or in its parts, great. Or unsuccessful, artistically. But most important of all perhaps -- That leaves the final point: when one says, "So-and-so was snubbed!!!", then they must answer the question: "Okay, so then which of the nominees would you drop?" Usually, all five are deserving -- and saying you'd drop a nominee because you didn't see the film is inappropriate. And if you do end up saying, "Well...okay, I'd drop so-and-so," then rest assured that fans of that artis will cry out at the person being…say it all together…"snubbed." Some movies or people maybe perhaps do get "snubbed." Maybe. Perhaps. But it's rare. Usually, voters just like other nominees more. A week or so ago, I posted a video of Hugh Grant making a speech to help honor screenwriter and director Richard Curtis at the Motion Picture ceremony presenting him with an honorary Oscar. In his speech, Grant noted that Curtis was one of he founders of Comic Relief and its off-shoot Red Nose Day – which makes this video all the more pointed, since it comes from the 2010 Comic Relief. This is a 12-minute film that’s a parody of the movie Mamma Mia, starring Jennifer Saunders playing Meryl Streep. And it features a wonderful cast, including Sienna Miller as ‘Amanda Seyfried,’ Dawn French as “Julie Walter,” British comedian Alan Carr as ‘Colin Firth’ and Joanna Lumley recreating her role of ‘Patsy’ from Absolutely Fabulous (for no apparent reason). The whole thing is utterly loony and a lot of fun. 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 17 years. I almost didn't post it a few years ago, though, because no TV network would broadcast the Golden Globes due to a major racism scandal in the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. In response, 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 original article 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." We have a longer version of the Fest today. Bear with me a bit and let me explain. I've posted this all before and I find it a fun story of sorts to repeat. When the movie musical Scrooge was released in 1970, I remember reading an article about the film's composer-lyricist-screenwriter (and executive producer) Leslie Bricusse (who earlier had teamed with Anthony Newley to write the stage musicals Stop the World - I Want to Get Off and The Roar of the Greasepaint - the Smell of the Crowd, and the next year would write the score to the movie musical Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). In the piece, Bricusse said that they'd done research and discovered that among all the Christmas carols written, there had never been one actually titled, "A Christmas Carol." So, he wrote one, which begins the film over the wonderful opening credits by the great artist, Ronald Searle (who also did the credits for, among other films, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines.) I mention all this, though, for a specific reason. Bear with me. Here's that song first, however, and those wonderful opening credits. As I said, I mentioned all of that above for another reason entirely. It's that as good a film as Scrooge is, Bricusse's research staff was lousy. Because 14 years before, in 1956, there was a live TV musical version of A Christmas Carol that was called The Stingiest Man in Town and starred the legendary film actor, best known as playing Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone as Scrooge. And the very first song in the show was called -- yes, you guessed it -- "A Christmas Carol." The music for the show was written by Fred Spielman, with lyrics by Janice Torre. It's not remotely distinguished or memorable, but has quite a few very nice things in it. And there, right at the top, first thing, is a song, "A Christmas Carol." A live musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol on American television doesn't seem like a terribly challenging thing to track down for a research staff working on a movie musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol. So, continuing our holiday theme of unknown Christmas songs from musicals, here is the earlier song, "A Christmas Carol," sung by The Four Lads. It's short, less than a minute, but whatever its length the name of the song is "A Christmas Carol." That the researchers couldn't find. But we think you fine folks deserve better... Which is why this also isn't the end of the post here. Because there's another one coming. And it's a joy. But here's that other song first -- Note: Though the person posting this put up a screen shot that say's "A Christmas Carol," it is from The Stingiest Man in Town. And yes, there's more... In 1959, which is only 11 years before the movie musical Scrooge was made (and three years after the TV musical above), the wonderful Tom Lehrer released his classic comedy album, An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer -- which included a song titled...yes, you guessed it -- "A Christmas Carol." And again, Tom Lehrer was not remotely an unknown entertainer and songwriter. It fact, as popular as An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer was when it was released, he was probably around the height of his popularity in 1970 when the film Scrooge hit the theaters. His huge hit album, That Was the Year That Was had been released in 1965, only five years before Scrooge. So, how on earth those researchers missed these two songs -- and for all I know there are more, and even high-profile ones -- I have no idea. Happily, we have this song to enjoy, as well... I see that the mentalist who went by the stage name of The Great Kreskin passed away yesterday just short of his 90th birthday. He was a regular guest on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, and I used to love his appearances. In part, that's because as a mentalist (he wasn't a magician), he made clear that what he was doing wasn't because of any mystical power he had, but this impressive talent. I mention this, too, because back in 2008, there was a movie I liked very much, “The Great Buck Howard” with John Malkovich which clearly was inspired by the Great Kreskin. It had a very good supporting cast of Colin Hanks and Emily Blunt, along with real-life magician Ricky Jay -- and in a small role playing the father of Colin Hanks is...Tom Hanks. It turns out that my sense at the time that this was inspired by The Great Kreskin wasn't off the mark. That's because it was written and directed by a guy -- Sean McGinley -- who was Kreskin's road manager for a short while. This is something I didn’t know until just now when I checked the date it was released. UPDATE: It's available online with several free streaming services (which all have ads, but generally limited interruptions). For starters, it's on Tubi, and you can watch it here. It's also free on Pluto TV here -- they also offer a paid level without ads. And on Plex, as well, where you can watch it here (It's also free on YouTube with ads, but audio and video are woefully out of sync.) Also, it's available on Amazon, though not included in the membership, but for $3.99 rental. However, that's without ads. But here’s the trailer. It actually does a pretty good job giving a sense of the movie -- and how good John Malkovich is in it. |
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
Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
|