The Golden Globes is perhaps the most influential of all the pre-award awards if for no other reason that everyone keeps saying they are, which means it must be true. And overall, there has been a lot of similarity between the Globes and AMPASS, at least when it comes to nominations. What keeps things interesting is that there is often profound disagreement between the two, often hysterically so. But the Globes do give Oscar voters a lot to think about, if nothing else.
The day after the Globes, SAG announced their nominees and the two together suggest some interesting possibilities. Also, remember that the voting pool for SAG (which includes television performers) is not the same as the Academy, so that nominations are similar, but almost never the same.
The Globes, of course, have ten nominations, five for drama, five for the somewhat vaguer musical/comedy. The list for comedy should probably not be lingered over, it’s not the most impressive set of nominees the Globe has come up with before (Burlesque? The Tourist?). Suffice it to say that The Kids Are All Right will probably win and will be the only one of the five to make the Academy’s top ten. As for the top five in the dramatic category, all should make the Oscar list. There are no real surprises here and the influence on Academy voters should be negligible.
SAG doesn’t have a Best Picture category per se. They do have a Best Ensemble category, which is the next best thing—unless you are a movie like Inception, whose fairly bland characters that the actors couldn’t do a whole lot with can get in the way of a nomination here. In fact, the only difference between SAG’s list and the Globe’s dramatic category is that The Kids Are All Right made it, while Inception didn’t. So, again, like the Globes, SAG’s influence is pretty negligible.
As for acting, this does get a bit more interesting. The Globes, of course, have two categories and ten nominations, while the Oscars still only have five. The most interesting entry here are the nominations for Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling for Blue Valentine. When I read this, I wondered if the two could upset the Oscar apple cart. But since neither got a SAG nomination, I think only Williams could do any damage by possibly ousting Nicole Kidman for the Rabbit Hole. The reason I say this is that Diane Wiest did not get a Supporting Actress nom from either the Globes or SAG for …Rabbit Hole and I’m beginning to wonder whether this is a reflection of the voters’ waning interest in that film overall. Also Leslie Manville (for Another Year) isn’t getting much love lately either. However, none of these films have opened yet, so who knows what will happen at the last minute; but I think the …Rabbit… might be dying. Hallie Berry got a Globe nom for Frankie and Alice, and even though there is a push for her to make the Academy cut, it’s unlikely. Tilda Swinton’s chances for I Am Love seem more and more distant.
Gosling’s main hope now is that fifth spot that no one is sure about. Jeff Bridges didn’t get a True Grit Globe nomination (for some odd reason), but he will an Oscar nom, and Gosling won’t dislodge that. But Gosling could edge out Javier Bardem, the favorite as of now, for Biutiful, or Robert Duvall, who got the SAG nom for Get Low. I don’t think Duvall’s showing at the SAG’s will help come Oscar time and, like the other films mentioned, Biutiful hasn’t opened yet. Mark Wahlberg got a Globe nom for The Fighter, but I don’t think that will translate into a Best Actor nom; it might, if the Fighter bandwagon really takes off, but I think Gosling or Bardem will be nominated before he is.
The Globe’s Supporting Actor noms should reflect the Academy with one exception: Michael Douglas for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. He has a chance for an Oscar nom, but that means he would have to knock out either Jeremy Renner for The Town or Mark Ruffalo for The Kids Are All Right. But Renner and Ruffalo’s SAG nominations suggest that is now highly unlikely. Surprisingly, the SAGs didn’t nominate Andrew Garfield for the Social Network, going instead for John Hawkes for Winter’s Bone (in fact, except for The King’s Speech, the SAGs’ seem oddly to avoid English actors like the plague). Though Hawkes is a worthy nominee and there is a sudden, late movement to get him a nom, he, like Douglas, would have to oust Renner or Ruffalo, and that is unlikely. Andrew Garfield is pretty much a lock, no matter what the SAG’s say.
Supporting Actress, though, is getting more interesting. For some reason, and insanity could be the only defense, Jacki Weaver didn’t get a SAG nom for the Animal Kingdom. What the fuck? However, Amy Adams for the Fighter and Milas Kunis for The Black Swan did. They both also got Globe nominations (Weaver got a Globe nom). As was said, this is bad news for Dianne Weist. It might also be bad news for Hallie Stenfield. If both Adams and Kunis get noms, someone’s got to go besides Weist (Weaver, Helena Bonham-Carter for The King’s Speech, and Melissa Leo for the Fighter are pretty much locks), and Stenfield is the most vulnerable.
The most interesting aspect of the Globe directing nominations is David O. Russell for the Fighter, knocking out both David Boyle for 127 Hours and Lisa Cholodonka for The Kids Are All Right. The Fighter seems to be coming along strong and perhaps Russell could sneak in.
The Illusionist is one of the five nominated animated films at the Globes, helping give it momentum to make the third movie in the same Oscar category.
Things will now slow down a bit, though other awards and top ten lists will continue appearing.