Golden Globes 2019.... *chirp*

No, it's merely one data point.

Due to travel and economics I don't see as many films as I wish - only a hundred or so every year. But I can admit that my wife has a far more valid basis for her opinion about the quality of films in any given year by seeing three hundred of them. To clarify, when I filter out all of the repeat viewings, and the older films that she saw, she still saw more than 200 new films last year.

Complaints about "Hollywood today" sound basically indistinguishable from the complaints about "the music being released today" and in almost every case the people complaining had basically stopped seeking out new music.

Really? I guess it must be a lack of maturity but have not found that in myself. I'll never be able to go back into the exact same mental space that I was in when I first saw off some of my favorites, so I'll never be able to have exactly the same experience, but I can still appreciate just how great some of them were.

I count Terry Gilliam's Brazil as my all-time favorite - I remember sitting there completely stunned, barely able to get out of my seat when the lights came up after all the credits had finished. Again, I can't get back into that same spot, but it is still stunning.

I don't think "masterpiece" is a criteria that can be determined within the year of its release. John Ford was just "this guy who made studio westerns" during his lifetime, but look at how many of his films are now considered masterpieces.

 

Citing one or even a handful of examples doesn't somehow negate the fact that the majority of important films are regarded as such upon their year of release, even if/when they don't win awards. Furthermore, a number of Ford's films were both iconic and successful in their day, even if the word "masterpiece" wasn't being thrown around at the time. Nevertheless, I'm happy to concede that there are movies from 2018 that might be reappraised somewhere down the road, though I remain unconvinced that there are enough of them to make last year a qualitatively "good" one for film from an artistic perspective. If anything, I can see some of the Marvel movies being the ones that are one day hailed as masterpieces, which isn't to suggest I agree, just that I can see it happening. In that regard, 2018 might be one day considered a great year for film because of movies like "Avengers: Infinity War" and "Black Panther". Of course, I don't imagine that's what you had in mind, and it's certainly not going to convince me of anything (though I did enjoy the Avengers movie).

 

I watched the entire show (up until my bed time). Nothing exceptional, but I thought it was entertaining enough. I generally enjoy award shows and will DEFINITELY be watching The Oscars!

 

Not sure why some people don't get why people bitch about celebrity virtue signalling on awards shows, though. That crap wasn't de rigueur until fairly recently, and most of us don't dig hackneyed opinionating mixed in with our entertainment glitz.

 

I guess you forgot what happened when Brando won in the 70s.

 

That underlines my point - Brando's stunt is remembered because it was unique.

 

I'm pretty sure most people get exactly why some people moan about "virtue signaling" (adorable, btw ).

 

Personally I enjoy it when professional entertainers take the stage & attempt to enlighten their civilian audience. The only problem is that working in the movie-biz is so far removed from a civilian existence, that you can barely see the sunshine coming out of your own backside. Chirp...

 

I pontificate all the time now (obviously limited on the these forums), so why would I stop if I were famous and had a bigger platform? Not sure I would.

 

People who complain about artists speaking freely are basically just angry that most accomplished, creative people reject their worldview.

 

Yeah, I can't help but notice these folks are never complaining about, say, James Woods. Hm...

 

I usually DVR the Grammy's, but the last 3-4 years I think it's only taken me 30 minutes to see the parts I actually had even the tiniest interest in.

This year, it may take less than 15 minutes.

 

That's the thing. Watching people pontificate is great when you agree with them. But it's annoying when you don't. Which is why I respect Elvis' famous response, when asked about his opinion on the Vietnam war: "I'm just an entertainer, and I'd rather keep my opinion to myself." And bear in mind that, as he was more of a conservative fellow with a conservative audience, his speaking up his mind probably wouldn't have hurt him in the eyes of his audience -- he would have probably said he was in favor of the war, which would have played well to his kind of crowd. Yet he declined to say anything. To me that's dignified.

 

It is dignified if that is how he felt. An artist who speaks out on something he or she considers important can be just as dignified. If someone finds it "annoying" when an artist chooses to express themselves, we are back at my original comment. I don't respect the "dance, monkey, dance" mentality toward creative artists.

 

The other problem is that when it comes to all of those stars, it's not like when, say, Victor Hugo would rise in the French Assembly and deliver a speech. Their opinion usually amounts to a simplistic, obvious slogan that we would feel is worthless if somebody wrote it in the comments section of any newspaper. There's no profound insight or original thought.

 

A generalization with no examples provided. Please allow me to repeat myself: People who complain about artists speaking freely are basically just angry that most accomplished, creative people reject their worldview.

 

"Accomplished, creative people"? You have much more respect for Hollywood stars than I do.

 

So then, let's see those clips of Woods sounding off during a televised awards show.

 

They are just people like you and me that took a chance and persevered.

 

He has all the audience he wants on his Twitter feed.

 

True. But I’d have to make an exception and say we’re usually hearing from actors and actresses, in which case they’re probably phenomenally good looking beyond the average person. And a certain prejudice on my part says extremely good looking people aren’t always the deepest thinkers. They never had to struggle: everybody wants to take care of them, and being hot gets you plenty of help, The same way dripping cash has people stumbling over themselves to do your bidding.

 

saw the globes, fine enough (the hosts were pretty vanilla, bring back gervais!) I haven't seen all the films but I would never miss the Oscars, people have been using it for a platform since marlon / and ms littlefeather

 

It used to be very rare, and as in the case of Brando, the opinion put forth was sometime surprising and unexpected. Was the plight of American Indians the number-one subject in the media when Brando did his stunt?

Now everybody does it, and what they say is always the same thing, on the same subject.

 

those very important subjects imho.

 

I've always assumed the Golden Globes weren't as much about cinema, as what they could get A-listers to say on-camera when they were blotto. "Awright, awright, awriiiiight- *burp*-!"

Perhaps I'm just being too cynical. But, with the numerous award ceremonies vying for nothing more than your attention as an afterthought when you read an article on Sandra Bullock in OK! in the checkout line, sometimes I think the only function they perform is racking-up random mentions of other awards some films are winning in the run-up to The Oscars.