The 77th Annual Golden Globe Awards

Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
I mean, the standard privilege-take down response to that kind of thing is "yeah it's easy not to keep score when you're winning in a rout" or "not keeping score just perpetuates the status quo" and so on. Which I'm not saying or endorsing, but pointing out in the hopes of creating more understanding (if not empathy) for why some conservatives end up as angry or disconnected as they do. Not that I find that especially productive, either.

All I can say is that it's a pretty demoralizing to live with sometimes, even though I'm sure it seems minor to anyone on the other side of it. The idea of microaggressions seem like a pretty good lens here: you're just relaxing and enjoying an awards show and suddenly you get pin-pricked by some incredibly wealthy person telling you you're wrong (or even stupid/evil!) about something. You roll your eyes, move on...and then it happens again. And again. Flash forward a couple of decades and it's happening still, and more, and it's less subtle each passing year.

This leads to fundamentally difference types of people after awhile, since any conservative who wants to consistently engage with the culture is calloused against it at the same time. On the flip side, Orson Scott Card doesn't believe in gay marriage and J.K. Rowling doesn't think someone should be fired for saying biological sex is a thing, and people are either crestfallen or burning books, presumably because they've they've spent their entire adult lives getting used to the people whose work they enjoy validating their beliefs.

I wonder if this process, and the way it shapes dual personality extremes of the perpetually aggrieved or the perpetually entitled, amplifies what would otherwise be normal and bridgeable political differences.
I can see that, though it does feel as though it may come down to specifics on either sides. Like I'm pretty sure there was some thread on here recently where you were reluctant to expand on specific conservative viewpoints you held as if they might have caused problems with non-conservative users if you did. At one point, I checked the show's Twitter hashtag and one of the first tweets I saw was some pundit complaining about Michelle Williams name-checking the importance of women's rights (specifically reproductive rights) in her acceptance speech and, while I know that this is the kind of public figure who deals in manufacturing outrage at the left for a living and thus should treat his approach accordingly, I have to wonder if this is part of what you're talking about, especially when it comes to the question of "bridgeable political differences" and whether or not it goes beyond cutting down on basic "conservatives are stupid" insults.

Booooo!

He's the master of awkward comedy, and it's nice to see a room full of Hollywood elites not be pandered to, instead to get it with both barells. He's hardcore, and it's a refreshing change from generally intimidated safe joke hosts. I think for the most part the audience enjoy him.

His 2016 opening was slightly better though. His Mel Gibson stuff was legendary.

I've heard it said if you host a show like this you can either be popular at the after parties or popular with the general public back home. We all know what Ricky's going for.

Anyone who enjoyed it check out his 2011,12,13, and 2016 shows on you tube.
Just to be clear, are you talking about intentionally or unintentionally awkward comedy?

But seriously, if they keep inviting him back like this knowing full well how he's going to act each time then is he really guaranteed to be that provocative? Like I said before, it comes across more like a celebrity roast than anything else and his edginess seems superficial as a result.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, Iím thinking about you.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



I can see that, though it does feel as though it may come down to specifics on either sides. Like I'm pretty sure there was some thread on here recently where you were reluctant to expand on specific conservative viewpoints you held as if they might have caused problems with non-conservative users if you did.
This doesn't ring a bell offhand. I have a vague memory of alluding to the fact that I know I hold viewpoints which a lot of people don't (in the context of the fact that most people seem to need the idea of some great political will behind each of their beliefs). Do you recall anything else about it? Either way, yeah, I think it's important that people have some things they feel they have to speak up on, and plenty of things they don't necessarily need to just because it comes up, particularly in a place that's not specifically about those issues. I try to lead by example a tiny bit there.

That said, I am pretty cognizant of the weird space I occupy just by owning the place, the chief thing being that it literally doesn't matter if I ever take the slightest action in the way of self-serving censorship, or even come within 20 miles of it, because my own beliefs so expressed will always have some slight chilling effect. So anything related to this, I'd very much like to hear. If it's too off-topic a PM or whatever would be fine.

At one point, I checked the show's Twitter hashtag and one of the first tweets I saw was some pundit complaining about Michelle Williams name-checking the importance of women's rights (specifically reproductive rights) in her acceptance speech and, while I know that this is the kind of public figure who deals in manufacturing outrage at the left for a living and thus should treat his approach accordingly, I have to wonder if this is part of what you're talking about, especially when it comes to the question of "bridgeable political differences" and whether or not it goes beyond cutting down on basic "conservatives are stupid" insults.
Well, it's certainly a response to what I'm talking about. It seems clear to me that a lot of conservatives have taken up an "okay, have it your way" stance and tried to weaponize outrage a lot more over the last few years. As mentioned above, if this leads to a sort of cease-fire now that everyone is getting shot at all the time, maybe that's okay and even good. I'm not sure that'll be the effect, though. I think this'll ultimately just be an escalation, and I'd like the people whose views I share to be a bit better than that.

If you're just saying this to remind me that conservatives do this, too, sure, that's easy enough to concede. I think it's mostly a new development, though, and I still think it's wildly asymmetric, given that the opening shot is broadcast on network television and the outrage response is a tweet.
__________________



Welcome to the human race...
I believe it was this thread about Parasite where you were having an exchange with Minio regarding the relationship/conflict between one's own ideologies and those of a particular film. Still, curious to see you use the words "slight chilling effect" in this context.

Speaking of Parasite, Bong's line about "the one-inch barrier of subtitles" is my pick for the most iconic moment of the show.



I believe it was this thread about Parasite where you were having an exchange with Minio regarding the relationship/conflict between one's own ideologies and those of a particular film.
Hmmm, I guess I must not really understand what you mean. Only thing I can find is "I'd be happy to discuss them in another context at some point," which is kind of the opposite of me saying I don't want to share, unless you just mean the fact that I didn't launch right into it. That was just me not wanting to take the thread over, though. But maybe I'm not really following.

That said, it is certainly true that I deliberately suppress political opinions sometimes if it's not something I think is particularly important or I think it'll be inflammatory in a thread that needs deescalating or a few other reasons like that. If I think something is very important (or, let's be real, read something that bugs me enough) I say what I think, but in general I think it's harder, and perhaps therefore more valuable, to be able to pick and choose how often to engage. As long as I'm not allowing an important belief to go unchallenged by not engaging on it, of course. Wheee, quite the balancing act.

Still, curious to see you use the words "slight chilling effect" in this context.
If people know I have the ability to delete anything or ban anyone, that probably dampens their willingness to disagree with me (or disagree as strongly as they might want to), even if they have no fear whatsoever that I'll use it.

Speaking of Parasite, Bong's line about "the one-inch barrier of subtitles" is my pick for the most iconic moment of the show.
Yeah, that's very good. I go back and forth on this a little because I do know some thoughtful people who describe how subtitles mess with them, how their eyes going back and forth is bothersome and it makes it hard to immerse themselves in the film. I don't think that's not a reason to watch, and I definitely don't think this is why most people eschew them, either, but I feel compelled to say I think there's a potentially reasonable aversion to it, one that comes from a love of cinema and not just close-mindedness.

That said, for everyone else, yeah, they're missing many many great films and I like that Bong used his platform to challenge the idea a little, without being too chastising about it. And hey, there's something everyone can agree on, too: a challenging acceptance speech, but one that advocates for the art form we're ostensibly praising, too. Win-win.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
I think the main issue with people who specialize in awkward comedy is eventually the second word gets dropped altogether.
The Apple bit was very preachy, on point but wasn't particularly funny.
__________________



We've gone on holiday by mistake
@Iroquois

Intentionally. This guy created the Office, an awkward comedy masterpiece thats difficult to watch sometimes for the awkwardness.



Welcome to the human race...
Hmmm, I guess I must not really understand what you mean. Only thing I can find is "I'd be happy to discuss them in another context at some point," which is kind of the opposite of me saying I don't want to share, unless you just mean the fact that I didn't launch right into it. That was just me not wanting to take the thread over, though. But maybe I'm not really following.

That said, it is certainly true that I deliberately suppress political opinions sometimes if it's not something I think is particularly important or I think it'll be inflammatory in a thread that needs deescalating or a few other reasons like that. If I think something is very important (or, let's be real, read something that bugs me enough) I say what I think, but in general I think it's harder, and perhaps therefore more valuable, to be able to pick and choose how often to engage. As long as I'm not allowing an important belief to go unchallenged by not engaging on it, of course. Wheee, quite the balancing act.
Fair point, it was not a subject that needed to be pressed in that particular thread. Like you said, maybe this is better suited to PMs.

If people know I have the ability to delete anything or ban anyone, that probably dampens their willingness to disagree with me (or disagree as strongly as they might want to), even if they have no fear whatsoever that I'll use it.
Heavy lies the crown, I guess.

Yeah, that's very good. I go back and forth on this a little because I do know some thoughtful people who describe how subtitles mess with them, how their eyes going back and forth is bothersome and it makes it hard to immerse themselves in the film. I don't think that's not a reason to watch, and I definitely don't think this is why most people eschew them, either, but I feel compelled to say I think there's a potentially reasonable aversion to it, one that comes from a love of cinema and not just close-mindedness.

That said, for everyone else, yeah, they're missing many many great films and I like that Bong used his platform to challenge the idea a little, without being too chastising about it. And hey, there's something everyone can agree on, too: a challenging acceptance speech, but one that advocates for the art form we're ostensibly praising, too. Win-win.
Good point. I do wonder if he's taken that into consideration, though the phrasing does make it sound like it's for people who write it off as some insurmountable obstacle - between that and his letter politely requesting that nobody spoil the movie, he clearly cares about his film being seen as is rather than

@Iroquois

Intentionally. This guy created the Office, an awkward comedy masterpiece thats difficult to watch sometimes for the awkwardness.
Co-created. I think I made it through half an episode and checked out mainly because I think I'd already burnt myself out on his schtick with Extras and Life's Too Short (both of which I'd watched beforehand for some reason). I still have season 1 on DVD but I wonder if I'll ever actually get around to finishing it.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
It's definitely worth a watch. 2 strong seasons and a good finale Xmas special.



A system of cells interlinked

Which is, I think, probably not what will happen, which means all we've done as a group is take the bait and expand the front of the culture war, leaving fewer and fewer places where people can simply co-exist and kinda get to know each other in a way that I'm pretty sure has positive long-term effects when we do get into political issues.
This is a big part of why both sides have become more reactionary as of late... I don't see much good coming of it.
__________________
"Thereís absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Anybody else upset that Eddie Murphy lost to Taron Egerton for Best Actor in a Musical/Comedy?
__________________
ďLet me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!Ē ~ Rocky Balboa



A controversial opinion and this is not a dig at the Americans here, but a lot of Americans are upset at Gervais because they don't get British - or more specifically northern British - humour.

It's dry, dark and brutal at times. I have had the fortune of growing up with Liverpool forums and English football forums, and the humour from Brit lads - especially Scousers, Mancs, Geordies, Yorkies, Scots, etc. is ten times more brutal than anything that Reading born Gervais throws in these award functions. And it's not edgy for the sake it. It's smart.

They also don't shy away from taking the insults on their chins when thrown their way. They laugh and are quickly prepared with newer jokes.

You can also see it on several Brit shows or movies. Hardly anything is frowned upon.

I don't mind Gervais. And he is definitely punching up, and spoke a lot of harsh truths.
I love Gervais. (The OfficeUK is the funniest show Iíve ever seen.) I agree with what youíve written. Also the bit about Brits taking insults when thrown their way. Iíve always said you can never insult a Brit for being a Brit. We just donít take it seriously.
__________________
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.



Can't wait to see how Sam Mendes turns World War I into an indictment of suburbia.
Interesting remark. How did you come up with this? (Have not yet seen the movie.)



Interesting remark. How did you come up with this? (Have not yet seen the movie.)
Oh, just his other films. I don't actually expect it'll do anything like that, it's just a theme he's interested in, so the idea of him doing a war film combined with that theme struck me as funny, and a pithy way to jab him for an interest in making some point about all of it that I find kinda trite.



⬆️ Okay, I’m with you now. I’m either gonna love or hate 1917. Same as Dunkirk & Darkest Hour, both of which I hated.



Joker: Joaquin and Hildur and extremely talented and deserved their wins without a doubt.

The Irishman: Surprised that one of the best films of the year didn't win anything. If it could get one thing I believe it deserved Best Drama.

Marriage Story: Laura Dern was one of my favourite parts of the film, so hell yeah.

Two Popes: I enjoyed it, not disappointed it didn't win anything as I found other contenders in the categories better.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Incredibly entertaining, delightful dialogue and storytelling, and brad Pitt is so funny and charismatic in it. Deserved all its wins.

Jojo Rabbit and Dolemite is my Name: Haven't seen Rocketman yet but for now I believe Eddie/Roman deserved best comedic actor.

Knives Out: As much as I liked The Farewell I feel Ana gave a better performance than Awkwafina.


Can't wait to watch some of the other nominees.
__________________
Muh letterbox: https://letterboxd.com/HashtagBrownies/



J
Jojo Rabbit and Dolemite is my Name: Haven't seen Rocketman yet but for now I believe Eddie/Roman deserved best comedic actor.


Can't wait to watch some of the other nominees.
I haven't seen JoJo Rabbit but I have seen Dolemite is my Name but I still think Taron Egertonh deserved to win for Rocketman, a movie that just got lost in the shuffle somehow and nobody saw but Egerton was incredible.



I haven't seen JoJo Rabbit but I have seen Dolemite is my Name but I still think Taron Egertonh deserved to win for Rocketman, a movie that just got lost in the shuffle somehow and nobody saw but Egerton was incredible.
At first I wasn't keen on seeing it when I heard it was a biopic, but when I heard it was a musical I became interested in seeing it.