Image Credit: Wilson WebbBesides The Tourist earning three nominations that no one saw coming, the biggest surprise of Tuesday’s Golden Globe nominations may have been the complete snubbing of True Grit. The Coen Brothers’ remake of the Oscar-winning 1969 Western has been considered one of the award season’s few sure things ever since the project was announced. On Monday, the film garnered 11 nominations from the Critics’ Choice Awards — including Best Picture, Director, Actor (Jeff Bridges), and Supporting Actress (Hailee Steinfeld). Early reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and the movie’s already won awards or received nominations from critic organizations in Boston, Detroit, Houston, Indiana, Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis, Toronto, and Washington, D.C. But when Josh Duhamel, Katie Holmes, and Blair Underwood stumbled out of their beds to announce the Globe nominations Tuesday morning, True Grit was firing blanks. Nothing for the Coens. Nothing for Bridges. Nothing for Steinfeld. The Dude does not abide.
So what, if anything, happened? There are a few explanations being tossed around, but first, it’s important to point out that True Grit‘s absence at the Globes is merely a minor speed bump in its awards-season trajectory. The Golden Globes and the Academy Awards have increasingly gone their separate ways these past few years, and EW’s Oscar guru, Dave Karger, still has True Grit positioned to pick up major Oscar nominations in Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Supporting Actress. But the movie’s no-show status at the Globes is nevertheless baffling, especially when you consider what movies did get invited to the party. (Ahem, The Tourist.) Let’s examine the various theories behind the award season’s biggest upset so far, and see whether any of them pass muster:
1. The Golden Globes aren’t fans of Westerns.
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), a non-profit organization made up of about 90 international journalists, is the brain behind the Golden Globes. With journalists representing countries as varied as Chile, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, the Netherlands, and South Africa, it can be argued that something as quintessentially American as the Western genre could be a hard sell for the HFPA. “True Grit is a classically told American movie that simply didn’t connect with [the HFPA],” says a source close to the film. “The humor was absolutely lost on them.” However, that didn’t stop the HFPA from nominating modern-era Westerns like Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves, so maybe True Grit‘s snubbing has to do with something else, like…
2. The Golden Globes don’t “get” the Coens.
Again, there’s a line of thinking that the HFPA members are more sympathetic to European prestige films (see Atonement) and dramas with an international composition (see Babel or Slumdog Millionaire), and that the Coens’ films will always end up as outliers on the Globes’ radar. But while the Coens have won only one Golden Globe compared to four Academy Awards, the Globes have no problem with nominating the brothers’ work. In fact, the Golden Globes have handed out nominations to more of the Coens’ films than the Oscars — Burn After Reading was ignored by the Academy Awards but received two nominations from the Globes. So while the HPFA may not adore the Coens to the extent that Oscar voters do, they don’t seem to have a vendetta against the filmmakers either. So it must be a case of Paramount botching True Grit‘s awards campaign, right?
3. The Coens don’t play the awards-season game.
The HFPA has been criticized in the past for being susceptible to the studios’ campaign efforts. (Honestly, how else did The Great Debaters squeeze into 2008′s crowded Best Drama category?) In addition to screening their award contenders, the studios also host press conferences with their films’ talent exclusively for the HFPA. So maybe the Coens, who live in New York and aren’t exactly known as schmoozers, didn’t wine-and-dine the HFPA voters to the extent that other award contenders did? But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Paramount screened True Grit for the HFPA and then orchestrated individual press conferences with the Coens, Bridges, Steinfeld, and costar Barry Pepper. That leaves one option…
4. The HFPA simply didn’t like True Grit.
Ultimately, the HFPA may simply be True Grit‘s version of Armond White, the famously contrarian New York Press critic. They didn’t see what all the fuss was about and decided to go their own way. Others may find it bonkers that The Tourist, Burlesque, Red, and Alice in Wonderland secured Best Picture nominations (albeit in the Musical/Comedy category), while True Grit was overlooked like Steven Seagal’s last dozen films. But it all makes for an amusingly nutty awards season. It’s a long and exhausting road to the Oscars, and this isn’t the last time we’ll be hearing about True Grit. Or about the HFPA’s suspect taste in cinema, either.
For more on December releases, check out EW’s event calendar here.
All you had to do was mention that ‘The Tourist’, ‘Burlesque’, and Johnny Depp (nominated twice) got nominated for a Golden Globe and ended it there.
Then people will know that the Golden Globes are a joke and great films will be recognized when it comes to the Oscars.
Honestly, the nominees for the Golden Globes are a complete joke. These critics don’t know what quality is.
Armond White is the worst reviewer in the Universe.
Agreed.
Armond White said this about the most recent Resident Evil, “This Resident Evil is superior to Avatar and Inception on every level.”
Armond White called Easy A the frontrunner for worst film of 2010, and gave Grown Ups a positive review. And he claimed that Jonah Hex was better than Toy Story 3. Not to mention he thought Norbit was a wonderful film.
I don’t know how that dude has a job.
dave did that guy realy write those inane vapid moronic excuse for reviews and if so were id love to read the ramblings of a mad man with power gone airy
Armond White isn’t a movie critic, he’s more like a professional internet troll.
No joke, Dan. Go to Rotten Tomatoes, and find him there. You can see the short one or two sentence excerpts of his reviews, and you can link to the whole reviews. His taste is atrocious.
Just to reply to Moes comment, I have not seen Burlesque yet(I’m seeing it this week) but I just want to say that it got nominated because the golden globe employees were more satisfied with it compared to other musicals. It looks very entertaining and I have heard good things like…If you go to the yahoo movie page for Burlesque and look at the critic reviews you will see that Mick LaSalle gave it an A. He wrote that Burlesque is big, perfectly cast and entertaining in every way. He wrote see it with a crowd. The Hollywood Reporter gave it a B+. They wrote that Burlesque is a refreshing throwback to movie musicals that celebrates its stars while indulging in sexy fun. They are both top movie critics. They’re on the rotten tomatoes website too(but go to the yahoo movie page for graded reviews)
Armond White has nothing to do with the Golden Globes so why keep bringing his name up?
Do you think the Oscars are serious awards? Sandra Bullock has an Oscar… I don’t need anything else to say…
Yes, you do need to say more. You not saying more just adds credence to the likelihood of you being a moron.
First of all, you’re an idiot (thank you). Number 2, if you’re that mad, it’s because you’re a Sandra Bullock/Academy award fan and you know what I’m talking about. Anyway, she doesn’t deserve her award, and you effing know it so well (if you don’t, you’re just an @ss who sits in front of the TV just to watch how pretty and popular are the celebrities instead of considering their real talents).
I agree. The Oscars lost all remaining credibility when they gave Sandra Bullock the award. It was an award for being nice, having 2 hits in one year and having a husband cheat on her, NOT for acting.
Agree on most counts, but she actually won the award before we found out about her cheating husband.
I thought she was great in that movie. It’s hard for people to appreciate a person playing a live person so well.
Wow. Will – you might want to check your blood pressure. You take this stuff personally, don’t you?
I noted you take it more personally, otherwise you wouldn’t even responding me, don’t you? You better check your chin, you wanna aparent you look refined and that you’re head is higher than the sky, but you’re just an uptight idiot.
Will are you off your meds today? You would think Sandra cheated on you or something. There are plenty of movies and actors who have an Oscar they don’t deserve so why are you so upset about Sandra?
Because she was the last of the worst mistakes (So what I try to say that she is not the only one, but she was the last of worst). BTW, I think you are out of meds today, you’re defending Sandra Bullock, for God’s sake!!!
Their discredit went way before Sandra won the award. It was when Julia Roberts somehow won the Oscars over Ellen Burstyn (Requiem for a Dream). Complete joke.
^I second that.
Let’s take it back even further than the Sandra/Julia debacles, y’all. Grace Kelly for Country Girl over Judy Garland for A Star is Born? TRAVESTY.
Neither of them… first of all, I hate remakes, second I hate old remakes. Judy Garland was better than Sandra (considering all the caracteristics between the differents times) but if she would’ve won, that Oscar would be the same as the Sandra. Anyway, I think Jane Wyman and Dorothy Dandridge were much better than the other three (everyone remembers Grace Kelly, Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn, but no one remember these two).
I gave up on the Oscars when Sean Connery won for the Untouchables.
My mom is Sandra Bullock
I agree. Burlesque, in particular, was a huge disappointment. It started out as a lovely combination of Cabaret and Chicago (you could do worse), then descended into a one-woman lung fest that went on and on and on…looking all the while less like burlesque than any concert on the road today. I did enjoy Cher, who has softened with age and managed more facial expression than I’ve known her to pull off in the past…and Stanley Tucci, who could find better things to do with his time. Aquilara can sing, and so what?
I believe that Sandra’s award was more for her entire body of work and as an overall career achievement rather than just the blindside.
This movie sounds stupid…Twilight movies is way better!!!!! You peoples will see
Honey, i love the twilight books, but the movies are terrible. They will never see the light of day in the Golden Globes or the Oscars. All this talk of Kristen Stewart getting an oscar is b.s.! Those movies are not, and will not be taken seriously. Sorry to burst your bubble!
HAHA! Great films will be awarded?
HURT LOCKER over AVATAR?? – pleeezzz!
2007 NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (the worst oscar winner in decades)
2006 THE DEPARTED (bleh…)
The Oscars have lost their credibility. They are a joke.
2004 MILLION DOLLAR BABY
You have NO taste.
You liked AVATAR more than Hurt Locker????? You have serious issues in taste. Or maybe you didn’t understand Hurt Locker. Either way, you’re an idiot.
While The Tourist, Burlesque, Red and Alice in Wonderland earning Best Picture nominations is quite baffling, it has nothing to do with True Grit not getting a nomination since all of those pictures are in the musical/comedy category and True Grit is a drama. So why don’t you bring in the drama nominees when discussing this? That would be The Fighter, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, The Social Network and Inception. Those are the films you should be comparing True Grit to, not The Tourist. Can you complain about any of those five dramas getting a nomination?
ITA – I cannot see dropping any 5 of the drama nominees for True Grit.
EXACTLY. Repeated mentions of The Tourist, Burlesque, etc don’t help your argument. The nominations for those and others in the Comedy/Musical are completely IRRELEVANT. It simply didn’t measure up in the DRAMA category with Fighter, Swan, Speech, SocNet or Incept. Maybe the fact that it is a RE-MAKE is the real issue.
It’s not a re-make. I hate when people say that. It’s a re-adaptation of the original novel. This film is going to be different from the John Wayne classic.
I’m thinking maybe Mr. Young keeps throwing in The Tourist reference only as an example of really bad taste in selections no matter what category, rather than as a comparative in the 2 films?? And I agree that it would be hard to drop any of those others from the Drama category in favor of True Grit. Why is it some years there is a dearth of good movies and this year we are lucky to get to argue over so many good ones!? Too bad for those that will be left out. Hopefully they will be satisfied with big paychecks from the box office??
Has anybody seen True Grit yet??? I am a big Coen fan and still a bit reserved by its PG-13 rating, but how many of you all have even seen it along with all the other noms to even have a solid opinion of what should go and what should stay?
@JP
Saw a screening last night. Was really really good. I am a big fan of the book and the orginal movie and i thought the Cohens have made a true classic
If it isn’t a remake, why is it called True Grit and star a cowboy with an eye patch?
morons.
@hj Both movies are ‘remakes’ of the 1960′s novel ‘True Grit’ (about, as you put it, a cowboy with an eye patch)by Charles Portis.
Thank you, Tom. I don’t know why people are phrasing it in that way, “The Tourist was nominated, and True Grit wasn’t.” They’re in different categories.
And while I would have liked for True Grit to be nominated for Best Picture (Drama), the five films that are nominated are all fantastic films. Something had to be left out.
Excellent reasoning. The five films nominated are great. Maybe if they can had ten slots like the Oscars, then True Grit would have made the cut.
Or maybe the Globes can finally get rid of the Comedy/Drama category…each year, doesn’t there seem to be some sort of frenzy about some films getting nominations that didn’t deserve it (look no further than what Nine did last year). The comedy/musical category just doesn’t hold weight.
Right, not to mention that if they didn’t think it was one of the 5 or so best movies of the year, that left its only possible nominations for the actors. Jeff Bridges is maybe 4th at best for the Oscars, so no surprise they wanted the younger Mark Wahlberg and Ryan Gosling – plus they just liked their movies better (obviously this is the case with The Fighter, but also with Blue Valentine since Michelle Williams was also nominated). Then you have the little girl, Hailee Steinfeld. She may get an Oscar nomination, but the Globes don’t like to nominate kids (think Abigail Breslin; yes, Saoirse Ronan was nominated, but then they LOVED Atonement anyway). Mila Kunis was a surprise, but she also got in at the Broadcast Film Critics Awards, so she must be a contender – and hey, she’s in a film the HFPA clearly loved! So they didn’t love True Grit as it is, and they found sexier nominees in films they preferred. Is it that surprising? That insulting?
Perhaps he kept mentioning it because Johnny Depp got nominated for Best Actor for the Thourist and Jeff Bridges didn’t for True Grit?
Typo – Tourist*
The Tourist is technically a “Drama” as well.
True Grit won an oscar already with John Wayne. Pictures that are re-makes that have won oscars before should not be allowed to be voted on.
Yes, it certainly was perplexing. But I don’t think this will have any effect on whether or not it will receive Oscar nominations.
Option 3A: The HFPA for the most part never saw the film, because the screeners when out too close to the deadline? That one I have heard from an insider.
Jennifer Love Hewitt’s nomination for a horrible TV movie said it all for me. No credibility at all.
The real question is why anyone takes the Golden Globes seriously? The category divisions are arbitrary (“The Tourist” as a comedy? Really?), the nominees often based less on performance than on who they are trying to suck up to, and the prestige pretty much nonexistent.
Until the Oscar nominations come out next month, teh Globes get the spotlight. All of these films and actors can milk the publicity as NOMINEES and undoubtedly gain a lot more awards buzz and possibly more $$$ at the box office. Conversely, NOT having the word NOMINEE in your print or TV ads for the next month costs you. It’s business, baby.
^Exactly
yes i can see the tourist as a comedy. cause it was funny to watch two people that dislike each other so much, that they bombed the film. jolie does not want to be upstaged by anyone.not even brad.she so into herself she stinks. does she ever star with another major actor in anything, no.you can see the jealousy in the tourist. she gets played and she knows it. btw, movie sucks. first time i didnt finish a depp movie in years…………..
If I was an actor/actress I’d rather get nominated for an Oscar than win a Golden Globe. Globes are fun to watch but they don’t mean much.
Very true but NOT being mentioned in the nominations yesterday puts a serious road block in your road to an Oscar. A nomination gets you in the game. Winning a Globe gives you a forum to make a teary, heartfelt yet memorable speech (and wear a killer dress!) and gain support with the Academy voters. Kate Winslet and Sandra Bullock the last two years are prime examples of this process.
Neither of them deserved their Oscars… so…
@Will, Kate Winslet did.
Melissa Leo, hello? Meryl Streep, hello? Anne Hathaway, hello? Melissa Leo, hello again? (You don’t even know her, so why I’m bothering)
Yes, hello. I do know who Melissa Leo is. It’s kind of moronic for you to assume that I don’t know who she is. Hello.
I think they’re all great actresses, and I saw all of their performances that year. Hello. And I thought Winslet’s performance in The Reader was the best choice. The only performance that was better was her performance in Revolutionary Road. Hello.
That was funny (I have to admit it). But she didn’t deserve her award. She was the weakest one in her category (not more than Angelina, but she was close to that), but instead she deserved it for “Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind”. Anyway, her performance was not better in “Revolutionary Road” (hello!!!). But, out of all the movies that the nominees were in, she was in one of the best (my 1° pick would be “Doubt”, and “The reader” the 2° one). And also I think Melissa was in the worst movies of them all (hello!!!). Anyway, you’re just defending her because she won an Oscar she didn’t deserve (while she is a great actress… and that’s kind of a punch to her ego) or because you like her movie (I second the second).
Why do you keep making odd assumptions about me? We can have different opinions, that’s fine, but the fact that you keep making ridiculous assumptions is immature. How do you know why I’m defending her? I personally think her performance in that film was fantastic and better than the competition. I think she deserved it. I’m not going around defending Sandra Bullock (she didn’t deserve the award). And while I liked The Reader, it wasn’t my favorite film (I also thought Doubt was better).
OK, I aprecciate the fact that you’re really mature (instead like everyone here in this place, they’re seem like they’re always sit in cows’ sh33t for the way they make the comments). Anyway, I still don’t think she deserved it, but we have similar tastes (I think, or are you gonna use the “you’re making odd assumptions about me” card?). And also I aprecciate the fact that you don’t stand Sandra Bullock’s Oscar. Anyway, why am I bothering when Kate Winslet has more fans than Melissa Leo? BTW, I think we might agree more than we disagree.
Haha we probably do agree more than disagree! And I laughed at the sitting in cow s*** comment.
Thank you, you’re nice… ^_^
Will and A, I now pronounce you husband and wife. You may kiss the bride.
And you’re the creepy of the party…
HELLO!!!! You are both ridiculous. And Will is either a little girl or a flamer!
I’m not a little girl, I’m not a flamer, you’re an idiot… loser!!! (with a capital L)… ^_^ (BTW, that hello, was incredibly gay, dude).
Having seen Cherry Jones in the original Broadway production of Doubt (one of the best plays I’ve ever seen on Broadway), Meryl Streep’s performance in the movie came off as hammy at best. Jones should have played the part, but she’s not a name and it isn’t called show bizness for nuthin’!
As for the comedy-musical/drama split, this goes back to the time when the Globes first began, and Hollywood was producing far far more musicals than they do today. It made sense then, but it doesn’t anymore. Why not combine the categories and increase the number of nominations in best picture/best actor & actress categories (to 10 and say 7, respectfully)?
And yes, Garland deserved that Oscar. Even over her competition.
If I was an actress, then I would welcome any award that recognized my talent and helped me on the road to the Oscars.
People not “getting” the Coens is akin to 16th century Europe not “getting” Shakespeare. I’m not an over-the-top fanboy or anything, but I really do feel like they’re in the top 5 filmmakers of this generation. I haven’t seen a movie that I didn’t at least enjoy. Not everything is a classic (The Ladykillers being a prime example), but everything is well-written and well-directed. They haven’t really made a BAD movie, just a couple mediocre ones. And truly, how many directors or writers can say that?
Why remake an Oscar winning film in the 1st place? Get some new ideas ffs. Hollywood is tired.
The new film is more true to the original novel by Portis. The Wayne movie changed quite a few significant events to make it more Hollywood. I’m looking forward to seeing a more faithful adaptation.
me too, they did so well in following the book’s story line in No Country for Old Men. I am guessing this will be the same
Maybe the HFPA members are big fans of John Wayne, and cannot stand to see his Oscar-winning role re-done, least of all by the Coens.
Remember, John Wayne consistently ranks in the top 5 movies stars in the world, 31 years after his death.
You are so right! A John Wayne movie can never be made again with any other actor than Wayne! He was and is the best of all time for Westerns! I miaa him!
My husband is one of these guys. How can you improve on John Wayne?
Eh John Wayne was just a one-note actor and bigot. True Grit was not even a great film. The Coens aren’t even referencing the old film at all. They are readapting the novel. Big difference!
A bigot who only married Latina women…what a bigot.
john wayne was a so,so actor and he knew it. he had that irish attitude and charm to see him thru. he was a mans man. he worked hard in movies and played hard off the set. the stories of him and ward bond,victor m,ben johnson,harry cary jr,getting drunk and having brawls on malibu beach were famous. every one loves wayne,then and now. he got the oscar for grit, because it was him,in real life and fiction.take no shit from no one.the oscar was for other movies he made and looked over for. iwo jima,searchers,quiet man,rio grande,should i go on?he had to be taught to ride a horse when he started. but there is not a single week that goes buy we dont see or hear about john wayne. make a movie about that if you can. its called thanks for the memories…………
but bridges is still portraying the same character as John Wayne. I, for one, am not anxious to see it. Marshall Cogburn will always be John Wayne
I strongly disagree about John Wayne. I didn’t care for his politics at all, and thought he often played variations on himself (he even wore the same clothing in several of his Westerns) but I thought he was a terrific actor, underrated, if anything. His performances in “The Quiet Man” and “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” were incredible. I’m not a big fan of “The Searchers,” but I recognize that it is highly regarded and especially for John Wayne’s performance playing “a bigot.” John Ford, who loved Wayne’s acting, was highly critical of the man himself. He especially disdained Wayne’s failure to enlist in the military in WWII. Wayne wasn’t the hero he presented as in his films. But, one thing he was, IMO, was a great actor.
@ALicia: Wayne couldn’t enlist because he had back problems. That was not his fault. You can see him limp in almost all of his movies. He tried to enlist in the Navy Academy after high school but wasn’t accepted. He went to USC instead, and was injured on the football field in the late 20′s. I can’t find what you’re talking about. I highly doubt John Ford said anything like that. Wayne always, always supported the war effort. I think you’re misinformed.
It’s a good laugh people thinking the Oscars are more “honest” than the Globes. The reason Grit will get a best picture nod in the Oscars is because it’s been a while since a classically told Western has been nominated for BP. And it seems the Oscars have to recognise Westerns on a regular basis. I’ll enjoy watching Grit, because I like Westerns, but I suspect I’ll like all the Globe nominees for best drama better, and some of the comedies too (Red maybe).
Because the Coens are the most overrated directors in Hollywood, who make impenetrable, too complex movies for anyone not in possession of a PhD/Masters/Bachelors to understand. A Serious Man was a steaming pile, and American moviegoers nuked it into the stone age. The Coens are not mainstream and revel in it. But the Oscars and the critics just can’t stop their circle-jerking to realize the emperors have no clothes.
I don’t know what you’re going on about. The Coens’ are definitely quirky, but they’re hardly incomprehensible — A Serious Man was a very straightforward film, for instance.
The only thing incomprehensible is your comment. The Coens may be smart and unique but they are not complicated by any means. I feel bad you couldn’t understand any of their films but that doesn’t mean someone requires a masters to see them. Just because you’re inherently dumb.
Who do you think you are telling people they are inherently dumb. Who died and left you king critic.You sound like that other moron that was on this web page Larry David. Then again maybe you are larry david using a different name. either way get yourself a life and move on.
Wrong room Paul, the Tea Party is being held next door.
Not mainstream ? The Horror, the Horror.
I saw TRUE GRIT tonight and think the film was very well done and the performances were excellent. Hopefully, the Oscars will not snub!
The Golden Globes may have come a long way since Pia Zadora won — but they still are a joke in many ways — as proven by the ridiculous noms in the musical/comedy category.
Well honestly, you’re probably just dumb. No PhD or Masters degree here, and I’ve never had any problem understanding their movies. I just received my Bachelor’s this year, so I have basically seen all of their movies with only the possession of my high school diploma. It’s not the Coens’s fault or anyone else’s that you’re not smart enough to understand their movies. They’re really not that difficult to understand in the first place.
This was a reply to PaulH
Good points made about the REMAKE angle in comments.
I complain all the time about the lack of originality in Hollywood. I guess this one didnt bother me as much because if I saw the original – it was when I was a kid. And I forgot it!
The big difference is that the Oscar are voted by people who actually work in the movie business. The golden globes are voted by a few foreign “journalists” who hardly see any movies and only write 5 sentences in their “reviews” and only vote for those that kiss their butt the most..