Yes, the Oscars are so highbrow. Such a tremendous honor to win. But the Golden Globes are better for us because we won't ever win an Oscar but we can enjoy the light-hearted, entertaining, sometimes drunken fun that is the Globes.
Last night was a good example of why, if you have to watch just one awards show (and you don't, seriously-- why do they even bother with the people's choice awards), make it the Golden Globes. It wasn't as risque as we've seen with Ricky Gervais' recent run, but Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did a great job... hitting on just about every joke they dropped and keeping things moving smoothly. Some good presenting from Will Ferrell and Kristen Wig, Aziz Ansari and Jason Batemen, Sasha Baron Cohen, Leno and Fallon and more. Some good speeches and some weird speeches like Jodi Foster's rambling, yet oddly touching something or other for receiving the Cecil B. DeMille award always keep things worth watching as well.
The winners, aside from Lena Dunham winning for Girls (both acting and for comedy show) was a bit of a surprise, weren't great shocks. Whether or not this portends for Oscar wins for Argo or Daniel Day Lewis... it's always hard to tell.
But with Ben Affleck (Married to my old Denison chum (used very loosely) Jen Garner, winning the Best Director award over the mildly favored Steven Spielberg it got me thinking... Spielberg is truly the Paul McCartney of Hollywood director.
Right, you're thinking, I still haven't sobered up from all the Golden Globe parties last night and while that's true, just stick with me. Through the years as the legacy of Beatles has grown there's been a growing chorus that looks at their work and has declared Lennon the serious one and McCartney the more bubblegum Beatle. This helped by the fact that while McCartney still managed hit after poppy hit after band broke up, Lennon hooked up with, Yoko Ono, an avant guard artist and made music that was a little bit more out there.
Steven Spielberg has gained a similar, bubblegum reputation for some reason, to the point where I don't always feel like his work is taken as seriously as others, despite the quality. Despite films like Munich and Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, The Color Purple and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I feel like he's more often associated with his lighter stuff. The Indian Jones films and E.T. or A.I. , Hook or Minority Report. These are all good movies and if you look back at his resume you'll see there's really not a bad one among them, but one thing that is a commonality is success. His movies are almost all universally successful. And I think, like McCartney, it's that success that, for some reason, removes the "serious" label from his name.
To contrast, look at someone like Terrence Malick. He's regarded as one of the best directors in Hollywood. He's also known as a very "serious" director. His material is deep and layered and, in some cases (The Tree of Life) hard for some to even follow. But let's look more at the facts. Malick got his start directing in 1969 (with a short film), to date he's released six features since then (with a couple in the works). Spielberg has been working since the early 60s, but has released nearly 50 films as a director. Were you to pick and choose six, say the six I mentioned above, you too would consider Spielberg to be a very serious director.
I recognize this is a fight that doesn't need to be fought. Spielberg is, without a doubt, a tremendous director, but he deserves more credit than he even gets. Just a rambling thought for the morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment