SubscribeWhat's behind Patrick Goldstein's relentless attacks on Oscar bloggers?
Hey, who woke up grandpa? Well, the Grumpy One got all riled up (again) yesterday at the sight of kiddies on his old turf — which Patrick Goldstein once ruled alone, but no more — so he hurled insults like stones at me and neighbors.
In his latest attack against me, for example, he lambasted his L.A. Times colleague at his blog yesterday as part of a "gang of daffy, clown-suit-clad Oscar bloggers" who have "hijacked" the Oscars by making "endlessly moronic best picture predictions." (Technically, he didn't call me out by name, but those words were linked to my blog post full of new Oscar predix.) In the past, he's slammed me publicly by name in the print pages of the Times — actually within The Envelope itself — as "the poster boy for the trivialization of Oscar coverage."
Yesterday, he ridiculed EW's Dave Karger for suggesting that the U.S. presidential election may have some effect on the chances of "The Dark Knight" winning best picture. Variety's Anne Thompson, he said, had "lost her marbles."
Every few months we can now count on Goldstein taking potshots at other Oscar gurus. The awards prognostication we promote, he insists, is a "demeaning, nauseatingly superficial ritual" that transforms "the Academy Awards from a celebration of movies into a silly exercise in Ouija board-style predictions and lamebrained analysis .... They don't even need to see the movie to declare it a best picture favorite -– or a nonstarter."
Of course, Goldstein never felt that way when he did the same thing — without competition — in years past. But that was different, of course. When he did that, it was certainly not the same kind of "ill-informed speculation" and "triumph of tawdriness and superficiality" that he accuses me and other Oscar bloggers of engaging in.
Once upon a time Hollywood was ruled by three media voices: Variety, the Hollywood Reporter and the L.A. Times. The Hollywood Reporter usually eschewed Oscar prognostication because it didn't want to offend advertisers, and Variety gave it up in the late 1950s after a string of humiliating predix based upon its "scientific" polling of 15% of the 1,750 academy members. In 1948, for example, Variety picked "Johnny Belinda" to win best picture ("Hamlet" prevailed); in 1951, it chose "A Place in the Sun" ("An American in Paris" danced off with the trophy"). In 1952, Variety called "High Noon" "a cinch" to win, but "The Greatest Show on Earth" proved how truly great it was.
When the two trade papers forsook kudos prognostication, the L.A. Times suddenly had the game all to itself, at least on Oscar's home Hollywood turf.
In recent years many of Patrick Goldstein's predix can easily be labeled "lamebrain" and "moronic," but in 2002 he actually got best picture right! He gave "Chicago" the best odds to win the top prize (5-1). However, three of his five picks didn't even get nominated: "Road to Perdition" (8-1), "Antwone Fisher" (12-1) and "About Schmidt" (14-1).
Usually, Goldstein has gotten things really wrong. In 2001, his best odds to win best picture — issued in August, long before he saw many pix — went to "Ali" (4-1).
In 2003, Goldstein issued his odds in early November — before he saw "Cold Mountain" or "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." His odds on best picture: "Mystic River" (6-1), "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" (8-1), "Cold Mountain" (10-1), "Finding Nemo" (14-1) and "House of Sand & Fog" (15-1). "Mystic River" didn't win, of course, and 60% of his projected nominees didn't make the final rundown.
In 2004, Goldstein's best odds for best picture went to "Ray" (6-1). In the next few years, he waited till early December when he'd finally seen all major films, but that didn't improve his score. In 2006, his best odds went to "Dreamgirls" (4-1), then "The Queen" (6-1) to win best picture. In 2007, his odds favored "Sweeney Todd" (7-1), followed by "Atonement" (8-1).
Bottom line: It's either OK or it's not to forecast the Oscars early in the derby and, if it's OK for Goldstein, why not others? (Heck, I sure did my best to make him look less foolish by also picking "Dreamgirls" and "Sweeney," but that grumpy Goldstein has absolutely no gratitude!). And if it's OK once, why not more frequently?
Is promoting widespread chat, buzz and curiosity about who'll win Hollywood's election for best picture very different from doing the same about who'll win the political equivalent (White House) or sports (Super Bowl)? Of course not. But tracking the Super Bowl of showbiz as if it's that other one is a new phenom, it's fun, and it's not going to go away just because someone who once had the game all to himself is cussing and firing off a BB gun and insults from his porch.
Of course, Goldstein will always insist that he's really protecting Hollywood's sacred prize from infidels who threaten to cheapen it. But, hey, we're talking about a gold-plated statuette that was once bestowed to Goldie Hawn for acting and was denied to the world's greatest actor, Richard Burton, who went to his grave as Oscar's biggest loser. If Goldstein wants to take aim at anything, why not those best-picture victories by "Gandhi" or "Dances With Wolves" or the fact that one was denied to what the American Film Institute repeatedly hails as the greatest film ever made, "Citizen Kane"?
(ABC)
Predicting Oscar nominations and/or winners is a game as old as the Oscars themselves, only today it's a big business. The public's interest in all phases of the Academy Award competitions is a substantial source of revenue for the industry.
This is especially true for entertainment 'news' outlets, like EW, ET, the E! Channel and all their clones, most of which are owned by the major studios. As a truly independent voice in the thick of Hollywood, it would behoove the LA Times to stay out of the infotainment predicting race and concentrate on the art and commerce of the films themselves. Do I think for a moment this will happen? No. There's too much money involved for the Times to take the high road.
Posted by: Duffy Johnson | November 10, 2008 at 05:08 AM
Unfortunately the Oscars have lost it long ago. The award ceremony lacks glamour and reverence for real talent. Giving the best picture Oscar to Martin S. was a big mistake
Posted by: Ale | November 08, 2008 at 12:25 PM
This whole thing is very "Death of a Salesman", isn't it?
Very unsavory on Goldstein's part.
Posted by: Matt | November 08, 2008 at 07:24 AM
I personally don't know anyone who takes the oscar show seriously, anymore. It's just a show, after all.
But you're right, Tom. Patrick Goldstein is seemingly sore because he no longer has the oscar turf to himself.
People don't know about the politics behind the loss of "High Noon" for Best Picture. For one thing, it was released during the times of the House of Un-American Committee activiities.
Also, John Wayne, who may well have had a vested interest in the competition, ("The Quiet Man" was in the running,) came out against "High Noon" allegedly calling it un-american. Of course, most of us know better; but he had the power to affect the race back then.
Posted by: A M | November 07, 2008 at 11:22 PM
I love a good rant as much as the next one and this is a great one. Funny stuff, Tom!
Posted by: Edward Douglas | November 07, 2008 at 12:55 PM