2018 Golden Globes recap: #WhyWeWearBlack and Oprah for President!

Embed from Getty Images

We were waiting to see how the Golden Globes would shake out, from the red carpet to the actual show, before we decided what kind of tone to strike. Like, just the concept of the Globes Blackout could have gone horribly wrong very quickly, and it would have been very easy for the jokes & messaging during the show to go sideways in a hurry. But it didn’t – the red carpet was pretty awesome, the fashion was great and the messaging was on-point. For our fashion coverage, we’ll be discussing the fashion, of course, but we’re aiming to be less judgy and more focused on the messages, which were overwhelmingly great. You can see the full list of Globe winners here. This is just my easy-breezy recap, it’s not comprehensive!

Seth Meyers as host. I still miss Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as hosts, but I knew Seth would play it smart. His opening struck just the right tone – the Willem Dafoe was perfect, the Harvey Weinstein-in-memoriam joke was savage, and the “Hillary Mexico Salad Association” was on-point. Here’s the full opening:

OPRAH. How magnificent was Oprah? Like, after her Cecil B. DeMille speech, I genuinely and truly want her to run for president. I’m not even joking. Spare a moment and watch her entire speech.

Major snubs. No Golden Globes for Get Out, Dunkirk. No female winners for Best Director or Best Screenplay.

Big Little Lies. No surprise, it won a bunch of Golden Globes, for Nicole Kidman, Alexander Skarsgard, Laura Dern, and the show took home the Best Limited Series.

Elisabeth Moss and The Handmaid’s Tale. We’ll talk about this more in the fashion post, just as we’ve talked before about the cognitive dissonance of a famous Scientologist talking about fighting oppression, winning an award for playing someone abused by a powerful cult. What struck me about Moss’s speech was that she didn’t even mention reproductive rights!! HOW? The Handmaid’s Tale is about many women’s issues/human rights issues, but it’s core is a story about reproductive rights.

James Franco & Tommy Wiseau. Like, I don’t even care about any of this. The Big Sick was robbed of several Best Comedy nominations and then they gave the Globe to James Franco, and Franco didn’t let Wiseau speak. Do I need to care? I don’t. I’ve been over James Franco for years now. And Ally Sheedy’s deleted tweets showed why the HFPA should not have honored Franco.

Allison Janney vs. Laurie Metcalf. Allison Janney won Best Supporting Actress, which is amazing but it also would have been amazing if Metcalf won. Can they find some way to give the Oscar to both women?

Natalie Portman. I’ll give it to her: Natalie Portman had the best one-liner of the entire evening. She presented Best Director with Ron Howard, and she changed her line to “…and here are the all-male nominees.” We talked about this when the nominations came out – the Globes snubbed Greta Gerwig for Lady Bird. Don’t even comment “well, what woman should they have nominated, women didn’t make notable films!” GRETA GERWIG. And please, they gave a f–king Globe to James Franco.

Lady Bird did win Best Comedy. Despite the fact that Gerwig was snubbed for Best Director, the film won Best Comedy.

Gary Oldman beat Daniel Day-Lewis. I don’t get how Oldman’s Churchill movie beats DDL at anything. Here’s what Oldman had to say about a lot of sh-t in 2014:

And finally, huge wins for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri. Frances McDormand won, as did Sam Rockwell, and the film picked up Best Motion Picture, Drama, significantly boosting its Oscar chances. It kind of came out of nowhere – I don’t think many people had the film pegged as the Best Drama winner.

Seth Meyers and Pregnant Wife Alexi pose at Poppy for a Golden Globes Afterparty

Photos courtesy of Getty, Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

153 Responses to “2018 Golden Globes recap: #WhyWeWearBlack and Oprah for President!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. sb says:

    I’m so annoyed of this british prestige film crap, all the stuff i’ve seen so far from darkest hour and oldman as churchill reeks of cliche
    Timothee Chalamet was more deserving of the best actor prize and most critics seem to agree too…
    Not to mention oldman and franco are abusers

    It sucks that there’s so many politics involved and that they’re just keen on honoring veterans, so backwards…

    And Idk how three billboards is picking up so much steam, i genuinely liked the film but how did that get ahead of dunkirk, call me by your name and some of the others. The redemption arc was not really sold to me. Just seems like it was exciting after Moonlight won and now this winner is so lackluster in comparison sheesh.

    • Runcmc says:

      Oldman is an abuser???? I did not know this. I thought he was just a tone-deaf and a bit of an a-hole…

      • sb says:

        There are a number of the things on the interview about things he’s said in the press about mel gibson etc. and things about abusing his ex wives, and he’s on his 5th wife so thats very telling…and i say this as someone who thinks he’s a great actor…

        Sad that every great actor is most likely a scumbag

    • Millennial says:

      I’m annoyed with all the prestige film crap, honestly. The Oscars are going to be so boring, honestly. Even with the move to 10 Best Picture nominees (which, I thought the point was to give bigger budget and more diverse films a chance so more of America would watch) it’s still just a bunch of small, indie, majority white prestige films. Yawn.

      The only part of the globes that was interesting was the TV portion.

      • sb says:

        I half agree with what you’re saying, I would probably rather a small indie film win over a big budget film like lady bird of cmbyn tbh, but i guess that also depends on the other films too. But I agree the viewpoint is mainly from white folk.

        I think I want the days where stuff like the theory of everything, atonement, danish girl, darkest hour…all that bullshit is cut out…there is nothing revolutionary about those films

        And less actors lame over the top british actors taking the top spot tbh

    • V4Real says:

      What about Oldman calling Harvey a creep and saying he would never work with him and that he hasn’t worked with him.

      That was,a major lie. Oldman was in True Romance which was produced by the Weinstein Co.

  2. Snazzy says:

    So I saw Dunkirk the other day, and I actually wasn’t that impressed. I mean it was good, but I didn’t think it was anything special. I’m glad it didn’t win. Also, Oprah is everything

    • imqrious2 says:

      I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thinks Dunkirk is overrated! Frankly, I was bored.

      My sister and I were watching together, and we both teared up at Oprah’s speech. If a “civilian” had to be president, why couldn’t it be Oprah??

      • Elaine says:

        Because nothing qualifies her for the job. Angelina Jolie either. Or any other celebrity of the day.

      • NameChange says:

        And wouldn’t that be why she said “civilian”? The Orange in Chief has no qualifications, either.

    • Jaded says:

      I agree – I found it overly long and tedious, the side-plot of the young man who was killed on the boat when the soldier they rescued freaked out was unnecessary, the lack of meaningful dialogue was pretentious.

      • brooksie says:

        Agreed! There was so much flip flop in the scenes, we had trouble keeping track of everything.

    • Dee Kay says:

      OMG I thought Dunkirk was *soooo* overrated. It was extremely long and boring. There were so many actors who looked identical (white twentysomethings with dark hair in wet uniforms), I couldn’t tell who was who and had trouble caring about anyone. Great technical achievements in the camera work and effects department, esp. the aerial shots, but it didn’t make me feel anything.

  3. Eiré says:

    I think, surely, last night solidified the fact the Elisabeth Moss is very good at convincing people she’s aware, a Feminist, concerned and engaged–whereas, in reality, she’s really not any of those things. She’s a good actress, and it’s a talent that extends further than just her moves on the screen.

    • Nello says:

      I think she actually believes she is all those things. She is a very good actress but clearly has mental issues stemming from being raised in and still belonging to an evil cult.

  4. Steph says:

    Wow Oprah’s speech was everything! So powerful, made me shed a few tears. All I hope is that something meaningful actually happens from all of this.

    • emma33 says:

      Yes, what a speech! I couldn’t tell if she’d memorized it or was speaking off-the-cuff. (Or was it a prompter? It didn’t look like it).

      • Steph says:

        I think it was on the prompter?? But wow if she memorised it!

      • Common sense says:

        I watched that speech 3 or 4 times already, I nearly cried each time ok I shed a few tears the first and second time. What a speech, what a woman! I wish I was as good with words as Oprah is.

    • Jayna says:

      Her speech was positively brilliant and moving. And I think she was the most beautiful out of everyone there as far as choice of gown. That black gown on her was a showstopper. It was beautiful and it was so flattering.

      • Esmom says:

        Agreed. But I also think her hair, makeup, glasses and styling were perfection. She has truly never looked better to me.

      • Lilith says:

        Oprah is truly exceptional in spirit and intelligence. She made me cry but it”s all good. Lol.❤

      • imqrious2 says:

        She looked gorgeous! Best I’ve ever seen her look. That speech was EVERYTHING!

    • Franklymydear... says:

      I cried during her speech. So moving! We all need a little more Oprah in our lives. But not for president. :)

  5. littlemissnaughty says:

    I didn’t see any of it and now I remember why I don’t care. Get Out was by FAR one of the best films of 2017. It was so fresh, so sharp, so incredibly relevant AND entertaining as hell. And I still haven’t seen Big Little Lies (I’m not in the mood, frankly) but how does it win Best Limited Series when they’re planning a second season?

    • Jayna says:

      You have to see it. It’s not all dark and heavy like a Handmaid’s Tail. There’s some light in the movie as far as the friendship between the women and some lightheartedness to break up the drama going on. Even Nicole’s marriage is portrayed in a very nuanced way at times.

    • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

      It was a bit of category fraud with the producers. As in–it had been submitted and accepted as a limited series, and as soon as the nominations came out, the second season had been announced. I’d heard rumors that they were going to do a second season for months–but I thought that was just wishful thinking for fans.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      It was made as a one-off project. It was based on a book, and the 1st series of episodes covered the entirety of the book’s contents. The author didn’t have a second book written, so I think more than most, the can claim that they didn’t know they’d be able to have a second season.

  6. Domino says:

    Oh. My. God? Oprah might be the answer to Donald Trump.

    Her power was in her emotion – her blackness, her being a women. She showed that our vulnerability speaks truth to power.

    • Ira says:

      Another celebrity for president? Yikes. You can do better America.

      • Domino says:

        Hi – what are your thoughts on legislation to deal with the issues coming to light from #metoo? Is that a concern for you? Do you think men are best suited to address it? Waiting…

      • DontBeAllLikeUncool says:

        I’m so exasperated with the chants of “Oprah for President.” Another celebrity as President is NOT the answer to America’s political problems, even if she is a decent human being who makes great speeches. Why can’t we appreciate her speech for what it was: a hardworking woman in entertainment getting her dues and having her moment. Impassionately reading from a teleprompter does not a great political leader make. I’m seriously concerned that the next election’s candidates are gonna be Oprah, The Rock, and Kanye. They’d all still be better than 45 but for FFS can we set the bar a little higher next time?

      • chai35 says:

        Because there aren’t highly qualified female politicians that can run for president and address those issues? Kamala Harris? Elizabeth Warren? Kirsten Gillibrand?

        The answer to one president with no experience is not another candidate with no experience.

      • hnmmom says:

        No one is going to like this but we have to deal with Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz in our faces because of Oprah. She gave those men platforms, she sold us their bill of goods, and she was taken in by their schtick. Maybe she’s learned a lot since then, maybe she was going through a “finding herself” phase – but a lot of people trust these men solely because Oprah told them to and gave them validity.

        She was incredible last night, I LOVED what she had to say. I hope she becomes a leader of this movement, that she spearheads change across industries, etc. But should she be President? Nope, putting another famous face in that seat is exactly what we do not need.

    • Domino says:

      I just don’t see how having Oprah run can be any worse than when Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, that fool from the libertarian party in the last election who couldn’t find Syria on a map all ran. We let men be fools making a run at power, why not Oprah?

      I will even concede – let Oprah get some experience first as a senator. The former comedian Al Franken from SNL was elected to the senate, also let us not forget Sunny Bono, Bill Bradley the former NBA player – why not Oprah for senate then? What is so wrong about that?

      As someone said above, I think it was light-purple, if a ballot had a choice between trump and Oprah I would vote Oprah. The sad thing would be that those would be our only two choices. But the US frankly seems f*cked right now and I trust Oprah (as senator not president) to make better choices regarding criminalization of weed, the criminal justice system, lgbtq rights, and not to blow us all to kingdom come. And for economic issues I trust her to consult Obama, Valerie Jarrett, -or hire smart people or aides to help her to understand. I wouldn’t say Oprah for pres 2020 but why not Oprah for senator, so she can work with Kamala, maxine, Warren, etc. to learn the ropes and see what she can do?

      I just feel like you all forget lots of celebrities cross over to government and the above examples were actually somewhat respected, minus Franken now.

  7. Léna says:

    Too bad Seth couldn’t take it more far with the Woody Allen joke… why are people still on the defense with him argh

    • Maryanne Dillard says:

      totally agree! Why does that pervert get a pass?

    • K says:

      In seth’s Defense this isn’t any easy topic to joke about and he was probably trying to walk the line of calling it out and being respectful to the victims.

      I thought he did a great job and yes he could have gone harder on all of them but victims where in the room and I’m sure he was trying to be respectful of that.

    • Margo S. says:

      Kimmel better lay it in on Woody during his Oscar monologue.

  8. Adorable says:

    Love me some Oprah…I Adore her,but Gosh the fawning over her is so of putting..sorry not sorry…

    • You used the words love and adore in a one sentence comment about Oprah yet you think the fawning is a bit much. Hmmm.

    • Esmom says:

      I don’t know. I’ve never been a fan of Oprah’s but last night she was the recipient of a major award. It brought home just how much she has achieved and contributed to the industry and to pop culture. That plus the fact that she could speak so eloquently and intelligently, especially in contrast to the unhinged, illiterate, self serving tweets our own POTUS was spewing out at the exact same time, makes me feel like she deserved her moment of fawning.

      • Aang says:

        I’ve never been ott about Oprah, her Shtick on her show was off putting, but she is impressive. I have respect and admiration for her and think she is a very talented actress. Talk show host is my least favorite Oprah.

    • HH says:

      I’m with @Esmom, here (although I’ve always been a fan). Oprah is a moving speaker and has achieved so much in her life while coming from so little. She is someone that should be looked up to and fawned over. This was her moment and she deserved every bit of it.

  9. 42istheanswer says:

    That was an interesting night, for sure ! Very happy for Allison Janney who deserves all the awards, all the time.
    No award for Get Out is a bloody joke ! That movie was great and deserved at least a couple of awards, dammit !
    I wish I could be happy/enthusiastic about any Lady Bird win but I cannot. This film is this year’s Juno and, like its predecessor, it will get tons of awards and end up entirely forgotten within a couple of years. It is just not that good a movie, in my opinion. Same thing for The Disaster Artist for the matter.

    On a more serious note, Ally Sheedy’s tweets make me uncomfortable, to be honest. The “said too much” part even makes me angry. She did not say anything at all, merely implied and insinuated. It does not sit well with me at all. If she has something to denounce, she should. If she does not (or does not feel ready to do it), then silence is better. The implication of her tweets was that Franco and/or Slater are abusers of some sort : abuse is too grave a matter to serve as blind item material !

    • Jussie says:

      Christian Slater is an abuser. He went to jail twice on domestic violence charges and he was arrested in 2005 for groping a woman.

      Oh, and when a reporter recently asked him about that history, he called the guy a ‘salacious c*#%’ and walked out of the interview.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        Wow, thank you for this ! I had no idea ! Well, Christian Slater is a piece of rubbish then.
        What about Franco ? All I can find about him is that some people find him “creepy”, which I guess I can understand but no alleged crime or abuse.

      • Mia4s says:

        There are other tweets about Franco from lesser known women. Word is he’s about to be exposed (not sure if it’s the NY Times but someone has the story). Wait for it, it’s coming. *Pretends to be shocked*.

      • Jussie says:

        There’s been really loud whispers about Franco for a long time, but no direct allegations. A few years ago there was a controversy when he was revealed to be sexting and trying to arrange a hook-up with a 17yr old (legal in NY but a bit gross given he was 36). I’ve also heard he was infamous for hitting on the youngest girls on the Columbia and NYU campuses.

        Sheedy actually did a play with him, so I don’t think she’s only going off of the whispers surrounding him.

  10. 42istheanswer says:

    As a non-American, I would like to ask a very sincere question : why is Oprah so worshipped in the US ?
    I totally get admiring her for being an entirely self-made woman who rose above the traumas she suffered; I totally get admiring her even more because she is a woman of colour and achieved her immense success without any structural advantage whatsoever. All of that is perfectly understandable to me and, quite frankly, I do admire her achievements too.

    That being said, the actual content Oprah has put out there, for the past 30-ish years, seems (from my side on the Atlantic anyway) unspeakably trite and, dare I say, utterly dumb. Every time I watch one of her shows, see her interviewed or hear one of her speeches, all I can hear is a heady mix of (and I do genuinely apologise to people who find her helpful in any way) kindergarten-level psychobabble, shallow self-help mantras and vague New Age crap… It looks to me like fortune cookie drivel packaged as deep and meaningful soul-searching. And that is without taking into account all her creatures : Dr Phil, Dr Oz, etc. A bunch of charlatans who are at best laughable and at worst downright dangerous given their clout and the lamentable nature of the advice they give.

    I have absolutely no doubt Oprah is an intelligent woman; her success is undisputable proof of her brilliant business acumen. She is also incredibly elegant, furiously charismatic and has one of the most captivating speaking voices I have ever heard. But when I see people genuinely encouraging her to run for president in 2020, I am utterly lost… Surely, one would expect a (decent) president to be able to do more than spout aspirational “self-empowering” mottoes dripping in “spirituality”, whatever that may mean. Her speech last night was beautifully delivered but it sounded like the same old “believe in yourself” hogwash as ever to me.

    Am I missing something ? Has Oprah given any indication that she is political beyond the act of voting ? Has she given a conference I do not know about in which she articulated actual political ideas or potential policies ? Is there an Oprah-penned opus about the US’s social and/or economical woes and her solutions to them ? Out of sheer curiosity, I went to her Twitter page to see if there was hidden political depth to her communication and, within a minute, I found this : ” ‘We are Vibrational beings. You cannot have what you’re not willing to become vibrationally’ my biggest aha today.” (5th November 2017) WTF does that even mean ? It is nonsensical rubbish ! It seems to me that Oprah’s philosophy is this (http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/) or this (http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/) but without the sense of humour !

    Can someone please help me understand why President Oprah would be a good idea ?

    • Domino says:

      From the way you spell ‘colour’ you are either Canadian or from some other UK influenced place. How do you not get racism, and the power of representation? How do you listen to her speech and not get how powerful it would be for people everywhere around the world to see a black woman in office, the way the world erupted with joy upon seeing Obama lead us?

      You also maybe a man. You could be a troll. But I will still bite nonetheless.

      If you took all the things Oprah had done and attributed them to a man, no one would bat an eye that they could be a presidential candidate. After hosting one of the most arguably popular shows of all time, she started her own magazine, tv network, and became one of the richest people in the world. She changed the way people think about abuse, therapy, self-help, charity, race, philanthropy, the list goes on and on.

      Donald Trump and Steve Forbes came from money, trump swindled his businesses and raped women (no idea what the other accomplished than running his daddy’s magazine) and both have said as many off the wall things or worse. You really think talking about vibrational energy is worse than bragging about grabbing women and and the size of your d*ck and shooting someone in a public space? Just, no.

      And even Elizabeth Warren, who has political experience, arguably would be the perfect female candidate, had a smear campaign started by conservative talk radio for checking Native American because her family had told her she was.

      The point is: women aren’t ever perfect enough candidates, so who cares if we dream about Oprah as our president? And Oprah has been more presidential without the title than the orange disaster has been and he holds the actual f*cking office.

      We the US could do a lot worse than to elect someone who has the power to unite people, who inspires compassion and empathy, and who gives voice to the marginalized and powerless, and actually was one of us. No Oprah isn’t “perfect” just like Hillary wasn’t or Elizabeth Warren isn’t. But give us a damn seat at the table already. Nothing and no one can be worse than orange-you-sad he can’t even achieve mediocrity, dotard disaster.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        I am a woman, French and not a troll.

        I am not so blind as not to understand the symbolic power a woman of colour ascending to the presidency would have. I do get the need for representation. What I do not understand is why Oprah ?
        Ms. Winfrey is no Obama. Before his election in 2008, he was not just a supremely gifted public speaker; he was a constitutional lawyer as well as a former State and US Senator ! He did not merely have style; he also had substance which, I believe, is indispensable for a politician.
        And, quite frankly, while Oprah’s style is undisputable, I fail to see her substance.

        You state that Oprah influenced the way Americans view abuse, therapy, self-help, charity, race, philanthropy, etc. I would very much like to be made aware of any evidence of such Oprah-induced changes. I know there is an “Oprah effect” but, as far as I can see, it is solely commercial : when Oprah promotes a product or brand, her fans tend to patronise it. I have yet to see any proof that her teachings have had any deep, political and/or behavioural impact on anyone.

        I do not expect Oprah, or anyone for that matter, to be perfect to deserve to be president. Just to reach the most basic level of qualification which is why the comparison to Trump puzzles me. Trump is an appalling waste of flesh and a despicable cretin ! Of course Oprah is better than him. Hell, any random inanimate object is better than him. Trump is not the gold standard. He is not the new normal, nor should he ever be seen as such; he is a toxic aberration.
        “Better than Trump” is too low a bar to clear to be considered presidential ! A serious involvement in and understanding of institutional politics, a political ideology and associated policies, a functional knowledge of the social and economic makeup of the country are the bare minimum to be a credible and valuable candidate.

        Elizabeth Warren is qualified, Hillary Clinton is qualified, Kamala Harris is qualified. Oprah Winfrey is not.

      • DontBeAllLikeUncool says:

        @42istheanswer, totally agree. Domino, why do you immediately jump to calling someone who disagrees with you a troll, or (god forbid!) a man?

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        42istheanswer, You asked a perfectly reasonable question in trying to understand the US public’s mindset towards celebrity and have the right to receive a polite reply.

        As a US citizen I don’t want to see another celeb candidate. All of our celeb politicians had steep learning curves and depended almost entirely on their star power (see California Gov cheesy actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Minnesota Gov fake wrestler Jessie Ventura). And they weren’t very good at governing.

        I get annoyed when people delude themselves into thinking stars could be good at governing. If celebrity and star power were the only criteria–which it seems to be these day–then Abraham Lincoln (not very physically attractive) and Franklin Roosevelt (wheechair bound) would not be elected. I feel we have become too lazy to investigate anyone’s background and policies. We react to glitz and bombast. People thought drump was brilliant because he was combative and vicious in public. They think that’s “honesty” when in fact drump doesn’t even believe what he says.

        So, your question was an honest attempt to understand the US obsession with celebrities.

      • Dontbealllikecool
        In Domino’s defense she did not call the OP a troll or a man – she responded to her original post so how could she have known that the OP would or would not disagree with her afterwards? She said you could be a man or a troll but would indulge the question anyway. Read carefully. There’s a difference.

      • 42istheanswer
        After so many years it’s difficult to qualify Oprah’s contributions to American society. She helped make it possible for ordinary people to discuss the things that traumatized and damaged them in big and small ways. She provided a safe space for people to unpack pain, guilt and shame so they could begin to heal. Often she cried with them as she candidly shared her own struggles. This was so important at the time. Most talk shows were palliative and focused on recipes, lifestyles and celeb puff pieces. Oprah made it okay to be raw and fallible and broken. i remember Brooke Shields discussing her severe post-partum depression on Oprah and the shock waves of response it caused. Women were weeping with relief because they could finally put a name to their feelings or understand that they weren’t cold, detached mothers and that they were not alone.

      • DontBeAllLikeUncool says:

        @Enough Already, I think my reading comprehension is fine. The fact that @42istheanswer also felt the need to clarify that she was indeed a woman and a not a troll would suggest the same. But thank you.

      • Dontbealllikecool
        In point of fact, the OP was actually correct to clarify to Domino that she is indeed not a man and not trolling the thread so you’re using a false equivalency to align your reaction with the OP’s. It’s not a big deal but it is unfair to accuse Domino of namecalling and being retaliatory when more careful reading would have shown that was not the case.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        It is extremely nice of you to be so supportive but do not worry. I am a big girl ^^ If I have to prove my non-maleness and/or non-Canadian-ness to legitimise my point, it is no bother ;)

        @ Indiana Joanna
        I think you are entirely correct. The belief that celebrities can/should govern is but the latest incarnation of what I think of as America’s “Mr Smith goes to Washington delusion” : the idea that good governance is merely a matter of common sense and honesty (be they real or just perceived), and that an ordinary “outsider”, uncorrupted by fancy degrees and unnecessarily complicated theorisation, can get the job done better than the professional political “elite”. The everyday (wo)man as hero(ine). It is of course false because governing requires so much more than a “pure heart” but I suppose I can see the idea’s appeal.

        @Enough Already
        While I understand and respect the changes Oprah was a spokesperson for in America, the discursive transformations you describe occurred simultaneously in pretty much the whole of the Western world. What changed the way we view mental disorders, sexual abuse and post partum depression, among others, is the output of social scientists who worked on these topics, got published, vulgarised and modified their fields’ paradigms and, with them, social mores and attitudes in regards to these issues. Those changes in the Western zeitgeist; Oprah, being the brilliant broadcaster she is, merely seized upon them and became the face of them in the US. However, they would have occurred without her, as indeed they did in every other country in the West.

        Furthermore, while I have no doubt hearing about their own plight on television must have made many people feel better, Oprah’s approach was never political. A political take on the matter of post partum depression would not stop at crying with Brooke Shields and telling women that they are not alone (a lovely sentiment but one that carries zero weight because, once the telly is off, yes, these women are in fact alone); it would involve advocating for insurance companies to cover treatment for PPD, for employers to take it into account in regards to their maternity leave policies, for all doctors to be trained to diagnose it, etc. That is political work and I do not see much of it in Oprah’s career.

        If people find emotional aspiration and/or validation in Oprah, wondeful for them ! I, for one, am not sensitive at all to her ideas but that is neither here nor there.
        However, if what I know of her is indeed all there is (no extra political experience), then I cannot share other people’s desire to see her run the US.

      • 42istheanswer
        You conflate my explanation with some popular desire to see Oprah turn to politics. I have no such desire. Years of political experience in a public arena and a solid civic platform is the very least criteria I have to see.

        As for Oprah’s social impact I’m not sure you’ll ever understand if you didn’t witness it. Tired moms who were winding down their day didn’t rush to check out the latest psychosocial scientific research. But they did turn on Oprah and they listened, learned and improved their lives. Whether or not it was a decidedly American or not is for others to argue but it doesn’t lessen her impact/contribution.
        Here’s an interesting piece on how her show affected our culture:

        On how Oprah has changed the way we live:

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @Enough Already
        I believe this is where America’s cultural isolationism, so to speak, may be stomething of an obstacle.

        Obviously, exhausted moms did not read up on the latest psychosocial scientific research papers but specialised journalists did and they vulgarised their content in their columns, be it in the US or in France. And then general interest magazines started talking about it too. And it became part of the zeitgeist. In the US, Oprah was one of the first people who happened to sense that zeitgeist and channel it; in the rest of the Western world, it was other television/media personalities.
        Giving credit to Oprah for “creating” or “authoring” that change is like giving credit to a boat for the wave it rides. The same logic applies to most of the transformations Oprah found herself at the centre of in the US : they were happening anyway, with or without her. Ms. Winfrey, being a supremely intelligent broadcaster who always managed to sense the popular mood and mindset, attached herself to those transformations and promoted them.

        Oprah did not change American culture anymore than Mireille Dumas (my country’s counterpart to Ms. Winfrey) changed France’s; they just happened to be there when culture changed and they associated themselves with the tidal wave.
        Did they strenghten it by aligning themselves with it ? Absolutely so they deserve huge applause for that.
        Did they create it ? Bluntly put, no.
        Were they indispensable to its happening ? No.

    • Whoopsy Daisy says:

      I think the whole thing of fawning this much about anyone is a very American thing and seems very strange to foreigners. It does to me.

      But then again I’m from a country that curently has a female president and we had our first female prime minister in the 60s, so it’s not such a loaded thing.

    • To add to Domino’s brilliant comment I would say that Oprah has done amazing work bringing water, education and attention to some of the poorest women and girls on earth. She has excavated and produced projects that give poc and woc, especially, opportunities to work in an industry that is not interested in giving their talent a platform. And yes, when I’m curled up on my sofa in a cashmere sweater, sipping chamomile and leafing through one of her magazines I feel the weight of the debt I owe to women like her, my mother, her mother before her etc etc. it is a chain, a linkage of pride and gratitude that Oprah embodies for people who understand their worth in a world that is determined to show them otherwise. I will not waste it, I won’t forget, even if people don’t or can’t understand it.

    • IlsaLund says:

      I’m American and a woman of color. I admire Oprah’s work ethic and her embodiment of the American dream. She’s had to overcome many challenges and had to work three times harder than any man to get where she is. I respect that she seems true to herself and appears to make an effort to give back and uplift others. She helped Obama kickstart his Presidential campaign. I admire and respect Oprah. Having said all that, I’m no Oprah stan and have no desire to see her or any other celebrity or another unqualified person elected President. Unfortunately, I think Americans suffer from reality tv syndrome and a less than stellar education system. Other countries have long ago had female leaders, but here, the old guard stand firm in their beliefs that only a white male has the right to be President. To them, Obama was a mistake that shouldn’t have happened and they’ll do their damndest to ensure no woman or person if color ever makes it to the White House again. So people get excited about just the possibility of someone other than a white male being President.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        You do make a very good point : there is (and should bloody well be) enthusiasm around the idea of a non white male president. I share the heck out of that enthusiasm ! But Oprah is just not qualified.

        The world is full of supremely qualified women of colour and the US is no exception. There are so many of them in the US congress and in State legislatures that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why they are viewed as second best compared with a talk show host.
        Donna Edwards has immense potential for the national stage, let’s bring back Bonnie Watson Coleman, Yvette Clarke looks incredibly promising, Frederika Wilson needs some extra experience but her work in committees has been very convincing… And, of course, let’s not forget the unsinkable and bloody marvelous Eleanor Holmes Norton. And they are but a sample of what women of colour have to offer in the realm of politics. They deserve all the spotlight they can get and to see so much of it dedicated to Ms. Winfrey is, to me, profoundly puzzling and somewhat disheartening.

    • Alexandria says:

      Oprah can be a good President not because she is a celebrity but despite being a celebrity. Dotard on the other hand is a total buffoon who happens to be a celebrity. Buffoons shouldn’t be Presidents, or in any occupation, period. Perhaps the court jester. Also, you don’t have to like a politician but he or she does need to have capability and empathy. Oprah can offer both, despite being a celebrity. I’m a non-American too and make fun of this worship of Oprah but I have no doubt she is more capable than half of who is in Congress now. So what if the current politicians have experience? They don’t seem to be acting in your interests. They don’t seem human. Experience and specific expertise are more vital for the civil servants in government bodies. She is a self-made billionaire who did not depend on handouts from her parent, she is articulate, she is not arrogantly dumb to think she is smarter than who would advise her, she reads. What she and every President / PM need to do is to hire good, capable people to help them. To me, there’s no point stopping celebs from running as politicians because they are celebrities but of course one has to ask if they are up to it, and whether there would be conflict of interests, as usual. With the election of Dotard by the Electoral College, seems like party took over common sense.

    • Hazel says:

      I agree with you. Oprah is very Goop-y. And I’m tired of hearing about her weight, and weight loss.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        Surely it is the other way around : Goop is trying to be Oprah-y. Render unto Caesar and so forth ;)

        As for her talks about her weight, they do not bother me. If people want to hear about it, good for them. It certainly is not my thing but hey, to each their OWN ^^

    • Anon says:

      Props to 42ISTHEANSWER. She asked a very insightful and important question, in a very respectful way, and followed up after the uncalled for Oprah/Trump comparison with a logical response rejecting the very notion that Trump can be the presidential standard. Being president requires more than charisma, business acumen, likeability, and oratory skills – all of which Oprah has in spades. It requires additionally experience, the constitution, our system of governance, separation of powers, knowledge of history and various successful/unsuccessful strategies of the past, a firm grasp on economics, etc. There is, of course, some on the job learning and seasoned advisors to assist, but a proper POTUS needs a foundation. I think Oprah is so appealing to us now because Trump has taken so much away from us, in terms of who we are and who we aspire to be as a society. There is a craving for hope, true leadership, and positivity – which Oprah embodies. But we can’t become such a celebrity culture that we think a good person with good qualities is qualified to be president of the country.

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      You’re not alone… and I’m American. I don’t get it either. Granted, she gave good word last night, but she should have; that’s her milieu. I used to watch her show early on, but when the name Oprah, and her brand, blanketed daily living, I grew out of her. I do think she’s talented, a great actress and sure… a great entertainer. She tapped into a burgeoning market way back when and was on long enough for her national audience to ‘grow up with her.’ Gaining weight, losing weight, crying with her during emotional stories and celebrating wide-ranging achievements of very diversified existences. She’s all-inclusive and that sat well with audiences. She expanded when and where it made sense and built an empire. She and Martha Stewart made omnipresence look easy. So yeah, people love her. I’m, however, a major cynic. An eye-rolling negative Nancy so she grates lol. Her light bulb moments are my nemesis simply because I don’t have bulbs. If anything needs illuminating, all I’ve got is a black light. Would I like to see her run for office? That’s not a fair question to ask at this particular point. I would like our President to be highly educated. Years of pertinent experience. Possess outstanding character and quality, who is strong, able, concerned, generous, steadfast, dependable, knowledgeable, respectful, politically elastic and determined to be a servant of American citizens. So put what we currently have on one side of the scale and Oprah on the other. No contest. Even Spongebob would make a better president.

    • Slowsnow says:

      @42istheanswer, in complete agreement. I find it deeply disturbing to watch any of the shows that Oprah helped launch with screaming members of the audience (let’s face it, mainly women) in awe with her because she showered them with gifts and magic advice. Hasn’t this current situation taught us anything? Celeb idolatry is indeed a dangerous game. And politics are not for people who aren’t politically educated goddamit. Of course she is a great example of resilience. But that doesn’t make her a political expert.

    • Amelie says:

      While I love Oprah and think she is amazing, I do not want her to be President. However, if it was a race between her and Trump, I would have to vote for her. I don’t think it would come down to that and plus I would hope Oprah would have sense not to run.

      But she has done so much for so many people. When she first started out in the 1980s, her talk show was more on the “trashy” side and evolved over the years into something far more powerful. I don’t believe in everything she shills but she has gotten involved in some great TV/film projects that empower Black history and Black women and her philanthropy is quite amazing. If we could have someone with all personal/business skills AND political experience in office, that would be magical.

    • Escaped Convent says:

      42istheanswer, I applaud this and all of your comments today. I do not fawn over Oprah, although I am impressed with her accomplishments and think she’s a great entertainer. I feel her heart is in the right place. I did think she went off the rails a bit when she went wild over “The Secret.”

      But you made your case very eloquently. Bravissima.

      And Mabs, we really should let Spongebob have a go. He’s kind and compassionate and could undo some of the Trump sickness (while we’re considering TV characters for President, that is….)

      • jwoolman says:

        And Spongebob has an excellent work ethic. Not a lazy bone, er, whatever the analog is for a sponge, in his body. I would worry that he might pick Patrick Star as his running mate, though. And that Putin would wipe the floor with him.

    • Sassenach says:

      Hillary was OVER qualfied, Elizabeth Warren is qualified but I guarantee you Kamala Harris is not qualified and would guarantee Trump another four years. I’m not an Oprah fan, but I can admit that she is highly intelligent, self made woman who would probably make a capable president. She would certainly be better than Trump, Bush and arguably Bill Clinton.

    • jwoolman says:

      Ronald Reagan was a typical shallow Hollywood type, and he got elected as Trump Lite and proceeded to tear down as many things as he could, like Trump. He wasn’t very knowledgeable about domestic and international issues. I remember him being astonished after a trip to Central America that “they’re all different countries there!”. He also kept saying that ballistic missiles could be recalled after launch (no, they can’t) no matter how often his staff corrected him. They said that when bringing him a mix of good news and bad news, it was really difficult to get his attention for the bad news because like Trump, he would tend to just hear the good news. Trump makes Reagan seem like a genius, though.

      And look at George W. Bush. Hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer by the time he became President. His Vice-President Dick Cheney, ex-CIA, was really pulling the strings.

      We’ve had plenty of Presidents more poorly qualified than Oprah throughout our history. It’s always been a popularity contest. But Oprah is quite intelligent and able to learn, so if she actually did decide to run for President then I would expect her to at least study the issues and the procedures. She wouldn’t just wing it. I doubt that she’s interested, though, she can do more as a private citizen.

      • 42istheanswer says:

        @Escaped Convent @Slowsnow @Mabs A’Mabbin @Anon
        I am very pleased to know I am not alone in my puzzlement and confusion ^^ Thank you very much for your kind words.
        And yes, Sponge Bob should be president. And Patrick would be a remarkable Secretary of State ! ;)

        @jwoolman @Sassenach
        Political experience does not make someone good or bad, intelligent or stupid, helpful or toxic. It simply gives them the ability to perform efficiently in the political sphere, towards whatever goal they prefer.
        George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were not the brightest of bulbs and most of their politics is certainly abhorrent to me but they knew how to pass a bill ! They knew how to handle and manage their congressional party members, how to rally their troops, how and when to use the whips, how to work with (and around) Congress. And they acquired those skills by working in politics for decades, by being politicians.
        What makes the Paul Ryans of the world dangerous is not their ideology but their ability to put said ideology into practice. Without that ability, Paul Ryan and his cohorts would be sad creatures reading Atlas Shrugged for the umpteenth time in their parents’ basement.

        Also, for better and for worse, all pre-Trump presidents, even the dumb ones, have had an ideological identity. All belonged to clear schools of thoughts, political and economic, that oriented all their decisions. What of Oprah ? Economically speaking, is she a keynesian or a neoclassical ? A monetarist or an institutional ? In regards to international politics, she is more of an interventionist or an isolationist ?

      • Domino says:

        I think you people are missing my (and possibly Kaiser’s) point – Oprah is a dream president, not reality, and prior to trump we would never be having this convo. But this country went there, so this is the sh*t we are in. Black women are already saving this country (98% voted Hillary, see the turnout for Jones in Alabama), why can’t I dream that would actually be represented in my president?

        I also dream to have a president that is eloquent, that is compassionate, that is committed to fighting for justice. @42istheanswer I guarantee you not a single person in the White House right now knows a thing about economics. It is a circus there. The US is a Joke. I can damn well dream of whomever I want. That is the point of this post’s title.

        And I still maintain if Oprah were a man, even in spite of trumpeting The Secret, Dr Phil, or whatever kooky stuff, she would have had people telling her to run for president long ago, like Ted Turner type. She might not have made it far in the campaign, but she would change the discourse just by being herself, having nothing to lose. That’s what trump did, isn’t It? He went out there and he was his sh*ttiest, most narcissistic, racist, sexist self, and people responded to that – and likewise Oprah could do the same – be herself – and remind us of what is good in us.

        Not like I am Debbie wasserman Schultz here picking the next dnc candidate.
        I am under no illusion Oprah would win, just like I don’t think Maxine or Kamala have hope either, but it would be nice to have a candidate representing women, blackness, emotions, – all these things that we are told are why some of us are told we can’t succeed – when in fact Oprah succeeds because of those factors.

    • PiMo says:

      Another foreigner who doesn’t get the Oprah hype, albeit she was awesome last night and I think I got a glimpse of what people see in her.

      I am of the mind that we need people with experience to lead countries. I think part of Obama’s failures was due to his lack of experience. His foreign policy was quite disastrous, even though he had good intentions. He was not bipartisan enough in local issues. I say these things as an Obama fan.

      Unfortunately this celebrity thing is not unique to the US. People feel they know celebrities. Especially TV personas. If they love them, they attribute a bunch of good qualities to them; so many people around me told me that Trump was very intelligent because of The Apprentice.

      I don’t understand how the same people who would use an accountant to do their books, a pilot to fly the airplanes, a surgeon to operate them, think someone without any experience can perform well at the highest office of the county.

      Having said that, if Oprah has any aspirations, I hope she first runs for a lower office first, gets experience and then run for presidency. She knows the country and its people. She is intelligent. She is a go-getter. She clearly has great personal skills, so I think she can be a bipartisan president. I can see how she has potential. But currently she has no experience.

    • Nn says:

      They do that to all somewhat powerful black women in the public eye.
      Michelle Obama is another example…you have to understand American history to understand why white people do that. They see Oprah and Michelle as mammys and guard dogs they can sic on the all so powerful white men.
      As a black woman, it’s exhausting and I wish they would stop.
      Oprah isn’t interested in running for president. At most she’ll humour you but she’s not actually seriously considering it so I don’t know why people keep nagging her about it.

      • sunshine gold says:

        I have to respectfully disagree. I can think of only Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris as other examples of black women in the public eye “they” do it to. So the fact that 3 names have been bandied about doesn’t even come close to “all.” A few white women are also routinely suggested as potential candidates. And your reasoning – the mammys and guard dog thing is just bizarre. The reason why certain women are regularly proposed as candidates (Eliz Warren, Sheryl Sandberg, Nikki Haley, Oprah, etc.) is because PEOPLE LIKE THEM. They think they’re talented, genuine and could do a good job. Maybe it’s as simple as that.

    • sunshine gold says:

      I agree, the fawning is over the top. And all this presidential talk is silly to me – we definitely DO NOT need another celebrity in the White House. If anything we need a more down to earth regular person who cares deeply about policy. To answer your question on why she is so adored….yes, she is self-made to the nth degree. Literally coming from nothing to be one of the richest women in the world. She’s smart and sincerely seems to want to do good in the world. She is all about positivity and betterment and helping people. You may think her show was trashy, and the Drs Phil and Oz do give me MAJOR pause, but she brought to light so many issues and topics in a credible, thoughtful way. Her interviews were aways very real and empathetic. She’s smart, savvy, articulate, and empowering to many people who see her as the embodiment of the American dream. So yeah, she’s amazing, but I don’t think she’s president material.

  11. Lenn says:

    Natalie Portman wins the night. She showed some balls, as did Debra Messing and Eva Longoria in calling out E!

  12. SM says:

    Did you catch Seth’s go at Woody Allen? And his comment on sort of “oh no” reaction of the room when he said Spacey could not do a southern accent in House of Cards – “oh, you think it’s mean? To Kevin Spacey?” The best moment of his monologue for me. He did well I think.
    As for black fashion, I take all the criticism I had about it back, because I think it worked. Actually I think they shoild do that every year, somehow the room looked more elegant than ever.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      It bothered me that there were clearly people in the audience on the defense about both Woody Allen and Keven Spacey.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        I bet they were wearing black too. The cognitive dissonance must give them a headache.

    • another kate says:

      Yes, that comment killed me! Surprised not to see more Seth Meyers love around the internet. I thought his monologue was great!

  13. BooRadley says:

    I just came to say that I know a lot of people have justifiable issues with James Franco but him shutting Tommy Wiseau down killed me I died from laughter. For once it would be nice if people quelled their indignant rage over something so innocuous. Franco has worked with Wiseau for months if not years now and he probably knows him better than us, and given everything that I have heard about Tommy Wiseau I think it’s safe to say that Franco probably saved us from a incoherent babbling mess of self-praise and Hollywood bashery, if he had let Tommy Wiseau speak LOL. That and Natalie Portman were the highlights for me.
    And Reese asked “who doesn’t like Oprah? ” I don’t. But I did give it to her, her speech was pure Oprah but also pretty amazing. So I will give her that.

    • Pandy says:

      Agree, Boo Radley. I laughed too at how he shut him down. He looks like a Gene Simmons wannabe. Actually, maybe he would have been interesting lollll.

    • Pandy says:

      PS: Not an Oprah fan – picturing her announcing WORLD PEACE the way she announces new car presents lolll. Seriously though, no more stars for politicians. Including and ESPECIALLY Dwayne Johnson! Geez. Thought it was weird that Reese introduced Oprah – did anyone else?

  14. Nicole says:

    So annoyed that Get Out won nothing. I’m going to riot if they get shut out at the Oscars. Hands down the best movie of 2017. I think the fact that it was in comedy/musical hurt it. Loved that Sterling won but pissed that he was another first. As if we should be happy about that.
    Oprah’s speech was amazing and I would love to see her as a leader somewhere. But not as president. I’m not into endorsing another celebrity no matter how much I love her.

    • Jayna says:

      The same for me. I want someone with experience in government. I remember a time that Obama wasn’t considered experienced enough to run for president yet and needed more time in the senate and to accomplish more in the senate, that being a great orator and inspirational wasn’t enough. It’s why he picked Joe Biden to be his VP, to assuage fears about his lack of foreign policy experience.

      Now we have inexperienced, crazy Trump, and people want Oprah, with zero experience? Sure, Oprah is a billion miles above Trump in intellect and her stance on certain issues. But uh, no. We need a president who has experience and is prepared to be POTUS. These are troubling times, and I want someone who understands government, understands the innerworkings of Washington, D.C., and what it takes and has developed strong relationships within government to understand how to run a country and put the right people in positions.

      • Lightpurple says:

        If I receive a ballot with only the names Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, I would select Oprah but that should never be the ballot. I do respect the woman’s many accomplishments but there are people out there who are far more qualified to run our country than she is. Now, if Kamala Harris were to announce her candidacy, I would be out ringing doorbells.

    • Esmom says:

      I thought Oprah was great last night…but don’t you think a lot of the “Oprah for President” sentiment was sort of wistful, tongue in cheek and not serious? I feel like people were caught up in the moment and it was an easy, natural leap to make, especially as the current chaotic presidency is front and center in most people’s minds? Her eloquence and warmth, as I said above, was a refreshing contrast to the unhinged comments and tweets that Bigly Buttons can’t seem to rein in.

      • Nicole says:

        Some of it was tounge n cheek but the oprah as President thing has been circulating for a minute now. Some people are serious

      • Esmom says:

        Well thanks to Trump we can never say someone is unqualified to be POTUS. I feel like he lowered the bar permanently. And it’s not like Oprah would be worse, lol. I can’t believe I’m even typing this.

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        Yes, the Oprah for President campaign is too much for me. I also have seen interviews where she says she would never be interested in running for president.

        She has a tremendous power already. She introduced the idea that President Obama run for president when it seemed like a stretch because he had just been elected a junior senator. She helped shape history just for that.

      • Nicole says:

        Yea and she can do other things in politics. But I think she needs to wield her power effectively and finding a new candidate is a great idea

      • Veronica says:

        I read it as tongue and cheek, but now CNN is suggesting it’s serious, and I’m like…no. That would be foolish. She could do far more good with the platform she already has.

      • witingbit says:

        it’s not tongue in cheek at all. literally the very article we’re all responding to says, “OPRAH. How magnificent was Oprah? Like, after her Cecil B. DeMille speech, I genuinely and truly want her to run for president. I’m not even joking. Spare a moment and watch her entire speech.”

        count me in the camp of love oprah, support her initiatives and projects and using her influence and platform in phenomenal ways but it’s a hard no for me regarding oprah running for president.

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      Agree. I saw Get Out when it first came out in theaters and still can’t shake the Hitchcockian dread the film evoked. I hope it’s recognized at the Oscars. It is definitely an Oscar-worthy film.

      • Escaped Convent says:

        Indiana Joanna, I agree about Get Out. It’s a great, great movie. I rarely tell everyone I know “See this movie!” but I did with this. How it can be snubbed or unrecognized is beyond me.

    • Veronica says:

      I’m pretty salty about that, too. Easily one of the biggest snubs of the award season.

    • Happy21 says:

      Your Stirling K. Brown comment was bang on. I was shocked when I read that he was the first black actor to be awarded best actor in a TV show. How the hell is it 2018 and this is a first!?!?

  15. Jess says:

    Not thrilled with the HFPA but thought Seth did a good job (Tina and/or Amy would have been better), a lot of the acceptance speeches said important things and said them well, and Oprah is everything. She is the exact opposite of Trump in all ways and how he can be president instead of her shows how messed up we are. All I could think last night was that she should run. That speech was incredible.

  16. Purplehazeforever says:

    1) I’m annoyed that Get Out was shut out at the Golden Globes…that movie was deep, uncomfortable and made you think on so many levels. 2) I am thrilled Sterling K. Brown won for This is Us. 3) James Franco won because, by all accounts, he was simply amazing in the Disaster Artist. That was the trade papers was saying leading up to Golden Globes. I listened to his speech & cringed. I remember his Instagram attempts at trying to pickup a 17 year old girl, his botched hosting job of the Academy Awards? ( He was pretty high) and all the fawning over him before that. I could never understand why Seth Rogen liked him so much. Sure he’s talented but he’s also entitled and a jerk. Please don’t get me started on Christian Slater…I have a long memory and I can recall all of his misdeeds and he’s just not that good of an actor, either. He copies Jack Nicholson. Gary Oldman has always been a jerk… extremely talented but abusive. I’m surprised as anyone as else he beat out Daniel Day Lewis. I’m going to have read what the other insiders say about this. I do know that Oldman’s portrayal of Churchill was intense. Lastly, Oldman’s assault on his ex occurred in the 90′s… Hollywood has a way of sweeping this stuff under the rug. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying this is what they do.

    • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

      What was gross to me about James Franco trying to pick up a 17 year old girl is because as soon as he found out she was in the same city as him it went from a normal celebrity-fan interaction to him trying to pick her up for sex.

    • Erinn says:

      I think probably a lot of Seth / Franco’s friendship can be chalked up to Franco being one of the first celebrity friends he had. Freaks and Geeks was really Seth’s first role – and it was following a lot of hardship that his family was going through. They probably bonded very early on, and it was a lasting friendship. There are people I was friends with at a younger age that I adored. But as we got older I matured more than they did. Same with my husband and some of his friends. We still hang out sometimes, and you kind of run on all the memories of good times together – and they’re kind of ‘that friend’ that you have when you want to do something immature, or foolish, or whatever. Some of them make shitty decisions. They’re not Franco level shitty decisions – but they also aren’t as rich or influential as Franco.

  17. monette says:

    I’m glad I was proven wrong. You can look spectacular in a black gown, just look at Oprah.
    Everyine looked really good and wearing black wasn’t just an empty gesture. I’m really really glad I was so wrong.

    • Jayna says:

      I agree. I was wrong also. The visual of the solidarity worked. My sister told me she watched it with her teenage daughter and really had a great conversation about it and about everything going on right now as women are becoming a very loud unified voice.

  18. Lizzie says:

    gary oldman wearing a time’s up pin was nauseating. his 5th wife needed to do less. he’s an unrepentant asshole and abuser. read anything about him and francis ford coppola’s behavior on the set of dracula and learn why winona ryder became neurotic pill head.

    • Cali says:

      I really used to love him but reading up on him is depressing as hell.

    • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

      “his fifth wife needed to do less”??? What does this mean? He is divorced from Alexandra Edenborough.

      • Karen says:

        Maybe it means she needed to dress up differently for GG or just not marry Oldman? If it’s about marriage thing, well, she is a big girl (adult) and it’s up to her to decide whom to marry or not and ultimately her problem so idk.

      • Lizzie says:

        it means – they kept panning to her in the audience during his speech and it was also nauseating. she was clutching her face and gulping with tears in her eyes and needed to get a grip. the only other person they panned to in his speech was denzel washington. they didn’t dare pan to another woman b/c there would surely be eye rolls. a wife beating, antisemitic rape apologist won the big prize wearing a time’s up pin. awesome.

      • Karen says:

        @Lizzie tbh if she as his family member/wife was happy for him at that moment and that is kinda natural reaction, then I don’t see why she should have gotten a grip. Even if they break like in 2 months. As for your suggestion that they didn’t dare to pan to any other woman there idk. It’s a theory. I mean Jessica Chastain is this strong advocate for change in Hollywood atm and almost a heroine of the moment yet she stans Oldman as actor and she is not alone there, so I’m not sure if all these actresses would be doing that eye rolling. They are very selective with the target of their eye rolls.

      • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

        Alexandra Edenborough was there? They’ve been divorced for 2 or 3 years. She’s in her thirties.

        And IDK what to say–whoever the camera kept panning to–it’s not exactly her fault that they kept pointing the camera at her.

  19. Patty says:

    Ugh on Three Billboards. It was a good movie, but that movie is so problematic on so many levels. It’s another Crash in the making.

  20. Cali says:

    I didn’t expect to like Three Billboards, but the performances were so great, so I think it deserves the wins it’s getting.

    Seth did a good job last night.

    I’m relieved that I didn’t have to sit through a ton of political stuff last night. I am obsessed with it 24/7 and was so glad to focus on something else for a short bit and also that it didn’t give Trump a reason to be hate Tweeting this morning. (not that I’ve checked yet anyway). He’s probably upset to not be the center of attention…

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      He’s probably stewing about not being mentioned by the group of people he’s spent most of his life trying to get an in with, and consistently failed. Mr. reality tv stah! I’m so glad he was ignored.

  21. Shambles says:

    I’m sorry, but on principle I would absolutely not vote for Oprah. It’s ridiculous and upsetting to think we should put another celebrity in office after this sh!t show we’re currently enduring. She’s great, but SHE STILL HAS NO POLITICAL EXPERINCE. I don’t need my POTUS to be a superstar. I need my POTUS to be sane, level-headed and compassionate, with EXPERIENCE in the field before they step into the highest job in that field. No. Please do not start making Oprah for President an actual thing. CNN just reported that she’s seriously thinking of running, and I’m honestly mad about it. I want an experienced politician. We cannot continue with this precedent of “celebs in office,” even if the celeb is one we like. We MUST have someone who knows exactly what they’re doing if we have any hope of repairing the immense damage that’s currently being done by the reality star in chief. NOprah. Sorry.

    • Esmom says:

      I’m with you. Hopefully this flurry will settle down and people will move on. We have got to do better, much better, with our next POTUS.

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      Agree with Shambles and Esmom. We don’t need another celebrity with no political experience. I would not vote for Oprah.

    • I’d assumed the Oprah for Prez schtick was just a fond way of showing regard/admiration. I had no idea anyone was serious. No on every level to this. No.


    • Nn says:

      I find the hysterical people going “omg noooo oprah don’t run!!” hilarious.
      You can calm down, she’s not interested and has said so many times. People can’t take a joke anymore and that’s scary.

  22. Jayna says:

    I swear Rose McGowan keeps rubbing me the wrong way at times.

    After Oprah’s amazing, inspiring speech, she dissed Oprah with her tweet, “Alright Oprah.” And it wasn’t meant as a positive, more like an eye roll. Many of her twitter followers were calling her out about it and she never responded to them. Although, some supported her tweet. One posted a photo of Oprah sitting with Harvey.

    And a twitter follower praised her as the first one to break the silence, and she tweeted:

    “And not one of those fancy people wearing black to honor our rapes would have lifted a finger had it not been so. I have no time for Hollywood fakery.”


    • Nina says:

      Does anyone have a picture with her sitting with Victor Salva to tweet at her in response?

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      I have so much compassion for Rose and what she’s been through. I don’t fault her for her anger towards Meryl and Oprah and all the rest. In her mind, everybody failed her whether they knew about Harvey’s rapist history or not.

      It seems that Rose didn’t have anyone who took care of her or believed her. Instead everyone in Hollywood buddied up to Harvey because he was the power broker, and everyone wants to be next to power.

  23. Beckysuz says:

    I think Elizabeth Moss would be a massive hypocrite if she spoke about reproductive rights when the cult she belongs to forces abortions on women who don’t want them.

  24. homeslice says:

    No, no and no on Oprah for POTUS. Please Democrats, let’s NOT go this route. Oprah is an awesome person but a president she is not.

  25. Ennie says:

    I did not like what Portman said in view of a director, Guillermo del Toro who is part of a minority winning, it cheapened, tried to take away from his winning. He deserves his award and has come a long way from his starting point in Guadalajara to be demeaned, male or not.

    • VirgiliaCoriolanus says:

      I didn’t like it because it was aimed at the directors/actors in the audience, and not at the HFPA or the studio heads. They are the ones, at the top, who make these decisions. That is why I thought this whole wearing all black thing was stupid. Yea, it’s a statement–but is it going to go beyond a statement? It seems like the Weinstein mess is dying down and nothing much, beyond a few firings and throwing some money at the problem, has changed.

    • Karen says:

      I agree. It was vey tone deaf of Natalie to say such things when there was del Toro among nominess (and he won!). Not to mention she was among all those people who signed that petition in favour of Roman Polanski, so like she supports Polanski!

    • jetlagged says:

      It didn’t feel like Natalie was trying to shame the nominees, she was highlighting that the entire system still handicaps women and prevents them from making it to the top rung of the ladder.

      I’d like to think Guillermo not only didn’t feel demeaned, but may have actually approved. He’s always been sympathetic and supportive of those that are relegated to the shadows or viewed as somehow less than.

      • Karen says:

        @jetlagged her highlighting was not directed at the HFPA or the studio heads as people rightfully said here. If she wanted to call out the system, really, she should have done that directly instead of this weak generalization about gender of nominees. Because white male directors and MOC directors don’t have similar opportunities in industry so just grouping all the nominees together as simply “male” while you have del Toro there is not helping.

  26. Elaine says:

    The fact that people are seriously thinking Oprah is a good candidate as president of the US says a lot about Trump getting elected. It’s ridiculous. How about meritocracy? How about being qualified? How about not voting for celebrities as “leaders of the world”?

    • Jeannie says:

      You can’t seriously think trump and oprah are analogous. It says a lot abt someone’s values and what they accomplished in their career. Technically, paul Ryan is a more seasoned politician than Oprah, but I hate the things he values and i would be genuinely scared to see him at the helm.

      I’m just curious (im not criticizing you, just trying to open discussion), do you really think a celebrity shouldn’t be president? I don’t think this particular celebrity (trump) should, but as long as your temperament is calibrated right, i don’t see why not. Celebrities are probably uniquely qualified for the position more than anyone else; they get criticized from every angle.

      • DM2 says:

        But what about something else other than Emotional IQ? What about knowledge of global foreign policy, global world events, knowledge of the politics of other countries in general? I remember Oprah saying she never knew what a croissant was — was surprised that Canada even had black people, for example. Some real head-scratching stuff that could really make you question her general knowledge of “other” outside of her own personal skill set of media, and goop-y (as was stated above) philosophies. How about raising the bar just a *little* higher now?

      • Elaine says:

        In terms of qualifications and celebrity status, yeah, they are pretty much the same. In addition to that, Trump is incredibly stupid, a racist, a misogynist, an abuser, a loser in everything that would make a decent human being.

        People should stop glorifying celebrities. Just because they are accustomed to the spotlight and know how to deliver a speech doesn’t mean they should enter politics. How about diplomacy, public policies, foreign policy, economy, etc. etc.? Being a President is too much of a responsibility for Oprah.

  27. Lilith says:

    Oprah WILL make America great again.

  28. Jeannie says:

    Oh man. And natalie portman! Brilliance.

    I think Oprah is one of the most uplifting, life-affirming human beings there is. And i would trust the world implicitly in her hands (too much? 😉 lol) Seriously, i really love her.

  29. Sassenach says:

    I think people look at the fact that Bush had experience and was a disaster, his father had experience and was a disaster, Bill Clinton had experience and could have been better and also publicly humiliated his wife, etc. You have all of these old out of touch Senators and Congressmen with dangerous ideas and policies that they want to make happen, defund CHIPS, the war on women’s health etc., these are all people with “experience” doing this and we don’t see the Democrats making enough noise about it. Political Experience is not always the best teacher.

  30. Jag says:

    No, not Oprah for President. She is an elitist, out of touch hypocrite. Look at all of the photos of her kissing up – literally – to Weinstein. Yes, she would be better than Trump, but no, there hopefully are better candidates out there.

  31. Samantha says:

    Can someone please explain the Gary Oldman case to me? I looked it up and it seems like the court didn’t accept his wife’s claim of abuse? I know false accusations are very rare but I was wondering why Oldman was given sole custody. It seems he sorta “won” in the dispute.
    I’m not particularly interested in him, I’m just genuinely wondering why he’s considered abusive. His comments were horrible and make him trash, but I’m not sure about the abuse part.

    • Karen says:

      Thanks for the tip. I didn’t know that the claims of abuse were not accepted by the court and that he won over his wife in custody. People were talking here like his abuse was a proven case.

  32. Caroline says:

    So, did anyone wear Marchessa?

  33. U.S and them says:

    ‘Oprah for President’

    As with any candidate I’d have to see her policies before deciding whether or not to support her.

    An aside, Trump has been trying to take credit for record low unemployment figures but as usual it pays to dig a little deeper:


  34. TyrantDestroyed says:

    I hope that Get out will do better at the Oscar’s. I am very happy for Guillermo del Toro. His creativity deserves all the accolades he is getting

  35. Burdzeyeview says:

    Lets face it – kermit th frog would be better than trump – u need to vote for an actual politician th next time,someone with intelligence and integrity. Good luck with that.

  36. Anare says:

    I’m not a big Oprah fan but I listened to her speech and when she spoke of the sexual abuse and harassment not just being a Hollywood thing but a thing for women in all walks of life and suddenly the tears sprung. Yes. #metoo

  37. Mélissa says:

    Meanwhile, in France, Le Monde published a column signed by Catherine Deneuve and 100 “famous” French women to denounce the #METOO movement and to defend men’s right to harass women because “it’s just flirting” apparently (I’m quoting “la liberté d’importuner, indispensable à la liberté sexuelle”)… I hate my country