Name: Why the Golden Globes Are Always Bad
Brand: gq.com
SKU: gq-com-78
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Why the Golden Globes Are Always Bad

preview

There’s never been a great reason for the Golden Globe Awards to exist. At best, they’re a kind of diet soda version of other awards shows, a slimmed-down combination of the Oscars and the Emmys, At worst, they’re a pale imitation of those institutions that devalues the loftier honors by throwing out nominations and awards willy nilly, hitting worthy honorees almost by chance. Arts awards might be inherently silly and driven more by hype and glad-handing than a serious assessment of artistic merit, but the Globes have a way of stripping off the veneer of respectability. It’s an awards show shadowed by a dubious history; decided upon by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (a shadowy group whose ), and capped by a boozy ceremony in which winners and losers alike all seem vaguely embarrassed to be in attendance, eager to get it over with and move on to the next, slightly less frivolous awards show.And yet, with the announcement of this year’s nominations, it’s once again part of the conversation. As with most years, the nominations serve a useful function mostly by what they do wrong. For example, that Chadwick Boseman would likely sweep the acting awards this year for his work in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is something of a fait accompli. His unexpected death still feels staggering and he’s incredible in the film, giving a revelatory performance that should have been the beginning of a new phase in his career rather than a swan song. He’d likely be the frontrunner without the impulse to honor a great actor one last time. But the other name in the Best Actor conversation since this summer has been Delroy Lindo, for his fiery, complex work in Spike Lee’s Da 5 Bloods. Yet Lindo’s nowhere to be found in the list of the nominees. Nor, for that matter, is Da 5 Bloods, an oversight that , along with the general absence of films with Black casts in the Best Motion Picture, Drama category.The television categories are more of the same. Steve McQueen’s Small Axe has a much-deserved slot in Best Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television, but there’s nothing to show for the near unanimous praise I May Destroy You received last summer—absolutely no nods for actor-writer-director Michaela Coel.To be fair, the Globes’ history honoring Black talent is probably no better or worse than the Oscars or the Emmys, and the Globes can at least serve as a bellwether for change, both positive and negative. Two years ago, for shutting female directors out of the nominations in all major categories except Best Foreign-Language Film. This year, it made for nominating three female directors: Chloe Zhao, Regina King, and Emerald Fennell. That’s progress, maybe even progress that represents a bigger shift, especially if it serves as a sign of who the Oscars will nominate, which the Globes sometimes do.But even thinking this way is to slip into the trap of taking the Globes seriously, which is easy to do because it looks like a lofty awards show and is treated as such. Every year, the stars show up. The hosts engage in funny bits and playful banter (unless it’s a Ricky Gervais year). The honoree of the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award usually gives a damn good, often tear-inducing speech. And the winners seem genuinely grateful, never mind that the Globes have a long history of scandal and embarrassment.The most famous example, of course, came in 1982 when the New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture, Female award went to Pia Zadora for her work in Butterfly, a crime drama whose poor reviews singled out Zadora for ridicule. (“A nymphet of no obvious acting ability” — Richard Labonté, The Ottawa Citizen.) Zadora, however, had the good fortune to be married to a wealthy casino owner who financed the film, and held a lavish screening for members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, even flying some in for a stay at his Las Vegas casino. Whether the award was officially bought and paid for was beside the point. Zadora and her husband made the mistake of campaigning too nakedly, and the award itself created too much cognitive dissonance. Anyone who'd seen the film knew there had to be more promising newcomers. (The list of fellow nominees bears this out: Kathleen Turner, Elizabeth McGovern and Rachel Ward.)It wasn’t the first time the Globes would seem fishy. In 1958, Variety ran an item with the headline “‘” noting the resignation of HFPA board member Henry Gris, who complained “certain awards are being given out more or less as favors.” Between 1968 and 1974, the ceremony had no home on network TV due to FCC concerns that the Globes were essentially rigged, concerns stemming in part from stories that claimed winners were determined in part by those who would agree to attend. In 2010, the Best Musical or Comedy nominees included Burlesque, a sign that chin stroke-inducing how-did-that-happen honors weren’t entirely a thing of the past. (At least a good movie, The Kids Are All Right, walked away with the prize.) And who can forget the three nominations for the Johnny Depp/Angelina Jolie bomb The Tourist in 2011?The Globes are an institution built on a shaky foundation, yet there’s no signs of them fading away. The post-Zadora years marked a kind of low ebb: The ceremony even migrated from network TV to TBS for awhile, but it’s enjoyed a slow, steady comeback since the ’90s and now seems to take up more real estate than ever. Maybe that’s because there are more people discussing awards season and the Oscar race every year and the Globes gives those of us who care about such things something to talk about. Maybe it’s because, in a media environment disrupted by streaming and other technological developments, anything that feels like an event takes on added significance. (The show continues to draw , if not spectacular, ratings.)Or maybe it’s just this: almost everyone who cares about entertainment is wired to care about awards even when they’re ridiculous. As with the Oscars and other awards that have a greater claim to legitimacy, it’s possible to hold two ideas at once, to believe the awards are essentially meaningless and yet care deeply about who should win and be annoyed by who got left out.Chances are, you’ll tune in to the Golden Globes no matter what. After all, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are hosting. They’re funny. Someone will get drunk and ramble on too long. It’ll be annoying that Lindo or the exclusion of your choice won’t get a chance to compete but at least some truly worthy individuals, films, and series, will win awards and that will be nice to watch. And then the next day it will feel like it didn’t matter at all.

There’s never been a great reason for the Golden Globe Awards to exist. At best, they’re a kind of diet soda version of other awards shows, a slimmed-down combination of the Oscars and the Emmys, At worst, they’re a pale imitation of those institutions that devalues the loftier honors by throwing out nominations and awards willy nilly, hitting worthy honorees almost by chance. Arts awards might be inherently silly and driven more by hype and glad-handing than a serious assessment of artistic merit, but the Globes have a way of stripping off the veneer of respectability. It’s an awards show...

Why the Golden Globes Are Always Bad

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS