It’s not the real awards season yet — at least not for some. Sure, the 67th Annual Golden Globe Awards ceremony is right around the corner, airing on NBC and hosted by original Office dweeb, Ricky Gervais. But so what? There are a lot of reasons to be cynical about the third-most-watched awards ceremony (after the Oscars and Grammys). It has made its own bed of scandals in the past and in many ways, according to some, it continues to sleep in it. Charges ranging from nepotistic practices to outright vote-buying have been asserted against the Globes over the years; however, as the Oscars changes its format to 10 Best Picture nominees, it seems clear that the Globes have had some type of effect on their more reputable older sibling.
The awards started in 1944 and were held at the 20th Century Fox studio in Los Angeles. The reason for their existence was for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association — a group of journalists from outside the U.S. who cover the American film industry — to ‘recognize outstanding achievements in the entertainment industry, both domestic and foreign, and to focus wide public attention upon the best in motion pictures and television’ (although TV wasn’t added to the ceremonies until the ceremony in 1957). Some would argue that the actual reason for adding another California-based awards ceremony, 15 years after the already established Oscars were in place, was so these foreign journalists would have a chance to get some butt-kissing from the richest film community in the world.
Who is this ‘some’ I keep referring to? Why are the Globes treated with such disdain by ‘some’? Certainly the Oscars have earned more than their share of reasons to not take them very seriously, yet the Globes remain the redheaded stepchild, accompanied without fail each year by rumblings from the film community and accusations of ugly things. Many are annoyed by its ‘lighter’ tone, one that may have once been genuinely about these Hollywood folk being able to all get together and cut loose — being the only major ceremony where the guests are served alcoholic beverages — but now the ceremony so visibly manufactured that it leaves a saccharine flavor. Somewhere, as any savvy TV viewer knows, Bruce Vilanch (or someone of the sort) is frantically scribbling stuff for these celebrities to say that SEEMS improvised or edgy.
Reactions to the outward appearance of the festival aside, the real controversy lies with the members. A tiny group of voters comprise of a mere 96 members (compared to the Academy’s nearly 6,000 members) certainly leads to some questions about what is required for membership. Accusations of exclusionist tactics and nepotism have always abounded as well as the fact that, despite the name of the organization, only about a third of them are full-time film journalists. So why so few? Why is it so difficult to join?
The argument for cynics has long been that the group is a clubhouse for these folks to hang out with celebrities and be showered with gifts and parties all year by Hollywood. A documentary made for TV in 2003, The Golden Globes: Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret, takes this point of view. According to the doc, most of these members only really do anything for about a week out of the year, and the rest of the time absolutely everything is paid for by the film studios. It has even been speculated by some that you can match many of the big winners each year with whichever production threw the best party for the members. Seriously, there are charts.
While most of this sort of thing has remained, as the title of the doc called it, a dirty secret, occasionally the ‘for sale’ sign has become visible to the general public. The biggest scandal was in 1981, when Pia Zadora won ‘Best Newcomer,’ one she didn’t even technically qualify for that year, after her rich husband wined and dined the members at his casino. Not just a passing shame, CBS dropped its contract for broadcast, and it wasn’t until 14 years later that it got picked up again for network broadcasting by NBC. Yet that stench of an awards auction house never really left the Globes, and nor did the members appear to have learned their lesson: Scent of a Woman won Best Drama after members got to hang out with Al Pacino on a free flight to a Paris soirée in 1992.
Even with all that, there are certainly some things about the ceremony worth noting in a positive light. The Oscars’ switch to 10 Best Picture contenders this year seems to reflect the wider choices available at the Globes, which have Best Film awards, one for Drama and one for Musical or Comedy, a nice addition since comedies historically get snubbed at the Oscars (only 10 Globe winners for Musical/Comedy have ever gone on to win Best Picture at the Oscars, as opposed to 34 Drama winners.) Certainly none of the heavy-handed gravitas of the Oscars is present either, which might be just the ticket for some who are more into these ceremonies to see famous folks instead of a more serious tribute to film (the years that Wolverine isn’t singing and dancing, anyway).
I can’t imagine that some amount of illicit hand-shaking hasn’t gone on behind the scenes at the Academy at some point or another, but the HFPA has barely even tried to hide its motivation, even with the president of the organization in 1999 forcing the members to give back expensive watches sent by Sharon Stone in an attempt to gain a nomination for a film The Muse. Maybe things have changed; maybe it’s all a series of unfounded accusations over the years from those who have something personal against the organization. But for me, I’m going to continue to give the benefit of the doubt to the Academy and doubt the benevolence of the HFPA. Trust is earned, and in a town like Hollywood, it’s hard enough to take folks at their word, even without as shady a history as their organization has.
