You hear it every year. People complain about the abundance of award shows like clockwork. On cue.
“Hey, why do we need the Golden Globes when we’ve got the Oscars?” they say. “Why do we need the Globes when we’ve got the Emmys?”
The answer, of course, is simple: different groups of people vote for the best of the big and small screens. But do they vote similarly or refrain from repetition? Specifically, are the tube’s top shows and actors honored appropriately at the Golden Globes and Emmys ceremonies?
Well, that answer is not so simple. Take a look at why we need both shows–and why pop culture is so essential to one of them.
Best in Show?
On the surface–if you’re looking at how each ceremony honors the best TV dramas and comedies of the year–the Globes and the Emmys seem quite similar. In 2001, the Globe for best drama went to NBC’s The West Wing–so did the Emmy. In the best comedy arena, both the Globe and Emmy statues went to Sex and the City.
Similar…on the surface.
Going pop
Looking closer, though, there’s a massive rift between the Globes and the Emmys: the Globes‘ choice of nominated–and winning–performers, and the ongoing tendency to get cute.
Case in point:
In 2001, some very deserving actors and actresses were up for both awards. In the best leading actress category, you had such noms as Edie Falco, Amy Brenneman, Sela Ward and Lorraine Bracco vying for statues at both events. All good contenders.
But the Globes went a bit bubble-gum on us, adding Buffy‘s Sarah Michelle Gellar to the mix, the only WB–or UPN, for that matter–performer in contention for a major award at either ceremony. They also threw Dark Angel‘s Jessica Alba onto the list, forcing one to wonder if the Hollywood Foreign Press voters subscribe to Teen Beat on a regular basis.
But the Globes‘ apparent obsession with what’s popular doesn’t end there.
Examining the list of nominations in 2001, you find some oddities in the best leading actor and actress categories for comedy series as well. The much hyped and highly anticipated new Bette Midler sitcom Bette was quickly axed, but she earned a best actress nomination anyway, alongside the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker and the brilliant Jane Kaczmarek.
In the best leading actor in a comedy series category, the Emmys gave a nod to a former four-time winner, John Lithgow (for the final season of 3rd Rock from the Sun); the Globes dismissed Lithgow, opting instead to nominate Ted Danson from Becker, a mediocre show which nearly lost its entire cast in 2001 (but was highly rated week to week, mind you).
And in 2002?
Now, all of this isn’t necessarily to criticize the Golden Globes. Yes, they’re a bit more poppy than the Emmys. Yes, the much troubled–but popular–Robert Downey Jr. won a Globe in 2001 while the Emmys honored costar Peter MacNicol. But who cares? If fun is the name of the game, the Globes are ready and waiting.
The 2002 Golden Globes ceremony should certainly be an entertaining one. Perhaps we’ll see Bernie Mac snag his first statue? And don’t forget Emeril–it’s those dark horses who sneak up on you.
