Over the past two years
there has been a great deal of controversy involving the Golden Globes. Following the 2021 ceremonies, several actors
and writers protested the Hollywood Foreign Press Association based on the
racial and sexual makeup of the membership, with Tom Cruise returning the three
Golden Globes he had one in an act of protest. NBC announced it was cancelling
the broadcast of the 2022 Golden Globes as a result. Not long after, it came out that countless
actors and their publicists had been infuriated for years by the way so many of
them had had to fawn over the members of this organization.
The HFPA has – in truth, acted
as if has not been particularly humbled by the experience. That October they
made it clear that they were going to give nominations and awards even if no
one was there to receive them or watch them. Then they attempted to undercut
the Broadcast Critics Awards (the awards show that for the past six years has traditionally
followed the Golden Globes) by planning their awards for the same night. This move was undercut by the second wave of
the pandemic in the winter of 2021, which caused the Critics Choice to move to
March. The Golden Globes nevertheless proceeded to give their awards that January
anyway in what has to have been their oddest awards show to date (and this
counts the one in 2008 at the height of the WGA and Directors Guild Strike)
which was done entirely by a series of tweets. I still don’t if anyone who won
an award accepted one.
Despite all of this
controversy, the apparent lack of remorse and only the word of the HFPA that
they have undergone significant reforms, NBC has announced that they will
broadcast the Golden Globes this January anyway. It remains to be seen what kind of show we
will get and indeed who will show up for it.
I am not immune to the
criticism of the Golden Globes: I am well aware of the numerous scandals
involving bribery and manipulation over the decades. But that is not the
subject of this article. As those of you who have read my column over the past several
years are well aware, I am a television awards junkie. And in the decade that I
have been criticizing television and the more than two decades that I have been
observing awards as they pertain to TV in general (an era which more or less
overlaps with the beginning of peak TV), I have no choice but to acknowledge
that in this period the Golden Globes have general done a superb job honoring
the best television has to offer, certainly in comparison with the Emmy during
this same period.
I realize the HFPA has been
accused of a lack of diversity recently. But if we use the term diversity to
mean ‘a larger variety’, then it becomes increasingly difficult to deny that is
how the Golden Globes have handled the creativity of television in the new
millennium. They were willing to give the Best Drama Prize to The Sopranos and
24 years before the Emmys were willing to do so as well as some the
Emmys would never acknowledge (Six Feet Under, The Americans at its
peak) or even nominate for Best Drama (The Shield, Nip/Tuck). Their track
record in comedy is slightly spottier but they were willing to give prizes to Curb
Your Enthusiasm when it was at its peak and groundbreaking shows like Transparent
and Atlanta, none of which have ever taken the top prize. And they have been willing to show
recognition to series the Emmys refused to ever acknowledge existed such as Mozart in the Jungle and The
Affair. The Golden Globes aren’t perfect in this regard – it took them
until Breaking Bad’s fourth season to acknowledge it existed – but they
have shown a far greater regard for variety than the Emmys ever have. The
Golden Globes never gave a Best Drama prize to Game of Thrones during
the entirety of its run, and they honored six different actresses for Best Actress
in a Comedy, none of whom were Julia-Louis Dreyfus during her run on Veep. I may not have agreed with the selection
of Lena Dunham or Laura Dern, but at least they were willing to try. And I can’t
help but think that the HPFA’s decision to constantly keep honoring new series
and actors every year rather than the Emmys pattern of nominating the same
series and actors year after year for increasingly inferior work is
preferable. Did it hurt actors and
series like This is Us and Mad Men in the long run? Probably. But
there’s something to be said for experimentation rather than knowing that the
same six or seven series are going to be nominated every year no matter how
exceptional other series are. Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Mr. Robot could
never break through the Emmys, but the Globes were willing to give them a
chance. I can’t help but think those
were superior choices to Modern Family and Game of Thrones in
their respective years and I stand by them.
There have been accusations
that in many years the Golden Globes have been little more than dress rehearsal
for the Oscars. It is far more difficult to prove a similar correlation between
the Globes and the Emmys, and if there is one it has only become prevalent the
last few years. Boardwalk Empire never won an Emmy for best drama despite
triumphing for Best Drama twice. Grey’s Anatomy has never won an Emmy
and likely never will. Glee and Girls never triumphed for Best Comedy.
And as for correlation with acting awards Katey Sagal won a Best Actress for Sons
of Anarchy. Never nominated. Anna Paquin won for True Blood. Never
nominated. Andy Samberg won for Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Never nominated. I could go on in this regard, but I’ll settle
for this. The Emmys never acknowledged the WB existed and have seen similarly
fit to disregard its successor the CW. The Golden Globes nominated Sarah
Michelle Gellar and Lauren Graham for Best Actress for Buffy and Gilmore
Girls respectively, nominated Felicity for Best Drama and gave Keri
Russell its Best Actress prize and in consecutive years gave their Best Actress
in a Comedy or Musical to Gina Rodriguez for Jane the Virgin and Rachel
Bloom for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. None of these shows or actresses ever
even received an Emmy nomination. Say what you will about the Globes not being
diverse, but until the Critics Choice and the HCA came along, they were willing
to acknowledge that there were other broadcast networks other than the major
ones.
And now that we’re talking
about diversity: how many Emmys have Rodriguez, Tracee Ellis Ross, Sandra Oh, Ramy Youssef, or
Gael Garcia Bernal won? Zero. Collectively, these actors have earned six. (Oh
has won for Grey’s Anatomy and Killing Eve. ) If anything, the Golden Globes have led in
television and the Emmys have painfully been unwilling to follow. This would
even go so far as to pertain the year where no awards show happened. MJ
Rodriguez, who many thought deserved to win an Emmy for her stunning work on Pose,
took Best Actress in a Drama. O-Yeong Su took the prize for Supporting Actor
for Squid Game. And give the Globes credit for acknowledging Underground
Railroad for Best Limited Series when it would have been safe to give the
prize to Mare of Easttown or Dopesick.
I would make this argument
as a whole for many of the awards they gave this past year. Yes, Succession prevailed
for Best Drama but Brian Cox and Sarah Snook ended up going home empty handed
at the Emmys. Jason Sudeikis won Best
Actor in a Comedy, but the big winner turned out to be Hacks which took
Best Comedy as well. No one who saw their work will deny that Jean Smart or
Michael Keaton didn’t deserve their trophies and if the Emmys were following
the Golden Globes, they were also following practically every other awards show
between then and September.
And because of the eclectic
nature of the nominated series, the Golden Globes can not only be nearly
impossible to predict but delightful in the end results. In addition to all of the previous triumphs I’ve
mentioned, the Globes also tend to recognize series that should get Emmy
nominations but almost never do. Big Love spent five brilliant seasons
basically being ignored by the Emmys. But the Golden Globes nominated it for
Best Drama twice and in one of my favorite moments in awards show history gave
Chloe Sevigny a well-deserved Supporting Actress award that I so wish the Emmys
had been willing to reciprocate.
This actually brings me to a
piece of news that I consider a victory lap of sorts. For the past decade,
every time I have dealt with my reactions to the Golden Globe nominations, I
have objected in the strongest possible terms to the Supporting awards. As
those of you who follow them may be aware, while all the other awards are
divided between Drama, Comedy and Limited Series/Movie, Supporting Actor and Actress
have always represented all three categories. I have always considered this a
travesty, particularly considering that until fairly recently the Supporting
Awards have been dominated by the limited series category. It has been over a
decade since the Supporting Actor or Actress in either category went to a nominee
from a comedy – Chris Colfer and Jane Lynch for Glee. Winners from
dramas have made some victories (the last two years for example) but by and
large these categories have been dominated by the increasingly brilliant number
of limited series. Every year, I keep advocating for them to increase the
number of supporting awards.
This year, my prayers have
been answered. Sort of. This year, there will be two sets of Supporting Actor
and Actress awards: one for comedy and drama, one for limited series and movie.
I cannot help but feel a certain amount of vindication in the HFPA
acknowledging that this is a move that was long overdue. Would I have preferred
a set of nods for all three categories? Of course. But let’s take nothing away
from this decision, considering that the last time the Golden Globes added a
category at all was twenty years when they finally acknowledged that they had
to recognize Animated Films. Let’s hope that we can separate the dramas and
comedies by the end of the decade. (I’m a realist.)
At the end of the day, does
this mean I will come back to a ceremony that has so much controversy attached
to it and seems to have merely gone through the motions? I’m not going to be
overjoyed if I had to deal with the smug face of Ricky Gervais again nor do I
particularly want to think how many celebrities will actually acknowledge this
is change and bother to show up. (I could see a Golden Globes where the
auditorium is half empty…at best.) But even after all the controversy that has been
attached to it, when it comes to television, I have been more inclined to trust
and appreciate the results of the Golden Globes as being infinitely more
realistic than that of the Emmys. If they are willing to give nominations to limited
series like Gaslit and The First Lady which I thought were
ignored by the Emmys, give a lot of nominations to newcomers like Abbott
Elementary and The Gilded Age and finally give Better Call Saul what it is due (like they finally did for Breaking
Bad in its final season), then that will do a lot to atone in my book. I
have never been under the illusion that the Golden Globes were perfect. They’re
an awards show; by definition they will piss people off no matter who they
pick. All I can do is hope they have learned from their mistakes…like nominating
Smash.
No comments:
Post a Comment