Monday, December 11, 2023

My Reactions To This Year's (New and Improved?) Golden Globe TV Nominations

 

I had two different articles planned in regard to the Golden Globe nominations this year in regard to TV  - something along the line of ‘one step forward, two steps back’. Then, when I was doing research for the nominations I learned something even more significant about the Golden Globes altogether – something that, in my search for covering the pre-Emmys this year, I had completely missed.

If you are aware of the news about the Golden Globes, you know that they have been, politely speaking, plagued with controversy.  In 2021, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association was rocked by controversy as multiple celebrities protested the racism and sexism within the organization. Many stars announced their plans to boycott it and NBC announced that they would not broadcast it in 2022.

The HFPA’s reaction was – to give the nominations and awards that year anyway, even though no one showed up – something that should have made people really question how much they were committed to any change. NBC’s reaction was to air the Golden Globes in 2023 regardless, even though many celebrities said, including nominees Brendan Fraser and Cate Blanchett – made it very clear they would not attend. The Globes still happened (perhaps not by chance many of the major winners were not present) and it seemed everything was over.

Then while the rest of Hollywood was concentrating on the labor stoppages that were going on this past summer, almost nobody noted that the HFPA dissolved.  The assets were purchased by Dick Clark Productions and Eldrige Industries with the proceeds going to a new non-profit created to continue the ‘charitable giving of the HFPA.”

You probably didn’t notice any of that because the awards are still happening. The nominations were this morning and the only thing that seems to have notably changed is that CBS is broadcasting the ceremony on January 7th.

I have to say I’m genuinely curious as to what the reaction of Hollywood was when this happened this summer. I’m still trying to figure out if this means anything at all. I imagine those who argue about the systemic evils that they were forced to endure by the HFPA, consider all of the controversies that have surrounded it over the year, and who have spent the last two years in particular derided in will consider it a great victory for change.  I really wonder if any of them think this. 

All of this has the appearance of not even a true cosmetic change. The awards still exists and the prizes will still be given. A relative few people in the industry will care, a few more connected to it tangentially might be interested by in, those who watch the awards show will wonder what happened, and much of the rest o the country will be oblivious as to what the fight was about in the first place.

Personally everything that has happened the last two years involving the Golden Globes makes the battle over labor in Hollywood the past few months look like Civil War in comparison to its insignificance to not only America but the industry itself.  If a movie star truly thinks that being harassed by a group of journalists or that an organization that gives awards not having enough African-American members is some kind of life or death struggle in comparison to everything else going on in the world, then they are as clueless as many in the general public seems to consider them as to what is important. There was no victory or defeat because this wasn’t even a fight. It was an argument between a bunch of rich millionaires with another bunch of rich millionaires about what you had to go through to a shiny bauble that isn’t even that important compared to other shiny baubles in your industry.

I don’t mean to mock your struggle – actually I do, come to think of it. I like your awards and I like the shows that are nominated. But if so much of your life is caught up in wanting to win one of these trophies as opposed to the things your audiences do, then you seriously have misjudged as to what class of people you are.  I am sympathetic to those of you who have suffered abuse at the hands of the rich and powerful.  I fail to see how your struggles are more important than the millions of poorer, less famous people who suffer them every day for much higher stakes then this. But don’t worry, I’m sure when you give your acceptance speeches from this point on, you will be sure to phrase this as a victory for ‘everyone’.

End of rant and sermon. Back to the fun.

Since the Golden Globes are now operating on an entirely new structure, I must now look at the flaws and improvements they’ve made in a completely different light. Golden Globes 2.0 must be viewed in the same way other awards shows like the Critics Choice and HCA are going through right now: trying to work out the kinks in order to find out what works and what won’t. Expanding to six nominees in every category is an improvement, getting rid of Supporting Acting categories for Mini-Series is a major step backward. Hopefully, they will move forward soon enough.

My little rant aside, I have to say I was impressed – and occasionally surprised – by the quality of the nominations in almost every category this year. There are the usual flaws involved but there also some promising mixtures of both the old and the new.  If this is a sign of the new and improved Golden Globes, at least for television, they may be on the right track. So let’s get started with Drama

DRAMA TV SERIES

Succession, The Crown and The Last of Us are hardly surprises. The Diplomat isn’t either, given it’s history with previous awards shows and neither is The Morning Show. I confess a certain level of surprise that 1923 is here instead of Yellowjackets.  Of course, there would be no The Gilded Age or Will Trent, but what can you do?

ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

Kieran Culkin and Jeremy Strong were inevitably going to be here. I don’t believe Brian Cox deserves to be nominated as a lead for Succession. Pedro Pascal was a shoo-in and I’m glad to see Dominic West nominated for The Crown. Gary Oldman for Slow Horses is a pleasant surprise, even for those who would have preferred Harrison Ford.

ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES

Bella Ramsey, Sarah Snook and Keri Russell have all been making the awards show rounds. Imelda Staunton has been overlooked by far too many awards show for The Crown and I’m glad to see her here.

As for the other two nods, I won’t lie. I’m very disappointed that none of the leads from Yellowjackets are here, and less surprised The Gilded Age has no presence. On the other hand, I did expect to see Emma Stone her for The Curse and I can never truly fault any awards show for nominated Helen Mirren (many thought she would be nominated for 1923 by the Emmys.)

 

Now let’s move to Comedy or Musical.

Musical or Comedy Series.

No notes really. Abbott Elementary, The Bear, Barry, Ted Lasso, Only Murders in the Building and Jury Duty all made the Emmy nominations this year. Four of them made the Critics Choice awards. Would I have preferred, say, if Poker Face was her instead of Ted Lasso? Of course. But you can’t have everything.

ACTOR IN A MUSICAL OR COMEDY SERIES

This is the list of nominated actors I would have preferred the Emmys put out.  And it does show the wisdom of having six nominated leads instead of merely five. Now in addition to those five we have the presence of Steve Martin along with Martin Short.  Improvement on the Emmys and nearly as good as the Critics Choice. (Yes, I know Reservation Dogs isn’t here, but I’d have been shocked if it was.)

ACTRESS IN A MUSICAL OR COMEDY

Quinta Brunson, Natasha Lyonne and Rachel Brosnahan all made the Emmys short list. Ayo Edebiri submitted her name in this category in the future, so this is the shape of things to come. The Emmys have to start doing right by Selena Gomez next year. Would I have personally preferred Bridget Everett in the place of Elle Fanning? Sure, but one can’t have everything.

Now let’s deal with Supporting Acting because that will deal only with drama and comedy.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A ROLE ON TELEVISION

They  nominated Christina Ricci, which puts them ahead of the Emmys. You nominated Elizabeth Debicki and Hannah Waddingham, which puts them even. J. Smith Cameron is one of the hidden gems of Succession; I’m glad she’s here. I’m even gladder to see Meryl Streep nominated in this category again.

Would I have preferred to see one of the women from Abbott here instead of Abby Elliott for The Bear? Absolutely. That being said, Elliott is here instead of Alex Borstein so we’re getting somewhere.

SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A ROLE ON TELEVISION

I expected Succession to dominate this category and Matthew MacFayden and Alexander Skarsgard’s nominations are not a surprise. Alan Ruck’s is and I’m glad it’s there. James Marsden and Ebon Moss-Bachrach have earned their spots.

I know people love Billy Crudup on The Morning Show, but there were so many better choices, from the cast of Barry and Abbott Elementary to Jonathan Pryce on The Crown and of course, nothing for Harrison Ford, at all.

 

MINISERIES OF FILM

Like with the Critics Choice Awards we have a good balance between last year and next year: Fargo, Fellow Travelers and Lessons in Chemistry for the latter; Beef and Daisy Jones  & The Six for the former. I’m not sure where All the Light We Cannot See will rank among them. It was ignored by the Critics Choice awards. We’ll have to wait and see.

ACTOR IN A MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE ON TV

And the Golden Globes are actually twice over the Critics Choice. Not only did they nominate Jon Hamm for Fargo but they also nominated Woody Harrelson for White House Plumbers. Bravo on both. Matt Bomer and Steven Yeun were expected to be here. They also show some promising signs by nominating David Oyelowo for Lawmen and Sam Claflin for Daisy Jones.

ACTRESS IN A MINI-SERIES OR MOTION PICTURE.

And in another victory, the Golden Globes become the first organization to acknowledge the brilliant work of Elizabeth Olsen in Love & Death. (The Critics Choice nominated the series but ignored Olsen.) Ali Wong and Riley Keough are representative of the past, Brie Larson and Juno Temple of the future. (Three received Critics Choice nominations.) Rachel Weisz’ selection for Dead Ringers strikes me as odd but considering they nominated Keough and the Critics Choice did not, I will give them a pass.

Controversies about the awards aside (and I admit that may be a lot for many to get past) this is a very good group of nominations when it comes to television. At the beginning of January, I will attempt to predict what they might do (though it’s never been easy to do so before and I don’t expect them to start now.)

No comments:

Post a Comment