New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I genuinely look forward to the show, hosted once again by British comedian Ricky Gervais, but that’s mostly because I love Gervais’ humor. Having said that, if you look at the nominees in film this year, you are looking at the height of hypocrisy, not just among Golden Globes voters, but among film writers. You may know that the Globes have long been thought of as a precursor to the Oscar nominees. If Movie A gets nominated for Best Picture – Drama at the Globes, it’s nearly guaranteed to do so at the Oscars. With the Oscars doubling the Best Picture slots to 10, the comparison seems more apt. So when Alice In Wonderland, Burlesque, and The Tourist got nominated for Best Picture – Musical or Comedy in place of movies like Toy Story 3 or, you know, ANYTHING ELSE, it caused a lot of anger among the awards watchers.

A quick note on Toy Story 3, though, before I get into the hypocrisy. The film had no chance to get nominated because of the recently added Best Animated Feature category. I appreciate the semblance of having rules (even in an awards ceremony that’s so nuts), but Toy Story 2 won Best Picture – Musical or Comedy in 1999. Why have this new category when at least one slot in the regular race could be filled by something from Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks? But then, why am I asking logical questions when no logic was applied to these nominations? I’ve not seen Burlesque or The Tourist, so I can only assume how good or bad they are. However, I can assume that The Tourist wasn’t meant to be a comedy, and I’m taking a wild stab when I say that Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp don’t sing in it.

Also, I’ve seen Alice in Wonderland, and I don’t care how much money it made. This argument - that the movie making money should equal it getting awards - was made by Disney executives, and I’m sad to see the Golden Globes nominate it just because, hey, they sure love that Tim Burton! Alice in Wonderland was, despite making a lot of money, nowhere as good as it could have been, to put things diplomatically. All of this is beside the point, though. How can we attribute relevance to the Golden Globes in one half of their motion picture awards if the other half is the joke of the town? Some wondered if Inception was in trouble because it didn’t get any acting nominations from the Globes. Should we even care? The Tourist was nominated for Best Picture and it got nods for Jolie and Depp. How can we balance the two sides?

Of course, no one can or will. And, sure, the Golden Globes aren’t voted on by the same people who vote in the Academy. And, sure, the ceremony’s just an excuse for stars to get drunk on national television. But let’s take it seriously. I don’t mean to sound grumpy again, but there’s a point where I wish I could ask an Academy voter if he or she paid attention to the various critics’ awards (which, being fair, do not make any attempt at trying to influence Academy voters, at least not explicitly) or cared about them when choosing what to nominate at the Oscars. The issue here isn’t the various awards; the issue is the legitimacy some people ascribe to them. The Golden Globes are fun to watch. I hope to enjoy myself in a few weeks’ time, but just remember: even if The Social Network wins there and at the Oscars, it’s not because of the HFPA.

Continued:       1       2