One of the curious things about this year’s awards season is that as the Golden Globe Awards arrive right on the heels of the new year, Hollywood is essentially acting as if the show is business as usual.
The show, once run by the nonprofit Hollywood Foreign Press Association, has been privatized and turned into a for-profit enterprise by an ownership group with its fingers in lots of showbiz pies, from the company that produces the show to the hotel where it takes place to the trade publications that cover it. (Not this trade publication.) There have been mutterings about conflicts of interest, and legal filings by HFPA members who think they’ve been dealt with unfairly by the new ownership, but the Globes are back on the air with a new network contract and a distinct lack of squawking from the publicists and studios that forced the overhaul with a boycott a few years ago.
It’s proof, I suppose, that Hollywood really wants the road to the Oscars to be littered with other awards shows, and that the Golden Globes name means enough to viewers that they’ll do what it takes to keep it alive.
But let’s not go into Globes weekend with any illusions about what people will be watching on Sunday evening, and what it will mean in this season’s overall awards picture. The Golden Globes, after all, have never been a particularly accurate predictor of what Academy voters will go for; even when you could argue that the Globes got it right – “The Social Network” over “The King’s Speech,” for example, or “The Power of the Dog” over “CODA” – it was just part of a scattershot voting record.
Even with two winners to choose from – one in the Best Motion Picture – Drama category, the other in Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy – the Globes have only agreed with the Oscars seven times in the last 15 years, and only four times in the last 10 years. (The Critics Choice Awards, this fortnight’s other major awards show, is marginally better, matching nine times in 15 years and five times in 10.)
For most of those years, though, the Globes voting was in the hand of between 80 and 100 full- and part-time journalists based in Southern California but writing for foreign publications. That has changed completely over the last three years, with the group expanded to more than 300 voters, with almost all of them based outside the U.S.
The Globes website currently contains 334 voter bios; some are of continuing voters from the HFPA, but most belong to new voters recruited from the ranks of international film critics and journalists. Only 10 now say they’re based in U.S., which is fewer than the numbers from Brazil (25), Italy (18), Argentina (18), the United Kingdom (17), Canada (17), Mexico (16), Japan (16), Israel (15) and France (12). Europe has the most voters, followed by North and South America, then Asia.
Given all that, what can we expect on Sunday? For starters, we can expect host Nikki Glaser to make fun of the Globes themselves. But here are some guesses about what might happen after that.
While it’s not out of the question that “A Complete Unknown” could pull off an upset here – after all, “Bohemian Rhapsody” won in his category in 2019, and “ACU” is a much better movie – it’s not likely. This is more apt to be a battle between “The Brutalist” and “Conclave,” the former more of an art film than the latter. A body of voters that is heavily European might be inclined to tilt toward the film set in Italy and directed by a German, but a body of voters made up largely of film critics could well tilt in the other direction. We’ll go with “The Brutalist,” narrowly.
With all due respect to “Challengers,” “A Real Pain” and “The Substance,” this looks to be a battle between “Anora,” “Emilia Perez” and “Wicked,” any one of which could reasonably win. It doesn’t help “Wicked” that the silly, two-year-old Cinematic and Box Office Achievement category seems designed to reward films like “Wicked.” (“Barbie” won last year but lost to “Poor Things” in the musical-or-comedy category.) Presuming that something similar will happen this year, we’re calling this one for “Anora.”
Once upon a time, back in the HFPA days, this would have seemed to be an easy call for Timothee Chalamet’s performance as Bob Dylan in “A Complete Unknown.” But if the current voters are less drawn to star power, they could well go for a less pinup-worthy performance, either Colman Domingo in “Sing Sing,” Daniel Craig in “Queer” or particularly Adrien Brody for “The Brutalist.” Among lead actresses, Fernanda Torres is the richly deserving dark horse for “I’m Still Here,” Pamela Anderson the sentimental pick for “The Last Showgirl” and Angelina Jolie (“Maria”), Nicole Kidman (“Babygirl”), Tilda Swinton (“The Room Next Door” and Kate Winslet (“Lee”) the formidable competition. Maybe the legends split the vote and Fernanda Torres wins it?
The most interesting acting race might be in the comedy actress category, where the contenders include Mikey Madison for “Anora,” Cynthia Erivo for “Wicked,” Demi Moore for “The Substance” and Karla Sofia Gascon for “Emilia Perez.” Moore might have been the favorite in the days when Globe voters loved to reward big stars, but you can’t overlook the two relative newcomers, Madison and Gascon, with Mikey Madison perhaps having a slight edge.
On the male side, it’s possible to imagine this going to Jesse Eisenberg for “A Real Pain,” Hugh Grant for “Heretic,” Glen Powell for “Hit Man,” Sebastian Stan for “A Different Man” or Cannes winner Jesse Plemons for “Kinds of Kindness.” Eisenberg’s win could be a nod to his nominated screenplay as well, Grant would likely deliver the funniest acceptance speech and Stan would get bonus points for also being nominated in the drama category playing Donald Trump in “The Apprentice.” Don’t underestimate that last factor. Sebastian Stan.
So far, the consensus in the supporting categories seems to be coalescing around Kieran Culkin for “A Real Pain” and Zoe Saldaña for “Emilia Perez.” Guy Pearce, Denzel Washington, Yura Borizov and Edward Norton are real threats to Culkin and Ariana Grande and Isabella Rossellini could challenge Saldana, but we’ll go with the favorites.
A few years ago, the Oscars announced that they were adding a category like this one, too. At least they had the sense to kill the idea before they ever gave out the award. But as long as there’s a school of thought that says giving prizes to big hit movies will get people to watch, we’re stuck with awards like the one that’ll go to “Wicked” over “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Gladiator II.”
The post Who’s Going to Win the Golden Globes, and Should We Care? appeared first on TheWrap.
