You probably heard the news today that NBC has cancelled the Golden Globes for January 2022. The past couple of days have been a flurry of stars and distributors and PR firms condemning the Globes and boycotting them. Or 'stepping back from' to use Scarlett Johansson's gentler euphemism. But we find the timing of this sudden wave of condemnation to be suspicious and more than a little hypocritical of the industry given their own ethics problems and systemic racism and sexism. First and foremost, it's all happening three whole months after the Golden Globes exposé in the Los Angeles Times which touched a nerve with its revelation that the organization, which is made up of 87 people, had no black members. (Exacerbating that particular problem -- though nobody likes to try to understand structural problems as it's easier to simply condemn and move on -- is that they only allow one member to represent each "foreign" country and many aren't as diverse as the US; that 'per country' rule, at least, will have to go.)
Did Hollywood rise up against the Globes after that expose? Nope. They went right on courting their favor until awards season had entirely played itself out! There were awards to be won and films and tv shows to promote. No stars boycotted the ceremony and neither did any studios. But now, everyone is in the clear for another year. Distributors don't have to think about campaigning for awards or promoting their films and television shows in that particular way for a while now...
I apologize for being so cynical but the other thing that's really maddening is hearing the Globes ethical lapses cited as one of the reasons for various studios and distributors to boycott them. The Globes have historically had trouble resisting gifts and being wined and dined. Everyone knows this is true. But who exactly was funding this gift-giving and throwing the junkets and paying for the airfare and such? A luxurious trip for Netflix's Emily in Paris this season was cited by many as the reason for the show's controversial nominations at the Globes. And Netflix was one of the first studios to cut off ties to the HFPA this week. Go figure.
I made you this beautiful meal and now I will condemn you for eating it.
It would be like if Sony had condemned the Globes right after those nominations for The Tourist which were also blamed on excessive expensive courting of favor. I'm not here to tell you that the HFPA is a squeaky clean organization or that they don't have significant flaws. But virtue signalling combined with hypocrisy is really f***ing exhausting.
Tom Cruise, hardly an unproblematic figure himself, returned his three Golden Globes this week. Scarlett Johansson, also a perennial favourite of the Globes, publicly condemned them and asked other stars to join her. Strangely she equates them with Harvey Weinstein. I don't doubt for a second that the HFPA has sexism problems (most organizations run by men do) but the Golden Globes popularity and influence in Hollywood pre-dates the existence of Harvey Weinstein's career by a lot. They've been around since 1944 and televised nationally since 1964. Weinstein wasn't reshaping the awards circus as we know it until the mid 1990s and Aughts. Maybe Scarlett doesn't know this but it feels like a careless conflation, especially since none of the members (to our knowledge) have been accused of rape or sexual harrassment.
As to the absence of the ceremony itself...
Here I must restate my own bias which I've always been honest about: I enjoy the Golden Globes ceremony more than other awards show each year (barring the Oscars and even then the enjoyment is for entirely different reasons). And I will miss it. The Globes are the most "fun" and they have a point of view. I cherish points of view even when I don't agree with them. It's why I regularly bemoan the homogeneity of 30+ critics awards all loving the exact same 4 actors and 5 or 6 films each years.
Yes the Globes point of view is questionable at times. Sometimes it's downright bizarre and silly and ethically compromised. And it always involves star-f***ing tendencies and an insatiable desire to crown the new (in television) or the musical (in film). But at least it's a point of view. The Critics Choice Awards don't have a point of view but just nominate everyone (as the increasing amount of nominees in the marquee categories indicates). And no one really cares about that show. SAG is very narrowly focused and the audience interest isn't as intense. There is nothing like the Globes and the season will be very different without them.
At the very least one sad casualty that I hope everyone can agree on is that there will be less recognition of comedies, which is something almost every organization that gives out movie awards struggles to appreciate other than the Globes.
What will happen in the media vacuum?
Media outlets have been quick to condemn the Globes of course. But what will they do without their favourite punching bag which they both obsess over (even if it's often in a negative way) and profit from? The Film Experience is a small indie movie site but I am willing to bet that percentages are similar across the board for the large corporate sites since they are definitely similar in terms of TV ratings. The Oscars are the King and always generate the most reader interest and page views. The Globes generate passionate conversation as well and regularly spur interest if not quite in as sizeable a way as the Oscars. All other awards pale in comparison when it comes to audience interest as if people only half care about anything awardsy that isn't the Oscars... with the Globes being an exception that's usually tossed under the umbrella of 'guilty pleasure'.
NBC claims that if the HFPA commits to "meaningful reform" they hope to air the show again in January 2023. The HFPA has stated in response:
Regardless of the next air date of the Golden Globes, implementing transformational changes as quickly -- and as thoughtfully -- as possible remains the top priority for our organization. We invite our partners in the industry to the table to work with us on the systemic reform that is long overdue, both in our organization as well as within the industry at large."
Hollywood has of course been under attack on all sides these past few years for the industry's systemic sexism, ethics, and racism problems. Now a much less important body that is basically Hollywood-adjacent (the HFPA) is under attack for many of the same reasons and Hollywood's power players are piling on. Do they feel relief that the target has shifted? Is this part of their own reform and evolution or just virtue-signalling at utterly no cost to them happening at what is the most convenient time possible for literally every studio, star, and PR firm? Only time will tell.