Golden Globes Paid Off

The Golden Globes really paid off this year.
It was the kind of pay off the Hollywood Foreign Press was hoping for. Going into Sunday's award's ceremony, the Golden Gloves were hurting. In previous years the audience watching the dubious awards show had declined from a high of 24 million viewers to 17 million last year. The Globes are an event developed by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Yet it has always been a suspect awards show. Their history of being paid off and working in the interests of the studios had long held sway in Hollywood. The folks voting for the awards numbers less than 100 part-time journalists. Many assumed theses 100 people were more concerned with getting a foot inside the Hollywood door. The rumor was these people were seeking a better paying gig. On top of that, the administration of the HFPA was seduced by the large TV contracts and were more concerned with that than with integrity.

The hiring of Ricky Gervais as host was a part of a gamble to make this year pay off. The HFPA had not had a 'host' in 15 years and the choice of edgy, loose cannon Gervais was prompted by NBC, which needed justification for spending $5 million for the broadcasting rights. The gamble paid off. The Sunday telecast showed dramatic increases in demographic share and oveall share.

In the all important demo share, there was an increase of 10%. In overall share there was 14 increase. These numbers is exactly what the HFPA and NBC had hoped for. Already pundits are saying t was the popularity of the films being nominated and others are saying it was Ricky Gervais. It was probably a combination of the two.

Gervais certainly paid off. His humor has been the source of lots of post show commentary. Some claim he wasn't edgy enough, some say he was insulting. In either case, the conversation of the Golden Globes after the show has been continuing, almost overshadowing the awards themselves. Of which the part-time help that is the Hollywood Foreign Press once again showed its inanity by choosing Sandra Bullock as the Best Actress in a film drama. Really? This sound more like the old days of the Golden Globes when studios and the wealthy could literally buy off the members. When you consider that all one really need is less than 50 votes, an award can come cheap in Hollywood terms. This is not to say the fix was in, but giving Sandra Bullock the award over Carey Mulligan or Gabourey Sidibe just doesn't make a whole lot of sense and once again raises questions about the whole process.

So the Golden Globes paid off. The ratings numbers went up. They was controversy and people are still talking about it. Some of the not too knowledgeable pundits are now using these awards as harbingers of the Oscars. Don't fill out your office Oscar ballot based on the Golden Globes. Remember there are only 95 voters as compared with nearly 6000 in the Oscars. Wait for the Directors Guild Awards, or the Producers Guild Awards and the Writers Guild Awards to start getting a true fix on what Hollywood is really thinking. Or check back here, we'll have our picks later on. The Golden Globes, as one wag said, is just Hollywood's version of prom night with the theme being awards.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Plus

About Oscar Henry

This is a short description in the author block about the author. You edit it by entering text in the "Biographical Info" field in the user admin panel.