Golden Globes Put Hollywood’s Civil War on Display

Hollywood Foreign Press attack — Social change outfit #TimesUp led a chorus of Hollywood criticism against the Globes.

The adage that “the show must go on” shined with the Golden Globe awards Sunday, Feb. 28, on NBC Television presenting a clunky event that indicates Hollywood’s problems are deeper than just the Covid-19 pandemic.

Withering press coverage criticizes the foreign journalists trade group that hands out the award for lack of black members and its exclusionary membership; this piles on top of the pandemic forcing most participants to connect by video.

Hollywood’s red-hot engagement in the national debate over sexual harassment and critical race theory also boiled over, as celebrities and presenters expressed outrage and solidarity on social progressivism. But this seemed off-the-mark because the industry promotes nasty stereotypes, is under fire for its hiring practices, and has a poor record in labor and racial relations. Moralizing seems a disconnect against the black-drop of thin glitz where in the preshow hosts interviewing talent gush, “You look amazing.”

Contemporary drama “Nomadland” won the Golden Globe for best picture, which is a road film taking a bleak look at America. Walt Disney Studio’s Searchlight released the R-rated movie to domestic theaters Feb. 19.

Overshadowing this year’s Golden Globes is a recent Los Angeles Times expose by Josh Rottenberg and Stacy Perman of the awards’ organizer: the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA). The expose documented that the small membership is rife with financial self-dealing, since the telecast rights shower the HFPA with tens of millions of dollars. The HFPA is a registered non-profit, which by law isn’t supposed to funnel its money to insiders, but it does, putting them on the organization’s payroll.

“For years, the awards-industrial complex has faced credible accusations of racism, sexism, provincialism, commercialism, devaluing real art, gamifying creativity, ruining theatrical-release calendars and more,” wrote Judy Berman in a Time magazine review of the Golden Globes awards Sunday. “But the HFPA — a mysterious 87-member organization known for its idiosyncratic choices — has an even shakier claim on authority than the other major entertainment awards, which at least reflect the tastes of much larger and more legitimate voting bodies.”

tom hanks — Touting awards nominations in trade advertising tries to great a bandwagon effect for “News of the World.”

Three HFPA members promised in a brief on-air segment during the NBC telecast to address issues (one member seen is a woman-of-color from India, according to caption). This felt like a way to quickly acknowledge controversy (presenting no solutions) so the show could go on.

Sunday’s Golden Globe telecast suffered an audience rating collapse, falling 62% compared to last year, with a lot of factors in play besides scandal and Hollywood’s civil war. In Nielsen ratings, the NBC broadcast attracted an average of just 6.9 million viewers versus 18.3 million last year. In recent years, the audience average mostly in an 18-20 million range, actually faring better than the Oscar and Emmy awards that suffered noticable declines.

It’s not clear why this year’s TV ratings collapsed, though bad publicity about HFPA certainly didn’t help. Also, a year ago, the Golden Globes benefited from a lead-in audience from a pro-football game and normal presentation. And with pre-Covid 19, this year there was no red-carpet arrivals giving a different vibe. Normally, the Golden Globes celebrities sat at dinner tables making for a loose and boozy affair, which is a charm lost this year with the pandemic making it mostly a video conferenced event.

Hollywood-based social change organization Time’s Up issued a harsh criticism of the HFPA and NBC Television as well; the latter is a shot-across-the-bow of HBPA’s cash-cow TV rights machine. Time’s Up wrote the Golden Globes organizers suffers from “a fundamental lack of understanding of the problems at hand. Change only occurs from an awareness of larger cultural problems, as well as a long-term commitment to systemic change.”

This points to simmering discontentment being more than surface malaise and signify a wider Hollywood civil war if social change activists demand action beyond window-dressing, which has been the norm. Will industry activists reject and shame the many prominent industry hypocrites (sexual predator villains Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby come to mind) and corporate suits primarily interested in business profits. And some remedies would rub audiences in Middle America the wrong way, depressing Hollywood wealth.

The HFPA’s small membership gets cash and perks from the organization, and constantly reject qualified journalist applicants to keep membership exclusive (the organization should have hundreds of members, not just 87). It’s baffling a registered non-profit can be exclusionary, but HFPA has done so for decades. As a non-profit, it traipses through for-profit activities without having to pay business taxes. The organization became a money machine when publicists realized that Golden Globes are bellwethers for the Oscars, and poured in awards marketing riches.

The Golden Globes are always a window for audiences to view the Hollywood high life. TV commercials in NBC’s Sunday telecast were heavy with glitz products — cosmetics giant L’Oréal was a major sponsor. Other big categories were media tech including streamers Amazon Studios and Paramount+; a raft of mobile phone equipment and services; financial services; food; and automakers.

The Hollywood awards season thrives on film distributors and talent spending and lobbying for awards.

In an example of pouring on the glitz for audiences, a Hollywood Reporter story by Fawnia Soo Hoo highlights female cosmetics and fashion in evidence from celebrities. “Makeup artists for many of this year’s crop of recognized actresses share how they achieved inspiring looks, from Viola Davis’ luminescent smoky eye to Andra Day’s sun-inflected monochrome,” the story enthuses (enthusiastic is sometimes adapted into verb in Hollywood!)

The Hollywood Reporter had a good preshow package with the aforementioned cosmetics/fashion rundown and related articles. THR also weighed in with story by Laurie Brookins about what viewers can eat/drink at home while watching the Golden Globes to get in the mood; and Kirsten Chuba and Chris Gardner penned another article about the economic devastation suffered by awards industry vendors. The latter story detailed “the caterers, florists and other vendors that contribute to creating a glamorous round of parties in a typical year are suffering major losses.”

Will Hollywood take the high road in the future to make the Golden Globes and others clean up their acts?

If history is any guide, the answer is not really because too much is at stake in professional reputations (everybody wants awards because it boosts salaries) and corporate profits. Being a do-gooder is a costly exercise. Winners in Sunday’s telecast did not use the opportunity to push for industry change; their activism was mostly aimed at society at large where the personal cost of doing so is negligible.

Movie awards campaigns cost in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, so the Hollywood marketing machine grinds on.

Says the book “Marketing to Moviegoers: Third Edition”: Awards marketing consultants “are paid by the month, and $15,000/month is often quoted, plus expenses (cost of events and advertising add to the cost of the campaign). There’s often a bonus payment specified in contracts if the promoted film or talent achieves nominations and wins. …The Golden Globes are highly sought because they have proved to be a harbinger with a 70 percent correlation for the Best Picture Oscar in past years.”

Related content:

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply