The Envelope Logo

Gold Derby

Tom O'Neil has the inside track on Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and all the award shows.

« Previous Post | Gold Derby Home | Next Post »

What impact will the Globes have on Oscars?

January 13, 2008 | 10:01 pm

The Golden Globe is usually a fairly good Oscar crystal ball. Over the past 30 years, the overlap of winners in the races for Oscars_snub3best picture and lead actor and actress has been about 65 percent (far less in the races for supporting acting and directing). The two sets of kudos have disagreed on best pic for the past three years, but the lead and supporting races went 3 for 4 last year and 4 for 4 one year earlier.

However, things may be very different this year. Now we may find out if the Globe itself wields such influence or the act of people accepting it.

Many Oscarologists like me believe that the Globe acceptance speech has chief impact. It's the winner's audition for Oscar night. When Hilary Swank ("Boys Don't Cry") and Jamie Foxx ("Ray") gave the performances of their careers at the Globe's podium, that certainly helped their trajectory toward the Oscar stage. Particularly Swank. She was in a tight race in 1999 with the star of the best-picture winner at both awards, "American Beauty" — Annette Bening, who proved her clout by winning SAG.


But this year there were no teary, joyous acceptance speeches to be seen on TV so dazzling that Oscar voters might be tempted to demand a repeat performance. This year there is only the news of who actually won. Will that be enough to help Julie Christie or Marion Cotillard to eclipse the fast-rising Ellen Page? Will this help Daniel Day-Lewis or Johnny Depp fend off the challenge of Hollywood's fave swashbuckling matinee star George Clooney? Will her Globe win help Cate Blanchett to fend off Amy Ryan in supporting?

Since we've seen such drastic disagreement in the best-pic races recently, most Oscarologists are poohing-poohing the wins by "Atonement" (which led with the most nominations — seven) and "Sweeney Todd." If neither is nominated in the Oscar high five, it will be the second time that both top Globe champs got shut out. These Globe wins can't have any affect on nominations since Oscar ballots were due the day before Globe winnahs were unveiled.

The comments to this entry are closed.


If Juno gets a Best Pic nom over either Atonement or Sweeney Todd, then the Oscars aren't any better than the GG. Juno was "cute" , but definitely not BP material. Sweeney Todd was the bravest/most creative. out of any of the "buzzed" about films. Atonement was sweeping,romantic, well acted and also deserves to be considered. To those that feel Sweeney Todd didn't have any "hero" you're right--it's a tragedy and not all stories end up with lead characters riding off into the sunset.

Tim, Swank did beat Bennng at the Globes in 2000. Anybody remember Janet Mcteer or Tumbleweeds? Mcteer won the comedy or musical category that year.

Brilliant catch, guys! Tx for digging up the 1855 info! Added now.

To say that the GGs have a high "precursor" value without mentioning that for film and lead acting they have two, not one, winners is a bit misleading.

It will be a great day if their two main film winners fail to get a best picture nomination. And remember, no GG film winner has won the Oscar since Lord of the Rings - Return of the King.

TOM get your facts straight! You of all people! In 1955 East of Eden and Guys and Dolls won Golden Globes, yet neither was Best Picture-nominated. It's happened! A small detail but it's true!

dw, Swank didn't actually beat Bening at the Globes. She won for Best Actress in a Drama, while Bening won Best Actress in a Comedy. Same thing happened in 2004.

Uh, Tom, actually in 1960, it depends how you look at it. I learned this from your book, haha...The Apartment won Comedy, but Song Without End (Musical) and Spartacus (Drama) were both snubbed.

Further research is now required. But you know...there's a first time for everything!


Both of 1955's BP Globes winners (East of Eden / Guys and Dolls) were snubbed as well by Oscar in Best Picture.

i keep hearing about all the possible oscar scenarios which could result from the wga strike, everything from change the format, to postpone the show. what ever way the academy chooses, the show will go on (hopefully not
a reincarnation of the globes) and the awards will be handed out. so what does the wga gain from denying a waiver
other than showing themselves to be the biggest bully on the block

Gimme a break. Anyone who votes for a nominee or winner based on a speech at a previous awards ceremony ought to be stripped of their ability to vote. What ever happened to MERIT?

This year's Oscar nomination process is going to be the most democratic one ever. Due to the writer's strike, no chance for anyone with rich resources or connection to promote and push their movies on TV. Films that were shown late in the year might suffers even more.

The Golden Globe results may have some impact if the Academy just happens to nominate the same people voted as winners by the HFPA, such as Lewis, Christie, Cotillard, Depp, Bardem, Blanchett, the two winning films, and winners in the screenplay, director, score and song categories. It could happen.

Michael, I couldn't agree with you more. I feel, every year, Tom blogs about who will win, and more times than not, their speeches are given as a reason as to why they will, or won't, win the Academy Award. If what you are saying is true Tom, that voters will vote for someone based upon how good their speech will be, then you just proved to everyone that the Oscars really don't mean s**t! And furthermore, if that is the case, which I highly disagree that it is, why did they give Forest Whitaker that statue last year? The man, although YES! he deserved every single award he got, looked like a deer in the headlights every time he won something, and it was painful and mind numbing to watch him give an acceptance speech. Secondly, by your theory, why didn't they give the award to Eddie Murphy. His speeches were amazing, and everyone loved them. Instead they gave it to Alan Arkin, who gave gasp!, a boring speech! So Tom, please STOP with the speech theory.

I can't believe sweeney todd won anything for anything. This movie may be the single biggest piece of garbage I have ever seen. They took my nine fifty at the window and gave me absolutely nothing in return. I felt like they just took from me again throughout the whole thing. No hero, no story, no real humor, absolutely nothing. There was nothing at all up there. What a change from the guy that made Edward Scissorhands, which was one of the more beautiful movies I've ever seen. This was basically the opposite. It was like the work of a child armed with 100 million dollars.

Is it possible for Atonement to still win Best Picture when it was effectively shut out of ALL four major guild awards (SAG, DGA, WGA, ACE)?

Aren't many of the members of these groups also Oscar voters? That means that, in each case, the voters saw five films they liked better in their respective categories. I don't see how any movie overcomes that to win BP.

I agree about the acceptance speeches. Swank was lucky that both times Benning was her main rival. I remember seeing Benning on the red carpet- she had such a sourpuss look on her face. It wasn't any better when she went on stage to accept her Gloden Globe for "Being Julia." She is always devoid of any charm and joy. In 2000 she also had a pregnant card working for her and she still lost. Voters probably saw her on stage at the SAGs and didn't like what they saw (who could blame them) and went with Swank (who was great onstage at Globes when she beat Benning).

I'm so glad that the ballots went in before GGs. So tired of hearing about noms due to speeches. Sickening. Awards should be about the work. Period.



In Case You Missed It...

Stay Connected:

About the Blogger

Pop & Hiss



In Case You Missed It...