It usually isn't mentioned or analyzed that there's a clear competitive streak between the Academy Awards and the Golden Globe Awards. That mostly started when the Oscars started airing closer to the Globes time, and especially when more stars were willing to show up for the Globes than at the Academy Awards. You could also see that competition arise when the Oscars tried vainly to reward a movie that was ignored at the Globes.
When the news broke that the Oscars would move their annoyingly early a.m. nomination announcements to January 10 instead of January 15, we heard it was done to give more time for academy voters to watch nominated films. But considering the above evidence, and airing the nominations three days before the Globes, we could be looking at a subtle chess match between the two most prestigious movie award shows.
That all seemed to start less than a decade ago when the Globes started pulling in bigger ratings than the Oscars due to an extra layer of glitz and glamor at the round tables. Prior to that time, it was beginning to seem that you couldn't tell the difference between the Oscar telecast and the Globes in terms of who won. Yet once the Globes started loosening up into a true party that wasn't afraid to show loose-lipped, inebriated A-list stars on stage, the dichotomy began.
The Oscar ceremony just isn't a party that many celebrities seem to enjoy attending, at least during the ceremony. It's no wonder that attendees dart for the after parties once the show ends, because the ceremony itself is dry with nary a libation or a single forkful of caviar. In the last decade, also, you can see the academy voters intentionally moving toward awarding the American-made film that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association would rather shun.
Conversely, the HFPA seems to have taken advantage of their growing popularity and enjoy giving the Golden Globes to surprising (if frequently better) choices. It all gives an edge to the Globes that the Oscars have arguably lost in recent years. And when you start competing with a monolithic American institution, you know the battle lines will soon be drawn.
If the Oscars subtly moved the nomination show to January 10 to steal publicity away from the Globes, their biggest chink in the armor is that dreadful a.m. hour. The academy apparently wants to stick to the tradition of having it live for the east coast morning shows. I've asked before, though, whether a primetime nomination party special would be the best way if they want to steal the glitter from the Globes.
In the world of movies, it seems that the Oscar nominations are more exciting than the actual awards show. Imagine the war lines drawn if the Oscars had a primetime, two-hour nomination show extravaganza before the Globes, then a shortened Oscar ceremony in February. The Oscars would have a bigger win overall and bring in big names, including all the nominees to avoid waking them out of REM sleep to report their nominations.
In the world of award show wars, that kind of thinking should have been written into a Hollywood adaptation of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
- Arts & Entertainment