The tone has been set for awards sea­son — what it means for the Os­cars

Metro Canada (Toronto) - - Front Page -

There’s just one cer­tainty as awards sea­son be­gins in earnest: this is a time to rage, not to party.

The Golden Globes are nor­mally seen as the most fun of golden events, sort of the tail­gate blowout be­fore the celebrity Super Bowl that is the Os­cars. Liquor flows, pre­sen­ta­tions and ac­cep­tances are sham­bolic and peo­ple the next day talk about how “out­ra­geous” the host was.

Not this year. As the first ma­jor Tin­sel­town gath­er­ing since on­go­ing sex ha­rass­ment rev­e­la­tions be­gan last fall, Sun­day’s Globes event turned into the se­ri­ous and politi­cized af­fair the Os­cars are of­ten ac­cused of be­ing.

Just imag­ine how much more that way the Academy Awards will be — and, by the way, don’t pre­sume that big Globes win­ner Three Bill­boards Out­side Eb­bing, Mis­souri will sim­i­larly tri­umph at the Os­cars, which his­tor­i­cally go in dif­fer­ent di­rec­tions.

The Globes looked liked the most solemn of oc­ca­sions, with ev­ery­body dressed in black as a vis­ual state­ment of protest. No­body was mourn­ing the death of the way things used to be in Hollywood.

Host Seth Mey­ers was smooth and pro­fes­sional, but he seemed to be hav­ing trou­ble read­ing a room where the women were fu­ri­ous and em­pow­ered and the men were won­der­ing what they should say, if any­thing. Jokes he made about the fu­ture death of Har­vey We­in­stein and the al­leged un­der­age sex pref­er­ences of Kevin Spacey brought groans as well as laughs.

Ev­ery­body was on mes­sage to a de­gree never be­fore seen at the Globes, where the usual sight is of ac­tors drunk­enly at­tempt­ing to read a teleprompter. The mes­sage was fe­male anger about per­ceived male wrong­do­ing, re­gard­ing ev­ery­thing from sex­ual trans­gres­sions to wage in­equities and lack of job op­por­tu­ni­ties and awards recog­ni­tion for women and peo­ple of colour.

With all th­ese se­ri­ous con­cerns be­ing ex­pressed, it seems al­most triv­ial to talk about what ef­fect the Globes might have on Os­car nom­i­na­tions, which will be an­nounced the morn­ing of Jan. 23. Academy vot­ers are cur­rently in the midst of fill­ing out their bal­lots.

The truth is, the Globes will likely have lit­tle impact, if any. The 90-odd mem­bers of the Globes-be­stow­ing HFPA have al­ways tended to vary from the choices of the con­sid­er­ably larger pool of Academy vot­ers, whose ranks have swelled to nearly 7,500 this year with the ad­di­tion of 1,457 new mem­bers, many of them women and peo­ple of colour.

All of the win­ners Sun­day night had al­ready fig­ured into spec­u­la­tion for Os­car recog­ni­tion, although it cer­tainly won’t hurt Three Bill­boards, Lady Bird, The Shape of Wa­ter and I, Tonya to be at­tract­ing more at­ten­tion.

What will re­ally carry over to the Os­cars on March 4, and all the other awards shows be­tween now and then, are the grow­ing sense of rage and the de­ter­mi­na­tion to end the ha­rass­ment, un­fair­ness and si­lence that for too long have been con­sid­ered the un­spo­ken price to pay for Hollywood star­dom.

Getty Images

don’t pre­sume that big Globes win­ner three bill­boards out­side eb­bing, Mis­souri, star­ring Frances Mcdor­mand, will sim­i­larly tri­umph at the os­cars, writes Peter How­ell.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.