The Golden Globes are at their best when they’re slightly wrong

The Golden Globes named some surprising winners, but their strange choices are what make award season fun.

Objectively wrong might be too strong a phrase, but there were a number of awards at the 2019 Golden Globes that seemed not quite right. More politely put, there were a number of unexpected or uninspiring winners.

Perhaps most notably, Glenn Close won over Lady Gaga for The Wife, giving a speech good enough to distract from the fact no one has seen that movie. Green Book won…a lot. Both Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody won Best Picture. In the TV arena, Patricia Arquette won for Escape from Dannemora, Ben Whishaw for A Very English Scandal and Richard Madden for Bodyguard. Michael Douglas won for The Kominsky Method, which also won Best Comedy. No one necessarily undeserving, but few of the people listed were the first or even second most likely choice in their category.

Oscar predictions have become a nesting doll of largely fabricated qualifications. The press and prediction business, the campaign complex, the chicken-and-egg of odds vs. hype, it can all be debated endlessly. Is it broken? Who broke it? How do we fix it? Should we fix it? The Golden Globes have long been considered the highest profile award show predictor for the Oscars, a crucial part of this insanity. Inside the Oscar predictions doll is the Golden Globe winner doll, inside of which is the Golden Globe predictions doll, which is filled with Oscar hype from the fall and inside that hype is the Gotham Awards and film festival buzz, etc. etc. etc.

Perusing the Golden Globes predictions before Sunday night, it was easy to come away with the impression the Hollywood Foreign Press was all-in on this system, to the extent that rather than cast their votes and let the Academy consider their decisions, the Hollywood Foreign Press might be casting votes that were themselves Oscar predictions, in the hopes of appearing right and relevant if and when they matched the Oscars. This logic would say that even though it was widely known than the HFPA loved Bohemian Rhapsody beyond all proportion, they would honor A Star is Born so as to be in line with the Oscars.

That, of course, did not happen. Whether intentional or not, the winners of the 2019 Golden Globes seem to suggest the HFPA is happy to stay lightly out of step. Yes, there were a few winners who could go on to Oscar glory. Olivia Colman (Best Actress, The Favourite) seems particularly likely, as does Christian Bale (Best Actor, Vice). First Man could very well win an Academy Award for Original Score, and “Shallow” is still a favorite to repeat for Best Original Song.

But the HFPA also leaned into the increasingly unpopular opinion that Green Book is award-worthy (Best Supporting Actor for Mahershala Ali, Screenplay and Best Picture – Musical or Comedy). The Academy Awards has no debts to pay to Ali and seems unlikely to vote Green Book (or Bohemian Rhapsody, for that matter) to the top of a combined Best Picture class.

On the other hand, the Academy does seem more likely to go the way of another Favourite actress (Emma Stone or Rachel Weisz) or recognize Amy Adams (Vice) rather than repeat the Golden Globe’s decidedly good decision to recognize Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk) for the supporting trophy. (One hopes the Academy will follow the HFPA’s lead honoring Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse over the Incredibles 2.) Additionally, the Academy’s desperate if misguided dream to tap the mainstream could see it more fully embrace A Star is Born and Academy-darling Bradley Cooper in the Best Actor or Best Director categories. Not to mention Gaga for Best Actress and the whole shebang for Best Picture.

It’s of course possible that the HFPA did want to appear prescient about the Oscars, that they believe the Academy will snub Bradley and laude Green Book, but it seems just as likely the HFPA threw the prediction business to the wind and just went all in on their pet films.

At the level of award recognition, all of this — film criticism, statues — becomes 96 percent subjective. Sometimes there’s a performer or a film that is so heads-and-shoulders above the rest it deserves to sweep every award show imaginable, but more often than not, there are at least two or three nominees who any sane critic can admit could be a coin toss. We love award shows because we love validation and competition and drama and righteous indignation. And we don’t get any of that when the voting bodies are too busy trying to look “right” by way of homogenous results.

The Golden Globes, in particular, thrive on making surprising decisions. The Emmys are half a year away, but the Oscars of it all takes the shine away from any TV recognition happening in January anyways. As for the Oscars, well, the Oscars will always be the most prestigious and talked about award show, but the Academy is in crisis. It’s spastic efforts to salvage ratings at the risk of alienating its actual audience and increasing inability to generate any surprises that don’t hinge on misread envelopes have put its cultural standing in jeopardy. (The Oscars will be fine.) Still, the Golden Globes can be our best award show by being the show that, in addition to offering the broad appeal of both TV and movies, liquoring up everyone involved and booking the best hosts, recognizes the nominees most on-brand for the Globes nonsensical style, even at the risk of being bad or wrong. We still get Regina King and Glenn Close, with awards and acceptance speeches, and that’s objectively good.

The 2019 Golden Globes were fine, not as entertaining or boldly weird as past years, but fine. The HFPA makes odd choices. They aren’t always right, but they’re the best when they’re their own.

Follow FanSided Entertainment on Twitter for the latest entertainment news, insight and award show analysis.