Will the Golden Globes widen the Oscar field, or narrow it?

globeOscar has been doing all in his power these past few years to limit the impact of the less legit but more entertaining Golden Globes on the Academy Awards. Move the Oscars up and back, change nominations date, add to the best picture field.

People still watch the Globes. And their impact on the Oscars — in the past they limited the field by deciding, with their ten best picture (five drama, five musical or comedy) field, who had a legit shot at a nomination.

But in their ten nominations this year, they’ve got “Rush,” which is a film nobody is talking about a best picture. And “Philomena,” which has similar limited best picture buzz.

“12 Years a Slave,” “Captain Phillips,” “Gravity,” “NEbraska,” “Her,” The Wolf of Wall Street,” “American Hustle,” and “Inside Llewyn Davis” are the other Globes nominees.

No “Dallas Buyers Club,” no “All is Lost.” I kind of think “Llewyn Davis” is an outsider looking in Oscar film, too. No realistic shot. But that one and “August: Osage County” have awards bait pedigrees, even if they don’t deserve the honor.

So if Oscar puts up a full slate of ten nominees they should be significantly different from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s take.

The actress and actor Globes fields should contain pretty much every Oscar nominee — Blanchett and Dench, Bullock, Thompson and either Streep (ugh) or maybe Amy Adams as a lead actress in “American Hustle,” Redford, McConaughey, Elba, Hanks and…Idris Elba? I don’t hear “Mandela” buzz, so possibly Leonardo DiCaprio will get that spot.

Best animated film? “Croods” vs. “Despicable” vs. “Frozen” or “The Wind Rises.”

The point, as always, is that all of Oscar’s efforts to avoid having repeat acceptance speeches and further erosion of their brand have failed. Most of the same nominees, certainly most of the same winners.

This entry was posted in Reviews, previews, profiles and movie news. Bookmark the permalink.