by Peter Bart, Variety Editor-in-Chief
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - Now that the Golden Globes are behind us, Oscar planners may well be asking themselves, "Do we really want the two major award shows to be virtually back to back?"
Not long ago, the Oscar mavens decided to move next year's event forward by a month to Feb. 29. The sheer glitz and frenzy of this year's Golden Globes and its surrounding parties, however, raise a serious question: Can the industry absorb two such orgies of self- promotion in such a short corridor of time? And will the Academy's time-shift effectively strengthen the Globes even further rather than improve the ratings of the Oscar show?
Here's what the carnival of the past week has taught us:
The Globes show continues to gain sizzle because it's shrewdly produced and integrates the worlds of film and TV.
Further, the social aura surrounding the Globes has reached Oscar proportions. The dizzying array of parties was extraordinarily well attended and, again, because the Globes come first there was an atmosphere of high expectation. It is remarkable to see stalwart veterans like Michael Caine or Martin Scorsese marching doggedly from party to party, like candidates locked in a presidential primary.
Finally, though the Foreign Press constituency is small, and their credentials have been subject to scrutiny, their selections are interesting, diverse and well informed. The Pia Zadora era is clearly behind us.
Hence while the Oscar clearly retains its ascendancy in terms of prestige, there is no denying the tremendous promotional clout of a Golden Globe. Distributors of Chicago and The Hours will clearly herald their victories worldwide and audiences will respond accordingly.
By moving up its Oscar date, the Academy may inadvertently be bolstering this clout. Next year's Globes could fall at a critical moment in the Academy voting process so that a victory with the Foreign Press would take on even greater importance. Hence the flurry of advertising and party throwing before the Globes will only intensify. And the elaborate Q&A sessions, and all the other activity that greatly accelerated this year, will be heightened.
Is all this in the interest of the Academy?
Proximity of the events may point up the uneasy fact that the Golden Globes are simply more fun, certainly for attendees and perhaps even for the audience. The Academy show has taken on great pomp and ceremony over the years, while the Globes people clearly play off their naughtiness. The response of the audience is more vivid at the Globes because of the intimacy and the alcohol consumption.
At the Globes, members of the audience freely wander in and out to smoke, grab a drink or perform a "fix" on their makeup. There's no paramilitary cadre, as at the Oscars, to rush in to occupy an empty seat or issue stern admonitions about exits and entrances, as though the concentration of TV viewers would be broken at the sight of an empty seat or moving body.
At the Globes, the tradition of serving a complete dinner is still adhered to, even though no one eats and the food remains moldering on tables, making the room smell like a McDonald's the morning after. But then the presence of food and booze reinforces the funky nonchalance of the evening.
There is nothing nonchalant about the acceptance speeches, however. Since the Globes show is ubiquitous on local and national TV, not to mention 125 countries overseas, winning the big prize carries with it immense commercial import. And that import may only grow next year if the Oscar plans are sustained.
© 2003 Variety
