The Golden Globes Are Becoming Tougher to Predict in Who Will Win Oscars

Perhaps we saw the first sign of the tug-of-war last year between the Oscars and the Golden Globes. When the more international production of "Atonement" won Best Drama at the Golden Globes in '08, Oscar seemed to want to celebrate American and go for something different with the satire "No Country for Old Men" winning Best Picture instead. Whether that was by legitimate difference of opinion or by design to distance the Academy Awards from the Golden Globes is an interesting prospect. There's a definite competition going in recent years with the Golden Globes and the Oscars for one simple reason: The prestige, glitz and glamour of the Golden Globes are starting to supersede the Academy Awards.

In that regard, there may be a widening difference between the two that'll mean more suspense in ensuing years when Oscar night rolls around.

But when you see even bigger stars showing up for the Golden Globes, you know stars know that it's the place to be during award season. Perhaps it's just because they can kick back, gulp down a few martinis and have fun at the Globes rather than having to wait 28.3 hours (sure, it's fun to exaggerate the Oscars' running length every year) before having a chance to wet their whistle with a cool libation at the after parties. It's also obvious that the Globes make wiser choices in who wins with generous, logical and popular winnings across the board. The Oscars just seem to be a headache for many of Hollywood's elite when the Academy makes frustratingly offbeat choices for the winners on occasion.

This isn't to say that the Oscars still can't still stand alone in comparison to the Golden Globes. There's every indication they're trying everything they can to distinguish themselves from the Globes, undoubtedly by necessity. That's the last thing the profoundly rich legacy of the Academy Awards needs is being run over in importance by the Hollywood Foreign Press--even though having other countries blending with Hollywood is an increasingly ideal situation.

Nowhere was that more apparent than this year with "Slumdog Millionaire" winning Best Drama at the Globes when it's already clear India's Bollywood is about to merge solidly with Hollywood for numerous projects. And there isn't a doubt such an alliance will lead to better filmmaking, which potentially bodes well for the Oscars. Nevertheless, is it possible that the Oscars will start deliberately awarding purely American movies to keep it distinguishable from the Globes? Doing that may hurt the Academy Awards in some ways if they make it too blatant. They already came close to the line last year when above-mentioned "No Country for Old Men" took the Best Picture away from "Atonement."

Before recent years, the Academy Awards didn't seem to mind co-existing with the Golden Globes. That's because they figured, 66 years ago, the Golden Globes would just be the little award show that could. Much to their chagrin in the last twenty years, the Globes became the award show that really, really did. When that starts cutting into who arrives to the show and how many people worldwide watch, you don't want to look like a copycat, despite being the top gun for decades before.

If we inevitably see a more deliberate attempt to keep the two separated, it's still likely the Golden Globes could overall become the new Academy Awards down the road...

____

Of course, the distinguishing characteristics between the two should be simple. The Hollywood Foreign Press has typically tilted most of their winners to international movies and stars--and the Oscars make vain attempts to tilt American. The pressure is on in Hollywood, however, to try to keep movies made through the Hollywood system relevant. We all know that they pale in comparison to the indie/international markets, and the frustration couldn't be more palpable. Let's be reminded a lot of that could be avoided if Hollywood studio heads merely hired better talent in screenwriters. Because they likely won't, expect to see the Oscars start awarding stars and movies made here that may just garner as much of a puzzled expression as there was when Marisa Tomei won for supporting actress in "My Cousin Vinny" back in the 90's.

We all know that the Oscars love the British and have awarded them diligently with acting awards for years now. It wouldn't surprise me this year, though, to see a marked contrast in the nationality of the winners so the Oscars can start on their own path. It's a strong possibility you'll see Angelina Jolie win for Best Actress in "Changeling" over Kate Winslet who won the Golden Globe for "Revolutionary Road." Also, don't necessarily expect "Slumdog Millionaire" to get Best Picture when movies like "Frost/Nixon" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" give profound insights into the American spirit AMPAS likes to reward.

We'll really know the Oscars are trying to stand alone if Tom Cruise wins for Supporting Actor in "Tropic Thunder." Kidding aside, Heath Ledger winning a posthumous Oscar is hard to deny at this point and erases all sense of competition between award shows.

___

If there really will be a more marked distinction between the Golden Globes and the Oscars, it won't be anything to be concerned about. Along with the more acute suspense, the awards for good movies can be more diffuse each year rather than dominating for a particular movie, other than the ones that monumentally stand alone.

The more Hollywood makes bad movies, however, the more challenging it'll be for the Academy Awards to distinguish itself from having to constantly follow in the increasing giant footsteps of the Golden Globes. Prepare for either the Coen Brothers always winning Oscars when they have a new movie out, or seeing American movies being rewarded that you'd never thought you'd see nominated just ten years ago...