December 18 , 2003

'Tis The Season ...
by Gary Dretzka

PART ONE

1) The HFPA is a closed community of professional and semi-professional journalists who owe nothing to anyone except their bosses back home and NBC, which produces their annual show and, thus, subsidizes their various eccentricities. It is not in NBC's interest to question the members' credentials and ethics, because the truth might devalue its product. And because the Globes are perceived as entertainment (not news), the voters need be no more credible as journalists as the actors playing doctors on ER. NBC assumes that its audience tunes in not for the Golden Globe awards, per se, but to see drunken and overdressed celebrities. It has stopped calling the awards leading indicators of the Oscars and, instead, accentuates the "best party of the year" aspect of the broadcast ... which it isn't, either.

In this, both the HFPA and NBC -- blessed with active studio participation -- deliver the goods. The Globes are a guilty pleasure, to be sure. They have all the style and substance of Us, InStyle or Entertainment Tonight, but lack the credibility even of the Star and Tiger Beat.

If the studios could manipulate every other journalist in town as they do HFPA members and network newsmagazines, they would. For the most part, they do. The studios see the media as a publicity tool -- gluttons for the same kind of garbage fed daily to Variety and Hollywood Reporter, only a day later -- and enthusiastically control access to their properties and assets in ways even the Pentagon would envy. They're allowed to get away with it because the mainstream media treat Hollywood as yet another toy department in the general store that is America. Then, too, why take anything seriously that happens in California?

Most reporters see through the charade -- of which the Globes ceremony is merely an annual irritant -- and would happily ask all the right questions of all the right people all the time. But they can't, and they need to protect their livelihoods as much as the next working stiff. If their editors want regurgitated crap, how can they refuse to provide it, in spades ... especially if they're freelancers? Again, they can't.

2) Editors, producers and news directors are in a position to question the newsworthiness of every celebrity puff piece, high-glam photo, nugget of gossip and box-office con job that lands on their desk. They're the ones who ultimately OK the assignments and fight for space. Their jobs often depend on their decisions about what constitutes news. Photos of world leaders and business executives in disgrace are a dime a dozen, a picture of Jennifer Lopez falling out of her dress is an event.

Reporters don't assign themselves to wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Jackson, obligatory Monday-morning box-office reports or publicity junkets. Editors decide how much credence to put on the various awards, and most of them don't know -- or care -- how the HFPA and National Board of Review differs in relevance from BAFTA and the National Society of Film Critics. It's just copy, and every critic not named Ebert is faceless.

It would be interesting to compare the amount of coverage given to the Academy Awards in the mainstream press 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and last year. Granted it's much greater now than then. But, is it any better or more meaningful?

Yes, we know more about who wore what, and what's in the goodie baskets, but what else? Has anyone not associated with the Taliban or Le Monde had anything meaningful lately to say about Hollywood's increasing global presence and how such cultural imperialism has impacted U.S. foreign policy? Has anyone tried to explain what it means that Hollywood has stopped making movies for adults, and how it uses the Oscars to camouflage that point? Has anyone outside the Internet bothered to question Jack Valenti's various pronouncements? How is it that Paris Hilton is better known -- and, somehow, admired -- than any of the Democratic candidates for president?

3) Is this all the gibberish of a snob? Depends on whom you ask.

Let me point this one tidbit of news out to MCN readers, however. Monday, NBC Entertainment boss Jeff Zucker was also put in charge of NBC News, MSNBC, CNBC and various cable properties. This is the same fellow who helped turn Today into a primary shill for Hollywood, by cutting exclusive deals with studios irrespective of the quality of the movies being hyped (but not the wattage of the stars); who has completely blurred the lines between news and infotainment on the network by letting Pat O'Brien conduct interviews for Dateline; who green-lit such bad shows as Coupling, then admitted it probably was crap from the get-go ... but never assumed a single ounce of blame.

If anyone doesn't think Zucker's appointment doesn't further weaken NBC's ability to differentiate news from celebrity dross, they're delusional. And NBC is part of the same family now that runs Universal Studios.

For all we know, by this time next year, publicity junkets for Universal movies might be covered live on CNBC, and participating HFPA members will be accorded all the rights and privileges usually reserved for reporters at the network. To encourage the HFPA to renew its contract with the network, Globes voters will be granted exclusive consulting fees and be called in to comment whenever something really important on the cultural scene breaks, like celebrity shoplifting cases, Ben Affleck's love life and the continued misadventures of Jacko.

At least, they'd be working.

PART TWO

Thursday, after the Globe nominations were announced, early dispatches from wire and Internet services typically brushed off any past or present controversies involving the HFPA. The picks were reported in the same isn't-this-swell tone reserved for most other news emanating from Hollywood, whether it's an announcement about Peter Jackson's next project (King Kong), Gwyneth Paltrow's pregnancy or a Kill Bill action figure.

Here's how Reuters described the honors: "The Golden Globes, which will be awarded on Jan. 25, are presented by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, a group of about 90 journalists for overseas publications. Winners often are viewed as front-runners for the U.S. film industry's highest honors, the Oscars, given out in February."

AP said absolutely nothing when it wrote, "Winners often are viewed as front-runners for the U.S. film industry's highest honors, the Oscars, given out in February."

Over at Fox, Roger Friedman dug a hair deeper: "The Hollywood Foreign Press gave the major motion picture studios a little jolt this morning. Wherever they could, the 90-member group veered off the page toward independent films and HBO offerings, leaving crumbs for the big boys."

Later, though, Friedman offered a nod to the group's checkered reputation, when he noted: "Something's Gotta Give was shut out, even though Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson were nominated. Columbia Pictures must not have catered to the Hollywood Foreign Press."

The New York Times, where anti-Globe crusader Sharon Waxman now toils, barely took note of the recent debate in its earliest dispatch. It did, however, come to one rather erroneous conclusion:

"As in years past, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association gave notice to boutique film divisions and independents, suggesting that the ban on sending out screening tapes, which was nullified two weeks ago by a federal judge, did not harm smaller studios as much as some in Hollywood suggested it would," wrote a Times correspondent, who should have known better. "Most nominees for best supporting actress were from art-house movies, including Maria Bello in ``The Cooler, Patricia Clarkson in Pieces of April, Hope Davis in American Splendor and Holly Hunter in Thirteen.''

All of those movies were widely screened in Los Angeles. As such, the few dozen resident HFPA members would likely have seen every one of them, especially if the showings were preceded by a buffet and followed by a meet-and-greet.

Indeed, all of the actresses mentioned above were considered strong candidates for any organization's supporting nominations.

No one has ever accused HFPA members of not seeing the films in the running for awards. After all, what else do they have to do?

Maybe, the papers will dig a little deeper tomorrow.

- Gary Dretzka