The Golden Globes are attempting a comeback — but do they really deserve one?

My Favourite Season is a monthly column by CBC Arts producer Peter Knegt that runs through the six-month "season" that is both his favourite and Moira Rose's. It explores all things awards in the leadup to the big one: the Oscars, which will take place on March 12, 2023.

The Golden Globes just announced the nominations for their 2023 awards, which for a while there seemed unlikely to even happen. Years of damning exclusions in their nominations and allegations of a wide variety of ethical improprieties came to a head when a Los Angeles Times investigation in February 2021 found that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association — the group that hands out the Globes — had exactly zero Black members. The fallout was disastrous, with NBC pulling out of broadcasting the ceremony and Tom Cruise even physically returning his three Golden Globes. 

And yet, here we are. After taking a year off from having an actual ceremony (instead, they tweeted their winners in one of the most unhinged things awards season has ever seen), the Golden Globes are back. They'll be turning 80 at their live, televised January 10th ceremony, making them the second longest-running "major" awards show after the Oscars (which are about to turn 95) and ahead of the Emmys (turning 75), Tonys (also 75) and Grammys (65).

Of course, calling the Golden Globes "major" is more questionable than ever. There's a reason we don't call it "EGGGOT," and that's because the Globes always been a bit of a joke (scandals have met the organization dating back to the 1950s, when then HFPA president Henry Gris resigned due to concerns that "certain awards are being given more or less as favours"). But there was nothing funny about the series of events that seemed like they were finally going to take them down, and it still feels unclear whether they deserve to be welcomed back.

They are asking us to welcome them back because they've allegedly "done the work." That included a major restructuring and a more than doubling of their voting membership. The HFPA say that their voting body is now 52% female and 51.5% "racially and ethically diverse" (including 10% Black voters). Which is certainly a considerable progression from having literally zero Black members less than two years ago. They also managed to get Jerrod Carmichael to agree to host the ceremony, making him the first openly LGBTQ host and only the second Black host (after Louis Gossett Jr co-hosted with Leslie Nielsen and Jane Seymour in 1993). Carmichael is hilarious, and he's coming off a year where he won an Emmy for his rightfully acclaimed comedy special Rothaniel. It certainly seems like the Golden Globes need him way more than he needs the Golden Globes, though hopefully he uses the opportunity to call out the very show he's hosting in some sort of iconic fashion (as I'm fairly sure he will).

One thing the show doesn't particularly have going for it, though, are its actual nominations. Despite the expanded voting body, the announcement was pretty much what one would have expected from the Golden Globes before their overhaul. Led by The Banshees of Inisherin (with eight nominations) and Everything Everywhere All At Once (with six), there were certainly a lot of bright spots of diversity, like acting nominations for Everything Everywhere's Michelle Yeoh and Ke Huy Quan, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever's Angela Bassett and Triangle of Sadness's Dolly de Leon. But there were also a lot of the same old problems.

Of the 10 films nominated in the best picture categories, only one was not solely directed by a cis white dude (Everything Everywhere All At Once, which is notably co-directed by a cis white dude). No women were nominated for best director despite a ton of exceptional films made by women this year, including Sarah Polley's Women Talking and Gina Prince-Bythewood's The Woman King. And there was the bizarre omission of Danielle Deadwyler for her performance as Emmett Till's mother in Till, which just won her a Gotham Award. It just didn't quite feel like enough to justify the Globes getting this umpteenth second chance.

The big question that remains is whether anyone is even going to show up at the ceremony. Brendan Fraser, who was nominated for his performance in The Whale, has already said he will not be attending. Fraser accused a member of the HFPA of sexual assault in 2018. 

"I have more history with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association than I have respect for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association," Fraser said in a GQ profile last month. "No, I will not participate. It's because of the history that I have with them. And my mother didn't raise a hypocrite. You can call me a lot of things, but not that." 

The HFPA also nominated Tom Cruise as a producer of Top Gun: Maverick (though not as an actor, which was a bit of a snub). Given that Cruise returned all his Golden Globes in 2021, it seems likely he'll follow Fraser's lead. And one has to assume he won't be alone. Why risk the bad optics for an awards show that never quite seemed worthy of our respect to begin with?

We'll find out in just a few weeks who shows up, who wins and how Jerrod Carmichael navigates the possible trainwreck of it all when the Golden Globes air on January 10th. It's going to be a make-or-break night, as NBC has not committed to airing any ceremonies beyond it, wanting to see how this one spans out first. So we could very well be watching the 80th and final Golden Globes (which admittedly... does make it sound kinda worth watching).

Check out our latest predictions for the 2023 Academy Awards here.