Golden Globes: What do the winners mean for the Oscars?

Jennifer Lawrence takes home one of the Best Actress prizes while 'Argo' scores a surprise win for Best Motion Picture – Drama. The Oscar race just got a lot more interesting.

Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
Jennifer Lawrence won the Best Actress – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy prize for 'Silver Linings Playbook.'

There’s nothing like an underdog to shake up the Oscar race. (And that sometimes makes it a lot more fun to watch, too.)

After months of pundits predicting that the Best Picture race would be a showdown between “Lincoln,” director Steven Spielberg’s study of the sixteenth president fighting to free the slaves, and “Zero Dark Thirty,” Kathryn Bigelow’s story of how the US government found Osama bin Laden, Ben Affleck’s movie “Argo” took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Drama. Many had predicted the film about a fake movie crew rescuing Americans from Iran in 1979 was losing its award-season mojo after Affleck wasn’t nominated for Best Director for the Oscars.

The Best Motion Picture – Drama prize can be a harbinger of what movie will win Best Picture at the Oscars as well, though sometimes the fact that the Globes divides the prize into Best Motion Picture – Drama and Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy has hampered those predictions. (“The Artist,” last year’s Best Picture winner, was declared a Musical or Comedy by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and so won that prize, not Drama.) And, of course, sometimes they don’t match up at all. The winners for Best Drama at the Golden Globes in 2007, 2009, and 2010 were all different from the eventual Best Picture winner.

Another interesting development? Anne Hathaway took home the Best Supporting Actress prize over Helen Hunt for “The Sessions” and Sally Field for “Lincoln,” the two other nominees who are predicted to be her biggest rivals for the Oscar.

While “Les Miserables” snagged the Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy award, its chances are probably waning in the Best Picture category, and the fact that the Globes award two motion picture prizes means that one inevitably is not the winner for Best Picture.

To no one’s surprise, Daniel Day-Lewis won Best Actor – Drama from the Press, meaning that there’s probably little to no chance of an upset for the Best Actor category at the Oscars. Jessica Chastain winning Best Actress – Drama for “Zero Dark Thirty” and Jennifer Lawrence taking the Best Actress – Musical or Comedy award for "Silver Linings Playbook" means that it will probably be a showdown between the two of them for Best Actress on Oscar night.

Tarantino favorite Christoph Waltz winning the Best Supporting Actor prize for "Django Unchained" also gives him the edge in that category going into Oscar night over rival Tommy Lee Jones for “Lincoln,” who is thought to have a good chance of winning the prize from the Academy.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.