Critic’s Notebook: An Assured Nikki Glaser Boosts an Improved Golden Globes Telecast

by

The 2024 Golden Globe Awards are the gift that keeps on giving.

Without a doubt, the 81st Golden Globes stands out as one of the most poorly-executed award shows I’ve ever witnessed in my life. The event left such an unpleasant odor that every other awards ceremony in 2024 could easily boast about being superior, and they all did! Each and every one of them was better than the Golden Globes.

The 81st Golden Globes was a messy spectacle that, compared to any award show in 2024, felt like a disaster. The event left such a bad taste that every other awards ceremony in that year could rightfully claim to be superior. And they all did! Every single one of them managed to surpass the level of organization and entertainment value offered by the Golden Globes.

Indeed, it’s only logical that the ultimate recipients of the 2024 Golden Globe Awards turned out to be… the 2025 Golden Globe Awards themselves.

2025’s Golden Globes broadcast, marked by slow progression and numerous self-made mistakes, was a significant step up from the previous year’s edition. Most of the credit for this enhancement can be attributed to Nikki Glaser, demonstrating yet again the significance of exceptional hosting in keeping audiences engaged.

The 2025 Golden Globes telecast, characterized by sluggishness and self-inflicted errors, was a noticeable improvement over last year’s event. Nikki Glaser played a significant role in this upgrade, underscoring once more the impact of outstanding hosting on maintaining audience interest.

Last year, Jo Koy found himself in an ill-fitting role, given the opportunity without enough time for proper preparation. Furthermore, the material provided to him was vastly different from his usual style and abilities. In an attempt to take responsibility for the disappointing outcome, he directly criticized the writers for providing poor material that he exacerbated.

It’s clear that anyone who has watched Glaser perform stand-up or roasts knows she wasn’t naturally fitted for such roles. Among today’s stand-up artists, Glaser might be the least likely to appeal to CBS. It’s been entertaining watching both Glaser and CBS treat her as an unknown, which she is not in the industry. However, she could still be relatively unknown to CBS viewers.

Glaser skillfully managed a performance that didn’t perfectly suit her talents, displaying true professionalism. She commanded the stage, performed adequately for an audience initially apprehensive, yet warming to her charm, and genuinely seemed to relish the occasion.

Was it still apparent that the TV-PG version of Nikki Glaser was her, given her past comedy which often focused on the topic of sex? To some extent, yes. One joke about imagining Glen Powell during intimate moments with her partner seemed to be a toned-down version of her usual raunchy humor, but that was as explicit as she became in this edited presentation.

Instead, I peppered my speech with vague jokes about Tinseltown’s power struggles (“You know, you can accomplish anything, except for endorsing a candidate. It’s all good. You’ll have your chance again… if there is one.”), the murky distinctions between silver screen and small screen, Timothée Chalamet’s current facial style, and the fact that nobody managed to spot Eddie Redmayne’s clandestine assassin in “The Day of the Jackal” since he was streaming on Peacock.

Compared to Ricky Gervais’ sharp and relevant approach that many viewers find fitting for a Golden Globes host, Glaser seemed less edgy and not particularly current or pointed. He barely touched on high-profile figures like Trump or Elon Musk, and even the hot topic of the Baldoni/Lively drama went unaddressed. The final joke about potential misconduct among some men in the room felt more like a general observation than a direct criticism of anyone specific. The goal, it seemed, was to avoid causing any discomfort for those present.

The Globes have moved away from their previous image as the “light-hearted and jokes-welcome” awards of past times. It’s challenging to define what they represent now. This ambiguity was evident during the ceremony, as several winners struggled to identify who exactly they should be thanking for their award. References were made to the HFPA, the press, and other entities that no longer participate in the voting process for the Golden Globes. Essentially, the Golden Globes are now voted on by the Golden Globes voters themselves, making it tricky to poke fun at them, as it’s like shooting an arrow into a foggy area.

Glaser delivered her monologue smoothly, earning some chuckles along the way. Unlike Koy, however, she didn’t fade into the background entirely. Instead, she switched wardrobes multiple times and kept the show lively with energy. She injected humor about the Conclave and sang a couple of bars from a humorous song titled “Pope-ular.” I would have loved to hear the entire song, but her performance didn’t warrant a permanent hosting role. Nevertheless, if she returns next year, I wouldn’t hesitate to say, “Why not? Bring her back!

Regarding the remainder of the program, it essentially turned into a tiresome stroll showcasing recurring television champions such as Shogun, Baby Reindeer, Hacks, The Bear, and cinematic victors that were, at least, intriguingly enigmatic.

As a gamer, I can’t help but poke fun at award shows for their odd clip packages, poorly thought-out In Memoriam segments, and pompous tributes. Yet, when an awards show consists of one award after another without any variety, I find myself longing for those very elements. In Memoriam segments are usually lackluster, but they do provide a momentary break from the monotony. Musical performances run the risk of dulling the energy, but they also serve as a change of pace. If an honorary award is given to someone who seems disconnected from the event, it can create an emotional void. Nevertheless, these awards offer a respite from the repetition. Unfortunately, these elements also tend to prolong the show, and if the Golden Globes had managed to wrap up in a tight three hours, I’d say they’d achieved their goal. However, the show did not finish within that time frame.

I can’t fathom why the Golden Globes chose to bestow honorary awards upon Viola Davis and Ted Danson at a different ceremony on Friday, without even airing parts of their speeches. If you had been there on Sunday night, you would have missed out on the powerful impact that arises when an esteemed figure in the industry takes the stage, receiving a standing ovation. This is something the Golden Globes have traditionally excelled at, and it’s unfortunate that they followed the same mistake made by the Oscars in phasing out lifetime achievement prizes from their main broadcast. Instead, they adopted this lackluster trend.

The entire show was heavily reliant on the risky aspect associated with scripted presenter conversations, which is a common feature in awards shows.

During the event, there were several humorous moments that brought on laughter. The extended introduction by Seth Rogen and Catherine O’Hara about Canadian award shows felt prolonged, yet it made me giggle. Anthony Mackie and Harrison Ford had a funny dynamic, albeit unintentionally so. I think I even snickered when Jennifer Coolidge mentioned having worked with Billy Bob Thornton on a show where he was allowed to bring his pet coyote to set. However, that chuckle might have been due to uncertainty if it was a joke or not and the director lacking a cut-away shot of Thornton since perhaps he went to the restroom, left the scene, or simply, the cameras weren’t in the right position to capture him.

To be completely honest, it seemed like the presenters were struggling with their teleprompter or didn’t have much time to practice. I mean, lines like “In a night that’s given us some amazing moments, let’s continue with the amazingness” didn’t exactly need rehearsing, right?

Have you ever found yourself questioning why award show presenters seem to be addressing both the live audience and viewers at home while standing on stage and speaking to a camera? No, I don’t believe you have, as it’s not an issue that typically arises. However, during the Golden Globes this year, the producers chose to manufacture a problem where none existed by having each presenter seemingly speak from various parts of the stage, looking towards cameras placed in different spots. It seemed like no presenter knew exactly where they were supposed to be or who they were supposed to be addressing all night long. To put it simply, every single presenter appeared uncertain and uncomfortable. Only Seth Rogen had the courage to comment on the awkwardness of the situation, as he was the only one with the confidence for improvisation.

During their efforts to address one of the biggest yearly issues with the show, which was the limited and congested space at the Beverly Hilton ballroom causing delays for winners reaching the stage, the producers encountered new challenges. Kevin Frazier from Entertainment Tonight stepped in as a kind of presenter, filling pauses with trivial information about the winners. Unfortunately, this information was often insignificant, the audio quality fluctuated, and winners were unsure if they should let him carry on before their speeches. The on-screen pop-up trivia seemed even more pointless. I enjoyed the “drop a pin” feature that showed where audience members were seated, as it reminded me of forgetting where I parked my car; this kind of suspense is the type of drama I enjoy during awards shows.

In the end, what you’ll likely remember about this broadcast is mainly whether you thought the winners and speeches were interesting or not.

Typically, everyone seemed to mirror Glaser’s approach by avoiding political discussions. While there were numerous mentions of difficult times and worries about what lies ahead, it felt strange that the focus was mainly on optimistic sentiments such as “Light will always triumph over darkness” considering the prominence of topics like immigration and transgender identity in the two films that won Best Picture.

There were still good speeches.

Demi Moore, who won for her role in ‘The Substance’, truly shone, reminding us of a time when a producer told her she was merely a “popcorn actress”. She ended her speech with this insightful quote: “A woman once told me, ‘Always remember that you will never be enough, but understanding the worth of your value is possible if you simply set aside the measuring stick.’

Colin Farrell playfully lauded the woman responsible for his coconut water delivery; Brady Corbet caused his daughter to weep and advocated for directors having ultimate creative control; Zoe Saldaña was so thrilled by her own award win that she graced the stage for her film’s best song victory; Anna Sawai declared she’d cast her vote for Kathy Bates without hesitation; and Shōgun co-creator Justin Marks shared a tale about searching for a massive tortoise, but refrained from disclosing whether they eventually found the elusive reptile.

Maybe that’s a cliffhanger for next year’s show?

As a devoted admirer, let me express this: Golden Globes, remember that the glow of your 2024 broadcast won’t last eternally. Cherish these warm sentiments while they last.

The production company for the Golden Globes, Dick Clark Productions, is part of a shared business venture called Penske Media Eldridge. This partnership, which also owns The Hollywood Reporter, is made up of both Penske Media Corporation and Eldridge.

Read More

2025-01-06 11:25