Also, sometimes the winner really didn't expect to win and was, therefore, mentally unprepared to give an acceptance speech. ...
I do agree that the speeches were generally boring - everyone just listing out people involved in the project and their families. Frankly, just say 'Thank you' and move off the stage if you are going to do that. Makes it boring, but at least it gets the show moving.
Although I did not see the Globes this year, I generally have no problem with winners who rush to give thanks individually to a list of valuable colleagues and family whose names are completely unrecognizable to me. I think it is very gracious and appropriate for winners in the spotlight to acknowledge those who contributed to her/his success. If I were a person being thanked for my hard work in an otherwise "invisible" capacity (or a loved one of someone being thanked), I would be extremely appreciative for the tip of the hat.
After all, the Globes and the Oscars are industry awards -- and in that sense are much the same as awards presented at local banquets of insurance associations or Little Leagues or whatever.
The only difference is that the Globes and the Oscars have become TV spectacles because so many Americans (and viewers in other countries) are obsessed with celebrities, esp. from show biz.
(BTW, some nominees believe that they will jinx themselves by preparing a speech in advance.)
That's probably one of the weaknesses of the Oscar voting - I don't think every voting person actually has watched every single nomination - so, how can they possibly vote fairly?
Well, they do send Academy members DVDs of the nominated films. They used to have private screenings in theaters at certain times around Hollywood as well. So it is possible to see everything. (I knew a guy who was I think a SAG member, and he used to get the yummiest DVDs before voting for the SAG awards.) I don't know whether every Academy member does his/her homework to that extent, but I bet some of them do.
I think (but am not sure) that the pre-Oscar screenings and DVDs (and VHS tapes before that) were/are paid for by the movie studios -- as opposed to the Academy (or SAG, in the case of the SAG awards).
It wouldn't surprise me if a few private screenings still are held for Academy members -- with the hope that they will opt to see a movie in all its glory on a full-sized theater screen, instead of something smaller at home. Going back to the days of VHS, studios have been concerned that tapes [or now DVDs] do not show Academy members the movie at its best, although they were/are a convenient way to capture more eyeballs.
Back in the day, pre-Oscar screenings for Academy members were offered not only in LA, but also in NYC -- e.g., at the Directors Guild theater.
And movie studios used to send megabucks on intensive promotional campaigns targeting Academy members before the nominations and the final voting for Oscars. (Example: huge, glossy advertising spreads in
Variety,
The Hollywood Reporter, and other trades.)
In some cases, individual nominees or potential nominees whose studios did not campaign on their behalf even would spend money out of their own pockets for campaigning on their own. Melissa Leo won her Oscar after conducting and funding her own campaign. I am not saying that her performance was not worthy -- only that she had to really, really believe in herself.
I think the Academy eventually cracked down and tried to place some restrictions on the over-the-top studio campaigns.
One other note: Am not 100% sure, but did or does the Academy not have a rule that members can vote only in the categories for which they themselves would be eligible?
For example, only cinematographers vote(d) for Best Cinematography; only costume designers vote(d) for Best Costumes; etc.
The exception was/is that all Academy members vote for Best Picture.
For Best Foreign Film, the rules were/are especially strict, with a requirement that voters see every nominated picture. (But I don't know how that is/was enforced.)
