The awards season always needs a first splash, and for some years now that role has fallen again – with renewed force – to the Golden Globes Awards, which on January 11, 2026 will formally inaugurate the path to the Oscar. More relaxed than the Academy ceremony, less solemn than the Emmys and much more permeable to the pulse of the industry, the Globes today function as an advanced laboratory: they test climates, measure consensus and, above all, anticipate where the dominant conversation may come when Hollywood begins to vote seriously.
This edition’s nominations not only confirm already visible trends, but also mark a deeper break: the Globes are, for the first time without possible discussion, truly global. Not as a slogan, but as a selection policy.
The title that best condenses this new scenario is “One Battle After Another”, the film by Paul Thomas Anderson, which leads the count with nine nominations and becomes the great lighthouse of the season. Placed in the comedy or musical category – an increasingly elastic classification – the film combines political satire, uncomfortable humor and a fierce portrait of a society fractured by violence and paranoia. The support of the Globes is total: best film, director, screenplay, original music and a range of performances that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Benicio Del Toro, Sean Penn and Teyana Taylor.
The industrial data is key: although it raised more than 200 million dollars, its high budget left it far from the traditional concept of “success.” And yet, the reward system puts her at the forefront. The signal is clear: in 2025, artistic prestige and cultural conversation weigh as much—or more—than pure profitability. It is no coincidence that, furthermore, the film arrives in January after winning awards from critics and key associations, consolidating itself as the rival to beat on the way to the Oscar.
In the field of drama, the map is more diverse and confirms another decisive turn: the definitive internationalization of the main categories. “Sentimental Value”, by the Norwegian Joachim Trier, and “Sinners”, the powerful bet by Ryan Coogler, are emerging as the main axes. The first, a family drama with a European sensibility, has eight nominations and is supported by high emotional voltage performances; the second crosses genre cinema, vampires and racial segregation in the southern United States, with Michael B. Jordan as a central figure.
But the truly historic fact is that, among the 12 nominees for best film (drama and comedy/musical), five are spoken in other languages. Along with “Sentimental Value” appear “It Was Just an Accident” (Iran), “The Secret Agent” (Brazil), “Nouvelle Vague” (France) and “No Other Choice” (South Korea). This is not a symbolic concession: they are auteur films, many of them consecrated at Cannes, which now compete on equal terms with Anglo-Saxon cinema in the most visible categories of the show. The warning is explicit: those watching the ceremony on CBS will have to read subtitles.
This turn has a concrete explanation. After the dissolution of the old and questioned Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the Globes expanded its voting body with hundreds of international critics, many of them linked to festivals and associations such as FIPRESCI. The result is immediate: more auteur cinema, more international films and less dependence on the classic marketing of the big studios. The big winner of this model is Neon, the indie distributor that, by dint of buying titles in Cannes, leads the total nomination count and demonstrates that curatorial risk can pay enormous symbolic dividends.
In this context, some surprises and absences are also explained. “Wicked: For Good,” for example, was left out of best comedy or musical film, a category that seemed tailor-made for it. Instead, that category was dominated by titles that were difficult to pigeonhole such as “Bugonia”, “Marty Supreme”, “Blue Moon” and “One Battle After Another” itself. The border between drama, comedy and musical no longer responds to pure genres, but to campaign strategies. And the Globes, once again, function as a testing ground for that ambiguity.
The relatively new category of “cinematic and box office achievement” appears as the perfect counterweight to this authorial shift. There, real hits coexist with future bets such as “Avatar: Fire and Ash”, which was not even released at the time of the nominations, along with titles such as “F1”, “Zootopia 2” or “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning”. In a year dominated by demanding and unpopular films, this category ensures that the show retains some familiarity for the general public.
On television, the panorama is different, but just as revealing. “The White Lotus” once again leads with six nominations thanks to its season set in Thailand. Mike White’s satire remains the clearest example of how luxury, tourism and moral misery can become a global spectacle. The nominations for Carrie Coon, Parker Posey, Walton Goggins and Jason Isaacs confirm the weight of its ensemble cast.
Very close by appears “Adolescence”, the Netflix miniseries told in a single sequence shot, which transforms a criminal investigation into an oppressive and formally risky experience. Its leadership in the limited series category replicates what happened at the Emmys and reinforces the idea that the Globes no longer function as a space for television discovery, but as a reaffirmation of critical consensus.
The rest of the television map consolidates this trend: “Severance”, “Only Murders in the Building”, “The Bear”, “Slow Horses” and “The Diplomat” repeat their presence after having been protagonists of the last awards season. The only real breakthrough is “Pluribus”, Vince Gilligan’s new series, which manages to break the siege of already established titles.
Even the star system, historically central to the Globes, appears somewhat displaced this year. Yes, there are Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lawrence, Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney and Timothée Chalamet, but many of them come from films with little commercial impact. The paradox is evident: glamor is still part of the event’s DNA, but it no longer guarantees cultural centrality.
All this happens while the industry is going through a moment of high volatility: mergers, cuts, streaming reconfiguration and corporate movements that include everything from the Netflix-Warner Bros. agreement to the Paramount offensive. In this context, the Golden Globes seem to have found a new identity: less complacent with the mainstream, more aligned with festival cinema and closer to the global model that the Academy has already adopted.
There is also the weather.
Unlike the Oscar, the Golden Globes do not hide their festive DNA: alcohol on the tables, relaxed speeches and a ceremony that is sold – rightly – as “the Hollywood party.” That Nikki Glaser repeats as host reinforces that tone: irony, edge and awareness that the show is part of the message.
As a prelude to the Oscar, the Globes are not an infallible oracle, but they are a very fine radar. They mark who arrives launched, who needs to come back and which films or series have already managed to establish themselves in the conversation. Starting on January 11, the race enters its decisive phase. And, as usually happens, many of the golden statuettes that will be awarded in March have already begun to show themselves under the shine—less solemn, but just as strategic—of the Golden Globes.
by RN
Image gallery
