Explore the vast range of titles available.

TV and movie hits like \"Succession,\" \"The Bear\" and \"Oppenheimer\" collected multiple trophies at the 81st Golden Globe Awards in Los Angeles on Jan. 7.

[...]the Olsberg SPI report was published on January 10th 2023, a fortnight before the Oscar shortlists were announced. When the Irish Film Board was re-established in 1993 and Section 481 (then Section 35) was radically overhauled some months later, the state's largesse was conditional on a net financial gain for Ireland Inc. For a decade, reports from the employers' association IBEC routinely concluded that Section 35/481 and the Irish Film Board did indeed have a positive impact on the national balance sheet. [...]as the methodology used to arrive at such optimistic conclusions was increasingly subjected to external scrutiny - and, worse, when on occasion even IBEC concluded that sometimes such incentives were actually costing the state money - both Section 481 and the then Irish Film Board were subjected to existential threats from the Department of Finance and later, in the wake of the 2008 economic crash, \"An Bord Snip\". Somewhat awkwardly, when it came to more objective markers of cultural identity - setting, use of Irish talent - the report notes, but does not spell out the implications of, the fact that the level of Section 481 funding for projects is in inverse ratio to the presence of local cultural markers.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler returned to co-host the Golden Globes for the fourth time. The big winners of the night included “Nomadland,” “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” and “The Crown.”

This article historicizes how the Golden Globe Awards and the George Foster Peabody Awards selectively commended television programming with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) themes from the 1970s through the mid-1990s. I argue that these awards programs' different legitimizing practices helped to define LGBTQ+ programming as elite, sequestering it from television's everyday discursive positioning. I first consider how the outcast status of the Golden Globes, organized by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, compelled greater attention to \"queer\" television oddities, even while the recognitions upheld a troublingly classed framing of LGBTQ+ shows that dovetailed with the organizer's late-1980s discrediting following disclosures of bribery and other dealings. The Peabodys, on the other hand, promoted standards for \"respectable\" programming and therefore refused recognition of gay-themed shows until doing so became politically expedient in the late 1980s. This academic awarding institution later singled out \"quality\" entries for acclaim, paving the way for more contemporary associations between LGBTQ+ television and premier viewing platforms. Ultimately, I argue that activist media watchdogs such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) emulated the Globes' and Peabodys' public relations strategies, becoming de facto awards organizations in the 1990s that adopted \"quality\" criteria for recognizing queer-themed shows.