‘Big Love’ has voters, not viewers

IN sending some big love to “Big Love,” the Golden Globes have again revealed their willingness to ignore the commercial verdict of American TV viewers, not to mention the aesthetic judgment of certain other award-bestowing institutions (hello, Emmys!).

This contrariness may come off as brave or bizarre, depending on one’s tastes and biases. But there’s little denying that with two major nominations for HBO’s controversial drama about a careworn middle-class polygamist and his extended brood, the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. on Thursday vaulted the less-watched “Big Love” into the rarefied ranks of broadcast hits like “24,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Heroes” and “Lost.”

The producers naturally hope the kudos will translate into viewers when “Big Love” returns for Season 2 next year.

The Globes, which tend to attract more attention for their movie choices due to their proximity to the Oscar race, have a proudly idiosyncratic tradition on the television side. As journalists for international media outlets, the theory goes, association voters are unencumbered by Hollywood allegiances, unlike Emmy members, and thus vote for what they actually like, as opposed to projects their employers or friends made. They are also thought to have a less Americanized, more cosmopolitan worldview than many juries composed of Hollywood peers.

So the British version of “The Office” picked up key Globe recognition several years back, even though its domestic airing on BBC America was seen by few beyond reviewers and hard-core Anglophiles. And this year, the Globes showered praise on such critically acclaimed, but limited-appeal fare as Showtime’s “Weeds,” about a pot-dealing mom, and “Dexter,” about a Miami police tech who moonlights as a serial killer.

“They generally choose things that are unexpected,” said Mary-Louise Parker, nominated again (she won last year) for her lead performance on “Weeds.” “My show certainly wasn’t taboo or sensational for them.”

As for “Big Love,” the first season was virtually ignored by Emmy voters last summer, with not a single win out of a paltry three nominations (in casting, directing and title design). Nor was the show a ratings smash.

But as Shari Anne Brill of the New York ad firm Carat USA pointed out, the Globes, whatever their other strengths or weaknesses, have the luxury of leaving aside such mundane commercial considerations. “Maybe they just go with what they like and will have appeal in their homeland,” she said. “Commercial appeal has nothing to do with it.”

Channel Island is a column about the television industry. Contact reporter Scott Collins at channelisland@latimes.com.