LA Critics Winners

For the films of 2018
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:Richard E. Grant is best-positioned for the category, but I wonder if his performance with critics' groups is a tad shy of the steamroller he needs to overcome his film's commercial shortfall.
Why does he need to overcome the film's commercial shortfall? Just because the idiot masses ignored the film does not mean the Academy will do the same. Christopher Plummer and Jim Broadbent won in the same category for films which earned around $5.5 million. Sure, Plummer was a living legend, but Broadbent was as well known in Hollywood at that point as Grant is now. Similarly, Alicia Vikander (a nobody at the time) won in Supporting Actress for a film which earned $11 million.

Grant may not win, but I highly doubt the film's box-office performance will have anything to do with the Oscar voters' decision.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote:Would also love to have a spoiler-y "how do folks interpret Burning?" discussion at some point, cause that feels like a movie that could produce all kinds of different takes.
I'm in. Very interesting movie; truly captures the spirit of Murakami, which I wouldn't have thought possible.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by The Original BJ »

Would also love to have a spoiler-y "how do folks interpret Burning?" discussion at some point, cause that feels like a movie that could produce all kinds of different takes.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by The Original BJ »

On another note — when more people have had a chance to see Shoplifters, I’d love to start a (spoiler-heavy) discussion on it. I’ve seen it twice now, and it’s the kind of movie where the details of the story are doled out in dribs and drabs here and there — which is to say, I’d love to compare notes on how everyone came to understand certain elements.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:So, what happened here? Roma continued its winning ways. We'll have to wait on NSFC to see if it manages the still pretty rare triple of the classic groups. The Granik choice, while connected to a liked film, seemed a bit of a message -- as if to say, Cuaron already won here for Gravity, he's winning other awards even today (see the Second Tier thread), so why not promote a woman? Women also somewhat unexpectedly won screenplay and New Generation prizes, making it appear somewhat calculated.
Well, if it was a calculated choice to recognize women, they should have just given Director to Chloe Zhao, as THE RIDER is certainly more of an achievement in directing than the sweet and well-acted LEAVE NO TRACE. I know they recognized Zhao with the New Generation award, but they could have just as easily given that to Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME?), Sara Colangelo (THE KINDERGARTEN TEACHER), or Desiree Akhavan (THE MISEDUCATION OF CAMERON POST) since they are all close to the same age. I am happy to see Debra Granik winning an award, but THE RIDER is one of the only movies (directed by a man or a woman) that has any place beating ROMA in this category. It breaks my heart knowing the Academy will completely ignore it, but I am glad the critics have been honoring its beauty.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by The Original BJ »

Quite a day for Roma, running away with Best Picture prizes from virtually everyone who handed them out today.

To answer your question, Mister Tee, about performers who won multiple critics' prizes without getting a Globe nod... there may be a more recent example, but BOTH Robert Duvall and Julie Christie in '97 won two of the big three, missed with the Globes, but ended up making the Oscar lists. Which suggests Ethan Hawke is still very much in the hunt.

On the subject of "How do critics awards matter?" -- aside from being interesting in and of themselves as a way for different groups to leave a record of their opinions on a year -- Regina King feels like a great example. Because within two weeks, Supporting Actress has gone from a category that seemed totally wide-open, to one with a clear front-runner, a front-runner that I wouldn't necessarily have anticipated based on reviews alone. It doesn't feel like there will be any major push to dethrone her -- it's strong work with a memorable clip and everyone seems to like her personally -- but it's surprising to me that she's run the table this way.

I also wondered if the Academy excluding Roma in cinematography might be some kind of nightmare surprise, but it strikes me as being in a far better spot than other director-turned-photographer efforts. For starters, PTA didn't take a cinematography credit on Phantom Thread, so I don't think that was even eligible for ASC/Oscar. As for Soderbergh, his most likely cinematography contender (Traffic) would have been a deserving nominee, but it felt like one of a handful of movies that MIGHT have filled out the roster. Roma, on the other hand, has the most acclaimed cinematography of the year, and it's one of the film's most highly praised elements -- a pretty decent contingent of cinematographers would have to blackball it for it to not make it in the top Oscar five.

If you'd have told me a few weeks ago that Isle of Dogs wouldn't have won the animated prize from even ONE of the NBR/NY/LA trifecta, I wouldn't have believed you.

Why do we think Minding the Gap ended up with the Film Editing prize? Was it just the fact that the filmmaker had so many years worth of footage to cull through? Because it didn't seem cut in any especially remarkable way to set it above even the other documentaries from this year.

Speaking of which, I'm rather pleased the critics haven't done much to turn any of the major Oscar-contending documentaries into a clear front-runner. I imagine that Amy and O.J. would have been likely favorites in their years even had the critics gone elsewhere, but this year the critics are leaving the RBG/Mister Rogers/triplets showdown totally murky.

Mark Harris seems to have some pretty conflicting opinions about category fraud lately. It seems odd that a self-proclaimed "supporting maximalist," who doesn't seem to have any problem with Chalamet/Beautiful Boy being considered supporting because it's not HIS story (whatever that means), would get so worked up about The Favourite. As I've said before, I think once you get into three lead territory, things get sort of murky -- I'd be curious to know how much more screen time Weisz has than, say, Driver in BlackKklansman, because I bet it's not much -- and I wouldn't accuse anyone who came to a different conclusion than I might of acting in bad faith. (I definitely WOULD do that with cases like Ali and Thomasin McKenzie, for which there is just no justification whatsoever.)
MaxWilder
Graduate
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by MaxWilder »

At this point I’m just hoping for some kind of scandal to stop Roma.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Okri »

I dunno Tee, The Rider was really acclaimed earlier this year (92 at Metacritic, compared to 80 for Sorry to Bother You, 87 for Hereditary, 89 for Eighth Grade) and apparently best actor was quite close, so Leave No Trace clearly had support in the room.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

dws1982 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:They DID do a foreign-language consolation round, making it a tie between Burning and Shoplifters. (I was trying to decide which to go see tomorrow, and this doesn't help.)
I'd say Burning, because Shoplifters will probably be around a little longer.
Leaning that way myself, since there's only one show of Burning, while a full day of shows for Shoplifters, suggesting it has a longer shelf life.

So, what happened here? Roma continued its winning ways. We'll have to wait on NSFC to see if it manages the still pretty rare triple of the classic groups. The Granik choice, while connected to a liked film, seemed a bit of a message -- as if to say, Cuaron already won here for Gravity, he's winning other awards even today (see the Second Tier thread), so why not promote a woman? Women also somewhat unexpectedly won screenplay and New Generation prizes, making it appear somewhat calculated.

The Colman win keeps to LA's tradition of avoiding American actresses. Since Vera Farmiga's win in 2005, only Patricia Arquette's bumped-from-supporting victory in 2014 has given an American actress a solo win. Meantime, Ethan Hawke today became the seventh such American actor winner in the same period. Quite an ongoing oddity.

Another oddity: according to someone at another site, Crash is the last movie to win the best picture Oscar without first taking at least one prize from NY or LA. So, A Star is Born or Green Book would be bucking statistics.

Regina King seems to be running unopposed for best supporting actress right now. Ethan Hawke has won almost as many prizes, but still almost everyone thinks Bradley Cooper can't be caught. Could anything change that perception?

Best actress seems a muddle, not least because many, like these critics, aren't certain if Colman is lead or not. Something like six different actresses have won awards so far. it's always possible that, like last year, the TV awards could hand down an edict and wreck the suspense, but right now this looks like a race that could stay interesting.

Steven Yeun won two awards today, and still seems an extreme long shot. Richard E. Grant is best-positioned for the category, but I wonder if his performance with critics' groups is a tad shy of the steamroller he needs to overcome his film's commercial shortfall.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? seemed a likely score with the writers' branch anyway, but this award should help.

It's strange for the major critics' groups to go so strongly for the highly commercial animated feature, while the lesser groups seem to prefer Isle of Dogs.

And here, in the one year where we have multiple commercially-hot documentaries, we have NY and LA ignoring all three of RBG/Neighbor/Strangers to promote less-prominent efforts. Odd they didn't do some of the same when they were all clustering around Amy or O.J.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6374
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by anonymous1980 »

Mister Tee wrote:First side comment: Paddington 2 was a perfectly pleasant little thing, but the critical obsession with it and the Grant performance simply baffles me.
Paddington 2 is a masterpiece and Hugh Grant gives his career-best performance in it.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by dws1982 »

Mister Tee wrote:They DID do a foreign-language consolation round, making it a tie between Burning and Shoplifters. (I was trying to decide which to go see tomorrow, and this doesn't help.)
I'd say Burning, because Shoplifters will probably be around a little longer.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

They DID do a foreign-language consolation round, making it a tie between Burning and Shoplifters. (I was trying to decide which to go see tomorrow, and this doesn't help.)

Unless they're doing a New Generation award, that should wrap things up.
ON EDIT: They did do New Generation, added below.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

Glenn Whipp says best actor "couldn't have been closer", but Hawke emerges with yet another win.

Can we think of another performer who did this well with critics and failed to get a Globe nod?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

The obligatory lunch break, with 5 or 6 awards still to go. (I'm guessing best actress was supposed to be part of the post-lunch group, but got moved up due to the politicking.)

Mark Harris seems to be livid that these critics were even CONSIDERING Colman in support. This is yet another thing that's amazing me about this season. It's one thing that I come to a different decision from him. But can anyone watch The Favourite and be absolutely certain which performances are lead and which supporting? He's comparing this to Thelma and Louise or The Turning Point, which I think is a ludicrous analogy. Those were obvious; this is entirely debatable.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8636
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: LA Critics Winners

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:They’ve been voting on Best Supporting Actress for some time now.
It was apparently a long debate, centered on classification of Olivia Colman as lead or supporting. They ended up voting actress/supporting actress at basically the same time. Colman's winning as lead seems to have ended the discussion, and opened the door for another King supporting win.
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”