NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 1990

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 1990

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:43 am

Thanks, Tee, for keeping this up to date.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5857
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:38 pm

As the season nears, I figured it was time to update this post with the last several years' results (in the original post).

If anyone has more detailed info (especially about 2010, where it was hard to come by), please feel free to add it.

andrew
Graduate
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: london,uk

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby andrew » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:37 am

Very interesting data you have found.

Another place that has New York Critics votes is "The Motion Picture Guide." It is a set of reference books that I have found in a few libraries around London (it is an American book so should be in good libraries there too). There is an awards section in the index book (I think) that includes lots of details of many awards including the New York Critics up to 1984.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:22 pm

Good chance, yes; guarantee, no.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby nightwingnova » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:18 pm

Cool. You think they'd publish all the vote counts?

Big Magilla wrote:O'Neil's book is based on contemporaneous Variety articles. It's statistically informative, but Damien's Inside Oscar is more detailed about the Oscars themselves. According to the History page of the NYFC website Stephen Garrett, who is on staff at Time Out New York is currently writing a comprehensive history of the New York Film Critics Circle.
Last edited by nightwingnova on Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:59 pm

O'Neil's book is based on contemporaneous Variety articles. It's statistically informative, but Damien's Inside Oscar is more detailed about the Oscars themselves. According to the History page of the NYFC website Stephen Garrett, who is on staff at Time Out New York is currently writing a comprehensive history of the New York Film Critics Circle.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby nightwingnova » Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:16 pm

I know that some on this board do not care for Tom O'Neil.

Nevertheless, I just came across his book, Movie Awards, which provides some scores for the NYFCC awards through 2002. The record is not complete. But there are details, even from before 1970, that are enlightening.

For instance, I've known for years that Julie Andrews was runner-up to Kim Stanley for best actress in 1964. O'Neil reports the vote as 9-2-2 (the final two for Audrey Hepburn). That makes the title of runner-up irrelevant. As we all know, one or two or even three votes mean nothing in these contests.

Anyhow, I've gone through O'Neil's book and have updated Mister Tee's list with the new information. Data from the past decade is still limited, but the 1990s look much more clearer. (I'm sure researching through Variety will give me more. But that requires a subscription to its archives, something I can't afford right now.)

I'm happy to share if you would email me your email address. For my purposes, my records list only competitive candidates, as I think that they best represent the NYFCC's thoughts as to the very best of the year. I've dropped off anyone who isn't within striking distance of victory on the final ballot after 1940. In 1941, the crix changed the rules to allow for a victor to be chosen by a majority vote on the fifth ballot, whereas, previously, a 2/3 majority was required on all ballots.
Last edited by nightwingnova on Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby nightwingnova » Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:35 pm

Gold Derby is reporting that the NYFCC will be deciding their awards on Tuesday, November 29 instead.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:30 pm

Could be, but who led the "enough is enough" charge? was it Mathews or someone else?

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3812
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby The Original BJ » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:23 pm

I could be wrong about this, but I have a vague recollection that Best Actress was one of the last awards the NYFCC came to a decision on in '02, AFTER Far From Heaven's virtual dominance of their other prizes. Does anyone else have any memory of this? I seem recall a theory floating around that those who felt "enough was enough" w/r/t Far From Heaven rallied behind Lane as an alternative and pushed her into winner territory.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:09 am

Perhaps, perhaps, but Lane's performance was duly noted by just about all the extant awards group that year but except for the NYFC and the National Society, of which Mathews was also a member, and the Satellites which seem to go out of their way to vote for whoever they think the Globes won't, she was an also-ran. The difference between the NYFC and the National society is that it was New York that went gaga over Far from Heaven, not the National Scociety which gave thier award to The Pianist. Probably coincidence, but wasn't Mathews the one who persuaded the L.A. Film Critics to vote for Brazil when he was with the L.A. Times?

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Damien » Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:33 am

I don't imagine that Jack Mathews really had much sway over other voters -- he was no Kael.

I think the real reason Lane triumphed was that the straight boy critics would rather than not have a "babe" to show up and accept their award. (Eg. the ridiculous, rather condescending award to Cameron Diaz for There's Something About Mary.) And Lane in particular, having been on the scene since she was a young teen, probably had played a role in the fantasies of many of them for decades.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5857
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:40 pm

The numbers have often not been officially reported in recent years, but there were individual members (ranging on the credibility scale from Mike D'Angelo to Thelma Adams) itching to spill the beans.

I actually thought the reason no one probed for runners-up reports last year was, the week was so chaotic -- Broadcasters & numerous other groups were releasing results the same day or the next. Maybe this year, with NY all by itself that first week, there'll be a more aggressive push to identify runners-up -- which, I agree, is often as interesting as the actual winners.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re:

Postby nightwingnova » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:46 am

Too bad Armand White shut down the reporting of the NYFCC numbers in 2010.

I would really like to know the runners-up as it helps me decide which films to see. I can respect the NYFCC's desire to help their favorites in the awards races by focusing their influence on only their top choices. Still, I'm frustrated.


[quote="Mister Tee"][color=#000000]And, wrapping it up. The years with which more here are familar. Actual numbers were very hard to find in the 90s; it's been easier lately.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: NY Film Critics' Historical Results - Installment 4: 199

Postby nightwingnova » Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:12 am

It's interesting. But, the National Society of Film Critics chose Lane as well and didn't even have Moore in their top three.

I've only caught a few minutes of Lane's performance and the movie. It did not make me want to see more. But, I should (one day).

Still hoping someone has compiled the vote breakdowns for the National Society. This forum rocks!


Big Magilla wrote:One of the most puzzling awards of the past ten years was Diane Lane's win for Unfaithful over Julianne Moore for Far from Heaven when Moore's film won Best Picture, Director and Supporting Actress. Retired New York Daily News critic Jack Mathews has just published an article that suggests to me that his friendlship with Lane's dying father might have had something to do with it.

http://quest.mapquest.com/2011/10/31/me ... 67995.html


Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest