Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

error

Evidently I'd fallen behind on updating this. I just added the last 3 years, including the somewhat-disputed runners-up for this year's slate.

Thanks, Tee, for keeping this up to date.

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.

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.

Good chance, yes; guarantee, no.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.