NYFCC Winners

[Big Magilla]

NYFCC's White puts awards in perspective
Head of critics group decries year end horse race
By ARMOND WHITE

When the New York Film Critics Circle voted its best film prize to "The Hurt Locker," it was the result of a year's worth of critical thinking -- not some supermarket sweep of prize-gathering, not a race. As professionals who use language to describe film culture and make specific pronouncements, we critics cringe at the way language coarsens during awards season. For us, prizes are not a race or even a competition, as gossips and Internetters say, but an assessment of the past year through consensus (more or less). We critics despair at the rush to judgment forced upon all of us in the winter months, leaving no time to reflect on the movies we've seen -- or not seen. Every year, fascinating movies, like Francois Ozon's "Ricky," open just after the awards vote, seen by few and with no chance at recognition. Instead, we're thrust in the middle of hardware wars by rival groups who do not practice criticism but simply toss trinkets and throw parties.

This unnecessary pressure has squashed the meaning of movies -- that's what real critics and real movie lovers care about: the cultural and emotional significance that makes "On the Waterfront" or "The Bridge on the River Kwai" or "Saving Private Ryan" memorable. Critical thinking challenges this year's award season perhaps more than ever because in the past few years, various aspects of the industry's hype machinery -- from ad campaigns to media coverage -- have overwhelmed the complicatedness of criticism.

A horrible new fallacy has arisen that late-year releases are more serious or award worthy, which totally devalues the moviegoing experience of the previous nine months. Without critical recall and discernment, awards no longer reflect how movies shape the popular mood or influence popular attitudes. It was the NYFCC that crowned Cameron Diaz for "There's Something About Mary"; several members even voted for sci-fi landmark "The Matrix" in its year; and this time around, the Michael Jackson documentary "This Is It" received strong support. These anti-hype choices reveal the way movies feel in the actual experience of moviegoers. There's something bogus about the recent Oscar selection of year-end, heavily hyped best picture contenders when those films have never penetrated the public's consciousness -- or had sufficient time to prove worthy of popular celebration. Award season trumps itself if it becomes the folly of gossip columnists, publicists and advertisers and not the occasion for passion, reflection and judgment.

Movie culture gets coerced by marketplace fears -- that's the cowardice behind this year's Oscar race and the proliferation of competitive film-award groups. They're intimidated by the childish, vicious free-for-all typified by websites and so-called journalists that disregard critical thinking. The fact that award handicapping has become an occupation -- taking up column inches and air time -- is as ridiculous (and dangerous) as film critics losing status in journalism and the mob mentality determining cultural value. Only a critic has the independence and distance to clearly see and express alarm at the Academy's opening up its best picture nominations to 10 (why not limit it to three and hope for greater discernment?). This intimidation results from the breakdown of critical standards and ignorance of our own film culture heritage. That's why critical thinking matters.

Armond White of New York Press is chairman of the New York Film Critics Circle and was recently elected to chair an additional year.

[Big Magilla]

Speaking of Tarantino, here's his list of his favorite films of 2009:

1. “Star Trek”
2. “Drag Me to Hell”
3. “Funny People”
4. “Up in the Air”
5. “Chocolate”
6. “Observe and Report”
7. “Precious”
8. “An Education”

Hasn't seen "Avatar", "The Lovely Bones" or "Invicitus" (his pronunciation).

[Zahveed]

I'm wondering if we might be looking at people trying to pick a director and then going a completely different route. I wouldn't be at all shocked if Quentin Tarantino came out of this with a nomination and an Oscar. It would make more sense in the grand scheme of the '90s.

I have no problem with this.

[OscarGuy]

So, Martin Scorsese deserved the Oscar for The Departed? An inferior film when placed into his full list of works? Was Ron Howard deserving the prize for A Beautiful Mind.

What you think should happen and what happens are two different things. More often than not, the Director prize (and especially this decade) goes to a respected veteran. Neither Reitman nor Bigelow is a respected veteran.

I'm wondering if we might be looking at people trying to pick a director and then going a completely different route. I wouldn't be at all shocked if Quentin Tarantino came out of this with a nomination and an Oscar. It would make more sense in the grand scheme of the '90s.

And, if Bigelow is the best director of the five nominated, then I'll be fine with her win. However, since I have not seen Reitman's film yet, nor have I watched Invictus or any of the other potential nominees, I can't say who I prefer to win, but my problem is that people are labeling this as the year a woman could finally win and that people will vote for her because they think a woman should finally win. A woman should not win because she's a woman. A woman should win because she's the best.

[jack]

I don't know if Reitman is a loser director. I think he carries that designation here because lots of people here don't seem to like either of his previous two films (Thank You for Smoking and Juno), but I think Reitman, based on that track record, may very well end up winning.

First of all, all those people clamoring for a woman to win are not going to out number the people who want a more prominent female director to win. It's not exactly like Bigelow has such an amazing career and whether we like to admit it or not, this decade has been mostly about recognizing stellar careers. Sure, that may not mean Reitman's the kind of director to buck that trend, who else really is there to give it to? And in my opinion, based on those three films, I would say he's a more deserving "career" winner than a Bigelow.

Secondly, whether you like Ivan Reitman or not, his films are often considered cult classics (Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Dave) and even his non-cult films, Twins and Kindergarten Cop were popular at the box office. So, a reward to his son who has started off on quite an amazing career (he has an impressive list, IMO) would not be out of the ordinary or unexpected.

What on earth are you talking about? The Academy members are in no way going to be voting for Reitman's 'career' when/if they consider him. If Reitman and Bigelow are to be the two front-runners for Director then the only way they can make their decision will be based on their respective works this year. I've yet to see Up in The Air but Reitman's direction is going to have to go far and beyond to top Bigelow's.

Also, the idea of the right woman winning for the right film at the right time nonsense... Do you actually think the Academy thought about that when they gave Mel Gibson the Oscar after The Man Without a Face? So what is Bigelow's career has been somewhat lukewarm before The Hurt Locker. Look at Peter Jackson. Danny Boyle won last year because of his film, not because of his past films.

Rant over

Reitman has two (not refering to Up in The Air as I've yet to see it) quirky wanna-be indie films under his belt (he has nine films in total but I've not seen any before Smoking). Bigelow has some well regarded cult classics under hers. I watched Near Dark last night for the countless time and still love it. The same with point break. Think of the younger members of the Academy who, like me, will regard some of Bigelow's films as classics.

To conclude... It should make one bit of difference if it's the right woman, the right film, the right time. I'm my opinion, she deserves the Oscar. Not based on her previous output, but based on The Hurst Locker.

[The Original BJ]

Reitman is not a loser by any stretch of the imagination. His first two films may not have been perfect but they were far better than anything his dad ever did.

Bigelow has the momentum, though. She's had it all year long and these near unanimous critics awards in her favor fairly cement her chances.

Imagination and style are the standard I am using to call him a loser. His three movies have shown us he seems to be lacking in all the qualities that make a great director. "His" films are enjoyable though, but I still maintain that they are good despite him, not because of him.

So you have seen Up in the Air? Can you please explain to me how this is a straight-up comedy?

Personally, the word 'loser' is a word I would apply to very few Oscar-nominated directors, even the bad ones. 'Hack,' maybe, but 'loser' doesn't remotely seem the right word for anyone who hits even the lowest level of achievement an Oscar nod rewards. (Though I would call Mel Gibson a loser without any hesitation.)

[rolotomasi99]

As for my statements, I was referring to how an Oscar voter could/might see things, not how I see them. I'm all for gender equality and would love for a woman to win an Oscar one day, but it shouldn't be "because it's time" it should be "because she's great". And to me, Bigelow is not great. Maybe if she had proved herself more behind the camera before this and shown that this wasn't a one-off deal then perhaps I'd be more convinced to believe she won because she deserved it, but that's my thought on the matter.

I do not want you to think I was accusing you of sexism (a label I would not apply haphazardly), but I just think the idea it has to be the "right woman" is what keeps it from ever happening. It should just happen, and I think Bigelow put a great deal of style and imagination into her film. I would not say her style is distinctive, but you could sense the steady hand of someone who really knew what they were doing in every aspect of the film.

I guess it all goes back to what you think makes someone worthy of the best director Oscar. I do not equate Best Director with Best Picture. To me that is why there are two different categories. I think THE AVIATOR was the Best Picture of 2004, but MILLION DOLLAR BABY deserved the Best Director award. Likewise in 2003, with THE RETURN OF THE KING a worthy Best Picture winner, but MYSTIC RIVER the superior film when it came to directing.

I see the director of a film similar to a conductor of Classical music. The conductor did not write the music, nor play the instruments, nor make the instruments, nor build the music hall. All of those things are what really make a concert great. However, it is the conductor who overseas everything and make sure all those different elements come together for a perfect performance.

Bigelow did that with her film, while Reitman basically made sure the camera was pointed in the right direction. None of us were there during the making of the film, so we cannot be sure of how much "work" the various directors did. We can only judge from the finished product. I feel Bigelow did a great job directing, and many critics groups seem to agree. It will be interesting to see what her fellow filmmakers think when the guilds and Oscars have their say.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1260831386

[rolotomasi99]

Reitman is not a loser by any stretch of the imagination. His first two films may not have been perfect but they were far better than anything his dad ever did.

Bigelow has the momentum, though. She's had it all year long and these near unanimous critics awards in her favor fairly cement her chances.

Imagination and style are the standard I am using to call him a loser. His three movies have shown us he seems to be lacking in all the qualities that make a great director. "His" films are enjoyable though, but I still maintain that they are good despite him, not because of him.

[OscarGuy]

I think it's an atrocious line-up and I think it would be far worse for a woman to win just because she was a woman than to have won for something truly accessible and beloved.

The Oscar goes for career achievement far more frequently than to singular achievement. We wish it weren't the truth, but there you have it. Bigelow's career is crap compared to Reitman's. You may not think of him as a stylist, but his films are quite good. And while the director's job is to create and apply a style, I think it's even more elitist to say that a good director can't make a good film without having to have a distinctive style. It's rather reductive, IMO.

I haven't even seen Up in the Air yet, so I can't say if he would deserve the prize or not. I have seen The Hurt Locker and I'm not sure why Bigelow is even considered the best director of the year it's more than a competent film, but it's emotionally vague and distant at times. For me, the best directorial achievement I've seen so far this year is Neill Blomkamp, but he and his film have been ignored, which is unfortunate.

Maybe I'll feel differently when I see Up in the Air, but I don't really think Bigelow has directed the best film of the year and I think giving her a prize because she's a woman and the gender boundary needs to be broken is a significantly petty way to feel about the situation.

As for my statements, I was referring to how an Oscar voter could/might see things, not how I see them. I'm all for gender equality and would love for a woman to win an Oscar one day, but it shouldn't be "because it's time" it should be "because she's great". And to me, Bigelow is not great. Maybe if she had proved herself more behind the camera before this and shown that this wasn't a one-off deal then perhaps I'd be more convinced to believe she won because she deserved it, but that's my thought on the matter.

[rolotomasi99]

http://jezebel.com/5426065....es-suck


I thought this interview with Manohla Dargis was very interesting and seemed to go with our current conversation.

[rolotomasi99]

I don't know if Reitman is a loser director. I think he carries that designation here because lots of people here don't seem to like either of his previous two films (Thank You for Smoking and Juno), but I think Reitman, based on that track record, may very well end up winning.

First of all, all those people clamoring for a woman to win are not going to out number the people who want a more prominent female director to win. It's not exactly like Bigelow has such an amazing career and whether we like to admit it or not, this decade has been mostly about recognizing stellar careers. Sure, that may not mean Reitman's the kind of director to buck that trend, who else really is there to give it to? And in my opinion, based on those three films, I would say he's a more deserving "career" winner than a Bigelow.

Secondly, whether you like Ivan Reitman or not, his films are often considered cult classics (Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Dave) and even his non-cult films, Twins and Kindergarten Cop were popular at the box office. So, a reward to his son who has started off on quite an amazing career (he has an impressive list, IMO) would not be out of the ordinary or unexpected.

If Reitman wins because of the achievements of his far more talented father, than that proves how truly sexist Hollywood and the Academy is. Women in Hollywood rarely support other women, and they certainly are not using their clout to see their daughters work behind the camera. Actresses encouraging their daughters to be actresses, yes; encouraging and helping their daughters actually be in charge of making the film, no!

I think Reitman has made two films with clever screenplays and good actors, and his contribution has been to not get in the way. Seriously, Kevin Smith has a stronger directing style than this guy. While UP IN THE AIR has won several Best Film awards from the critics Reitman himself has gotten very little year-end attention. To me, this just proves how little people think of his talent.

The Oscars will definitely nominate him, but I would like to think the many women and few clear thinking men of the Academy would be able to rally around Bigelow and at least secure her the directing award. That would certainly make the bitter pill of UP IN THE AIR winning go down a little more easily.

Frankly, OscarGuy, I am surprised at you. It seems like you would not play the whole "a woman can only win when it is the right woman" game. There will never be the right woman. In the same decade where the first non-white director won an Oscar (Ang Lee), it would be great to see the first female director win. I am certainly glad Bigelow could win over many of the other more financially successful women directing films -- Nora Ephron, Nancy Meyers, Catherine Hardwicke.

Soderbergh, Howard, Polanski, Jackson, Eastwood, Lee, Scorsese, Coen, Boyle, and Bigelow. Looks like a good line up of winners to me. A much better name to finish up this decade with than Reitman.

[Big Magilla]

Reitman is not a loser by any stretch of the imagination. His first two films may not have been perfect but they were far better than anything his dad ever did.

Bigelow has the momentum, though. She's had it all year long and these near unanimous critics awards in her favor fairly cement her chances.

[Sonic Youth]

Yes, I have seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, Zahveed. And I liked it quite a lot. Certainly it's more accessible than most of Anderson's other work. However, I think that had this film been made just as competently, but by a different director, we would not have seen the love for this film. Take for instance Coraline which seems to have a great deal of critical support (earning an 80 from Meta Critic and 89% from RT, FMF got 83 from Meta Critic and 92% from RT only 3 points ahead of Coraline for both sites; and Up tops both films with an 88 and 98% respectively.), would it have been made by Anderson and Fantastic Mr. Fox by Henry Selick, we would probably have seen the reverse result.

I think the big critics groups were A) loving that it was Wes Anderson and B) looking to give their prize to some one other than Pixar (it's what happens when you are consistently great at something).

I'm sure there are plenty of filmmakers who could have made "Fantastic Mr. Fox" as competently as Wes Anderson did, but that's besides the point because they wouldn't have made a film resembling Wes Anderson's at all. Similarly, had Wes Anderson made "Coraline", it would not have been the same "Coraline" we have today. The point being, it's not a matter of taking each film and switching the director credits on them. The people who love "Fantastic Mr. Fox" do so not because of Anderson's name, but because of his personality and unique artistry which comes through in "Mr. Fox". That's what they're responding to.

And I say this as someone who disliked "Fantistic Mr. Fox", dislikes Wes Anderson's films, and dislikes his filmmaking style and personality. But I do recognize that a lot of people do like him. I'm not sure how that's elitist, and I'm not going to attribute some ulterior motive onto people who may genuinely love the film. But so long as we are, maybe liking "Up" is reflexive, narrow-minded populism.

As for Reitman being a "loser" director, what a bizarre statement. I've never seen a loser with such a career trajectory as his. If that's what being a loser is, sign me up.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1260828576

[OscarGuy]

I don't know if Reitman is a loser director. I think he carries that designation here because lots of people here don't seem to like either of his previous two films (Thank You for Smoking and Juno), but I think Reitman, based on that track record, may very well end up winning.

First of all, all those people clamoring for a woman to win are not going to out number the people who want a more prominent female director to win. It's not exactly like Bigelow has such an amazing career and whether we like to admit it or not, this decade has been mostly about recognizing stellar careers. Sure, that may not mean Reitman's the kind of director to buck that trend, who else really is there to give it to? And in my opinion, based on those three films, I would say he's a more deserving "career" winner than a Bigelow.

Secondly, whether you like Ivan Reitman or not, his films are often considered cult classics (Meatballs, Stripes, Ghostbusters, Dave) and even his non-cult films, Twins and Kindergarten Cop were popular at the box office. So, a reward to his son who has started off on quite an amazing career (he has an impressive list, IMO) would not be out of the ordinary or unexpected.

[OscarGuy]

Yes, I have seen Fantastic Mr. Fox, Zahveed. And I liked it quite a lot. Certainly it's more accessible than most of Anderson's other work. However, I think that had this film been made just as competently, but by a different director, we would not have seen the love for this film. Take for instance Coraline which seems to have a great deal of critical support (earning an 80 from Meta Critic and 89% from RT, FMF got 83 from Meta Critic and 92% from RT only 3 points ahead of Coraline for both sites; and Up tops both films with an 88 and 98% respectively.), would it have been made by Anderson and Fantastic Mr. Fox by Henry Selick, we would probably have seen the reverse result.

I think the big critics groups were A) loving that it was Wes Anderson and B) looking to give their prize to some one other than Pixar (it's what happens when you are consistently great at something).

I think Up is easily the better film. It actually has an emotional backbone. Fantastic Mr. Fox for being such a wonderful little film sure doesn't jump out at me as a "warm" film. Heck, I enjoyed more of Princess and the Frog than I did Fantastic Mr. Fox, which would rank 3rd on my list of the year's best animated features (though, I'm still in the middle of watching my screener of Coraline).