New York Flm Critics Awards

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Sabin wrote:Do we need more Armond Whites or Lisa Schwarzbaums?
Why is that the choice we have? And sorry Damien, but it's not like White didn't do the exact same thing last year (his criticism of Mo'Nique/Precious).
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

A friend emailed me this. I'm not sure where it's from. Maybe Gawker:

The thing is, that clown Darren Aronofsky started things. Which isn't to say White wouldn't have acted up even without the prodding, but still, Aronofsky set the tone.

=========================
New York Press film critic Armond White isn't exactly beloved in Hollywood -- in fact, he's quite the opposite -- and things came to a head last night during the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, with 'Black Swan' director Darren Aronofsky chastising White from the stage and a teary-eyed Annette Bening pleading for everyone to "just get along."

According to the Village Voice, things were tense from the get-go after White, chairman of the Critics Circle, brought Aronofsky onstage to present an award to his 'Swan' cinematographer, Matthew Libatique. In an obvious wink to White's negative 'Swan' review, the director said, "Keep it up, because you give us all another reason not to read New York Press."

"Aronofsky was saying this stuff with a smile," Gawker reports. "He was riffing." White, however, wasn't laughing, and took his next turn at the mic to stir the pot, saying, "That's all right. Darren reads me. That's all I want. And because he reads me, he knows the truth."

White is notorious for, well, being deliberately antagonistic. Gawker perhaps puts it best: "[White] is a very angry critic who feels very passionately about movies and tends to hate what everyone else likes and like what everyone else hates."

The atmosphere at the event appears to have been volatile, to say the least. "Armond broke the bank on insulting award winners he didn't agree with," an attendee told Gawker.

When 'Blue Valentine' actress Michelle Williams was presented with a prize, White introduced her by praising her performance in the 2004 film 'Land of Plenty,' leading the Oscar-nominated actress (for 'Brokeback Mountain') to say, "I made that movie almost 10 years ago. I can't imagine what you've said about me since then if you had to go back that far to say something nice."

Later, when White brought 'Angels in America' playwright Tony Kushner to the stage to award director David Fincher's universally acclaimed 'The Social Network' with the Best Picture prize, he said, "Maybe he can explain why it won best picture."

White also made sure to thank his peers for not awarding any honors to director Noah Baumbach's well-reviewed indie hit 'Greenberg.' Baumbach's continued success has long been a thorn in the critic's side; in his review of Baumbach's 1997 film 'Mr. Jealousy,' White said the director's mother should have had a "retroactive abortion." How tasteful and professional of him.

The tone of the evening, however, was apparently set in stone when Annette Bening took to the stage to accept the Best Actress prize for her turn in 'The Kids Are Alright.' "Bening, tearfully, came close to lecturing critics for being mean little s**ts," an attendee told Gawker,
"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
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Do we need more Armond Whites or Lisa Schwarzbaums?
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Possibly some utopian ideal of an Armond White -- someone who saw through the false cant of much modern film criticism and spoke boldly and convincingly for his own vision -- would have a lot of value. But a guy who argues that Transformers 2 is a better movie than Toy Story 3 seemingly solely because his fellow critics are united in praising the latter is of no particular use, even as a contrarian. He just seems like a dick.

There are other links (one from the AV Club) that tell more of the story of the evening, and White apparently played the asshole role with more relish as the evening went on.

Aronofsky, however, comes off as just as much a douche.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

I genuinely don't understand why we need more Armond Whites, or more people like him. I don't. And please please don't bring up his review of AI: Artificial Intelligence.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Even when I don't agree with Armond White, there's always something I latch onto that I don't often see in other reviews, so I do respect his position as one of the few vocal contrarians out there. We do need more Armond Whites out there, if not him. But it sounds to be like what happened was he took a swipe somewhat early on and he allowed it to steamroll with increasing snarkiness and making the entire ceremony about him in the exact same way that he accuses these filmmakers he accuses of self-absorption and myopia of making their films all about them.

It's not as though Lisa Schwarzbaum has anything of interest to really say on the matter. She's not a very good or perceptive writer.
Represented by an ungracious spokesman, all critics were made to look as sour and bitter and ungenerous as caricature (and Ratatouille) would have us. Judged by snark from one irritated director, everyone in that business was made to look ungracious.

But she doesn't know that. She only knows how she feels upon leaving and as represented by the far more vivid representation she details of the critic's perspective, especially considering that she began her essay by regaling of the charming acceptance speech by Colin Firth or Michelle Williams' sweet presentation to Mark Ruffalo. It her point is that there was something mutually contemptible between critic and artist, I'm not sure that's coming across. If anything, she's just detailing her embarrassment of her chairman, and nothing about her duties as a critic.
"How's the despair?"
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Post by dws1982 »

Oh, Armond.

I don't hate Armond White on principle, but that was totally classless. Apparently, according to some other sources, Annette Bening was crying in her acceptance speech, saying basically, "Can't we all just get along?"
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Could be possible that their web page is not updated as well as The Houston Film Critics isn´t?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Could the "source" be Richard Schickel or Rex Reed?
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:The way I read it is that the reporter, the one writing the article, is the one who is disdainful of the choice, whereas the insider thinks Ruffalo was a neat choice.

Another thing I gleaned from it is that the source is an older critic who refers to the Kids supporters as 'kids' themselves.

Maybe we'll get more info. in the coming days and weeks.
I guess that if we have such different takes on it, then the thing we can agree upon is that this is bad reporting. :D

I also picked up on the use of "kids." That's odd to me, though, since "Kids Are All Right" seems tome to be the kind of gay film that an older audience would like more than young hipsters.
"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
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Greg wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:. . . the fast-talking, one-brilliant-line-a-minute students of Fincher's movie may be terrifying to me. . .

I think this is a huge overreaction. I can understand your being annoyed, but terrified?

I used that word mostly as a comparison with the effect Brokeback Mountain must have had on some Academy members back then.

But yes, I found the characters in the movie - I can't say anything about the real-life people they represent - like aliens to me, and aliens can be a bit scary.




Edited By ITALIANO on 1292325084
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

The way I read it is that the reporter, the one writing the article, is the one who is disdainful of the choice, whereas the insider thinks Ruffalo was a neat choice.

Another thing I gleaned from it is that the source is an older critic who refers to the Kids supporters as 'kids' themselves.

Maybe we'll get more info. in the coming days and weeks.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:The comment is taken out of context. The next sentence reads "But there's a mellow indie vibe to him that critics like."

It seems to me that the source was marveling at the independence of the critics to vote for someone who isn't a serious Oscar contender.
I read it differently than you, Big, and don't think the second part of the quote changes things. To me the speaker is criticizing the critics for trying to be "cool" by going for a "mellow" [buzz word!] actor who appears in independent films.

And Ruffalo is most certainly a serious Oscar contender this year.
"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
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

The comment is taken out of context. The next sentence reads "But there's a mellow indie vibe to him that critics like."

It seems to me that the source was marveling at the independence of the critics to vote for someone who isn't a serious Oscar contender.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Post by criddic3 »

Damien wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:"Why a nomination for Mark Ruffalo?," marvels THR's source. "I don't think he'll ever be a mainstream movie star."
And there in a nutshell is what's wrong with the NY Film Critics and most other groups. What the hell difference does it make if he's going to be "mainstream." It shows that at least some of the people voting are just thinking about influencing the Oscars rather than deciding who and what might constitute the "best. Thank goodness the LA film critics clearly don't think that way.
That does seem to be limited thinking on their part. Ruffalo is a well-respected, recognizable actor who has been solid in a number of roles since You Can Count on Me.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”