NY Critics winners

[Big Magilla]

If it's edgy you guys want just wait until Thursday. The NBR is now comprised 75-80% by film students with the old guard "Warner Bros./Clint Eastwood for everything" group no longer having much input. Don't be surprised if Shame, Melancholia and Drive dominate those awards.

[Sabin]

Here's all I want to say about these winners, and I say this not having seen The Artist or The Iron Lady. People talk shit about the Grammys all the time as being the laughing stock of all award shows, wherein winning a Grammy is absolutely no gauge of quality whatsoever. This year they gave their award to Arcade Fire, which to me was a pretty wonderful moment not because Arcade Fire produced the best music of that year but because they didn't have to give their award to something awesome. The music industry is of a notoriously bland mindset of recycling. But they gave their award to Arcade Fire!

This year the New York Film Critics made a very public move to be the ones to start the conversation of announcing the best that cinema had to offer this year. I was incredibly excited because it shouldn't be The National Board of Review. The New York Film Critics have one of the longest histories and for a while one of the proudest. Lately their choices have been fairly milquetoast, but I thought: great! You guys probably deserve to start the conversation. Have at it.

I suppose it's wishing for too much to have the conversation actually change for that much the better in a group that consists of Rex Reed and Peter Travers, but this was a hugely missed opportunity that represents a much larger problem in film critics today than simply having shitty taste. The end of the year is for taking stock in the best the year had to offer. This just looks like a group of people that want to start off the Oscar season, and that's a little dispiriting. The New York Film Critic's Circle wanted to be the people to say the same things first.

[Dien]

Frankly, from description, as I have no idea when The Artist will begin its run where I live, The Artist is edgy. How many folks are going to go watch it without the nudge of awards and award nominations? The fact that it is a silent film will turn most folks off.

I don't see how this in any way makes The Artist edgy. It's a warm, crowd-pleaser that won't be inaccessible to anybody -- just because it's black-and-white and silent doesn't make it a Guy Maddin movie.

But Harvey, of course, is out selling how courageous this film is, to dare being silent and black and white. Just like he pitched King's Speech last year as a hopeless underdog.

It's really sad: Harvey started his career selling inventive movies by convincing people they weren't so far from the mainstream. Now he sells easy crowd-pleasers and pretends they're cutting edge.

You gotta trick them somehow.

[Sonic Youth]

Yes, and when their estimation of what's best are nearly all "safe" choices, what are we supposed to take from that?

That the edgy films weren't so hot?

It could mean that. It could also mean that their collective taste tends toward the middlebrow. And as long as we're entertaining conspiracies it could also mean that, when combined with their decision to move the voting date up ahead of all other groups, they wanted to boost their own prestige with an Oscar-friendly slate.

[Mister Tee]

Frankly, from description, as I have no idea when The Artist will begin its run where I live, The Artist is edgy. How many folks are going to go watch it without the nudge of awards and award nominations? The fact that it is a silent film will turn most folks off.

I don't see how this in any way makes The Artist edgy. It's a warm, crowd-pleaser that won't be inaccessible to anybody -- just because it's black-and-white and silent doesn't make it a Guy Maddin movie.

But Harvey, of course, is out selling how courageous this film is, to dare being silent and black and white. Just like he pitched King's Speech last year as a hopeless underdog.

It's really sad: Harvey started his career selling inventive movies by convincing people they weren't so far from the mainstream. Now he sells easy crowd-pleasers and pretends they're cutting edge.

[The Original BJ]

Frankly, from description, as I have no idea when The Artist will begin its run where I live, The Artist is edgy. How many folks are going to go watch it without the nudge of awards and award nominations? The fact that it is a silent film will turn most folks off.

I don't see how this in any way makes The Artist edgy. It's a warm, crowd-pleaser that won't be inaccessible to anybody -- just because it's black-and-white and silent doesn't make it a Guy Maddin movie.

[Big Magilla]

Yes, and when their estimation of what's best are nearly all "safe" choices, what are we supposed to take from that?

That the edgy films weren't so hot? Or maybe that there's a conspiracy afoot to deny Harvey another Oscar by making voters so sick of seeing his latest contender (The Artist) win everything else that they purposely vote for something else, quite possibly the "safer" War Horse.

[nightwingnova]

I agree. Go with the best.

Frankly, from description, as I have no idea when The Artist will begin its run where I live, The Artist is edgy. How many folks are going to go watch it without the nudge of awards and award nominations? The fact that it is a silent and black and white film will turn most folks off.

As I've noted before, I understand The Tree of Life, just think it's artsy without requisite depth and variety. It seems as bland as the 1950s suburbs it depicts. I thought such a grand epic deserved more.

It's not supposed to be "safe" vs. "edgy", it's suppoed to be what is "best".

As for Tree of Life, some of us "get" it and still don't like it. "Despise" is too strong a word for Malick who works from the heart. His only "crime" is in not having a trusted ally who can tell him when to rein it in. While I don't think the film or its director warrant awards, the cinematography is definitely award worthy as are the art direction and the score.

[Sonic Youth]

Yes, and when their estimation of what's best are nearly all "safe" choices, what are we supposed to take from that?

[Big Magilla]

It's not supposed to be "safe" vs. "edgy", it's suppoed to be what is "best".

As for Tree of Life, some of us "get" it and still don't like it. "Despise" is too strong a word for Malick who works from the heart. His only "crime" is in not having a trusted ally who can tell him when to rein it in. While I don't think the film or its director warrant awards, the cinematography is definitely award worthy as are the art direction and the score.

[Mister Tee]

Goddamn National Board of Rieview. Why do they even exist? They always pick the safest - oh, this is the NYFCC? Huh. That sucks.

I was posting right at the same time as you, and we both reached the same conclusion.

[Mister Tee]

I'm having something of the same inkling about The Artist locking on as the best picture favorite -- though I'll at least wait to hear from NBR before I tilt that way. It's easy, though, to see its path clearing -- the Broadcasters could go for it as the buzziest film, the Golden Globes could latch onto its foreign-ness, and momentum could carry it from there. Alot of voters are always looking for a "nice" movie, and this award amounts to a giant permission slip for them to go all the way with it.

As to this slate in particular: Sonic said it felt like a Broadcats Critics' slate, but I'll go one further: with the possible exception of Albert Brooks, it could be a classic NBR slate (right down to the multiple-film citations). This creates something of a culture shock. From the mid-90s on, the NY Critics started making rather edgy selections -- Harry Belafonte in Kansas City; Julie Christie in Afterglow; Mulholland Drive; Hope Davis in the Secret Lives of Dentists; Eugene Levy in A Mighty Wind; even the infamous Cameron Diaz pick wasn't a slip into conformity, but rather a "screw propriety" gesture. But from about 2004 on that spirit seems to be gone, and the choices are now blander than ever. The runners-up list suggests the rebellious camp is still aboard, but now decisively outnumbered. I wonder: did the removal of Times critics from the voting rolls play a role in this reversal?

BJ, I'm with you on Lubezki, but I think, even if he wins every prize known to man between now and Oscar night, we'll still be sweating it out right till the winner's name is called out. Movies like War Horse and, I presume, The Artist are going to get votes from those who just don't get (and therefore despise) Tree of Life.

[Sabin]

Goddamn National Board of Rieview. Why do they even exist? They always pick the safest - oh, this is the NYFCC? Huh. That sucks.

[Sonic Youth]

But in a time of crisis, not only an economical crisis, a more general one, getting back to the roots of cinema and to its original "purity", through a foreign silent movie which speaks "the universal language of cinema", might be difficult for the Academy to resist to.

Between 'The Artist', 'Hugo' and 'War Horse', I've had the feeling for about a week that a variation of the above comment is going to be this year's meme. "The Academy retreats into the safety of the fantastical past in order to hide from the turbulent present", or something like that. And it's probably true.

This could also lead them to heavily rewarding veterans, by giving a 1st Oscar to Christopher Plummer, a 2nd to Vanessa Redgrave, a 3rd to Meryl Streep, and a 4th to Woody Allen.

No, I wouldn't make that connection.

[nightwingnova]

Yes, bless him.

This answers my questions from earlier. I have the data I need to get a better scope of the best films of the year.

Also, while my guesses as to the winners didn't pan out exactly, I'm glad that I had the runners-up on my radar.

I figured out The Artist and Streep.

Also on my list: Haznavicius and von Trier for director; Dunst for actress, Dujardin and Fassbender for actor; and, Mortensen, Plummer and Redgrave for featured actors.

Since I haven't seen many of the films yet, as long as I'm in the same area as the critics, I don't feel either like I'm totally off base or the critics have sold out.

So, this Lumenick guy is noyt only a liberal, he also -- bless him -- provides the voting data we used to know and love:


"The Artist'' won best picture on the third ballot with 44 points under the NYFCC's arcane weighted voting system, followed by 35 for "Melancholia'' and 20 for "Hugo.'' The von Trier tied with "The Artist'' with 27 points apiece on the first ballot, with "Hugo'' trailing with 16 points. Second ballot: "Artist'' (40), "Melancholia'' (33), "Hugo'' (21). My favorite film of the year, "The Descendants,'' never managed to amass more than 17 points in any round.

The biggest horse race was for best director, ultimately won by Michel Haznavicius of "The Artist'' with 47 points to 39 for Scorsese and 35 for Von Trier. In the first round, it was Haznavicius, 24; Von Trier, 22; and Malick 21 and in the second, a single point separated Haznavicius (33), Scorsese (32) and Von Trier (31).

Streep wired the field on the first and only ballot with 38 points to 24 for Michelle Williams ("My Week With Marilyn'') and 23 for Kirsten Dunst ("Melancholia''). While Pitt (42 points) triumphed over Michael Fassbender (27) and Jean Dujardin (26) on the second ballot, on the initial go-round it was Pitt 24, Dujardin 23 and Fassbender 18.

Brooks won on the second ballot with 43 points to 36 for Christopher Plummer ("Beginners'') and 18 for Viggo Mortensen ("A Dangerous Method'') Chastain had to go three rounds before her 33 points banquished Carey Mulligan's 27 (for "Shame'') and Vanessa Redgrave's 26 (for "Coriolanus'').