NY Critics winners

[Damien]

The NYFC stopped officially revealing runners-up around 1993 when newspaper ads would tout someone as Winner-New York Film Critics, and then in a parenthetical in small letters add "Runner-Up")> I remember specifically this was done for Debra Winger in Shadowlands.

[nightwingnova]

Runners-up get us interested in seeing more good films (isn't that what awards are about?).

They also help us learn to be more discriminating by sharing more examples of the best in film.

I understand the interest in promoting the very best by not diluting the message, but isn't good criticism supposed to get folks to think for themselves, anyway? So what's wrong with those of us who respect the NYFCC awards (and the only ones who would pay attention to the runners-up) knowing all of the contenders and having our own opinions?

There's a Twitter discussion going on between the Post's Lou Lumenick who was the first to reveal this year's runners-up and the Newark-Star Ledger's Stephen Witty who wants to have a vote to amend the by-laws that prohibit revealing runners-up in press releases to prohibit members from publishing the names of the runners-up at all.

[Big Magilla]

There's a Twitter discussion going on between the Post's Lou Lumenick who was the first to reveal this year's runners-up and the Newark-Star Ledger's Stephen Witty who wants to have a vote to amend the by-laws that prohibit revealing runners-up in press releases to prohibit members from publishing the names of the runners-up at all.

[nightwingnova]

Anyone who saw Moneyball should not have been surprised at Brad Pitt's win as best actor at the NYFCC.

More women, thus votes for being a "pretty boy?" Frankly, Michael Fassbender is more classically handsome and unveiled his best asset to boot.

Unfortunately, The Artist may be delayed here until X-Mas; so I cannot compare Pitt with Dujardin.

I can say that while Fassbender bares himself raw emotionally, Pitt creates a rich, full character. I've seen videos of the real Beane. Pitt does fine in recreating him. Clooney is good and sometimes better, but does not fill his character with the missing bio of what makes Matt King tick and how it has impacted his relationship with his family.

I would like to compare the other competitors for best screenplay with Moneyball, though. Moneyball is energetic and sharp, like The Social Network. But, there is a struggle lost near the end over how to conclude the story. There is sloppy narrative and sentiment. Finally, the story concludes, but not with the same sophisticated sharpness and clear sense of purpose that defined most of the film. It feels as if the filmmakers were uncertain how they wanted to end the movie and what they wanted to say.

[Cinemanolis]

Here are the runner ups

Picture
1. The Artist
2. Melancholia
3. Hugo

Director
1. The Artist
2. Martin Scorsese - Hugo
3. Lars Von Trier - Melancholia

Actor
1. Brad Pitt - Tree of Life, Moneyball
2. Michael Fassbender - Shame
3. Jean Dujardin - The Artist

Actress
1. Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady
2. Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn
3. Kirsten Dunst - Melancholia

Supporting Actor
1. Albert Brooks - Drive
2. Christopher Plummer - Beginners
3. Viggo Mortensen - A Dangerous Method

Supporting Actress
1. Jessica Chastain
2. Carey Mulligan - Shame
3. Vanessa Redgrave - Coriolanus

[OscarGuy]

Sasha Stone's becoming as bad as Tom O'Neil. I caught her quote on the screener for Margin Call and it's got quote whore written all over it.

And I'm signed onto the Scott Pilgrim is awesome bandwagon. It was, I think, my number 2 film for last year.

[Dien]

Well, I'm glad to hear that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is on your list of favorite films or best films, because it was my favorite and the best American film released last year.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I wasn't here enough last year to see what you guys thought about it. Scott Pilgrim is one of the first films I go to when I meet somebody new and they want to watch something interesting.

Sasha Stone twittered that "So now it turns out that Academy members were complaining about 3-D and trashing Hugo."

FSM forbid someone wear glasses.

[Sabin]

Hugo isn't getting in. A slew of technical nominations and maybe a couple of wins, but it's not getting in. It's not for kids, it's not for voters, it's for critics.

[Damien]

Sasha Stone twittered that "So now it turns out that Academy members were complaining about 3-D and trashing Hugo."

And someone else wrote that at an industry screening of Hugo at the Landmark the 3-D glasses were dirty.

[Sabin]

Dien wrote

Sabin wrote
I don't love any of those films. Who cares about edgy? That's just a word. Arty is just as meaningful as edgy.

I think we're putting too much stock on these words. Edgy and artsy can be meaningful to some, but it's not the right descriptor here and it's certainly based on the perspective of the viewer. No one should vote based on how "edgy" a film is and I hope no one did. They should vote for what film they feel is the "best".

That's another term that bothers me. "Best". I addressed this in the recent "Best 20,30,40..." thread. A lot of the films that I love I would not consider the best. They are flawed, some severely so. So should I list my "favorite" films or films I consider to be technically superior, and thus, the best? Bizarre says they should be one in the same. In the event we compile a list of Best Films of our chosing and I submit my choices, you're going to have a list with Gangs of New York, Scott Pilgrim vs The World, and Fight Club.

And does anyone here want that in a Best Films list that they helped compile? Most likely not. These are movies I love and are polarizing (or loathed) on this board. It's inadvertent peer pressure. And that's how I'm starting to see these critics awards.

Well, I'm glad to hear that Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is on your list of favorite films or best films, because it was my favorite and the best American film released last year.

[Mister Tee]

I just don't have a particular problem with NBR. They've been around for about a century, floating in their own orbit, generally harmlessly. I've never known film people to take them seriously, whether in the truly out-there days -- when they were picking Far from the Madding Crowd and the Shoes of The Fishermen as the year's best films -- or even more recently when they've touted marshmallow efforts like Finding Neverland. People like Dave Poland and Kris Tapley are constantly trashing the NBR, but both those guys saw no problem with the Broadcast Critics, who've done far more to adulterate the awards process than NBR. If we're eliminating groups from the process, I'd start there.

[Big Magilla]

They are not film historians. They used to be primarily a group of doctors, lawyers and other well-to-do New York film enthusiasts, but they have lately expanded their organizatoin to let fresh blood in - primarily film students who now comprise 75-80% of the vote as I mentioned several posts down. That's more than likely why The Social Network, which would probably not have prevailed ovr the old NBR membership, won last year.

I think they've already voted, whether it was before or after the NYFC voting or not I don't know, but they need a day or two to compile the votes before they anounce so in essence they should have voted without the NYFC group having had any influence.

[nightwingnova]

At best, the NBR is a group of film historians.

Nevertheless, their role in naming the year's top movies have been usurped by the AFI.

What can we do to take them out of the equation?

Watch it be a complete reversal of what everyone is expecting.

I'm already half-thinking now NBR will be the one to go with The Descendants.

[Damien]

I've been sort of out of the game for awhile, but isn't NBR always the first award of the season announced?

Welcome back, Flipp! We missed you.

[Mister Tee]

Watch it be a complete reversal of what everyone is expecting.

I'm already half-thinking now NBR will be the one to go with The Descendants.