NY Critics winners

[Dien]

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

[OscarGuy]

They moved their awards ahead of NBR so they could be first (otherwise known as primary gerrymandering). And the NBR announces tomorrow, so you don't have to wait long.

[Mister Tee]

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

Check out the original post under (Ridiculous) Ny Critics Voting Date for an explanation

[flipp525]

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

[Dien]

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.

[nightwingnova]

Hugo is not "fantastical" in the genre sense but it is "magical" (transformative) in terms of how life turns out for our hero.

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.

I hadn't read this anywhere - and I certainly wouldn't apply it to War Horse or even Hugo, from what I've heard of these two movies.

[Sabin]

nightwingnova wrote
Melancholia is gorgeous, extraordinarily directed, compelling, very well acted, but can seem slow. Edgy? Artsy.

Drive has a stylishly modern noir vibe but the story was unremarkable and nothing else really impressed me.

I didn't find The Tree of Life anything but obtrusively artsy and too generic to really move folks with its metaphysical ruminations. I found it to be a very noble failure.

I thought we were talking about aggregate more than personal opinion. I'd wager that these three films have more passionate champions than any other film this year. Ultimately, that's why I want them to get honored. 2011 for me was the best year I can remember for films that some people loved and others hated. People love Melancholia, Drive, and The Tree of Life. People hate Melancholia, Drive, and The Tree of Life. From what I can gauge, nobody feels as passionately one way or the other about Shame (again, sight-unseen). I want something like Mulholland Drive to win an award. Obviously, it's too much to assume that within a group a consensus can be met, but to me the purpose of these groups seems to be people arguing for what they love and not what they like. When I see these winners, I want to ask them "You don't really think that Brad Pitt was the year's best actor, do you?" It's politics.

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 don't care for Melancholia. I think the valuable purpose it demonstrates is ultimately to end all dorm room conversations about doing a movie about the end of the world once and for all. But it's a pretty stunning production. Karina Longworth thinks it's the great film of the year and has written some pretty beautiful pieces of writing on it.

Drive has amazing surfaces, but the story isn't really a big deal. I do like it, but I'm not over the moon for it like some. I can't immediately recall who loves it, but it has passionate champions.

The Tree of Life is so divisive that people are forewarned that they won't get their money back if they don't care for it. I'm willing to bet money that Roger Ebert thinks it's the best film since Hoop Dreams. I need to see it again and the ending doesn't work for me, but it's a pretty stunning piece of work that I felt emotionally. I'd much rather see something like this win than something fundamentally mediocre. Let's say The Tree of Life is a noble failure and The Descendants is a safe hit (which I don't agree with), wouldn't you much rather see the film that puts a lot more on the table get some much needed support than something that's cornfed?

My favorite films this year are Certified Copy, Beginners, Martha Marcy May Marlene, and Margaret.

[nightwingnova]

I have to respectfully diverge here and note that Weinstein's job is to sell movie tickets and dvds. Hyping a movie so that it can reap some Oscars is part of that job.

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.

[nightwingnova]

Melancholia is gorgeous, extraordinarily directed, compelling, very well acted, but can seem slow. Edgy? Artsy.

Drive has a stylishly modern noir vibe but the story was unremarkable and nothing else really impressed me.

I didn't find The Tree of Life anything but obtrusively artsy and too generic to really move folks with its metaphysical ruminations. Nothing that pushed the boundaries. Not edgy. Bergman did Winter Light and other existentialist films in the 50s and 60s with more creativity. This is nothing new and, unfortunately, nothing distinctive. I found it to be a very noble failure.

nightwingnova wrote
I liked Melancholia but Drive was just a very conventional thriller wrapped in noir.

Shame's not available until next week. The buzz though is that it gets monotonous and is not terribly insightful (but only five reviews are available).

This brings up the issue of what is deserving of a "best" award. The most innovative and fresh? The most memorable, enjoyable and solid yet serious?

Outside of the acting categories, Shame was ignored by the NYFCC. Yet the buzz is that it is the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year.

Well, first off, I don't know anybody who is saying that Shame is "the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year." I'd argue that the aforementioned Melancholia and Drive, as well as The Tree of Life is getting that reputation. But Shame is seemingly getting modest reviews across the board. Nobody who has seen it seems terribly ecstatic.

What I want from a critic's group is disparity in recommending that which is bound to go overlooked come Oscar time. I don't really care terribly much if it results in rallying together to promote something like The Hurt Locker, which at this point in the race was anything but a foregone conclusion, towards a possible Oscar victory. I'd rather they give an award to something like Summer Hours, In the Mood for Love, or Yi Yi. Considering that the best achievements almost never get recognized come Oscar time, I'd much prefer those who contributed to their films get a token of appreciation by a group that should be doing more than making sure people know that the Scott Rudin/David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin film is pretty darn good.

...so basically, everything you said in something you might not have seen.

[anonymous1980]

No Animated Film is likely meant to comment on the lackluster year the major studios have had. With big efforts like Puss in Boots, Happy Feet Two and Cars 2 all bombing with critics, they probably wanted to send a stiff message to Hollywood.

Puss in Boots actually got fairly good reviews.

The biggest surprise in the NYFCC is The Descendants getting shut-out.

[nightwingnova]

The propaganda is that Shame was supposed to be the successor to Last Tango in Paris.

A few critics are ecstatic about it. A couple of others have ripped it apart. The point being that recognizing "edgy" for general consumption should be balanced by a consensus of quality in order to be most useful to everyone - not just those who like the new and flashy.

nightwingnova wrote
I liked Melancholia but Drive was just a very conventional thriller wrapped in noir.

Shame's not available until next week. The buzz though is that it gets monotonous and is not terribly insightful (but only five reviews are available).

This brings up the issue of what is deserving of a "best" award. The most innovative and fresh? The most memorable, enjoyable and solid yet serious?

Outside of the acting categories, Shame was ignored by the NYFCC. Yet the buzz is that it is the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year.

Well, first off, I don't know anybody who is saying that Shame is "the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year." I'd argue that the aforementioned Melancholia and Drive, as well as The Tree of Life is getting that reputation. But Shame is seemingly getting modest reviews across the board. Nobody who has seen it seems terribly ecstatic.

What I want from a critic's group is disparity in recommending that which is bound to go overlooked come Oscar time. I don't really care terribly much if it results in rallying together to promote something like The Hurt Locker, which at this point in the race was anything but a foregone conclusion, towards a possible Oscar victory. I'd rather they give an award to something like Summer Hours, In the Mood for Love, or Yi Yi. Considering that the best achievements almost never get recognized come Oscar time, I'd much prefer those who contributed to their films get a token of appreciation by a group that should be doing more than making sure people know that the Scott Rudin/David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin film is pretty darn good.

...so basically, everything you said in something you might not have seen.

[nightwingnova]

I think it would be a mistake to tie critics' awards to the Oscars. The critics' awards do help build up buzz for the Oscars; but, to align the critics' purpose with the Oscars is not just trying to connect two disparate functions but also sets up the critics' role to be undermined.

The critics' should, in a vacuum, choose the best of film each year. The Oscars would draw in industry politics and other pressures that would dilute the artistic judgment.

nightwingnova wrote
I liked Melancholia but Drive was just a very conventional thriller wrapped in noir.

Shame's not available until next week. The buzz though is that it gets monotonous and is not terribly insightful (but only five reviews are available).

This brings up the issue of what is deserving of a "best" award. The most innovative and fresh? The most memorable, enjoyable and solid yet serious?

Outside of the acting categories, Shame was ignored by the NYFCC. Yet the buzz is that it is the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year.

Well, first off, I don't know anybody who is saying that Shame is "the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year." I'd argue that the aforementioned Melancholia and Drive, as well as The Tree of Life is getting that reputation. But Shame is seemingly getting modest reviews across the board. Nobody who has seen it seems terribly ecstatic.

What I want from a critic's group is disparity in recommending that which is bound to go overlooked come Oscar time. I don't really care terribly much if it results in rallying together to promote something like The Hurt Locker, which at this point in the race was anything but a foregone conclusion, towards a possible Oscar victory. I'd rather they give an award to something like Summer Hours, In the Mood for Love, or Yi Yi. Considering that the best achievements almost never get recognized come Oscar time, I'd much prefer those who contributed to their films get a token of appreciation by a group that should be doing more than making sure people know that the Scott Rudin/David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin film is pretty darn good.

...so basically, everything you said in something you might not have seen.

[OscarGuy]

I very much liked Shame. Michael Fassbender is outstanding and Carey Mulligan is damned good. It does meander a bit, but it's a chilling portrait of sex addiction. This sex addict suffers all the traditional setbacks reserved for drug and alcohol addictions. It gives a new face to the sex addict who is often derided as not being destructive enough. I think Shame is one of my favorite films so far this year, but I haven't given out a 4-star rating yet, which disappoints me. Lots of 3.5 stars, though.

[Sabin]

nightwingnova wrote
I liked Melancholia but Drive was just a very conventional thriller wrapped in noir.

Shame's not available until next week. The buzz though is that it gets monotonous and is not terribly insightful (but only five reviews are available).

This brings up the issue of what is deserving of a "best" award. The most innovative and fresh? The most memorable, enjoyable and solid yet serious?

Outside of the acting categories, Shame was ignored by the NYFCC. Yet the buzz is that it is the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year.

Well, first off, I don't know anybody who is saying that Shame is "the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year." I'd argue that the aforementioned Melancholia and Drive, as well as The Tree of Life is getting that reputation. But Shame is seemingly getting modest reviews across the board. Nobody who has seen it seems terribly ecstatic.

What I want from a critic's group is disparity in recommending that which is bound to go overlooked come Oscar time. I don't really care terribly much if it results in rallying together to promote something like The Hurt Locker, which at this point in the race was anything but a foregone conclusion, towards a possible Oscar victory. I'd rather they give an award to something like Summer Hours, In the Mood for Love, or Yi Yi. Considering that the best achievements almost never get recognized come Oscar time, I'd much prefer those who contributed to their films get a token of appreciation by a group that should be doing more than making sure people know that the Scott Rudin/David Fincher/Aaron Sorkin film is pretty darn good.

...so basically, everything you said in something you might not have seen.

[nightwingnova]

I liked Melancholia but Drive was just a very conventional thriller wrapped in noir.

Shame's not available until next week. The buzz though is that it gets monotonous and is not terribly insightful (but only five reviews are available). Yet the buzz is also that it is the most edgy, titillating, artistic film of the year.

This brings up the issue of what is deserving of a "best" award. The most innovative and fresh? The most memorable, enjoyable and solid yet serious? Some balance between the two?

That's why I like the consensus building within the NYFCC and the listing of runners-up. You get agreement on the one "best" everyone can agree on and also list the also-rans for film lovers to consider.

I'll go see Coriolanus just to see for myself if Chastain was better than Redgrave.

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.