Critics Choice Awards

[OscarGuy]

Thank you, Sonic.

[Sonic Youth]

I think "You guys really need to stop" is more a figure of speech than an actual command.

[mlrg]

No, we don't need to stop.

If we can't express our opinions, what are we here for?

Hear, hear!

[Big Magilla]

I haven't seen Black Panther: Wakanda Forever yet so I have no opinion on Bassett's performance but see her as the Piper Laurie of the 1976 supporting actress Oscars, not the Beatrice Straight.

Straight was a highly respected stage actress who was very active in 1950s live TV. That in addition to her fiery scene opposite William Holden in Network helped her win. As she herself said when she won, she was the dark horse. She compares more favorably to Kerry Condon whose career has been mainly on the stage and TV as well. Bassett was a former Best Actress nominee as was Laurie who was making a return to acting after a premature retirement following her marriage to Joe Morgenstern right after her Oscar nod for The Hustler.

I thought Bassett should have won the 1993 Oscar over Holly Hunter who I thought should have won the 1987 Oscar over Cher.

My pick this year is Condon, though that could change if when I see the Black Panther sequel, I agree that Bassett is the one who deserves to win.

[Sabin]

To weigh in, this year would seem to be the best argument for having both of these groups in that they seemed to differ enough to upset a few narratives. A few weeks ago, I wondered if Brendan Fraser had real problems going to his win missing out on the HFPA, that SAG was probably going to favor Butler’s more populist film, and BAFTA’s probably being Farrell’s home turf. How can he be the front runner where he gets no air time to prove it? But a few things changed. The Whale showed up for a PGA proving it is well-liked within the industry and he gets some air-time at the Critic’s Choice and boom, contender status re-confirmed.

That’s really all these people do. They provide air-time for voters to see how they feel about these actors winning. I’m personally not in love with that. In the case of Bassett, it totally supersedes the actual performance, which really is what the win should be based on. But these things came down to money and campaigns a lot time ago and this is just another element of that. I just hope we don’t get another group that propels itself on television. It’s really become a primary season of collecting little victories to prove viability.

[Big Magilla]

No, we don't need to stop.

If we can't express our opinions, what are we here for?

Perhaps I should have said, as I've said before, that EEAAO only works for me if it is seen as that of a woman losing her mind rather than the silly story that it is.

As for the members themselves, they may not meet in a room like local critics' organizations but the majority of them do think the same way. Their in-your-face opinions are blasted all over the place from Letterboxd to Twitter.

[Sabin]

The HFPA and the CC’s are tastemakers. Some years they end up looking more prescient than others. We’ll find out how much the Academy actually likes their selections soon enough. At this point, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that Everything Everywhere All At Once isn’t in the running as a top Best Picture contender. Look at it this way: of all the categories it is currently favored to win, a supporting performance, writing, and Film Editing are probably the most favored. Some combination of those three usually heralds a Best Picture winner. I am not saying it is going to happen but it’s a clearly in the running at this point.

Angela Bassett is the real beneficiary of this unserious think. She was always (in my mind) a good bet to take home the SAG award. But the Globes and CC have helped to create a narrative. She’s made the most of it with her speeches, a pretty strong showing for Wakanda Forever are going to ensure it gets seen, plus there’s nobody in the running that’s terrible due. Unless Michelle Williams drops into support, I think Bassett is probably the front runner. This is not a deserving nomination or win, but I guess I’m fine with Angela Bassett having an Academy Award. I’m less fine with her dedicating a portion of her speech to Marvel fans who don’t need any more encouragement. Had one or both groups just given it to Kerry Condon or nominated Michelle Williams and given it to her, they could’ve stopped it. It wouldn’t have taken much. But… whatever, it’s nice that Angela Bassett is going to have an Oscar and maybe it’ll lead to other better performances. I’ve always found it interesting that she turned down Monster’s Ball because she found it distasteful and that’s the performance that ended up winning Halle Berry an award and a moment that really probably should have been hers.

[OscarGuy]

You guys really need to stop. First of all, yes the BFCA used to be mostly television talking heads who could barely be called film critics. However, as the group has expanded, I know for a fact that numerous actual film critics have been invited and are a part of the organization. Their criteria is mostly about how visible the member is, not necessarily their output. But there are plenty of film critics in the organization. I know because there are several members of the OFCS who are also members of the CCA.

I'm not going to disagree that they can sometimes be whorish, but with over 300 of them, group think isn't a likely scenario. Groups like the NYFCC or LAFCA actually have meetings at which they select winners. It's far more likely that a gathering like that can intentionally reach a consensus to push forward a specific idea. The CCA is far too large for that to be possible.

I may not agree with their choices. I may be irritated with their prominence as they are far from a critics-only organization and are sometimes more like the HFPA than the NYFCC, but that doesn't mean they merit this level of disparagement.

To specific concerns:

Why did Beatrice Straight win the Oscar for Network with such a small role? Because it was a fiery scene delivered with conviction and talent. Angela Bassett may have a much larger role in Wakanda Forever, but I think part of the reason for her success is that scene before world leaders. She delivered a fiery speech. Beyond that, she's the emotional core of the film, someone who has scene loss and handles it well because it isn't her first time losing someone. She's the anchor upon which the entire story revolves and like it or not, it's a terrific performance in a film that isn't exactly Oscar's style, but it's the performance, not the film, that critics are responding to.

How does the absurdism of Everything Everywhere All at Once require realism to work? I can assure you, it doesn't. And it's not like the film isn't the latest in a style of Asian cinema that has produced the likes of Kung Fu Hustle.

[jack]

The "critics" of the Critics Choice Awards are not really critics and never have been. They are pundits at best.

They used to be largely TV "critics" who were given a couple of minutes once a week to comment on the week's new releases. More recently they have been bloggers and then twitter people.

The show itself had been dreadful from the get-go when it was overseen by these second-rate critics or pundits. It has gotten more awards show "normal" in the last few years. This year Chelsea Handler kept it moving along, but the presenters continued to be mostly "B" listers.

As to the awards themselves, yes, they reflect mostly the views of younger "critics", pundits, and twitterers. Ke Huy Quan, who changed his name to Jonathan in the 1990s and early 2000s isn't exactly just the kid from an Indiana Jones sequel and The Goonies but that scenario plays out for these so-called critics who discovered him on videos their parents played for them when they were growing up in the 1990s and beyond.

I have said many times that the only way Everything Everywhere All at Once works is if you see it as a woman losing her mind, but that's not what most of its champions see. They actually see it as something that is happening for real, which is absurd.

The best part about the film is Michelle Yeoh's performance which was the only thing that didn't win last night because Cate Blanchett was undeniably the year's best actress. Too bad they couldn't see past their narrow childhood memories to see that Banshees, Fabelmans and other nominees were better than the one they championed for everything else it was nominated for.

So basically they've become the Twitter Film Awards?

I've never really paid attention to them over the years, but I was reading some of the comments on Awards Daily (they're good for a laugh) and it seemed as though they were the voters. They all think the race is over now and that Everything Everywhere will win everything. They all thought the same a month about about Top Gun.

[Big Magilla]

The "critics" of the Critics Choice Awards are not really critics and never have been. They are pundits at best.

They used to be largely TV "critics" who were given a couple of minutes once a week to comment on the week's new releases. More recently they have been bloggers and then twitter people.

The show itself had been dreadful from the get-go when it was overseen by these second-rate critics or pundits. It has gotten more awards show "normal" in the last few years. This year Chelsea Handler kept it moving along, but the presenters continued to be mostly "B" listers.

As to the awards themselves, yes, they reflect mostly the views of younger "critics", pundits, and twitterers. Ke Huy Quan, who changed his name to Jonathan in the 1990s and early 2000s isn't exactly just the kid from an Indiana Jones sequel and The Goonies but that scenario plays out for these so-called critics who discovered him on videos their parents played for them when they were growing up in the 1990s and beyond.

I have said many times that the only way Everything Everywhere All at Once works is if you see it as a woman losing her mind, but that's not what most of its champions see. They actually see it as something that is happening for real, which is absurd.

The best part about the film is Michelle Yeoh's performance which was the only thing that didn't win last night because Cate Blanchett was undeniably the year's best actress. Too bad they couldn't see past their narrow childhood memories to see that Banshees, Fabelmans and other nominees were better than the one they championed for everything else it was nominated for.

[jack]

Are the voters for this group all Twitter film people?

[Reza]

Like many great African-American actors out there who were either given few good roles or never given good parts by Hollywood we have this year the wonderful Angela Bassett. It's absurd she is being mentioned for Wakanda. She is good but then she is never bad. However, being made into some sort of a front runner for the Oscar is downright silly. With this year being mostly about Asian actors (Michelle Yeoh, Dolly de Leon, Hong Chau, Ke Huy Quan, Stephanie Hsu) it seems like a given that these award groups (to get onto the diversity bandwagon) are touting the lone African-American out there in a prominent franchise who they can give the award to - Viola Davis is in the running for lead but will go empty handed courtesy of Blanchett or Yeoh. So supporting actress seems to be the place where an African-American can win.

Hope the Academy sees sense and gives the award to Kerry Condon.

[Mister Tee]

I watched this the way some I know watch all awards shows -- DVR-d it, started about an hour and a half in, fast forwarded through all but the races/speeches that interested me.

As usual, this pretty well reflects the online pundit view -- heavily leaning Everything Everywhere; choosing Bassett in step with the Globes. It was clear when they passed up Banshees for screenplay that Farrell was unlikely, though it was a toss-up between Fraser and Butler. And when Everything outpointed Spielberg for directing, the best picture choice was set. The most interesting element was that, in the teeth of this sweep, Blanchett was still undeniable for best actress. That dynamic may carry over to the Oscars, as well. Or not. SAG and BAFTA are far more meaningful factors.

It's weird: the bits I'm watching of this thing can get me stirred up -- like, hey, yeah, great career Jeff Bridges; or, gee, it's nice to see Bob Odenkirk finally acknowledged. I have to forcibly remind myself that this is, in The Dude's phrase, Just your opinion, man -- and it's the opinion of people who at the same time think Angela Bassett was the best supporting actress (or don't, maybe: they just think she's got the buzz). The alchemy of awards shows: feeling good seeing people you like win, while sneering at those you don't.

[OscarGuy]

And Banshees goes 0 for 9. Though considering how few nominations it received compared to The Fabelmans, it's not surprising.

[OscarGuy]

Best Picture

Everything Everywhere All at Once