Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards

[flipp525]

I read something somewhere about Zone of Interest having won here to show support for Israel in the Israeli-Hamas War.

I don't know where that is coming from. I haven't seen it, but descriptions of the film remind me of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008) with Asa Butterfield as the son of a newly posted Nazi concentration camp commandant who befriends a Jewish boy behind the barbed wire fence and ends up following him into the gas chamber. Butterfield and Vera Farmiga as his mother got some awards recognition but nothing compared to what The Zone of Interest is getting.

Not really an apt comparison (and, umm, excuse me but spoiler alert!). The Zone of Interest is very much its own thing. The main element is that the horrors of Auschwitz are kept just slightly off-stage while you see the camp commandant’s family living a regular life outside the gates.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
And The Zone of Interest has a 95 on Metacritic. Weird that people feel a need to dig for reasons why the best-reviewed movie of the year would win a best film award.

It's a fallen world.

[Mister Tee]

Big Magilla wrote
I read something somewhere about Zone of Interest having won here to show support for Israel in the Israeli-Hamas War.

I don't know if I buy that. Their runner up was Oppenheimer. Would that be the anti-war block?

Hindsight is 20/20 but The Zone of Interest seems like a LAFCA choice. They're more willing to give Best Picture to a Non-English Language Film than NYFCC and they're about on par with National Society of Film Critics.

And The Zone of Interest has a 95 on Metacritic. Weird that people feel a need to dig for reasons why the best-reviewed movie of the year would win a best film award.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I read something somewhere about Zone of Interest having won here to show support for Israel in the Israeli-Hamas War.

I don't know if I buy that. Their runner up was Oppenheimer. Would that be the anti-war block?

Hindsight is 20/20 but The Zone of Interest seems like a LAFCA choice. They're more willing to give Best Picture to a Non-English Language Film than NYFCC and they're about on par with National Society of Film Critics.

[Big Magilla]

I read something somewhere about Zone of Interest having won here to show support for Israel in the Israeli-Hamas War.

I don't know where that is coming from. I haven't seen it, but descriptions of the film remind me of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008) with Asa Butterfield as the son of a newly posted Nazi concentration camp commandant who befriends a Jewish boy behind the barbed wire fence and ends up following him into the gas chamber. Butterfield and Vera Farmiga as his mother got some awards recognition but nothing compared to what The Zone of Interest is getting.

[Big Magilla]

There's another explanation for Lily Gladstone's placement in supporting.

Don't know which came first, votes in lead or supporting, but if lead came first, It could be that those who voted for her unsuccessfully in that category threw their wight behind her in support.

[Mister Tee]

Chang did a podcast a few years ago at The Film Experience about the 2014 year (Boyhood, etc) and he was really quite insightful. The question about oscar campaigning did come up and he basically said that none of the voters really cared. But the fact is many prognosticators don't care about these things in isolation, but only in reference to the Oscars. As a result, the temptation is to try and place it in an overarching narrative.

That's what I found most irritating about the argument today. It was based around "Gladstone has chosen to run as lead, and you're undermining her -- not respecting her as an indigenous woman! -- if you interfere with that". Some referred to it as them "demoting" her. When I'm sure the critics' approach was, I don't care what her ad campaign says, I know a supporting performance when I see one, and that's how I'm voting.

It's not like there hasn't been disagreement before. Anthony Hopkins won lead actor at NY and supporting at NBR for Silence of the Lambs. Meryl Streep won supporting actress at National Society for Devil Wears Prada. Diane Keaton's legendary Annie Hall performance won her lead actress at NY and National, but supporting at NBR. No one screamed about any of these things. It's this gaggle of people who, rather than being satisfied with following the Oscars obsessively (as...ahem...we do), seem to feel they have to be able to control it.

The thing that makes it pernicious, of course, is that many of the smaller groups do try and predict the Oscars - heck the Broadcasters got a whole show out of it [and this year must be actively worrying them, which is fun].

This is why I'm always grousing about these ever-appearing small groups. Many of them have Oscar forecasting as their raison d'etre. One of our departed posters here, from San Francisco, said he met someone who was all excited because he was going to get to vote for the Oscars. Under inquiry, it turned out he was being made a member of the San Francisco Film Critics -- which he saw as part of the Oscars.

Chang -- along with his fellow critics from the older, legitimate groups -- I'm sure sees it differently: as simply a group of qualified judges sitting down to render a verdict on a year's worth of films. They may, in fact, see themselves as antithetical to the Oscars. The NY Critics did, when they formed in 1935. Maybe it was our bad fortune that the Bosley Crowther years ended up having influence on Oscar outcomes in those early decades; the symbiosis with critics' groups may have led us, in steps, to this current morass.

[Mister Tee]

First, to alert you to what's passing for discussion in other parts of the Oscar Internet...the folks at AwardsWorthy

Bur why are you even there? They seem to give you nothing but agita.

Sadly, they have a lot quicker access to certain information than I've been able to find anywhere else.

And, yeah: it's the Internet; sometimes you get a kick out of finding stuff that annoys you. Not a steady diet, but enough to keep the blood pumping.

[Mister Tee]

I think we can all agree this is some fucking bullshit! What is the point of doing Best Film, give it to a foreign-language film, and then give out another award for Best Foreign Language Film? The Best Foreign Language Film of the Year for them is The Zone of Interest. Either give out an award to Best English-Language Film or call it a day.

Boston's system -- if an English-language film wins best film, give an award for foreign-language film; if a foreign-language film wins, give an award for best English-language film -- seems to me the most logical one. It's like the dog show's best in show/best of opposite breed. This way, it half the time amounts to their telling us what their second-favorite foreign film was.

[Sonic Youth]

First, to alert you to what's passing for discussion in other parts of the Oscar Internet...the folks at AwardsWorthy

Bur why are you even there? They seem to give you nothing but agita.

[Okri]

a) I did not see Randolph as a steamroller coming, to be honest. I'm in the "I'll be fine with a nomination for her" in that it's always nice to see underheralded performers get them but I also have to say I don't find supporting actress all that interesting this year (though this is not having seen a bunch of contenders, of course).

b) Justin Chang also didn't love Everything Everywhere All At Once and he got some stick for that, so I expect that's in the back of their minds [and I also recall a LOT of teeth gnashing about Michelle Williams' lead campaign]. Regarding Gladstone in particular, I think she'll get nominated in either category. Chang did a podcast a few years ago at The Film Experience about the 2014 year (Boyhood, etc) and he was really quite insightful. The question about oscar campaigning did come up and he basically said that none of the voters really cared. But the fact is many prognosticators don't care about these things in isolation, but only in reference to the Oscars. As a result, the temptation is to try and place it in an overarching narrative. The thing that makes it pernicious, of course, is that many of the smaller groups do try and predict the Oscars - heck the Broadcasters got a whole show out of it [and this year must be actively worrying them, which is fun].

c) I'd actually say that gestalt may be WHY the vote turned out as it did in supporting. Not vote splitting or anything, but when you've got a buffet, no one meal gets mounded on the plate.

d) I do think Scott and Wright both got a boost, but I also want that to be true

e) HOLY SHIT, the Globe nominations are tomorrow?

[Sabin]

I think we can all agree this is some fucking bullshit! What is the point of doing Best Film, give it to a foreign-language film, and then give out another award for Best Foreign Language Film? The Best Foreign Language Film of the Year for them is The Zone of Interest. Either give out an award to Best English-Language Film or call it a day. This isn't just because it would've been my film, Oppenheimer. They've done this in four of our six games now!
-in 2021, they gave Best Film to Drive My Car and Best Foreign-Language Film to Petite Maman.
-in 2019, they gave Best Film to Parasite and Best Foreign-Language Film to Pain and Glory.
-in 2018, they gave Best Film to Roma and Best Foreign-Language Film to Burning AND Shoplifters.

It's just so stupid.

[Mister Tee]

Today was such information overload it became difficult to process. DC throwing in their winners just as Boston and LA were reaching their final rounds was a bridge too far, for me -- I had to step back, clear my head, try to focus on who won where. I'm finally ready for a bit of an overview.

Seven groups have given out their awards for the year, and we've had six different winners -- Killers of the Flower Moon the only repeater, with Barbie, Oppenheimer, American Fiction, The Holdovers and The Zone of Interest also triumphing. Some of these will no doubt repeat over the coming weeks, and Past Lives, Anatomy of a Fall, or Poor Things could join the party at any time. This could all ultimately work to the benefit of the down-the-middle choice, Oppenheimer, but, meantime, it offers the rare pleasure of watching a wide variety of films have their day in the sun.

We won't have this degree of variety in all categories -- Randolph has won 5 1/2 or 6 of those 7 (depending how you count LA), and seems well on her way to the Oscar stage (though the YouTube twins are adamant Danielle Brooks is going to crush her). But best actor and supporting actor both seem all over the place, and both screenplays, as well (9 different films have won screenplay prizes so far, none of them Oppenheimer or Barbie). I understand the Broadcasters are out there waiting to spoil things (starting Wednesday), but, for now, we have a pleasingly open field, befitting a year that's been widespread in its bounty (and I say this having, to date, not yet seen Poor Things, All of Us Strangers, American Fiction, or The Zone of Interest).

As to LA's choices: so, it was LA rather than NY that went for the Metacritic champ. I've been bullish on The Zone of Interest's Oscar chances purely on profile -- a clearly art-inclined foreign-language film is just what the directors' branch has been specializing in, lately, and with the Holocaust as subject matter, how can it miss? LA directing awards alone have been solid indicators of Oscar directing nominations, and picture/director is obviously even better. The film is in far stronger position after today than it was coming in, after those disappointing 10 days where it seemed to lose repeatedly to Anatomy of a Fall.

Fall itself stayed very much alive today, with the editing win, International runner-up, and best actress...what do you call it?...tie? Huller and Stone both needed recognition, and both got it, thanks to LA's singular system. Two issues with that:

First, to alert you to what's passing for discussion in other parts of the Oscar Internet...the folks at AwardsWorthy were absolutely livid that Lily Gladstone was placed in supporting at LA. Never mind that people have been debating where she belongs since the film debuted (as they did with Michelle Williams last year); the fact that Gladstone has won a few other prizes in lead means that the LA crowd was Deliberately Sabotaging her campaign (as if they give a flying fuck about anybody's campaign). And the fact that they did this to Gladstone was (of course, wait for it) racist! Their chief chosen villain is Justin Chang, and, while you'd think there'd be some hesitation labelling a man with an Asian surname racist, you'd be wrong. The few people on the site who dissented from this conspiracy theory were themselves called racists (or, at best, oblivious to the Obvious Bigotry being displayed). There are seriously dangerous racist ideas abroad in our society just now -- ideas that require our eternal vigilance to quash. I feel like people who work themselves into such lathers over things like this make that job even harder.

Enough of them. An (I hope) serious observation on the LA performance roster (which took them over an hour to wrangle): from the results, there wasn't a single male performance that took home an award this year; all four winners were female, and, in fact, only one of the 4 cited supporting performers had a Y chromosome. This can happen, of course, under such a system, but it seems odd it happened this year. Lead actor and actress seem equally populated with strong performances this year (though, as I opined when this season began, some of the lead males seem more Oscar picks than critics' choices). But in supporting...as far as I'm concerned, Da'Vine Joy Randolph is close to running unopposed, the remainder of the field behind her pretty amorphous. Whereas, supporting actor seemed stuffed from early on, with Downey/Gosling/Ruffalo/DeNiro solidly placed, and that was before Melton and Sessa barreled their ways in. Given that gestalt, it feels odd the LA vote turned out as it did. (Though it was, of course, partly from the move of Gladstone into the mix.)

Anyway...both Scott and Wright needed the boost, but are we sure they got one, since neither actually won anything? Are they both phantom best actor winners? (At least with Gosling, there's no argument which guy finished first.) For that matter, did either Huller or Stone actually "win," when what we see is essentially a tie?

I imagine the person who most benefited from today's acting choices was Rachel McAdams. I've been hearing all year that she's memorable in the film, but haven't seen her (a casualty of Netflix disc's demise; I'd have watched it by now as partly of my monthly subscription, but haven't been inclined to pony up $7 for one title). Supporting actress is, to me, the most wide-open category when it comes to possible nominees -- I count about 11 conceivable nominees, McAdams included. This could push her up the ladder a bit. (And the fact that she's a previous nominee is, statistically, a point in her favor with AMPAS.)

Andrew Haigh gets whatever boost a critics' screenplay award can offer -- though his prime competition for that category at the Oscars (Zone of Interest and American Fiction) also got some props today.

Celine Song appears to have been consigned to the rookie category. I believe she's swept every such award so far, but it's kept her out of the top line categories. She has, however, turned up on not a few of those minor groups' slates -- not only film/screenplay, but often as not director/actress. It'd be strange for such a critically-lauded film to get its best award season help from those lesser groups, but, whatever.

Okay, that'll be a wrap for this exhausting day. We get to take a break, until...oh, right: till tomorrow morning, when the New Improved Globe nominations are announced. Get your rest.

[danfrank]

Before today I was thinking that Rachel McAdams was getting more critics/awards attention than I had thought she would. With today’s win I think she now has a good chance for an Oscar nomination. Da’Vine Joy Randolph, of course, is steamrolling through everything and seems our sure winner barring an unforeseen pivot ahead.

[Sabin]

And then of course we wait for an hour for them to tally it up and really has out their Best Film/Best International Film combo conversation.


EDIT: LAFCA just tweeted "We'll have some big updates shortly—hang tight!"
Wtf does that mean?