Richard Corliss writes at TIME:
In the past five days, five groups — the National Board of Review, the Boston Society of Film Critics, the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the Washington. D.C. Film Critics Association and my crowd, the New Yorkers — have convened to choose the most notable movies and moviemakers. "No Country For Old Men" was named best picture in four of the groups, "There Will Be Blood" in L.A. George Clooney won two best actors awards, playing a lawyer at crisis point in "Michael Clayton," Daniel Day-Lewis a pair for his oil mogul in "There Will Be Blood" and, in Boston, Frank Langella won the prize for playing an aged novelist in "Starting Out in the Evening." Three groups selected Julie Christie as best actress — she's an Alzheimer's patient in the Canadian film "Away From Her" — and two liked Marion Cotillard as Edith Piaf in "La vie en rose." [...]More likely it's a combination of the novelty of the new and the deliberate timing of "serious" movies for what has become known as "awards season."That's the deal with critics' awards. They give prizes to whom they damn well please. No problem with that; it's their gig, and obviously they should pick their favorites. (The choices are fine with me: "No Country," "Persepolis" and "No End in Sight" are all on my 10 best.) But these laurels factor into publicity campaigns for the Oscars and Golden Globes; often they are the campaigns. It's the way we critics contribute to the art-industrial complex. Our prizes certainly help determine which films get nominated, setting in motion the next round of ballyhoo before the final prizes are handed out. So almost all the nominees will be from worthy obscurities that can't draw much of an audience in the theater or, when the awards shows are aired, on TV. [...]
Actually, it's hard to tell which if any of the critical faves will be popular, because most of the big winners ("Diving Bell," "No Country," "Persepolis," "Starting Out in the Evening," "Sweeney Todd," "There Will Be Blood") are November or December releases. Half of them haven't hit the commercial theaters yet. Maybe the critical establishment has A.D.D.
But I think the key phrase above (and one RC has appositely chosen) concerns how critics' awards "factor into publicity campaigns." I doubt that critics, even bevies of critics, have much direct influence on the actual Oscar balloting -- or on ticket sales, either, for that matter. But I know for a fact that filmmakers can use the leverage of critical awards in order to pry publicity dollars out of a studio or distributor. Some may even have it written into their contracts.
But movies are personal matters. I don't put much stock in committee decisions about the "best" or the "worst" -- particularly within an arbitrary unit of measurement like a "year." (That won't stop me from participating in critics polls, though!) What interests me are the critics' personal selections, and their reasons for selecting them. A list... well, it's just a list.
Didn't we have this discussion back when we had one of those "list of lists" combining results from different best-of lists?
I agree with you here. I am much more interested in the individual choices than committee decisions. Even if you think "No Country" is the best film this year, do you really think that 4 out of 5 critics in America thought the same thing (does that mean we have reached a "Coen-sensus?") Of course not, but the individual opinions get washed out in the group think.
Sometimes this produces consensus "winners" that nobody really thought was the best (I doubt this is the case for "No Country", however). I remember when Sideways "won" the Film Comment Critical Poll even though you'd be hard pressed to find one critic in the poll who thought Sideways was the best film of the year. It's just that a lot of people liked it, even if nobody loved it.
As I wrote elsewhere on this subject: "Consensus only breeds mediocrity or, if you will, more consensus."
Gimme the apostates, even if they're nuts. In other words, I want to know what Armond White likes. :)
I don't have any illusions about critics groups being consensus awards, surely, and as far as they go I'm really only interested in a list that inspires me to think about a favorite in a new way or gives me a reason to think about seeing a movie I may have avoided.
But Corliss discounts, for some reason, the critics groups simply because they're part of the end-of-the-season awards circuit when what may be a very real result of the lists and the attention brought to them is, hmm, the drawing of more attention to movies that aren't necessarily getting a big awards push, or much publicity of any kind. Who cares whether the movies get Oscars or Golden Globes as a result? (Well, I know the answer to that question-- it was rhetorical...) Rather than seeming elitist, I'm always glad to see a critic or critics group mention someone I've never heard of. It just makes my list of must-sees one or two movies longer.
Awards outside of the Oscars are healthy things I think. The strategy to win an Oscar is to make an entertaining movie that has some class, not necessarily art, but class. Someone you wouldn't mind dressing up and going to a nice party with, they'll wear a casual tux and make the guests laugh. They're interesting without being crass or pretentious.
Their not the guy that stands in the corner. Sure he might have more meaningful things to say about politics, things to say that aren't simple popular rhetoric, or maybe he wants to talk about an artist other than Pablo Picasso, probably someone from the Czech Republic or even more obscure. You might learn a lot if you were to find the corner of the room he's in. That's what all of the critics polls and "city awards" are good for. Helping you track down the guy in the corner.
The Golden Globes is the big annoying guy in the center of the room telling the same joke to everyone that passes and laughing while dribbling beer on women's dresses. You might watch for entertainment, but you wouldn't stop to take him seriously.
I just drove by the Frank Langella film the other day, wondered what it was, and now know that it might really be worth throwing some money at to see because of the awards he's won. The guy in the corner. Hey there, Mr. Good Movie! Look forward to chatting real soon.
I think the critics fall into the same trap as all the other award organizations, mainly that they forget or ignore anything before October. The awards aren't for the year, they're for the best of the festival circuit.
My main area of interest is acting and I like that the major non-critic orgs have multiple nominees instead of just a winner and a runner-up. It's a way of honoring more than one or two people. While Clooney and Christie are certainly deserving of recognition so is just about everyone involved in Zodiac but I fear that came out too early to be remembered. I can think of a couple of Best Actor and a couple of Best Supporting Actor nods for that movie alone.
Here we go again with the usual attack on movie critics by "mainstream media" personalities. Because critics do not choose box office giants and popular favorites every year and perhaps the personal favorites of most "broadcast journalists" (just look at their movie and TV awards), they are "out of touch from the people," they are damned elitists who think they're better than everybody else. This is such a common American complaint in every sector of the society. "Out of touch with the common people" is used so frequently by self-appointed populists (from Bill O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs to the president) to attack anything they disagree with and slightly above the lowest common denominator.
The reality is, I will always have a better chance of liking a movie based on favorable critcal reviews than on favorable box office figures.
Hi Dennis -
You wrote:
"Rather than seeming elitist, I'm always glad to see a critic or critics group mention someone I've never heard of. It just makes my list of must-sees one or two movies longer."
Me too, but I think this is probably because we're both movie buffs and are always hoping to come across some overlooked movie that we'll fall in love with.
I think that non-movie buffs - people who make up the "general" movie audience - are more likely to feel that these lists are elitist. Partly because, relatively speaking, they are elitist. I also have a hunch that, to a certain extent, people look to opinion pieces - like critics' lists - for validation of their own opinions on things. When they don't get that validation, they feel a bit put out.
Hey, Jon!
I suspect also that a lot of the reason the "general" movie audience, whether they have movie buff inclinations or not, looks upon these lists as somewhat elitist is that the lists are often engaging with movies that never played anywhere other than the larger metropolitan areas. DVDs have made more films than ever readily available, but often, as Jonathan suggests, the movies that end up on these lists are still in theaters or haven't made it to DVD. Does that make critics elitist for choosing to talk about films that not everyone has yet had a chance to see? If they're being honest, I don't necessarily think so. Reviewers pitched to the general audience will always make sure to cover all the big releases every weekend and talk about the hot Oscar prospects at the end of the year. But critics will (hopefully) engage the year in its entirety without regard to a movie's production or marketing budget and highlight what they see as genuinely worthy of discussion, no matter what time of year the movie is released.
A little off topic, but doesn't it seem like this years critic's awards have mostly ignored films that came out before September? Nobody seems to remember that Zodiac came out this year, or that Chris Cooper was great in Breach. Also: Once, Rescue Dawn, Knocked Up (which seemed like a lock for at least some noms a few months ago, but Juno seems to have stolen its buzz), The Lookout, Hot Fuzz. In a few instances critics didn't seem to have such short term memory (Julie Christie in Away from Her, Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose), but is there any validity to this argument, or is it just a fact that studios hold out their best films for the end of the year?
Jonathan:
You are right! The short term memory by these so called "experts" is the reason why awards season is nothing more than water cooler fodder for me.
I still think Zodiac is the best film of 2007. It's about as perfect as a film can be. I also am surprised that people have allowed Juno to steal some of Knocked Up's deserved thunder. Also, The Lookout was one of my favorite movies this year and Hot Fuzz is brilliant.
Other forgotten films:
Eastern Promises, 3:10 to Yuma, A Mighty Heart, Bug, Sam Jackson's performance in Black Snake Moan, the music in Black Snake Moan, Into Great Silence, Don Cheadle's performance in Talk to Me, The Wind That Shakes the Barely, and I am sure there are others.
Also, I was rather fond of Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch's performances in Into the Wild.
The point: Great films get overlooked every year. At least there will always be a community of film buffs seaking out these great films and keeping them fresh in the minds of those they come in contact with.