What really matters, as far as critics are concerned, these four groups, New York, LA, and the NBR (we’ll deal with the Golden Globes in a separate post). They matter for various reasons. First, why do any awards matter at all, from critics, to industry, to Oscar? They matter to studios for two reasons, leaving off gratification of earned career high. 1) they lend prestige, and 2) they can make the difference between someone deciding to buy a ticket or not. The Oscar brand is, right now, the most expensive of these because it’s by far the most valuable. This is why the Academy works so hard not to dilute that brand, especially where Best Picture is concerned.
In order to address the changing face of the film industry they could, for example, have a separate category for Best Effects Driven Film. But that almost always leads to diluting the brand. Look at the Broadcast Film Critics that birthed so many new categories (to ensure more stars attended their shows and perhaps to make it easier to pick winners across the board). Is anyone going to care if a film wins Best Action Movie by the BFCA? Similarly, who is going to care if a film wins Best Effects Driven Picture? One award, Best Picture, means everything.
The first Academy Awards in 1928 had a marvelous division of “best production overall” and “artistic achievement.” That is how Sunrise and Wings both won. What a marvelous idea that is. It addresses the continual conflict between popular entertainment/money makers and artistic daring. For instance, this year, you could give Best Production to, say, Interstellar and artistic achievement to Boyhood. But that isn’t happening any time soon, so we have to deal with what is, not what should be.
December 1st is fast approaching. The New York Film Critics deliberately pushed their awards back to be “first” in the awards race and indeed, they have taken back power from the National Board of Review in a rushed season. Before Oscar pushed their own date back a month, the National Board of Review came out so early, too early. They could push a film into the race but they were considered too early to matter. Later, the New York and Los Angeles Critics would take center stage and really drive the race (most of the time). But the date change smushed everything together, so that Telluride became the most important film festival (over Toronto, for instance) and the NBR had the cat bird’s seat with early critics awards. The New York Film Critics then pushed their own date back to be first. And so it goes.
Los Angeles doesn’t seem to care to be first but they like to be different, especially these days. They seem to want to vote against what New York and the Oscar pundits have decided. In other words, they don’t feel like wasting their time merely confirming what everyone else has to say. Rather, they seem eager to be different, more challenging, to go against the grain a bit. One of the strange side effects from an abundance of supply without corresponding demand is that writers, bloggers, critics and journalists are desperate for any sort of drama in the race and often concoct their own to keep things humming along.
The National Board of Review names a Best Picture and ten more best films. The Best Picture matters, and it’s nice to see some titles on their top ten, but their top ten matters less than, say, the AFI’s top ten. Their Best Picture DOES matter, it seems. The New York and LA Film critics also have power to influence the acting and directing categories, perhaps more than any other group in the early part of the race. Which director is named best by New York and LA really does count for something.
These announcements will come just before the DGA, PGA, SAG and Oscar voters fill out their nominees. Human nature dictates that most of us, except the most confident and assured among us, don’t know what is really the best, or what is thought of as the best. We like what we like but we also like to get along with our fellow humans. While some of us delight in being “different,” generally speaking human beings are inclined towards harmonious agreement, a sense of belonging to something. This is often how consensus votes are formed: what unites, rather than divides, voters?
So when the early awards come down, many humans feel inclined to agree, in order to get along and find harmonious sense of belonging. This consensus builds and becomes hard to shake. That was why 2010 was so odd, with the entire film critic community backing the Social Network while the industry rejected it outright — they didn’t want t belong to a group that admired such cold and calculating characters. They’d much rather belong to the group that admired a sweet, cuddly, stuttering King with his cute little family and a while bunch of cute British people uniting against Hitler. It remains the most interesting Best Picture race that I’ve ever seen, with the possible exception of the year 2000, when Gladiator, Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon were headed for the big prize. There was division in the ranks for various reasons, most of them good.
When you think about what New York is going to do, you have to think: big statement. The past two years they’ve picked movies most people hadn’t seen. How dramatic that they named American Hustle Best Picture when everyone already knew that the two movies that could win were either Gravity or 12 Years a Slave (both films divided the consensus, uniting them over separate issues and objectives). That prize launched American Hustle squarely in the race at a time when no one knew if the movie would land or not. When I saw it at a SAG screening I thought it went down badly. I thought: what a sloppy mess of a movie – while “fun” and entertaining, it is not going to have a shot against the other two films. Boy was I wrong. All it took was the anointing of “best” from the New York Film Critics OVER Gravity and 12 Years a Slave for that movie to suddenly become a powerful player. The Emperor’s New Clothes look mighty pretty today. But here’s the question, did those critics really think American Hustle was better than Gravity or 12 Years a Slave, two films they reviewed as best of the year? Or did they merely want to stand out in a season that stuffs the turkey to the point of bursting?
12 Years a Slave Metacritic rating: 97
Gravity’s Metacritic rating: 96
American Hustle’s Metacritic rating: 90
90 is still very respectable. To me, that movie is about a 70, or a 75 to be charitable. But that just shows how little I know about what critics like.
Did they think it was best or did they want to stand out? Hard to say. The National Board of Review then named Her Best Picture. They like to pick movies that no one else has chosen, thus making sure they also stand apart. That film was launched into the race in a big way.
Los Angeles then went for a tie between Gravity and Her, eliminating any big city critic’s approval of Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave. The film had been declared the Best Picture winner by Kyle Buchanan early in the race, which put a giant target on its back. Though it won, it was touch and go for a while there, with even the BAFTA awarding it their top prize but not screenplay, actor, etc.
Hm.
In predicting these major awards, one has to factor in the desire to be different, not just from other critics but from what the predicted Oscar winner. That’s a tough one. In the old days, before the awards-as-overstuffed-turkey days, they would merely pick “best” of the year.
They sometimes unite, as they did in 2012 with Zero Dark Thirty. Named “best picture and director” early, by the New York Film Critics, the film went on to be named best by the National Board of Review. But remember, the Los Angeles Film Critics mostly like to set themselves apart, so they went with Amour instead, which likely pushed Amour into the race, which also then gave Michael Haneke a Best Director nod instead of Kathryn Bigelow. It wouldn’t matter in the end because people like Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan would help lead a charge that demolished Zero Dark Thirty’s chances and pit film critics against political journalists until the movie was destroyed, perception wise. I remember one Los Angeles Film Critic member saying on Twitter, “we’re not going to vote for Zero Dark Thirty, I can tell you that.” It wasn’t because they thought the film celebrated torture or admitted Americans got information from torturing (that is exactly what the movie says and exactly what really happened) but because the movie was winning everything and LA likes to stand apart.
The last time they were united in holy matrimony was – say it with me now:
2010 – The Social Network
But let’s do a quick chart of the last ten years since the date for Oscar changed to see how the three groups align for Best Picture:
Two things should be immediately apparent. 1) The Social Network is the only film in the last ten years to win all three critics groups, and the only film in their entire history to win all three groups and not win Best Picture other than LA Confidential (if you factor in the Golden Globes for Best Film Social Network is the only one to manage that).
And
2) since the Academy expanded their Best Picture category from 5 to 10, and then from 10 to a number between 5 and 10, all of their winners have gone on to be nominees.
Now, let’s get on to predictions. We’ll be putting up our contest in the coming days but let’s start with a preliminary cheat sheet.
New York Film Critics
Top choices: Birdman, Boyhood or Foxcatcher
Would drastically change the race: Unbroken
Would really shift things: Selma
Los Angeles Film Critics
Top choices: Birdman, Boyhood or Foxcatcher
Depending on what New York decides, but we’re probably still looking at these.
The Scott Feinberg/Jeff Wells dream come true: CitizenFour
Big shocker that would change the race: A Most Violent Year
National Board of Review
Top choices: American Sniper, Selma, Unbroken
But would not surprise me if: Birdman, Boyhood or Foxcatcher
As you can see by the chart, it’s extremely rare to have the critics determine WHAT WILL WIN Best Picture but they are crucial in deciding which films start the proper race on top. They generally pick films that are well reviewed, so you have to start there. So many films this year are surprisingly not that well reviewed as you’d think but Boyhood, Birdman and Foxcatcher seem to be the critics’ darlings thus far.
Unbroken is really the big question mark – if the New York Film Critics wanted to pull a third rabbit out of their hat they might pick that movie, which would then give the pundits further ammo to keep predicting a film they haven’t seen to win. That still doesn’t mean it wins Best Picture at the Oscars, but it would sure help.
What they probably will shy away from overall? Gone Girl (except maybe the NBR that might name it as one of their top ten). It earned mixed reviews from the critics and after the Social Network he’ll have to make a movie critics, not the ticket buying public, approve of. If it were me voting, it would be a toss up between the films I think are the best of the year: Gone Girl, Selma, Boyhood, Inherent Vice.
How about you? How do you think they’re going to go?
Fell out of bed feeling down. This has brtngiehed my day!
There were worse Best Picture winners than The King’s Speech. As you all know. It was not my favorite movie of that year, but it was a good movie. And it takes more than just good cinema like Titanic to justify a win for Best Picture and for us to give a damn about it.
From the bottom of my heart, I just wish the insuperable Marion Cotillard sweeps all the awards this year up to The Oscars. There’s no actress this year that deserves it more, including the fantastic Julianne Moore. Marion Cotillard gave this year the absolute best female performance of the year (Two Days, One Night) and the absolute second best female performance of the year (The Immigrant) at the same year!!! I’ll be more than thrilled to watch her win a second Oscar for either.
Does anyone else feel that “Boyhood’s” chances (post Critics awards) could slip seeing that IFC may not have the $$$ to keep pushing it to a Best Pic win?
Not that it doesn’t deserve every award it wins, but I just worry that it’s length and distribution and advertising may not hold up against the bigger ones.
NY: Selma
LA: Whiplash / Inherent Vice
NBR: Unrboken
“I would not be at all surprised to see this year’s critic’s darling Boyhood pretty much sweep the critic’s group but be denied by the Academy.”
That’s what I think will happen as well – Boyhood will win at least 2/3 (most likely 3/3), but won’t go on to win BP at the Oscars.
NY – Birdman
runner up – Selma
LA – Selma
runner up – Boyhood
NBR – The Imitation Game
alt – American Sniper
NSFC – Boyhood
runner up – Birdman
I think Keaton will take best actor at LA, NY and NSFC while Bradley Cooper will win NBR again. Julianne Moore wins best actress from NY and NSFC, Pike wins LA, Reese Witherspoon wins NBR. Simmons wins NBR, Norton wins NSFC and NY, Ruffalo wins LA. Chastain takes NBR (AMVY) and Arquette takes LA, NY and NSFC. I see Boyhood winning screenplay at NY, LA, NSFC with Imitation Game and Grand Budapest Hotel winning it from NBR. But…NBR can give out random screenplay awards so (NGNG) I can see Whiplash winning original and The Theory of Everything winning adapted. Director…Innaritu wins LA and NSFC, Linklater wins NY, Tyldum wins NBR. Cinematography…Lubezski wins NY, van Hoytema wins LA, Bradford Young wins NSFC (AMVY). LA’s award for music (one of my favorites)…Desplat for Grand Budapest Hotel or Alex Ebert for AMVY.
This was fun 🙂
NY – Birdman
alt. Selma
LA – Inherent Vice
alt. Birdman
NBR – Boyhood
alt. Selma
M1, I admire Hooper too most of the time. I do think his style can get in the way of the story. But King’s Speech and Les Mis were good movies, not great in my eyes. I think his best in Damned United.
Paddy, I know The Master reaped some nice, and well-deserved, nominations for the actors. I’ve been very vocal since it released that Hoffman should’ve won for supporting and I was on the fence about who I wanted to win best actor, Phoenix or Day-Lewis. Depending on the day of the week my opinion changes. And Anderson’s movie have always done well with the acting, Oscar-wise. But sometimes for a movie so gargantuan, which The Master was to me, it deserved more. It deserved so many more nominations. At the very least, the very…least…original screenplay and cinematography. I can understand, begrudgingly so, if the academy didn’t like the movie as a whole. But to deny it cinematography and original screenplay is sacrilege in my eyes. I thought at the very least it had cinematography and supporting actor wins in the bag when the movie released. But I know I don’t need a movie to win Oscars for my personal validation…sometimes seeing a group give it to said movie gives me more confidence in said group. I’m ranting, I know. I’m a Master-fanatic. I need therapy.
And for the record The King’s Speech, while it didn’t deserve a cinematography Oscar nomination in the least, had some good camerawork most of the time. That said I’m also a fan of Downton Abbey and even with some of the framing going on there. I have to revisit King’s Speech. It’s been years now.
Funny that in 2000, 2001 & 2002 those 4 groups picked FOUR DIFFERENT winners… and that never happened again !
I feel like this could be one of those years again.
I find Hooper’s style a bit refreshing and unpredictable (not that unpredictability is always a good thing). In The King’s Speech I thought he effectively brought out the emotion of the story (tough to do given that the movie is largely about a British guy with a stutter) while showcasing some incredible acting from the cast (Firth’s performance is easily one of the best of the past decade). And yes, I actually think the script is gorgeous, filled with witty banter and finding ways to be funny, heartfelt, and sad, sometimes all within the same scene. I imagine his version of Les Mis probably would have been better had he waited a few more years to do it, but there is still plenty I admire about it, from the rousing emotion, the idea for the entire production to be sung live, and once again, the great performances. Not a perfect film at all, but an enjoyable film at least, and certainly better than many other directors could have done. If, say, Baz Luhrmann had directed it, I’d probably still be in the hospital recovering from multiple seizures.
Given that he had worked in TV for years before The King’s Speech, I’d say that he’s off to a strong start in film. Having loved The King’s Speech and liked Les Mis (as well as his solid 2009 film The Damned United), I’m interested in whatever Hooper does at this point and I hope he does not follow the way of Paul Haggis or Rob Marshall. Please, no.
Something about the characters and writing in Downton Abbey makes me gives a shit about their pouty problems.
The characters and the writing, sure. You can have that, anybody can have that, David Seidler’s a terrible writer based on The King’s Speech.
I’ll say Tom Hooper has at least one good idea: he displays an interest in the physical environments of his characters. Their personal space, physical geography, architecture. Tom Tykwer does the same thing. They’re both concerned with the psychological and emotional implications of space and one’s physical status within that space, and how it can be used both narratively, to influence characters’ thoughts, feelings and actions, and stylistically, to lend emphasis or to draw one’s attention toward specific aspects, whether immediately pertinent to the scene or the shot or not. He doesn’t do it very subtly – in fact, he did it very badly in Les Miserables – but at least he does it. He’s learning. If he stays away from material like Les Mis, which brought out the worst in him, I feel confident he’ll come to earn his Oscar win far more so than, say, John G Avildsen or Michel Hazanavicius. I’m tempted to include Sam Mendes in with those two, but I don’t wanna make you shit yourself Ryan.
A couple more things:
Paul Thomas Anderson has only made two fims that haven’t been recognised by the Academy’s acting branch. The other branches all entirely ignored The Master; it was the actors’ joint second best-performing film that year at the Oscars, alongside Lincoln with three nominations and just behind Silver Lining Playbook with four.
Also, you people need to come to terms with the concept of No Guts No Glory. Gone Girl and Unbroken are not applicable. A NGNG pick would be something like The Homesman.
I can phrase my personal opinion to make it sound like a fact as well as you can, Paddy.
Girl, my personal opinions are facts to me. I ain’t gonna phrase them any other way. If anyone wants to interpret them as universal truths, then that’s their personal problem with failing to take personal responsibility for their own personal opinions.
At least Danny Cohen tried with The King’s Speech. It was unnecessarily ostentatious, and I’ve always thought as much, but the M.O. for most TV dramas seems to be to set up conventional, well-lit lighting and plain framing to ensure that the audience can see and make sense of everything in the frame and everything in the scene with minimal intellectual effort. There’s at least an attempt at establishing some form of visual language in The King’s Speech, albeit a rather pedantic and unformed language. I’ll take its naive adolescence any day over Downton Abbey’s geriatric stupor.
Girl, my personal opinions are facts to me. I ain’t gonna phrase them any other way.
Hope you know I’m playing, Paddy. My first comment that provoked you to disagree was already phrased as if my thoughts were engraved in granite. We all do that.
here’s the thing that bothers me about Tom Hooper’s hatred of symmetry and tripods: he uses that compositions aLL the time in every movie. Sure, I’ve heard all the rationale for how the off-center framing in TKS was supposed to symbolize the king’s alienation, or the emptiness in his life, or his fap fap fap psychological turmoil.
Seems legit. Makes some analytical sense. Until we remember that Hooper used the very same gimmick in HBO’s John Adams — with a different cinematographer! (reminder: John Adams didn’t stammer and wasn’t a pampered royal, so why was John Adams stuck with the same tilted asymmetrical framing as King Bertie?)
So it’s not Danny Cohen’s idea or Tak Fujimoto’s idea — it’s Tom Hooper’s idea. Apparently the ONLY idea Hooper ever had. That’s why it annoys me.
yes, it’s unfair for me to compare The King’s Speech with Downton Abbey because, for me, Downton Abbey is better. Something about the characters and writing in Downton Abbey makes me gives a shit about their pouty problems.
And for shits and giggles…
NBR: Selma
Runner up: Boyhood
NYFCC: Boyhood
Runner up: Selma
LAFCC: Inherent Vice
Runner Up: Birdman
“Not to be a downer but I felt the exact same way with The Master. It came in 1st, 2nd and 3rd places in most of the major critics and if you look back it won picture, director and original screenplay from a lot of other groups. But we all remember what happened come Oscar morning. The Master was my favorite movie of the past few years when it released. I got caught up with a serious case of wishful thinking. I’ve been preparing myself for Inherent Vice getting shut out completely. But maybe…I shall dream.”
I’m with you, Kane. I kept THE MASTER in my final predictions in 2012 and it really bit me in the ass. But it did still eek out 3 acting nods. The way I’m reading it right now is that both the Supporting Actor and Adapted Screenplay fields are, if not soft, then certainly up for grabs in terms of nominations. Any mention of INHERENT VICE in any category could get the ball rolling. But I think it’ll clearly be a BOOGIE NIGHTS/MAGNOLIA situation– a couple nods in “major” categories, then maybe something below the line. The minute I finished the trailer, any consideration of Oscar prospects was the furthest thing from my mind. By now I think it’s clear that PT Anderson has graduated to a level above Oscar talk. He just makes damn good movies.
I like Lenny’s choices.
I showed this to my girlfriend last night and it made sense
NY – Mr. Turner
LA – Birdman
NBR – Boyhood
Go BIRDMAN!
Does The King’s Speech look and sound like Downton Abbey? Yes.
Does Downton Abbey’s flat, plain cinematography hold a candle to The King’s Speech’s? No. Does Downton Abbey’s unremarkable sound mix compare to The King’s Speech’s subtly perceptive soundscape? No. Does Downton Abbey’s faux-grandiose score sound even half as well-constructed as The King’s Speech’s soundtrack? No.
It bothers me when people with a genuine understanding of filmmaking say that The King’s Speech is just a Masterpiece Theatre movie. Not even the unimaginative blandness of films like this year’s The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything are on a Masterpiece Theatre level of creative dullness.
“Does Downton Abbey’s flat, plain cinematography hold a candle to The King’s Speech’s?”
Downton Abbey’s elegant cinematography is better than the silly distracting hey-look-at-my-cinematography! cinematography of The King’s Speech.
I can phrase my personal opinion to make it sound like a fact as well as you can, Paddy.
“I feel like INHERENT VICE might get traction with critics awards.”
Not to be a downer but I felt the exact same way with The Master. It came in 1st, 2nd and 3rd places in most of the major critics and if you look back it won picture, director and original screenplay from a lot of other groups. But we all remember what happened come Oscar morning. The Master was my favorite movie of the past few years when it released. I got caught up with a serious case of wishful thinking. I’ve been preparing myself for Inherent Vice getting shut out completely. But maybe…I shall dream.
Correlation does not equal causation. The choices line up bc critics and the industry have similar tastes and approach film as art so they pick from the same pool. I think NYFCC goes Birdman, LA goes for Boyhood, and NBR goes for Selma or American Sniper. I think we’ll see more than one Director split.
I think Boyhood is the kind of film the critics would love.
I’ll be interested in seeing what the critics go for. Plenty of diverse options for them to choose. I’ll predict…
NBR
The Imitation Game
Alt. American Sniper
New York
Boyhood
Alt. Selma
Los Angeles
Birdman
Alt. Inherent Vice
No Guts, No Glory could be:
NBR
The Theory of Everything
Alt. Mr. Turner
New York
The Grand Budapest Hotel (possibly with Fiennes winning Best Actor there as well?)
Alt. Still Alice
Los Angeles
Wild
Alt. Unbroken
“Do you think all movies about historical events are equivalent in tone, scope, depth and style?”
No. I was just asking for Sasha’s opinion on what makes one of the other two movies better than The King’s Speech.
But I’m off topic. I’ll start commenting on what this article is about.
wouldn’t it be lovely if Inherent Vice was the wild card that cut into the race, people have, despite great reviews, written it off as just not Oscar, but the NY Film critics are not Oscar.
If ‘The Imitation Game’ wins Best Picture from one of the three groups does that shift things? I also feel that ‘Gone Girl’ might surprise with Rosamund Pike coming under the radar and winning a top award. I was shocked that Ben Affleck forgot to mention her name at the Hollywood Film Awards.
“Yes, for a film that should have been on Masterpiece Theater.”
So, then, does this mean Lincoln and The Butler are Masterpiece Theater as well?
So, then, does this mean Lincoln and The Butler are Masterpiece Theater as well?
No.
Do you think all movies about historical events are equivalent in tone, scope, depth and style?
Does The King’s Speech look and sound like Downton Abbey? Yes. Does Lincoln? No. Does The Butler? No.
Just for the record, 12 Years a Slave won two BAFTAs–BP and Best Actor for Ejiofor. But there was still a perception that 12 Years had underperformed with BAFTA because so many people were expecting it to sweep.
“Another major consideration as we adjust the scales: The King’s Speech does not equal Titanic in any way, shape or form.”
Absolutely true. The King’s Speech is a far better movie than Titanic will ever be.
Absolutely true. The King’s Speech is a far better movie than Titanic will ever be.
Yes, for a film that should have been on Masterpiece Theater. Titanic is cinema. Even its bad script can’t dampen its cinematic achievements.
Great piece! It’s writing like this when I think you are at your best, and why I’ve continued to follow you obsessively (in a non-scary way) for over 10 years now. 🙂
NY – Unbroken
LA – Birdman
NBR – Unbroken
Great piece! It’s writing like this when I think you are at your best
One of the best things that’s ever happened to me is that I have readers who prefer writing anything BUT this kind. But thanks anyway. 🙂
NY: Birdman (Foxcatcher)
LA: Whiplash (Foxcatcher)
NBR: Boyhood (Birdman)
NYFCC
Best Film – Boyhood
Directing – Richard Linklater
Actor – Michael Keaton
Actress – Julianne Moore
Supporting Actor – Mark Ruffalo
Supporting Actress – Meryl Streep
Screenplay – Birdman
Cinematography – Birdman
Foreign Language Film – Winter Sleep
First Film – anybody?
My favorite group is LA. If you look at the history of NYFCC, they’re the interesting group. They’ve had some great choices in the early 00’s and 90’s as well as the 70’s. They went with Mulholland Drive, Topsy-Tursy, they honored both John Malkovich and Catherine Keener for Being John Malkovich, they named Terrence Mallick best director for The Thin Red Line and they were crazy about The Piano, Naked etc etc etc
What happened? Why is the group that boring right now? They have their shockers now and then, but they want to be part of the Oscar game way too badly? Could it be because of the not-so-exclusive membership?
Anyway, I’d say LA will go for:
Best Picture — Boyhood
Runner-up: Inherent Vice
Best Directing – Richard Linklater for Boyhood
Runner-up: PT Anderson
Best Actor – Timotty Spall in Mr Turner
Runner-up: Michael Keaton in Birdman
Best Actress – Agata Trzebuchowska in Ida
Runner-up: Julianne Moore in Still Alice
Best Supporting Actor – JK Simmons in Birdman
Runner-up: Josh Brolin in Inherent Vice
Best Supporting Actress – (TIE)
Patricia Arquette in Boyhood
Meryl Streep in Into the Woods
Best Screenplay – Foxcatcher
Runner-up: Inherent Vice
Best Cinematography – Inherent Vice
Runner-up: Mr. Turner or Ida
Best Film Editing – Boyhood
Runner-up: Whiplash
Best Music, Score – Birdman
Runner-up: The Imitation Game
Best Production Design – Into the Woods
Runner-up: Selma
Best Foreign Language Film – Mommy
Runner-up: Ida
The being said I would not be at all surprised to see this year’s critic’s darling Boyhood pretty much sweep the critic’s group but be denied by the Academy.
These 3 groups are almost utterly irrelevant. Yeah, the winners might tell us what film is assured of a nomination but to say that any of these critics groups can propel a film into the race sounds kinda absurd to me. Pretty sure the AMPAS was always going to vote in said film regardless of what the silly critics chose…
Anyways, I analyzed all this the other day, though more-so for the groups that actually give us more relevant data to work with…
“the NY and LA film critics won’t tell us much as they only pick a winner as opposed to say the National Board of Review and AFI Best Films of the Year. The former chooses 1 winner and then lists 10 others whereas AFI doesn’t list a winner at all it if I recall correctly, just their picks for the 10 Best of the Year. The National Board of Review tends to align less with the Academy making some interesting choices and having a soft spot for Clint Eastwood (ie they have selected basically every one of Eastwood’s films stretching back to 2003) though it’s interesting to note that while since the Best Picture expansion AFI has selected 7 to 8 films that went on to be eventual BP nominees AFI also tends to have some out of place or more mainstream choices such as The Hangover in 2009, The Town in 2010, Bridesmaids in 2011, The Dark Knight Rises in 2012. Also, note that any British film productions would not be represented here, such as The Imitation Game or Theory of Everything with respect to this year.
The Golden Globe nominations are tricky to say how much credence to lend because of the two picture categories and there isn’t always an even mix with the Oscar nominees. The Critics Choice Awards have traditionally been one of the best in aligning with The Academy Awards with 8 in 2009, all 10 in 2010, 9 in 2011 (they even called War Horse, Tree of Life, and Extremely Loud 😯 ) 8 in 2012, and 8 in 2013.”
For some reason I have a feeling that Inherent Vice will be overlooked badly. ( I hope I’m 100% wrong) but I hope it doesn’t ended being The Master. That film deserved an Oscar for best pic. Foxcatcher looks like to be a dark film that will not win best pic but will be nominated in few categories.
New York: Boyhood
alt. : Selma
National Board: Boyhood
alt.: Unbroken
Los Angeles: Selma
alt.: Birdman
NY – BIRDMAN
LA – INHERENT VICE
NBR – BOYHOOD
So, with everyone saying either Boyhood, Birdman, Selma, Foxcatcher, does this mean that no one believes Gone Girl will stand a chance? How about in the Best Picture race overall?
I didn’t included it, but that’s only because I think Boyhood (at least right now) seems like it will be a likely juggernaut.
My take:
NYFCC: Birdman, runners-up: Boyhood and Foxcatcher
LAFC: Foxcatcher, runner-up: A Most Violent Year
NBR: Selma
Just reviewing the main precursor Awards for Best Picture. These are how they voted:
British Academy – 12 Years a Slave
Broadcast Film Critics Association – 12 Years a Slave
Directors Guild – Gravity
Golden Globes – 12 Years a Slave (D) / American Hustle (C/M)
Los Angeles Film Critics – Gravity, Her (tie)
National Board of Review – Her
National Society of Film Critics – Inside Llewyn Davis
New York Film Critics – American Hustle
Producers Guild – 12 Years a Slave, Gravity (tie)
Screen Actors Guild – American Hustle
I wonder if the Los Angeles Film Critics will tie again, like they did last year with Gravity and Her?
If there happens to be a tie, my guess is it would be Boyhood and Selma.
I think TWO DAYS ONE NIGHT could win in LAFCA and MARION COTILLARD for her wonderful superb performance.
“The King’s Speech does not equal Titanic in any way, shape or form.”
In that TITANIC is a far superior motion picture, I hope? 🙂
I forgot about SELMA. I wouldn’t be surprised if it took one of the “majors”, or at least find out it gave the winners a run for their money once we know how the voting went down. Something tells me Julianne Moore stands a good chance of being cited many times as the Best Actress of the year. Critics do like to award people with more than one notable performance in a single year, yes? I can see a lot of “Best Actress goes to Julianne Moore for STILL ALICE and MAPS TO THE STARS.
UNBROKEN isn’t winning any “Best Picture” critics awards. In fact, I believe every film that stands a reasonable chance has already been mentioned on the piece and thread. They are BOYHOOD, BIRDMAN, INHERENT VICE and SELMA and on a second-tier maybe GRAND BUDAPEST and FOXCATCHER though, at any rate, they would longshots. I will gladly eat crow in disgrace if A MOST VIOLENT YEAR wins NY, but I am assuring you that it won’t.
Since Steve brought up the title, I’d like to inform everyone that IDA is now on Netflix Instant. One of the best of the year. That’s right. I am officially anointing it. Wait…just two more seconds…there! It is now canon. So do yourself a favor, will you?
— “The King’s Speech does not equal Titanic in any way, shape or form.”
— In that TITANIC is a far superior motion picture, I hope?
Was I not vague enough? 🙂
As much as my feelings towards Titanic may be mixed, there’s little question that it had everything an epic Best Picture winner has ever needed to sweep. On the other hand, The King’s Speech had everything a middling Best Picture winner ever needed to squeak through.
I agree with Bryce it could end up being a Boyhood sweep. But I kinda feel that NY will go for Birdman and LA with go with Inherent Vice and NBR Will go for Boyhood and it’s unstoppable from there…. But watch out for Into the Woods maybe …. Sasha?
I feel like it might break down like…
NY: Birdman
LA: Inherent Vice
NBR: Boyhood
Though honestly I might just be saying Birdman for New York because, well, it’s just so New Yorky. I almost can’t imagine it going without anyone citing it though, and I doubt it’ll be NBR, so…
Also, Sasha, just curious – if you’re between Gone Girl, Boyhood, Inherent Vice, and Selma for best of the year, which film rounds out your top five?
NSFC seems to be the last holdouts that don’t try an play Oscar’s game. Last couple of years is was Llewyn Davis, Amour, Melancholia, Social Network. This year, if they don’t go for Boyhood, watch for a FFL to walk in (Leviathan, Ida, Timbuktu, maybe?)
LA likes to mix it up, so the chances that they’ll agree with NY are slim-to-none. They recognize that rarely is one film the standout of the year (Social Network being one of those rare exceptions). So if Boyhood takes NY, it won’t take LA, too. Best chances for Inherent Vice or Selma are with LA.
Isn’t Rex Reed still in NY, along with Schickel and Travers? Don’t expect them to move the earth with their choice. They’ve been pretty bland for a few years.
Sasha, you said that BAFTA rejected 12 Years a Slave but it won best picture there. Maybe you’re remembering Gravity Best British Film win, hence the confusion.
Anyway, my two cents:
NY: Boyhood
LA: Boyhood
NBR: Unbroken
Sasha, you said that BAFTA rejected 12 Years a Slave but it won best picture there. Maybe you’re remembering Gravity Best British Film win, hence the confusion.
Thanks for the correction – I remembered there being a powerful British journalist writing about the film got screwed, maybe because it ONLY won Best Picture, as it kept doing up to that point, not screenplay or actor — but I guess Best Film works too. I misremembered. Thanks.
“Actress – do NYFCC voters simply hate Julianne Moore? she lost for Far From Heaven and they voted for everybody else from that film.”
I know the answer to this one! In 2002, NYFCC was going hog-wild for Far From Heaven. For some reason that year, Best Actress was one of the last awards they voted on. By the time they got to Best Actress, voters were supposedly already feeling like they’d gotten carried away with Far From Heaven, giving it BP, director, supporting actor and actress, and cinematography, which tied Far From Heaven for the most wins from NYFCC ever. If Moore had won actress, Far From Heaven would have become the most awarded film in NYFCC history. According to Tom O’Neil’s Oscar book, a NYFCC voter confessed they were “desperate for an alternative” to Far From Heaven, so they “went with another actress we liked who was on our minds a lot.” Four days earlier, Diane Lane had been honored with a career tribute conducted by the Film Society of Lincoln Center that many NYFCC voters had attended, and supposedly “lots of critics were also on hand for the swank private party thrown for Lane by friends at the Four Seasons restaurant the night before the circle members voted.” So Diane Lane was voted Best Actress for Unfaithful.
Well, yes, L.A. Confidential didn’t get the Globe. Too bad.
Ryan, actually I doubt L.A. Confidential would have won in a year without Titanic as well.
It simply lacks what voters seem to go for – probably it would have been a big night for Good Will Hunting. It’s more in tune with the Academy and well, it’s your King’s Speech. I wasn’t even aware of the Oscars in 1998. Maybe I’ve heard of them but I didn’t care. Anyway, L.A. Confidential losing – I react to that similarly to the way Sasha reacts to The Social Network losing. It makes me angry. It does. Some films simply don’t have a shot. They never do no matter how many awards they get and how much critical attention they get. Yes, The Social Network is a different situation. A completely different landscape and in that regard maybe it’s closer to Brokeback Mountain, but BM was a different animal and it hurts as well.
Anyway, my guess is that this year Boyhood will win both LA and NY, with NSFC going for something like Ida or Mommy.
Directing – for now Linklater wins NY, LA, NSFC.
Actor – NY for Keaton, LA for David Oyelowo, NSFC for Carell, though Carell was a NYFCC runner-up for Little Miss Sunshine, so maybe they do like him
Actress – do NYFCC voters simply hate Julianne Moore? she lost for Far From Heaven and they voted for everybody else from that film. I guess Moore will win either NY or LA, but not both. LA is most likely to go for a foreign actress – maybe the two IDA actresses have a shot there.
Supporting Actor – Ethan Hawke for NY, J.K.Simmons for LA and maybe NSFC, but Ruffalo is my NSFC vote for now
Supporting Actress – Arquette and if tonight goes as many expect it to, Streep could take her share of wins. Her performance will simply stand out.
Screenplay – Foxcatcher, Birdman
I feel like INHERENT VICE might get a little traction with critics awards. Probably not in Best Picture, but I could definitely see it taking a few Screenplay and Supporting Actor honors. Supporting Actor seems especially likely as critic groups can sometime be eager to steer away from a perceived frontrunner like JK Simmons in WHIPLASH.
I feel like INHERENT VICE might get a little traction with critics awards.
I was also wondering about that – seems like an LA Film Critics pick if there ever was one.
The Hustle thing was bizarre. At first glance it seems like a film audiences would eat up and critics would be more reluctant. Instead the opposite happens with critics drooling over it while also acknowledging it as a mess while film buffs and moviegoers were responding with a “Wait….what? I mean it’s mildly entertaining at times, but even when it tries for fun it becomes a uneven paced slog.”
I think 2 Boyhoods and 1 Selma.
@ Sasha,
you write “Two things should be immediately apparent. 1) The Social Network is the only film in the last ten years to win all three critics groups, and the only film in their entire history to win all three groups and not win Best Picture.”
In their entire history?
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL swept as well and still lost best picture, so the second half of the statement isn’t true.
L.A. CONFIDENTIAL swept as well and still lost best picture, so the second half of the statement isn’t true.
Thanks!! Social Network has it over LA Confidential perhaps when you factor in the Golden Globes as well. I think that’s the thing.
parallels between L.A. Confidential and The Social Network are interesting but I don’t need to remind anyone here that the size of the snowball avalanching down the mountain was a lot different in 1997.
The Social Network had 28 of 41 critics saying it was a perfect 100. (68%)
L.A. Confidential has 11 of 28 critics giving it a perfect 100 score. (39%)
Another major consideration as we adjust the scales: The King’s Speech does not equal Titanic in any way, shape or form.
NBR citations for Gone Girl (they cited Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, after all) and American Sniper (they LOVE Eastwood) are pretty much a given. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they threw a bone to Jersey Boys. They cited J. Edgar, for God’s sake.
So stoked for the NBR to announce their list. They’re my favorite critics’ award by far.
My predictions:
NY: Birdman
Alt. Boyhood
LA: Inherent Vice
Alt. Boyhood
NBR: Boyhood
Alt. Unbroken
To all the ones saying Inherent Vice winning Best Picture at LAFCA, good call. The movie is right up their alley.
If I was going NGNG, I’d say:
NY – Unbroken
LA – Whiplash
NBR – Interstellar
New York goes Boyhood, LA goes Birdman and NBR goes Boyhood.
Seems easy to call.
I think it’s a ridicilous concern by the NYFCC to be the first. That shouldn’t be the goal of a critic’s group. In terms of predicting the outcome of the critics voting I have no idea.
Nbr is the group least likely to pick Boyhood. Unless Selma or unbroken is an absolute masterpiece Boyhood which is a masterpiece will win ny
La is very unpredictable remember Little Dorritt and Brazil winning Bp in the past.
NY – Birdman
NBR – Boyhood
LA – American Sniper
New York Film Critics = Birdman
Los Angeles Film Critics = Mr. Turner
National Board of Review = Boyhood
I honestly have no idea but I have a feeling that Mr. Turner will win some critics awards, it is that kind of movie. If the film will not win best picture awards then surely Timothy Spall will win some best actor trophies, he is so good in it that he turns grunting and growling into a real art.
NY- Unbroken or Selma
LA – Foxcatcher or AMVY
NBR – American Sniper
NSFC – Boyhood
New York Film Critics = Birdman (alt. Unbroken)
Los Angeles Film Critics = Inherent Vice (alt. Boyhood)
National Board of Review = Selma (alt. Boyhood)
True “No Guts, No Glory!” Picks:
NY – The Grand Budapest Hotel
LA – Interstellar
NBR – Gone Girl
NYFCC – Boyhood, Alt Birdman
LASFCA – Selma, Alt Boyhood
NBR – Mr Turner, Alt Boyhood
or not.
While I understand what you mean about Gone Girl, and agree that it’s probably not what the Academy or everyone is looking for out of David Fincher at this point, I wouldn’t say it received “mixed” reviews. Obviously it’s not the unanimous 95 that The Social Network scored, but at this point it’s received almost the same score as Foxcatcher on metacritic and fared better than Foxcatcher on Rottentomatoes.
I predict:
NY – Whiplash
LA – Boyhood
NBR – Boyhood
*I feel a little “no guts, no glory” applies to New York.
NY – BIRDMAN
LA – INHERENT VICE
NBR – BOYHOOD
Robert A., I too remember those reports about AH winning NYFCC was partly due to the voting running late and key voting members leaving before it was over.
I love AMERICAN HUSTLE, but I can buy that version, especially with McQueen winning Best Director. Were they late for brunch or something?
“The only thing that worries me about Boyhood with LAFCA is that Kenneth Turan is an influential member of the LA group, and he’s famously not as crazy about Boyhood as most critics are.”
Agreed, but I have a feeling the infamous piece went askew with his fellow members — of course nobody was very vocal about it.
Sasha, I believe the opposite is also feasible. If the critics go all SOCIAL NETWORK on BOYHOOD, that could eventually backfire with the Guilds not enjoying “being told what to like”, but hey, let’s be optimistic.
Keaton is poised to amass the bulk of critics citations, but I hope LAFCA doesn’t forget about Gyllenhaal.
@Robert A.
You are absolutely right.
It was one of the critics who was in the meeting. He was so pissed with the episode that he did an article about it and was very criticized by the other members for account with details what should be private.
They had voted in 12 years two or three times but without 100% concensus before several members had to leave the meeting. The ones who stayed behind got the chance to imposed their wish.
He was very pissed and wrote all about in the article.
So, Sasha, American Hustle was not to happen and you are totally right, in my POV, it is a mediocre movie.
Note about the chart….you have the list of Oscar Best Pictures titled as ‘NY,’ which made things confusing for a minute.
Thanks Q Mark
NY: Birdman
LA: Boyhood
NBR: Unbroken or The Grand Budapest Hotel
“LAFCA
Prediction: BOYHOOD
Alt. INHERENT VICE”
The only thing that worries me about Boyhood with LAFCA is that Kenneth Turan is an influential member of the LA group, and he’s famously not as crazy about Boyhood as most critics are. He’s only one vote, of course, but…but…
“But here’s the question, did those critics really think American Hustle was better than Gravity or 12 Years a Slave, two films they reviewed as best of the year? Or did they merely want to stand out in a season that stuffs the turkey to the point of bursting?”
There’s another possible reason for American Hustle winning BP last year from NYFCC. If I’m remembering correctly, I read an article from someone “in the know” who said that by the time the NYFCC got around to voting Best Picture, several voting members had already left due to other obligations. Steve McQueen won Best Director earlier in the voting and it seemed 12 Years a Slave was the favorite to win BP, but after a few voting members had to leave before BP was voted upon, the end result skewed toward American Hustle. According to this report, there was an audible gasp in the room when AH was declared the winner. In short, the report suggested that 12 Years a Slave would have likely been the BP winner if all voting members were still present, but since a handful had left, it ended up working in AH’s favor. Does anyone else remember reading about this? If it’s true, AH winning BP was more of an anomaly and not some self-conscious decision by NYFCC to vote for it just to be different.
What’s also interesting is how NYFCC and LAFC have sort of switched places in terms of how they vote. In the early to mid seventies, NYFCC was very eclectic in its voting, awarding BP often to foreign films such as Cries and Whispers, Day for Night, Amarcord and so on. The LAFC was founded in 1975, actually, as a counterpoint to the NYFCC, whose choices were viewed as too outside the mainstream. LAFC were pointedly more mainstream back then, voting for bigger popular hits such as Rocky, Star Wars, ET and so on. Now NYFCC leans a little more traditional, and LAFC gets a bit more eclectic, at least when it comes to the Best Actress category!
And I’m expecting Boyhood to do well with the critical voting, but we’ll see.
In terms of Oscar relevance, they only get the BP winner right 7 times out of 42 (16%) which means we cannot rely on them for that purpose, even when they agree with each other. They are much better at predicting nominees: 32 times out of 42 (76%), and since the BP lineup has been expanded, ALL their winning films have been nominated by the Academy!
So we see they are necessary to bring some diverse, critical darlings into the awards race, but they do not reflect the consensual taste of the Academy.
I got this — easy year.
NYFCC
Prediction: BOYHOOD
Alt. BOYHOOD
LAFCA
Prediction: BOYHOOD
Alt. INHERENT VICE
NBR
Prediction: BOYHOOD
Alt. BIRDMAN or FOXCATCHER
Bryce, I could TOTALLY see it going like that and then on to Best Picture.
NY: A Most Violent Year
LA: Inherent Vice
NBR: Selma