The story broke a while back that a civil war was happening within the Hollywood Critics Association. Full disclosure: almost everyone involved at the top of this organization is a friend of mine and several members of the staff here at AD are members of the HCA. But since I’ve been around this beat for 22 years or so and some might say I helped start it (at least online), I have to at least talk about it.
Both of the Scotts are friends. There is probably nothing like walking into a screening for me and seeing my friend Scott Mantz. It’s like taking a hit of ecstasy. He is the nicest person in all of film awards and I really can say a good guy. Scott Menzel is also a friend and one of the few who isn’t afraid to take a controversial stand online or be friends with people who have been shunned and purged by the major Film Twitter cliques (sorry, I had to clear my throat a little after writing that last part).
Scott (yet another) Feinberg does good journalism once again with his piece on the blowup of HCA, talking to all participants involved. You can read that full piece here for all of the tea, as it were. And there is lots of tea.
I won’t be among those throwing Scott Menzel or anyone else under the bus. This is just a general comment about the game of film awards. The thing is, up until about five minutes ago, everyone involved understood that the Oscars were fundamentally a game of celebrity, publicity, and power. Only recently have they either been seen as or thought of as “important.” But there has never been anything “important” about film awards.
Film critics, on the other hand, are supposed to be separate from film awards. The HFPA, for instance, never thought of themselves as critics. They understood their role in the awards race served as a publicity tool, more or less, as well as a way to winnow down the selections or recommend the best movies or performances, not unlike what everyone who covers film awards does.
When it comes to critics, though, there is somewhat of a dividing line. This is why, for instance, there is always so much controversy around the National Board of Review. They’ve been around since the 1930s and hover in that strange zone between what the New York Film Critics awards are and what the Golden Globes are. Like the HCA, they charge money for a table at their awards. They are also a stop on the publicity train.
There is a little of a wink wink, nod nod that goes along with any event where a lot of money is involved. Those who participate — either the talent or the journalists or the critics — know this going in. For instance, I have always been a little hesitant to post stuff from the Palm Springs Film Festival, especially when they announce “winners” of various honors. This is meant to build prestige for a contender.
Right now, for instance, Michelle Yeoh is already getting that stamp of approval from these festivals
I don’t know the particulars of what is involved in these kinds of tributes, who chooses them, what publicity team or studio is involved with it. Those of us on the beat, again, regard such things with a wink wink, nod nod. They aren’t really about people voting so much as they are about relationships, buzz, prestige, etc.
Theoretically, all of this pomp and circumstance that occurs before the Oscars is meant to usher in potential Oscar winners. This is especially true now as the public has been effectively cut out of the process. I imagine a similar sort of gauntlet happens with fashion or maybe Broadway. For niche systems, the wiring is tight, secretive, and confidential — it’s a black box.
The biggest problem I could see right off with the HCA was that Scott was moving too far, too high, too fast (I would say the same thing about the Critics Choice Awards too, but they’ve been around for awhile and many of their members are well established). The other big problem I could see was their winners of Best Picture, specifically CODA last year. I just didn’t buy it would have won on a vote with Film Twitter when their clear favorite was The Power of the Dog.
So something seemed to be slightly off. Either way, I didn’t think it was much more than the usual advocacy we see in the awards race overall. It’s just that they were calling it “critics awards,” and that is the problem. Critics still see their jobs as existing in a objective, ethical space. It isn’t that awards groups aren’t necessarily ethical, but they seem to understand that their role is more about publicity than it is about “deserving.”
However, I will say that where film critics groups have ended up in a place that is more or less about equity, making their awards more diverse and inclusive and not so much about “best.” When you start blurring those lines of the whole point of film awards, how do you distinguish between awarding CODA because its cast is primarily deaf and awarding someone at the Spirit Awards because they are a person of color? Good intentions are good intentions.
If it were me, I would get rid of the HCA and start over with something that takes itself less seriously and doesn’t aim for the same standards as other critics groups like the Los Angeles Film Critics or the New York Film Critics. These groups are not in it for the money, regardless of how they vote. If the idea is to compete with the Critics Choice or the Golden Globes, then build it up over time, organically. Even if studios throw money at you, make sure you can manage it. Don’t let your ego write checks you cannot possibly cash.
I watched the HCAs first ceremony on YouTube, and they were not ready for primetime. Perhaps they had a great start but, like Icarus, flew too close to the sun. Either way, they’re my friends, and I wish them all the best.
![2026 Oscars: Best Actress [POLL] Chase Infinity to Campaign in Lead](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/GnDy5PKXEAAnUOE-120x86.jpeg)
