“...the commercial imperatives of the people who make the movies...”
That’s the people who pay for the mass manufacturing of marketing-vetted wind-tunnel-tested movies. The people who MAKE the movies are primarily driven by unnameable factors distant from commercial imperatives.
I agree with you 99 percent about awards. But, that other 1 percent is exemplified by my Oscar for "Best Boy", won in 1980, at a time when documentaries were not at all in fashion, and in fact were considered being eliminated as a category. Yet, what it did do for the film was to give it the kind of recognition, which has allowed it to continue to be actively distributed even forty years later. Now, as an Academy member in the documentary branch, as well as a guest in the international branch, I am able to be involved in the nominating of films. This allows me to do what I like best, which is to find a worthy film that is perhaps not on anyone else's radar and to give it the same kind of recognition. Certainly there are others who do it as well. That's why last year (maybe the year before) the Bhutanese film "A Yak In The Classroom", starring an actual Yak, was able to become shortlisted. This year I have so far seen one documentary and two International films that have caught my eye in that way: first, "In The Shadow of Beirut", which explores the very worst part of Beirut from the point of view or four families, who have nothing materially, but everything in attitude and love for each other. The second is a Bulgarian film called "Blagga's Lessons", low-key and beautifully ironic, with a performance by sixtyish-year-old woman that I would put up against anyone who's going to be nominated. Lastly, but not leastly another film from the man who made "Yak". It's called "The Monk and the Gun" and it is as wryly amusing as anything you will have seen since his last film. This is what gives me a great deal of satisfaction and what I like about awards. All the rest is nonsense.
I've only seen four of those movies: The Holdovers, Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer and Barbie. I loved the first two particularly....and a huge yes for Lily Gladstone and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, both of whom seemed to be able to express as much with a glance at something as some do with page of dialogue. As to Barbie, I enjoyed, though was starting to get tired of it in the last 15 minutes, but: it's completely forgotten, where those others stay with me.
I hear you on the limitations/imperatives of these awards, but I still read just about every list to see what I agree with and what I've missed or have to catch when it comes out. And I adored The Holdovers and Paul Giamatti, so I'm on board with many of the choices here.
I never watch a movie without researching. There are three critics I trust, including Ty Burr. I wait like a child at Christmas for their best-films-of-the-year lists. I list the titles of the ones I have not seen, including honorable mentions and watch them in the winter. I have looked forward to Ty’s list since he started them at the Globe. So, this “child” is very disappointed he does not see the importance of listing his top movies. A best-movies-of-the-year list is not pointless. It is essential.
The Holdovers as best film? It was pleasant and non-challenging but done much better by Peter Weir and Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. Killers of the Flower Moon remained faithful to the David grann's shockingly revealing book.
I'm not surprised by THE HOLDOVERS winning (it's number 7 on my ten best list) nor Da'Vine Joy Randolph's win. You mentioned how we watch the Oscars rooting for someone to win--she's the one I'm rooting for as hard as I was rooting for Michelle Yeoh. I AM surprised that Ryan Gosling was Kenough to win your award. I would have predicted Robert Downey Jr. since so many critics love them some Oppenheimer. RDJ was the best thing about Oppenheimer besides the cinematography, but as you know, I gave it a negative review It feels so weird to be on the opposite side of the Nolan argument than I usually am; I've been the Nolan apologist for so long.
This year I've been at odds with the general lot of you critics more than usual. Either I liked but didn't love the movies as much as most of you have (FLOWER MOON, MAY DECEMBER), didn't care for them (OPPENHEIMER), or outright didn't like them at all (ZONE OF INTEREST, ASTEROID CITY, SHOWING UP). Of course, my job is to provide my opinion, not consensus, so I don't feel guilty. Still, it's good to see THE TASTE OF THINGS get some cin-tog love here (the folks in Boston are saying "what the f--k is that movie?" I know, because I received that exact E-mail after I put TASTE at number 6 on my ten best list. February is a long time to wait for that.)
I wonder what will happen at the National Society of Film Critics voting. I iamgine it'll be like THE WARRIORS, with the KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON gang, the OPPENHEIMER gang and the ZONE OF INTEREST gang duking it out. I'll be the snarky DJ taunting everybody. I have the lips for it.
“...the commercial imperatives of the people who make the movies...”
That’s the people who pay for the mass manufacturing of marketing-vetted wind-tunnel-tested movies. The people who MAKE the movies are primarily driven by unnameable factors distant from commercial imperatives.
The movies that we care about over lengths of time, that is
Where's Barbie? Greta?
I find it disturbing. Only 2 women have won best director in the history of the Academy awards.
Thanks for the info, Ty. (Ken) Too pink!
I agree with you 99 percent about awards. But, that other 1 percent is exemplified by my Oscar for "Best Boy", won in 1980, at a time when documentaries were not at all in fashion, and in fact were considered being eliminated as a category. Yet, what it did do for the film was to give it the kind of recognition, which has allowed it to continue to be actively distributed even forty years later. Now, as an Academy member in the documentary branch, as well as a guest in the international branch, I am able to be involved in the nominating of films. This allows me to do what I like best, which is to find a worthy film that is perhaps not on anyone else's radar and to give it the same kind of recognition. Certainly there are others who do it as well. That's why last year (maybe the year before) the Bhutanese film "A Yak In The Classroom", starring an actual Yak, was able to become shortlisted. This year I have so far seen one documentary and two International films that have caught my eye in that way: first, "In The Shadow of Beirut", which explores the very worst part of Beirut from the point of view or four families, who have nothing materially, but everything in attitude and love for each other. The second is a Bulgarian film called "Blagga's Lessons", low-key and beautifully ironic, with a performance by sixtyish-year-old woman that I would put up against anyone who's going to be nominated. Lastly, but not leastly another film from the man who made "Yak". It's called "The Monk and the Gun" and it is as wryly amusing as anything you will have seen since his last film. This is what gives me a great deal of satisfaction and what I like about awards. All the rest is nonsense.
I've only seen four of those movies: The Holdovers, Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer and Barbie. I loved the first two particularly....and a huge yes for Lily Gladstone and Da’Vine Joy Randolph, both of whom seemed to be able to express as much with a glance at something as some do with page of dialogue. As to Barbie, I enjoyed, though was starting to get tired of it in the last 15 minutes, but: it's completely forgotten, where those others stay with me.
I hear you on the limitations/imperatives of these awards, but I still read just about every list to see what I agree with and what I've missed or have to catch when it comes out. And I adored The Holdovers and Paul Giamatti, so I'm on board with many of the choices here.
I never watch a movie without researching. There are three critics I trust, including Ty Burr. I wait like a child at Christmas for their best-films-of-the-year lists. I list the titles of the ones I have not seen, including honorable mentions and watch them in the winter. I have looked forward to Ty’s list since he started them at the Globe. So, this “child” is very disappointed he does not see the importance of listing his top movies. A best-movies-of-the-year list is not pointless. It is essential.
I very much like how you contextualize what you do. Like you, I am paying more and more attention on what our children are doing, and love it.
The Holdovers as best film? It was pleasant and non-challenging but done much better by Peter Weir and Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. Killers of the Flower Moon remained faithful to the David grann's shockingly revealing book.
I'm not surprised by THE HOLDOVERS winning (it's number 7 on my ten best list) nor Da'Vine Joy Randolph's win. You mentioned how we watch the Oscars rooting for someone to win--she's the one I'm rooting for as hard as I was rooting for Michelle Yeoh. I AM surprised that Ryan Gosling was Kenough to win your award. I would have predicted Robert Downey Jr. since so many critics love them some Oppenheimer. RDJ was the best thing about Oppenheimer besides the cinematography, but as you know, I gave it a negative review It feels so weird to be on the opposite side of the Nolan argument than I usually am; I've been the Nolan apologist for so long.
This year I've been at odds with the general lot of you critics more than usual. Either I liked but didn't love the movies as much as most of you have (FLOWER MOON, MAY DECEMBER), didn't care for them (OPPENHEIMER), or outright didn't like them at all (ZONE OF INTEREST, ASTEROID CITY, SHOWING UP). Of course, my job is to provide my opinion, not consensus, so I don't feel guilty. Still, it's good to see THE TASTE OF THINGS get some cin-tog love here (the folks in Boston are saying "what the f--k is that movie?" I know, because I received that exact E-mail after I put TASTE at number 6 on my ten best list. February is a long time to wait for that.)
I wonder what will happen at the National Society of Film Critics voting. I iamgine it'll be like THE WARRIORS, with the KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON gang, the OPPENHEIMER gang and the ZONE OF INTEREST gang duking it out. I'll be the snarky DJ taunting everybody. I have the lips for it.