LAFCA predictions
Nobody knows anything about tomorrow's Los Angeles Film Critics Association voting, the results of which should be known by 5 pm or so. Nonetheless, I have a couple of hunches. LAFCA's Best Picture winners are occasionally contrarian in one of two ways -- they try and help out the proverbial little guy (i.e., a highly regarded "critics film" that has had trouble at the box-office or received insufficient support from its distributor), or they simply honor the cinematic merits of a film with an almost perverse disregard for the herd mentality, even if the winner has a shortcoming or two.
If this is a contrarian year (and the ingredients are in place in that there's no one film with a big head of steam), that means they may go political and give it to Todd Field's Little Children, which New Line has only marginally supported since it opened, or (my personal hope) Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men, a thrillingly composed tour de force that's facing tough odds at the box-office, or, even more perversely, Jean-Pierre Melville's Army of Shadows, a 1969 film about the French resistance that has gotten several raves from big-gun critics.
If none of these three can build a big-enough consensus and LAFCA still wants to go contrarian, the big prize will go to The Departed. Pound for pound and move for move, no film provided as much sheer revved-up delight. The bizarre Catholic-guilt ending aside, it's almost a complete 100% popcorn high, albeit in a sophistica- ted, high-end way. Plus it's the Martin Scorsese film everyone's been waiting for since Goodfellas. The fact that Scorsese probably has the Best Director prize in the bag may mean LAFCA will go elsewhere for Best Picture...who knows?
I heard from two big-wheel critics yesterday, and one of them wrote:the following: "Frankly, it's wide open. I've been chatting with several members, and there's no clear front runner or front-runner group. I've heard about everything from Army of Shadows to Flags of Our Fathers to Letters From Iwo Jima to Dreamgirls" -- say what? -- "to The Departed to United 93 to you-name-it. (Not to mention Volver, Babel, The Pursuit of Happyness, Apocalypto, et. al.)
"Anyone claiming on any website regarding any voting org (LAFCA or otherwise) that there's a front-runner is either lying, has an agenda or is misinformed -- or a bit of all three. I like it when it's wide open since this allows the voting group to get more creative and move away from the dull middlebrow toward something more interesting. I love the stuff I'm hearing about Army of Shadows -- that would throw the Hollywood types into a tizzy, and it would be eminently well-deserved."
I suppose the Best Picture prize could also go to Letters From Iwo Jima. As good as it is -- it's a far better film than Flags of Our Fathers -- it doesn't quite have the startling high-throttle quality that I feel a Best Picture winner ought to possess. But then I'm not a voter. I'm just sitting here in a warm Brooklyn apartment.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 9, 2006 at 9:42 AM
comment #1
bipedalist
says ...
It's refreshing to see such a wide open year. Usually it seems like there is one film that stands out above the rest - this year - it's bizarre that there isn't one. I guess it could be Letters. Who knows!
Posted by bipedalist
at December 9, 2006 10:38 AM
comment #2
Craig Kennedy
says ...
What are LAFCA's rules for inclusion and how does a nearly 40 year old film like Army of Shadows qualify? Is it just because it didn't receive an official US release until 2006? It was a good movie, but I'd like to see some advocacy for any number of good recent films that probably aren't going to get any awards loving:
Don't Come Knocking
The Notorious Bettie Page
The Proposition
Lady Vengeance
Three Times
Edmond
A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints
Shortbus
Sweet Land
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at December 9, 2006 12:29 PM
comment #3
JD
says ...
How the hell is Army of Shadows even eligible? I'm as big a Melville fan as anyone, but wouldn't it be a waste to give their major award to a film that won't even benefit from receiving it, whereas a major award for a film like Little Children would give it another lease on life.
Posted by JD
at December 9, 2006 12:59 PM
comment #4
T. S. Idiot
says ...
A vote for Army of Shadows sends the message that 2006 is a generally mediocre year. Though far from Melville's best, it has a depth and integrity missing from the current products from Hollywood and elsewhere. (I could have done with a better actor than Ventura in the lead.) Despite the comments on this blog, 2006 is a disaster as far I'm concerned. I haven't heard a single word about the award potential for Casino Royale, but what other 2006 release achieves its goals so effectively?
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at December 9, 2006 1:51 PM
comment #5
jeffmcm
says ...
Choosing Army of Shadows would be like voting for Ralph Nader: it immediately makes the vote irrelevant, regardless of 'statement'.
Posted by jeffmcm
at December 9, 2006 2:06 PM
comment #6
bob giovaneli
says ...
cjKennedy speaks the truth yet again at the bottom of that wish-list, as "SWEET LAND" so needs the push (it's still in theaters, folks, and more cities to open this month), and is so goddamn deserving of nominations....as the Independent Spirit awards so wisely realized, giving it nods for "Best First Feature" and "Best Actress".
I can't think of any indie film out there that could potentially play around the US for months, as it pleases those who like old-fashioned classic storytelling that's hardly objectionable (it could almost be rated G), as well as it would please the discerning cineaste who wants something refreshing and not run-of-the-mill.
As a friend of mine in LA cleverly said to me after seeing it on my recommendation: "Great acting...good story...lovely cinematography...wonderful message......boy they really fucked up, didn't they?"
(And a WGA/DGA friend saw it in Palm Springs, and is joining me on the bandwagon. She so thanked me for alerting her to it...that she happily paid for it, instead of flashing either of her cards!)
Posted by bob giovaneli
at December 9, 2006 2:20 PM
comment #7
bipedalist
says ...
"Choosing Army of Shadows would be like voting for Ralph Nader: it immediately makes the vote irrelevant, regardless of 'statement'."
LOL. That's so true. It just takes them completely of the map. I mean, in a way that would be great - they did sort of do it when they got behind American Splendor - it seemed like a slap in the face not only to studios but to the whole awards race, as if they were saying, fuck you - this is what a good film looks like.
National Society of Film Critics kind of still does that. History will look back kindly on them, though, for picking the better film. How weird it will be to look back at the Sideways year, for instance and think: why bother having different critics groups if they just pick the same movie over and over again?
Posted by bipedalist
at December 9, 2006 2:57 PM
comment #8
Hallick
says ...
If members of the LAFCA vote for any other reason than what's actually the best film, the best performance, etc, then why shouldn't I write the entire process off as a disingenuous bunch of crap?
Voting to be contrarian or voting to give a lesser film a boost in its profile or chances of winning another award later (which is perverse enough) just delegitimizes for me anything a group is trying to present as The Best of 2006, because they're just lying for the sake of their "good cause". If the LAFCA had categories called "Best Picture That Needs a Higher Profile" or "Best Director The Other Critics Circles Haven't Awarded", then their ulterior motives are 100% cool because they're right out in the open.
Anyway, even without ulterior motives, if you consider how these votes have gone down in the past, where a nominee that almost NOBODY thinks is the best can win because one bloc had their favorite, while another bloc had their own fave, and they went through blah blah numbers of balloting until a third nominee came out on top as a compromise, which then gets presented to the world as THE best whatever of the year, then laughter is the only valid response to their wankings.
Posted by Hallick
at December 9, 2006 4:01 PM
comment #9
Jomby
says ...
I for one would be thrilled to see "Little Children" recognized. It is a damn fine film, and my favorite this year. New Line was never behind Field's film. The only chance for "Little Children" is if it is recognized by the leading critics organizations. If not, Field will join Cronenberg, and Malick as the latest victim of Russel Schwartz.
Posted by Jomby
at December 9, 2006 11:29 PM
comment #10
jeffmcm
says ...
Who's Russell Schwartz?
Posted by jeffmcm
at December 10, 2006 2:34 AM