December 11, 2006
D.C. Film Critics Awards Announced
It must be hard out there for a Washington film critic. You've got big-city cinema dreams, but you're stuck in a town where politics is usually the order of the day. The number of people who turn to you as the last word in quality filmmaking is probably frustratingly small considering the size of the media market you're working in. So what are our humble D.C. area film critics to do? Well, as we've noted before, the first step is to get your Best of the Year list out before anyone else has a chance to disagree with you. And the second, we suspect, is to pick a top film that no other critics in their right minds would bestow the honor to. Last year it was Munich, and this year, it's United 93. Really.
Okay, to be fair, we too thought United 93 was surprisingly good. It was incredibly moving, and despite many people's concerns that it might exploitative of the events of September 11, 2001, critics and audiences all seemed to agree it couldn't have been made much more honestly than it was. It pretty typical Hollywood fare, but it wasn't a bad film after all. But the best film of the year? Come on. We certainly haven't seen all the Oscar contenders already, but plenty of other films are higher up on our list, including The Queen, The Departed, and Little Miss Sunshine.
The rest of the DC Area Film Critics Association Awards winners follow below. None of the other categories are anywhere near as surprising to us -- in fact, they're really pretty far on the safe side. But what do you think, faithful commenters?
Best Film -- United 93
Best Actor -- Forest Whitaker - The Last King Of Scotland
Best Actress -- Helen Mirren - The Queen
Best Supporting Actor -- Djimon Hounsou - Blood Diamond
Best Supporting Actress -- Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Best Director -- Martin Scorsese - The Departed
Best Screenplay, Original -- Michael Arndt - Little Miss Sunshine
Best Screenplay, Adapted -- Jason Reitman - Thank You For Smoking
Best Foreign Film -- Pan's Labyrinth
Best Animated Feature -- Happy Feet
Best Documentary -- An Inconvenient Truth
Best Breakthrough Performance -- Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Best Ensemble -- Little Miss Sunshine
Best Art Direction -- Marie Antoinette
|
thank you for smoking gave me some quality napping time
The New York Film Critics Circle jumped on the United 93 bandwagon today, too.
While I thought it was really good as well, and I expected going in that it would be, based on the treatment Greengrass had given Bloody Sunday, this feels a little more like a political award than an artisitic one, like when Fahrenheit 9/11 picked up the Palm d'Or at Cannes.
I agree that United 93 wasn't the best films of the years, but in what's shaped up to be a fairly weak year for films, it deserves to be recognized.
I do think, however, that referring to it as typical Hollywood fare is kind of missing the mark. What made the film so good was that Director Paul Greengrass approached the material in a very non-sentimental, straight-forward way, much as he did with "Bloody Sunday". Nothing in the film was played for cheap sentiment or easy emotion, nor did it try to wrap itself in the American flag, unlike Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" which was as emotionally over-wrought and Cheesy as a lot of people thought "United 93" was going to be. As much as I liked "The Departed" and "Little Miss Sunshine", I would argue that those films played a lot more like typical Hollywood fare than "United 93" did.
I agree with Mr. Vertigo. Calling 'United 93' "typical Hollywood fare" is pretty off the mark. The last Hollywood film I can recall that followed the format employed by Greengrass was 'Black Hawk Down,' which, although it was an excellent film (I'm just waiting for everyone to jump on that one), was a lot more Hollywood than 'United 93.'
Was 'United 93' typical because it played in theaters and was recorded with a movie camera? Otherwise, the absence of a big-name cast member, the lack of traditional narrative and story arc, and the exclusion of backstory made it pretty far from "typical Hollywood fare" in my book.
Please DCist, stop the lazy commentary!!!
A lazy Comment:
As a whole, The Washington Film Critics are about the worst in the nation. Starting with the Post reviewers--who need to be removed asap. City paper aint much better.
It tough to put much stock into what these jokers write.
I have to second Mr. Vertigo as well. Seriously, defend the idea that United 93 is typical Hollywood fare.
Big stars? Nope
Traditional directorial style? Nope
Heartwarming ending? Nope
One big dramatic climactic moment? Nope
Sweeeping score? Nope
While The Departed was amazing, perhaps better than GoodFellas, United 93 is, in my book anyway, probably the most important film of the decade so far.
"Typical Hollywood Fare"?
Are you confusing United 93 with World Trade Center, the feel-good Nic Cage & Oliver Stone movie? THAT was typical Hollywood fare.
First off, I gotta agree with the rest of the commenters: UNITED 93 couldn't have been less typical of Hollywood fare. In fact, I can't think of one aspect that was in any way typical.
Second, UNITED 93 a fantastically well made film. The spare writing, the docu-style directing, and the sharp editing draw in the audience without cloyingly manipulating the viewers. Greengrass striped away all sentimentality to reveal the raw emotion and terror of that day. That's all the more impressive since he focuses almost entirely on the men and woman directly involved with the flight rather than the events surrounding it.
Something else worth noting is the film's slowly accelerating pacing. The movie opens slowly, almost lethargically. Yet every minute that passes, the tension increases a little more, like a snowball rolling down a hill. By the film's last minutes, you find yourself hurtling, like a force of nature, to the film's inevitable conclusion at a breakneck speed, powerless to stop it.
Making a movie like UNITED 93 is nearly impossible. There are no larger-than-life heroes or dastardly villains. There is essentially no narrative story (which lies at the heart of nearly every successful American film since A BIRTH OF A NATION). Conventions like character names and music are eschewed. Yet, in the end, Greengrass took the most remembered and dissected day of the last 50 years and managed to make a film about it that is somehow wholly unconventional yet intimately familiar. UNITED 93 might not be a movie many people enjoy, nor is it perfect, but it is certainly a remarkable and singular achievement.
As for THE DEPARTED, I loved it. Even so, it is too flawed to be the best movie of the year. As the nation's best critic, Kenneth Turan, says: "too operatic at times, too in love with violence and macho posturing at others, it's a potboiler dressed up in upscale designer clothes, but oh how that pot does boil." Too indulgent at times.
That said, having not yet seen Whittaker in THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, Leo DiCaprio is my pick for best actor this year.
Coming back to UNITED 93, DCist would appear to be in the minority when it comes to critical kudos for the film. AFI put it in its top 10 for 2006. As mentioned before, NY critics tapped it for best film. LA crix picked Greengrass for best director. UNITED 93 was second in both categories to hometown fave THE DEPARTED among Boston writers. If the early handicapping can be believed, UNITED 93 stands a good shot at being nominated for a Best Pic Oscar. That seems a far cry from the DCist contention that the Washington critics picked "a top film that no other critics in their right minds would bestow the honor to."
Wow, sorry I was away from my computer all evening and couldn't respond earlier. I agree, I should have explained what I meant better -- mostly that, having come out of a studio development process, if you break the story beats of United 93 down, it's a textbook Hollywood formula, from a narrative perspective. You could probably plot out the story points with a copy of Syd Field, and it would match perfectly down to the page. I didn't mean to imply that it was Hollywood fare because it had big stars (it didn't) or lacked artistic merit (it doesn't). Like I said, it was a well made film. It treated the subject matter with dignity. But I still don't think it was the best film of the year. FWIW, I also almost never agree that the best film of the year is the one that goes home with the Oscar -- I just get more excited by films that push the limits of storytelling. (Note: Not that The Departed did this. That was total formula as well. It just so happens that it's a really freaking great formula).
The most important film of the decade? That actually made me laugh. Seems like a lot of people disagree with me on this one. So it goes.
I am not a big conspiracy theorist, but I thought flight 93 just echoed the entirely too unbelievable government explanation of how it all went down. Stories with heroes are great and all, but none of that could have ever happened. Watch the people near you on the metro ride to work in the morning, and try to picture any of that shit going down.
and i am glad that The Illusionist is not on the list, if i was again forced to watch that I would gouge out my eyes to prevent it.
Two words: Ryan Gosling... not for breakthrough performance, that was five years ago in The Believer. He should win Best Actor for Half Nelson.
Wow, Tim. And I thought I was a misanthrope. I could go all Sesame Street on you and lecture about not judging a book by its cover, or we could just go back to the most basic of psych courses and talk about the physical/emotional/character changes that can go on when you throw even the most shy, retiring accountant into a life or death situation. The point is, you don't know how those people standing around you on the Metro would react, which guy that looks like a green beret might end up hiding under his seat, and which portly civil servant might really be a tiger.
Who knows, Tim? In an almost-certain-death situation, even you might turn out to be a hero.
Good selections, but Joe Biden was robbed in the screenplay category. No way was Thank You for Smoking better than The 9/11 Commission Report.
Good call on Ryan Gosling, Kevin. Too few have seen "The Believer" and too few in the mainstream will acknowledge "Half Nelson" this year. Gosling may be the best young movie actor working today.
I'm saddened that I have to read a critic's explanation of a film with a regurgitation of Syd Field story construction. Are there any other texts you'd like to cite when criticizing a film? Shall I pull Aristotle's Poetics off the shelf?
Large sections of this film were improvised using the 9/11 report and actual cell phone conversations of the victims. If anything, the script is more John Cassevettes in it's execution of the material than Syd Field.
I still don't believe you even WATCHED United 93, I think you saw World Trade Center and didn't realize the difference until later in the day.
And to laugh at another's contention that this is the most important film of the decade is rude. Maybe you could call up Syd Field and get his opinion.
I'm saddened that I have to read a critic's explanation of a film with a regurgitation of Syd Field story construction. Are there any other texts you'd like to cite when criticizing a film? Shall I pull Aristotle's Poetics off the shelf?
Large sections of this film were improvised using the 9/11 report and actual cell phone conversations of the victims. If anything, the script is more John Cassevettes in it's execution of the material than Syd Field.
I still don't believe you even WATCHED United 93, I think you saw World Trade Center and didn't realize the difference until later in the day.
And to laugh at another's contention that this is the most important film of the decade is rude. Maybe you could call up Syd Field and get his opinion.
I have to agree with Jesse on the Syd Field comments. Paul Greenglass, like he did with Bloody Sunday, suceeds in giving the film a documentary , you-are-there shooting feel, which works amazingly in terms of wresting the story of United 93 away from the realm of 9/11 propaganda. I think Syd Field would have been a lot more proud of either World Trade Center of even the A&E version of the United 93, both films that try to be more rah-rah patriotic and feel good in dealing with 9/11 than United 93.
I agree that too many films these days seem to be written by a commitee of Syd Field acolytes hired to make every script as straight-forward, and as bland as possible, but I don't feel that United 93 falls into this category. The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine, two film you cited in your original story, have a much more traditional by the numbers screenplay structure than United 93 does. If you're going to complain that the films story is too predictable, than you might as well say the same thing about the real event it's depicting.
It should also be noted that United 93 was finaced mostly by British and French film companies ( Working Title and Studio Canal respectively), and directed by a Brit so pretty much most of the development of the film happened outside the realm of Hollywood, which is probably why it turned out so well.
So, my comment made you laugh, DCist? To each his/her own, I suppose.
As for your comments about "pushing the limits of storytelling". From what I can gather, it seems that your definition of "traditional storytelling" is that there's a beginning, middle, and end. None of the three films you mention push the limits of storytelling in the slightest. What film do you consider to be the best of 2006?
The way I approach films is similar to the way you approached The Departed: how creative can you get while operating under a formula? I find that that often makes better films than ones solely focued on "pushing limits", whatever that means.