I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock. [Moment.] There, may I continue? Of the B-list critics’ awards, the Chicago Film Critics’ Association attracts more eyeballs than most, largely because it’s Roger Ebert’s stomping ground — though the list of nominees they announced this morning suggests a lot of autopilot voting with a few welcome flashes of inspiration.
“The Social Network” tops their list with eight bids, including slightly less obvious mentions for Armie Hammer and DP Jeff Cronenweth, while their matchy-matchy Picture and Director lists include such ubiquitous titles as “Black Swan,” “The King’s Speech,” “Winter’s Bone” (nice get for Debra Granik there) and, perhaps less predictably from a critics’ group, “Inception.”
Surprises are in short supply in the acting categories–though it’s nice to see some respect for Lesley Manville after a rough week on the precursor trail–and in Best Foreign Language Film, where a group of actual film critics somehow sees fit to nominate “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” alongside the likes of “Mother” and “A Prophet.”
Still, props to the Chicagoans for having the ingenuity to nominate John Adams in the Best Score category for “I Am Love,” as well as handing well-deserved Most Promising Performer mentions to European breakouts Katie Jarvis and Tahar Rahim. They should be up with the big boys (and girls) in the Best Actor and Actress races, but let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth, least of all at Christmastime.
Meanwhile, “The Social Network” continued its sweep of the Best Picture prizes with the Detroit Film Critics’ Circle, but “Winter’s Bone” took a leading three awards, including Best Actress and Best Ensemble.
Chicago’s nomination list here and Detroits list of winners here.
[Photo: Sony Pictures Classics]
Comments
31 responses to “‘Social Network’ leads Chicago critics’ nods, wins in Detroit”
Wow, even I’m starting to get a little pissed at the unwavering domination. Still, it’s as worthy a film as any.
Edit you post to include DALLAS-FORT WORTH FILM CRITICS awards also! Please don’t expect me to tell you what won, I don’t like stating the obvious. (:P :P :P)
Awards Daily says Winter’s Bone took home the top prize from the Detroit critics..?
No wait, scratch that. I misread their headline.
The Social Network seems to be this year’s Helen Mirren for The Queen. :P
I couldn’t find a better comparison.
Is everyone feeling Nicole slipping away from the Oscar nomination? It’s happening right under our eyes :P
which 2 will it be?
Kidman & Manville
Kidman & Williams
or
Manville & Williams??
decisions, decisions :P
but seriously: how many no. 1 votes will Nicole get? No win by now.
Maybe it’s time to stop reporting on the critics groups and post major critics own top ten lists instead. At least those seem to have the capacity for non-linear thinking. For example, right now I’m thrilled to see Roger Ebert putting The American on his top ten list. That’s far more exciting than any of the critics groups have offered so far, pretty much.
What are his Top 2 again? (:P Just kidding)
I was just looking at EW’s Top 10 Films of the Year, and both Gleiberman and Scwarzbaum put The Social Network as their #1 pick. I don’t think that’s happened since Sideways in ’04. But as the first commenter in this thread stated, “It’s as worthy a film as any.”
I like the Chicago noms. Nicole slipping, Alex?
I liked MCN’s Awards Scoreboard, but they don’t have one up this year. It could have used some tweaking anyway. And their Top 10 Scoreboard underwent a format change that isn’t really doing it for me.
“Of the B-list critics’ awards…”
Kind of makes me wonder how you see the likes of yourself then. I mean I can’t help it since you are insisting on those kinds of distinctions. Is it D-List? E-List?
I-List?
B list “critic’s awards”, not awards of “B list critics”. There’s a distinction.
And he’s right. Chicago Association is second tier, after obviously the Top 3 majors.
Uncalled for, Maxim.
Even if the Banksy nomination for Most Promising is very deserving, isn’t it a bit ironic?
Chicago Film Critics Association gets it right when others don’t have the foresight. They were the only critics group to award their Best Actress prize to Kathy Bates for Misery.
Nicole Kidman is getting in even though she’s been getting snubs from quite a few Critics Organizations. Annette Bening has been missing out on a few Critics Organizations too but everybody’s still counting her in.
The thing I’m mostly confused about is Mila Kunis. She got the BFCA, Globe, & SAG nominations yet aside from the Las Vegas nomination has been snubbed by every other organization. I still can see her getting in despite those snubs.
Angelina Jolie still managed to get in & win her Oscar despite only getting one nomination from a Critics Organization, which she lost!
On another note could Lawrence be a surprise win come Oscar time? She’s won her fair share of critics awards. If you just count the critics organizations, she’s won 4 Best Actress Awards. Portman has won 5 & Bening has only won 1. It’ll be fun to see how things end up turning out.
“getting it right” is such an ambiguous phrase
I agree, Gray. Calling Chicago critics B-list was uncalled for. His was THE dismissive remark. Mine was a question that originated directly from it. Don’t put the blame on me. It was perfectly logical to ask it. Heck, I didn’t even know there was a list.
I mean I knew that LA and NY where the oldest/most prestigous and well known award giving bodies but it never occured to me that it was because they bred better critics. It’s one thing to acknowledge the power of a particualr critical group and that weird notion of clout but to imply that the critics themselves are… well you get the idea. And that what “B-list critics” means to me. If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was a jab at Ebert.
And red, that was a direct quote I used. Don’t flip the ordering (not that it changes the sentiment much anyway). Personally, I find the idea of Chicago crtitics being “obviously” inferior an amusing and backward (backwoods?) concept.
@ Jason
Right now, I could totally see Lawrence, Bening, or Portman winning the actress Oscar. That is going to be the race that is actually a “race” imo. Very exciting.
Actually, I just looked at the quote that red_wine pointed out and got what he’s saying. That does change the intended meaning a bit, I’ll readilly admit. But I’d still insist that it was uncalled for to marginalize another critic group like that, especially since it comes from one of US’ most prominent cities. It reads like a jab.
I am not afraid to admit that I overreacted (misunderstood) though. Consider my two earlier posts retracted.
Ha, no. I think your comment was uncalled for. Or rather, I don’t think you’re wrong for questioning it, just doing it in such a manner. There’s no need to be pissy, he’s not raping your mother.
And like red_wine says, it’s not to do with B-list critics, but rather the prestige of the honor. LAFCA, NYFCC and NSFC are considered the most prestigious, important critics awards you can win, much like the Oscars are the tops and the Satellite Awards aren’t. It doesn’t mean that Chicago critics are B-list critics, it’s simply that their critics group is not considered to be one of the upper tier of critics awards.
Oh I totally think Guy is being polite. Most of these critic awards are really not worth discussing, they have rarely shown much taste or personality to distinguish them from each other. Second rate and mediocre these awards obviously are, and I would apply those adjectives to all the critic awards who refuse to consider foreign language films (petty score nominations notwithstanding).
There is no original material in John Adams’ score for “I Am Love”. It’s not even a case of the score being mostly original, but having some elements of previously written work à la “There Will Be Blood”. Nope, it’s entirely a compilation of prior work.
So as much as I adore Adams –in my humble opinion, the greatest contemporary composer– he simply doesn’t qualify for this award.
“getting it right” is such an ambiguous phrase
—-
How about “makes me happy”?
Gray, it is your langauge that crosses the line here and does so knowingly.
And, in any case I have adressed the notion of clout above. I recognize it but I have also always believed that blind adherence to what should or should not be respected only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker. In other words, you are your own rapist.
Red, that’s your opinion and I think it has little basis in fact. So far the most “interesting” set of winners came from neither of the three groups listed above you listed above. And it’s not like Chicago’s picks are that far off from LA anyway.
I do share your fustration with lack of notice for foreign films, I do. I also recognize that sometimes due to logistical reasons, these organziations have to limit their scope. The same thing happens around the world, by the way. Taste is subjective, too.
I’ll end by noting that, gramatically speaking, in that sense “B-list” could be used to desctibe both the critics and the awards they give. I just think (hope) that the intended meaning is the one we both think it is.
Andrew F is right. Something similar happened last year when Philip Glass’ pre-existing music was used in a French Film “Les Regrets”.
That nomination makes little sense.
Sorry, but I kind of agree with Maxim and don’t think a retraction was in order. I mean, let’s be honest here: we’re talking about a blog from a few people compared to one of the largest critics groups (which I don’t consider B-list either) in the country. I love this site, but it is just a blog, so let’s not get carried away and try to make it seem more important or influential than it is.
[…] and Director lists include such ubiquitous titles as “Black Swan,” … Visit link: 'Social Network' leads Chicago critics' nods, wins in Detroit Tags: armie, armie-hammer, black-swan-, director, including-slightly, list-with, matchy, […]
Maxim: I appreciate the retraction, since absolutely no harm was meant by the statement — it’s a simple classification, the same way the BAFTAs or the Golden Globes are viewed as secondary to the Oscars.
@Maxim,
All Guy did was state a classification (as reiterated just above, and a correct one at that), and you jumped right at him and attacked him personally by pointing out that he sure isn’t even on a B-list and in no position to be putting anyone down, even though he wasn’t even doing that. He didn’t say anything to you to offend you personally (unless you founded the Chicago Film Critics Association) so why would your reaction be to put down Guy? If you disagree, why not disagree with the statement rather than making some remark about him as a person?