In Contention

Tag: The New York Times

  • NYT offers some pointers to the Academy

    The New York Times has an annual tradition of getting its three top critics — Manohla Dargis, A.O. Scott and Stephen Holden — to craft ideal Oscar ballots, and the results this year point to more scattered affections than the critics’ award trail would have you believe. Interestingly, only one title features on all three critics’ Best Picture lists, and it ain’t “The Social Network” — ironically, it’s Olivier Assayas’s “Carlos,” which, of course, isn’t eligible for Academy consideration.

    Elsewhere, their overlaps are on more expected (and Oscar-favored) candidates: all three agree on Jesse Eisenberg, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale and the Coens’ screenplay for “True Grit.” More interesting are their more idiosyncratic picks: I co-sign Holden’s Best Supporting Actress mention for Charlotte Rampling in “Life During Wartime,” and would never have predicted Scott’s screenplay citation for “Green Zone.”

    (more…)

  • Tell me something good

    I quite enjoyed this NYT series of “memos to Hollywood” from Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, which include some well-deserved chiding of the Internet, the MPAA ratings board, and romantic comedy producers, among others. But I was disappointed that when it came to the ever-popular sport of bashing the Academy Awards, Scott only had this tired argument to hand:

    It’s just not working: the Academy Awards broadcast, with its mixture of snark and high-mindedness; the pool of pseudoserious, faux-prestigious specialty-division B-pictures; the long, dreary slog of the awards “season.” You’re losing touch with the mass audience on one side and the tradition of popular art on the other. Take some risks, rejigger the formula, expand the membership pool. Do something!

    He’s not wrong, exactly: we can all fill page upon page with a list of the Academy’s recurring failings. Year after year, they demonstrate an aversion to both daring specialist cinema and successful genre work that renders them irrelevant as a yardstick of artistic worth — but it was ever thus. (And to be fair, both critics’ groups and festival juries are capable of making blindingly short-sighted decisions on occasion. Awards are a fundamentally problematic institution, whoever dishes them out.)

    (more…)

  • Winded from the start

    This is well off topic, since it’s such a slow news day (and week), but is anyone else ever thrown for a loop by the longish headlines that appear on New York Times stories?  They seem to get more drastic in the arts & leisure section.

    I’ve had my hand at writing for the Times, and each story had a giant headline tacked on.  A profile of Eric Roth and his tendency to get difficult scripts made in the studio system, with a look toward those scripts that have been lost in that system along the way, landed the headline: “His Screenplays Get Made, Except The Ones That Don’t.” (“His” was actually “Eric Roth’s” in the print edition.)  Another piece about Walden Media and New Line Cinema’s road to the big screen for the children’s classic “How to Eat Fried Worms” was saddled with “‘How to Eat Fried Worms’ (Ick! Yuck! Ugh!) Lures Boys With a Tasty Tale.” And on and on.

    There have been some creative ones that really nail the story, mind you, like a piece about “Hollywoodland” and the George Reeves back story: “The (Tinsel) Town That Ate Superman.” But more often than not, it’s this long-winded stuff.

    Today, I ran across Manhola Dargis’ “Slumdog Millionaire” review and there it was, confusing me before I even dug into the copy:

    New York Times review of Slumdog Millionaire

    Am I alone here?  I love the work the Times does, despite the aimless criticism from this outlet or that.  But these headlines gotta go.