LA Weekly

Don't you think it's somewhat contradictory to rubbish the Oscar blogs yet you spend so much time gloating in this article about how the LAFCA's awards differed from the predictions on the said sites? Good for you for trumpeting a cinematic masterpiece, but I'd much rather read an article about how wonderful it is and why it's your favourite film than read nasty commentary about Oscar blogs.

How do you have the gall to participate in an awards season vote and then criticize those of us who cover it? You know why nobody can correctly anticipate your group's choices? Because, with few exceptions, they tend to suck.

To answer your question, Mr. Feinberg, I have the "gall" to participate in an awards-season vote and then to criticize the people who spend time guessing and second-guessing the outcome of said vote for a very simple reason: The awards handed out by the members of LAFCA serve a single and solitary purpose, which is to recognize those achievements that our members deem to be the most significant in cinema in the previous 12 months. We are doing, I think, a good service to those films. Beyond that, and contrary to the musings of yourself and other so-called awards gurus, there is no agenda, no discussion of how said awards will help to position their recipients in other awards contests, and certainly no concern over whether you or any other entity in the media approves of our choices. As I think I make quite clear in my blog post, I find it distressing that we now live in a film-culture climate where a number of very talented film critics find their column inches reduced or themselves out of work at publications that think nothing of devoting reams of print and/or online space to awards-season speculating--most of which, as I further point out, isn't so much concerned with the quality of the awards-season films as whether or not they'll be to the Academy's liking.

Thank you, Scott, for being the first person EVER to say that the Academy rarely picks the best films to win best picture. Everyone who follows the Oscars or writes for an Oscar site (I count myself among in that group as a writer for The Oscar Igloo) is very aware that the Academy is not the be all and end all on the worth of films. I would go out on a limb and add this: neither are critics. There are several brilliant films every year that get no love from critics or the Oscars. Why is this? Because people's opinions vary. Why didn't the LAFCA award The Fountain last year? Or Jarhead the year before? Probably because they didn't think those were the best movie's of their years, and the Academy [gasp] agreed with them. I feel that these films were overlooked, but I didn't flip out over it.
Art is subjective. The Oscars are entertaining. What's not entertaining is hearing critics bitch and moan about the inferior bloggers who get as many inches per column as the "real writers". It's not how many inches your column is, Scott, it's how you use them.

Not to step into the middle of a handbag fight, but Scott Feinberg, which of the films/performances the LAFCA awarded does, in your opinion, "suck?" Because, having seen those films (save one), I can certainly say that they do not suck and, in most cases, are very deserving of recognition. That is a pretty ballsy statement to make... Don't let your feelings about Scott's taking issue with awards coverage cloud the fact that the films themselves are very good; That might be seen as, y'know, petty and superficial, undermining whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Couple things.

1. You're a pompous ass. Your article takes pretentiousness to a new level. Read the comments on Awards Daily and you'll see that you are not supported. Not only are you blatantly wrong in regards to your slander of the Oscar blogging and predicting community, but you make yourself look like an idiot while doing it (see point 2).
2. I apologize, on behalf of the Oscar prognosticating (and you can make fun of that term, if you so wish) community that we have caused some sort of annoyance to you. I apologize, again, that we like to have a little bit of fun in regards to predicting something and hoping that our favorite movies get honored. Tell me about it, we suck.
3. Feel free to delete this comment since it's the kind of thing you would most likely do...seeing as you like raining on other people's parades.

KBye.

Mr. Houseman, on one thing we agree: Neither the Oscars nor the critics are the definitive authority on the merit of a given film. That honor belongs to the audience, by which I don't mean box-office numbers, but rather how long a film lasts in the popular culture and the public consciousness, and if its reputation grows over time rather than shrinking. Critics merely add one more voice to the chorus. A film review should merely be the beginning of a conversation about a movie, not the end of it. Of the many other opinions expressed in your message, by far the most subjective is that the Oscars are entertaining. On that, we must agree to disagree.

I appreciate Mr. Foundas's point of view, which strikes me as appropriate for a critic. For myself, an avid filmgoer, reading the "Oscar watch blogs" is a way of entering into a vast conversation about movies with strangers who share my intensity. The Oscar-watch focuses that conversation down to a couple dozen critically buzzed films. Not all of that conversation is about the sports-like fervor of "who's going to be nominated" -- and the part that is seems mostly like good clean fun.

I think Scott Feinberg is WAY out of line--most of the films the LAFCC give awards to really "suck" ? It is apparent that he is not a writer or a serious thinker, and this tends to make me believe that, as Scott Foundas points out, he is simply adding credence to the choices of the Academy Awards people, by, like others, according so much space to the "Oscar derby."

Scott Foundas definitely has a real point here: there is a lot of idle speculation about the Oscars, which really does not add to the discussion of the intrinsic merits of films beyond "That film really sucked" or "I loved it!"

Granted however entertaining these "idle speculations" are, the fact is that the Academy membership is composed of people who may up to 25% (33%?) live in nursing homes and do not see the films themselves.

In fact the Academy relies on the critics' groups to make the initial "screening" selections because they can't tell a great film from a merely entertaining one.

Unfortunately in the minds of the public the Oscars represent a pinnacle of achievement though in reality they exist primarily as a vehicle for advertising and merchandising. (The "horse-race" aspect of the Oscars is demeaning as well, and the blogs add to this).

I'd like to see the AMPAS make their choices before the critics do--let's say on Dec. 31, by a straight ballot, with the nominees known by Dec. 15 (most films will have been in release by then).

And "Beautiful Mind" and "Crash" were pure schlock. Only Roger Ebert (the guy who gives "two thumbs up" to approximately 33% of the films he reviews), David Denby, and a few other "serious" critics "endorsed" the latter, a very simple-minded, banal piece of film-making.

Years from now a new generation of film-goers will be groaning when they hear the line "The reason why Los Angelenos crash into each other on the freeways is that they need to have human contact" (my paraphrase), the most idiotic, pretentious, risible piece of dialog ever to open a film.

But then most of the lines in the film were non-sequiturs, based not on the situations or characters but on the sententious, self-conscious film-maker.

Foundas this is an amazing article! These oscar bloggers are all beyond pretentious, and are wrong about everything. As you said, SELF-APPOINTED "oscar gurus" like Tapley and Stone know nothing. All they care about is competing with eachother, and spending all day leaving nasty comments about eachother in the comment sections of their blog posts. They know nothing about films, and all they care about is the competition. You were easy on them because I, for one, find them absolutely disgusting.

I would like to clarify to Mr. Foundas that I meant no personal disrespect to him, and I certainly did not intend to indicate that the FILMS chosen by the LAFCA 'suck,' but rather that the CHOICES of the LAFCA of which films to honor over others often 'suck.' In other words, I dislike their decision-making, not their films. (Granted, I could have used a better word, but I, like many readers, was fired up by Mr. Foundas' piece.)
Regardless, I think Mr. Foundas is picking a silly fight by writing an article like this. I'm sorry if he or some of his colleagues feel threatened by the increasing popularity of the Internet at the expense of print media. He seems to believe that print critics offer a product that is superior to that of what bloggers offer... I, on th other hand, think it is just different, and to compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.
Those of us who write online do not try to do what Mr. Foundas does--most of us have no desire to. Instead, we offer readers a totally different product... and yes, some people find it more interesting than what they can find in print. I disagree most strongly with Mr. Foundas general assertion that we are lowering the level of dialog and essentially hurting film. Many of the better online awards-related sites do fascinating original reporting and interviews, often in longer form than would ever be possible in print, and actually bring many more people into interactive discussion about film than the one-way print media.
What we all have in common is a love and passion for film, and we should all be able to have a seat at the table without having people write articles like this that generalize a group of people and bash them. I believe most people hold a similar opinion--they want more forums in which to read and discuss about film, not fewer--which might explain why this piece has generated such outrage

What's the point of all this? With all due respect to Mr. Foundas, the movies honored by the LAFCC as the Best of the Year have not been ratified by the Academy since Schindler compiled his list in 1993. If best, this organization's choices have had no bearing on the Oscars whatsoever. That's not meant as a comment on the merits of the LAFCC's selections (many of which have been quite creditable). But is there any reason for members or aficionados of one organization to diss the other? It's like staging a winner-take-all boxing match between a starting pitcher and a quarterback to determine the winner of the Stanley Cup. BTW: Has "Four Months, etc" actually opened in L.A.? It's a terrific film but it won't be opening here in NYC until 2008 and, hence, not eligible for this year's NYFCC awards.

How disingenuous of Mr. Feinberg now to "backtrack" and say it was not the films themselves that suck per se but the [decision-making involved in those] choices of the films that the LAFCC gives awards to!

Since when (I am assuming Mr. Feinberg has a native command of the English language) has there been a distinction between the "choices" and the films themselves?

Mr. Feinberg never said the "process by which films are chosen by the LAFCA [suck]" in his original posting:

> "How do you have the gall to participate in an awards season vote and then criticize those of us who cover it? You know why nobody can correctly anticipate your group's choices? Because, with few exceptions, they tend to suck."

Re-reading his original posting [above] makes clear how petulant, puerile, and partial Mr. Feinberg is (at least in his Internet "persona" if not elsewhere) and certainly in my mind casts serious doubts on the raison d'etre and actual content of his blog.

> "What we all have in common is a love and passion for film"

What about "love and passion for film award circuses" instead, which is what the Oscars and all the pre-Oscars awards have become, often or usually overshadowing serious discussion of the films (unless you consider "I loved it! Really loved it" or "it sucked" as serious discussion).

> "and yes, some people find it [Oscar blogs] more interesting than what they can find in print."

Yes, the people who like turning the film-going experience into horse-races, e.g., people who read People and Entertainment Weekly).

I can't take what he writes seriously at all when he offers such sophistry as an excuse for what was clearly a disrespectful verbal punch-in-the-jaw--in very bad taste--, one that offered no corroboration for his loaded statements (until he was ""called on it," that is).

I don't think it was Mr.Foundas who was "picking a silly fight."

Jack Mathews: "I dropped out of the New York Film Critics Circle a few years back because I thought its awards voting process was corrupt."

Like the NYFC, most of the 31 or 32 LAFTA members are neurotic pseudo intelectuals that have a false sense of importance.

Film critics should not be in the "awards" business.

Glad to hear Mr. Matthews's normalcy (but not his spelling) vouchsafed here--by Mr. Matthews.

Just one divergence: Speaking of corrupt voting practices, it is the Oscars, in my opinion, that should not be in the "awards" business (and business they most certainly are).

As I recall, two major Hollywood stars--and voting members of the Academy--went on record saying that they would never see one of the Best Picture nominees, much less vote for it. And that year, I think they were far from being the only two Academy members to have had such feelings and acted on them accordingly.

Yes, Barry, I wonder what your true agenda is. I don't think "Tapley and Stone" do anything of the sort. You should at least be right if you're going to attack someone. Lucky for you there are SO MANY OTHER sites out there worth reading so you don't have to waste your precious time on "disgusting" people.

What Foundas et al (and don't forget Barry!) should be really pissed about is how critics aren't even critics anymore. Everyone is a critic and they all get piled on at Rotten Tomatoes -- even the cream o' the crop (Foundas is not one, I don't think) is being infiltrated. Where are the real critics anymore and does anyone pay attention?

My site has always attempted to read what the "real" critics were saying as opposed to the newly discovered critics at various sites compiled of people who have their own agendas to begin with. But even I'm finding it harder and harder - as film critics are reviewing films long after these web people have a chance to do it.

Yet instead of looking at the real problem, y'all focus your attention on something that is very much beside the point.

By way of context, when I started my site in 1999, it was because I saw the Oscar race as an unfair practice. Why did none of the well-reviewed movies ever get awards? Why did Citizen Kane lose to How Green was my Valley, in other words. So I started looking into it. Eight years later I've discovered that the critics really don't want the Academy to like their choices and were quite happy up high on their perch, far far away from the rabble of commercial Hollywood, never getting the bigger picture, of course, that the awards season hype often drives producers to make certain kinds of films in the first place and that studios depend on the awards season to help make back some of the costs on risky endeavors like There Will Be Blood.

Film awards are big business and the gravy train is a-rolling on. But perhaps you all would prefer instead no awards season and then there is no money to be made on the "little," "daring" movies and all the money in the world to made on the big budget crapola driving the box office these days. Movies that can't get arrested in a normal season often get some play at awards time, whether a critic deigns to pay attention to it or not, thanks to many of the film and Oscar bloggers out there.

I'm curious, Ms. Stone... what do you consider a "real" critic to be? What is your criteria for separating the wheat from the chaff? I'm also curious to know which critics group you are a part of, and how you came to your discovery about how critics groups vote. I doubt I fall in to your "real" critics category, and I doubt you'd feel the critics group I belong to matters much, but as someone who is a direct part of this parlor game we call The Awards Season, some of your statements smack directly against what I have personally witnessed over the years. In all the years I have been voting for our awards, I have never once received any messages from any other member or block of members of our group trying to push some agenda. In fact, most of the members of our group rarely speak to one another, and outside of any group with Rex Reed as a member, I doubt there are many critics groups that have any kind of agenda going in to their voting.

I'm also puzzled by your hints of admonishment of self-made critics, when you yourself and most of your kind are self-made prognosticators. Are we allowed to hold you up to your own standards, or are we supposed to ignore your own lack of "formal" training, in comparison to "real" prognosticators such as Wells and Poland?

HA! This is entirely entertaining. I'm kind of getting dizzy, reading all the Armond White bashing then observing another whiny slap fight.

What's interesting about this (besides the fact I never knew people actually devoted blogs to Oscar guessing) is how you Oscar bloggers are laying out all these layered reasons as to why what you do is important when what you really do (aside give desperate bookies a place to click) is play a game. It's just fun to some people. I can't believe you're all taking yourselves so seriously. Critics -- privately or in public -- engage in the Oscar guessing game, too, even though they (we, I guess) might think it gauche. It is an inevitable part of the conversation about film because people interested in film recognize Oscar's impact (though I'm hoping there are still some like myself who really do not care considering we have no financial stake in the outcome). EVERYONE curious about movies spends some time speculating on who will win what. It isn't bloody rocket science. I refuse to be impressed and refuse to see why you should all be up in arms about what Foundas has had to say here.