So then there is this from Marshall Fine in today's Huff Post:
As a member of the New York Film Critics Circle who voted in the Nov. 29 selection of awards for the best films of 2011, I naturally get questions about our results ...
This year, it was, "How come you didn't pick a best animated film?" ... The answer to that is, "Because the group voted not to give an award in that category this year." In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess to making the motion to vote on exactly that.
I made the motion because I didn't believe that any of the year's animated features deserved our award. ...
Now me, I thought there were a number of solid animated features. But I'm not a member of Marshall's posse, so I don't get a vote. However, the question I would like to ask is: How often do the New York Film Critics fail to gin up a "Best live-action feature?" I'd wager it would be something close to "never."
I mean, there's animation, and then there's all those real feature films ... like The Artist.
Posts
10 comments:
I would have to agree that none of this year's animated movies were worthwhile.
None were special.
From Rio to Cars 2 to Chipmunks 3 to Kung Fu Panda 2, they frankly stunk as a whole.
Hopefully next year will be better.
Incredibly pompous article.
But honestly, who really cares? They skip other categories too. NY Critics haven't given a Documentary award since 2008 and honor it even less often than animation.
I read the article.Conclusion: Marshall Fine is an insufferable snob. His logic is absurd, animation is usually made to entertain children, he says. Therefore, what? It should be judged differently? Has he seen animation from other countries that is frequently made for an adult, or general audience? And, what about this statement, "I don't care how good the animation is?" WTF? Hello, it's an "animation" category and ANIMATION doesn't matter? And, of all the features that were released this year, not a single one was better than the others? Double standard, indeed.
Honestly... Who gives a flying douche about the New York Film Critics Circle-Jerks?
Has anyone actually ever heard of them?
I haven't.
hmm,I agree with the critic, annoying as his opinion is, he's got a point when it comes to story as the main focal point of a movie, not the bells and whistles.
And Im surprised about all this whining since it's on this blog that the meme "it's all about story" is constantly repeated....
diablo
People like Marshall Fine do an incredibly trivial job. They review movies. The world's popular entertainment for the last century, the equivalent of pulp novels in earlier times. The world would not blink if 90% of movie critics disappeared, since they go see what they want to see anyway.
However, people like Fine need to feel that they are the equivalent of academic literary critics, the kind of literary critics who scoffed at Dickens and Twain as too popular and populist. Not too dissimilar to art critics, who look down on illustration or 'commercial art' or anything that is accessible to a larger audience. No loss that he doesn't enjoy or understand animation.
There were no outstanding original animated features this year. I'm sick of seeing ads for Kung Fu Panda 2 - which was not as good as the 1st one - which wasn't that good anyway.
That's a crock. Even if you turn your nose up at the best of the studio offerings, there were excellent smaller animated films like A Cat in Paris and Wrinkles.
'People like Marshall Fine do an incredibly trivial job. They review movies.
this either an ad hominem or the genetic fallacy. your argument doesnt deal with the issue, it only goes to attack the critic. whos to say an animators job is also trivial? if the new york film critics feel theres not a film deserving of their award, thats their deal. Thats what I agree with. which film does deserve any awards this year? I have to see the two films mentioned above, but other than that, Im afraid I cant name one....
diablo
Which is it, Diablo, an ad hominem attack or a genetic fallacy. Do you even know the difference?
Actually, what I did was point out the critic's own genetic fallacies (per Wikipedia, where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin). He starts from the position that "like it or not, the vast majority of animated films are comedies aimed at children". That's a classic genetic fallacy. He goes on to imply that any sequel is unworthy of being considered, another genetic fallacy.
The truth is, many film critics are as pedantic and out of touch as most literary critics and art critics, and are just as irrelevant to their respective art forms. It's not an ad hominem attack to highlight that fact. Just because you share the critic's snobbishness and fallacies of irrelevance doesn't make you right. His article doesn't convince me that he even saw any of the animated features this year with the exceptions of Rango and Tintin. He seems to have dismissed the rest sight unseen.
Post a Comment