Gross Behaviour - by Leonard Klady

Special Edition

I Survived the L.A. Film Critics Awards 2003

Despite the screener ban and the off again/on again awards voting meeting, there was no difference in the process, ambiance or hard slogging in determining winners and runners up by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.

I like to view the outcome as generous. Lavish, epic productions as well as quirky films made on shoestring budgets were cited. Veterans, mavericks and neophytes were honored for outstanding artistic and technical achievements and will hopefully come to the party on January 26 and bask in the glow of the spotlight.

It can't be said too often that this is an industry where praise and recognition cannot be too plentiful. And, as the potential prize pool tends to be shallow, it's become virtually impossible to arrive at a winner's slate that is radically different from any other group that doles out annual prizes. The difference for LAFCA in the past has been the fact that members meet and decide early in the process.

So, while heretofore under praised individuals such as actor Bill Nighy and cinematographer Eduardo Serra were added to the fray, others, including Naomi Watts and the makers of the animated feature The Triplets of Belleville, will have to add another engagement to a social calendar with a rapidly diminishing number of open spaces.

The actual process of arriving at winners, LAFCA style, can be primitive, even barbaric and from whence it derived has been lost to time. Here's the way it works. A category is announced, for example supporting actress. Members than proceed to shout out names of potential candidates until the possibilities and members are exhausted. Then, in random order, individual members (about 30 attended) are polled and asked to give their top three choices in the category with first choice receiving three points, second two and third choice a single point. In other words, it's a weighted ballot.

After all members (and proxies) are tallied, the top two vote getters participate in the final round that is conducted as a straight hand count. The description sounds more civilized than what actually transpires. There's an in-your-face nature to the process that can take days to recover from and begin to appreciate the final outcome.

However, even in the brief transition of less than 24 hours, I'm once again pleasantly surprised by the observation that the group members voted their conscience and that those preferences rarely aligned with award marketing campaigns. While advertising is omnipresent for the likes of Cold Mountain and The Last Samurai (both films with supporters in the group), there was considerably more fervor for such films as Dirty Pretty Things, 21 Grams and, obviously, American Splendor.

By its very nature, the process is a compromise and an odd one considering the eclectic composition of the membership. The tastes of writers from the L.A. Times, The Wall Street Journal, City Beat, The Hollywood Reporter, The Korean Times, etc., etc. are not harmonious but they merge and meld in a fashion that can be serendipitous. Even though one has ample time to consider one's options going into the voting session, once the balloting commences a sense of crisis and the necessity of a rush to judgment takes over. Balanced, rationale types are overcome by the heat of the moment and a day later I'm already beginning to have some niggling doubts about one or two group decisions. Mostly I feel good about the selections and "understand" the rest.

In the next day, the awards will be trumpeted in the press and most stories will position winners in terms of their Oscar prospects. In the years I've been a member there are probably a handful of instances where a LAFCA honor has genuinely translated into an Oscar nomination. The one that comes to mind is the year we cited Morgan Freeman for the film Street Smart.

And should Bill Nighy or Serra or any other of the winners or runners up on the critic's roster that were previously unlikely contenders receive an Academy Award nomination, there's no reason not to be pleased. But that's not the point. When the group was suddenly confronted with the screener ban, it was forcefully thrust into the industry's award timetable that traditionally culminates with the Oscars. The organization and its members were already aware of the tacit relationship with other awards and realized a response was in order. LAFCA decided it didn't want to be part of that discussion and in deciding to opt out until the issue was resolved, became possibly a higher profile aspect of the dialogue.

The Los Angeles Critics awards are simply the collective favorites of movie reviewers who reside in L.A. County and, personally speaking, are not intended to be Oscar harbingers. They are simply the opinion of that little cross section and as they are announced after the year's releases have been screened, are likely to be cited and employed in marketing campaigns. That's a logic that cannot be evaded.

The LAFCA Winners For 2003