A lot of people are talking about the Best Film nominations for this year's Gotham Awards, where Martin Scorsese's nearly $90 million dollar "The Departed" (with marketing certainly $130 million or more) competing with "Old Joy" and "Half Nelson." Anthony Kaufman writes about it here.
As per Kaufman, the nominating members were told just to pick the best films of the year, without regard to budget. In some ways, I find this an improvement for the IFP, as it is more honest. Rather than fudging around with budgets every year, they say that the winner should simply be the Best Film of the Year. The Committee followed their instructions, and this is their choice. It's not the IFP's choice; it's their choice.
The IFP recognizes the need to pay attention to newcomers with their "Best Films Not Playing at a Theater Near You" Awards. I'm assuming this award is for films that don't have distribution. This is a really great thing to do. They also have the "Breakthrough Awards" for Director and Actor.
The Gothams do not emulate the Spirits by making a prize for Films With Budgets Under $$$, etc. I totally understand and salute this decision. How do you set the number? Do you adjust each year for inflation? No matter how you do it, it's arbitrary.
But you're still left with all the films that play for a week competing with huge studio movies for Best Film. And as the Gothams come first in the Awards season, there is no way for the members to know whether they will be honoring a film that will get minimal recognition or a film like "Sideways," which will get practically everything.
Anyone who's ever served on a jury knows this dilemma. Is the idea to honor a small but worthy movie, so that a filmmaker might have a better chance for making another one? Or to just pick what you think is best? It's a serious question and it can churn up a lot of emotion and passion in the jury room.
It's completely valid for the Gothams, or any organization, to give a prize for the Best Film of the year, without placing any budget constraints on the choice. But it's also fair to ask what unique purpose is served by this award from the Oscars. Most of the Oscar nominations tend to feature relatively low-budget films made by classics divisions. Even the Golden Globes is unique in that it divides movies into different categories like Best Films in Comedy or Musical vs. Dramas. In doing this, they solve a big problem faced by every other award, which is the prejudice against comedies. I bet "Little Miss Sunshine" gets a Globe nomination this year.
I humbly submit this suggestion:
A Best Film Award for a movie produced without any connection at all to a studio, like for example, "Old Joy" or "Half Nelson." We can argue forever about what makes a film independent, but there are films that turn up at Sundance every year with cobbled together micro-budgets, and those films are undeniably "independent." The way I see it, an independently-financed film is more independent even if it costs $100,000 more than a film produced by a multi-billion dollar corporate entity. Or even by Lionsgate.
One final note. The female lead of "The Departed" received plenty of recognition for her breakout role in "Down to the Bone," including a 2004 Special Jury Prize at Sundance, Best Actress from the LA film critics, and a Spirit nomination (she lost to Catalina Sandino Moreno).
But in 2004, Vera Farmiga wasn't nominated for a Gotham "Breakthrough Award."
Submitted by
October 24, 2006 - 4:14pm
