It’s Not the Oscar, but an Amazing Facsimile

They have a growing amount of clout leading up to the Oscars--at least in terms of the weight their votes are given in movie ads leading up to the Oscar nominations. Film critics’ groups start bestowing their own awards in December, and add momentum to Hollywood’s Oscar pushes.

But just who are these influential critics, anyway?

Consider the group that’s first out of the pack, the 87-year-old New York-based National Board of Review of Motion Pictures. On Dec. 10, it was the first of the major critics’ groups to announce its selection of 1996’s best picture (“Shine”), actor (Tom Cruise in “Jerry Maguire”), actress (Frances McDormand in “Fargo”) and so on. The very next day, ads for the films that won had National Film Board Winner splashed across them.

But no one in Hollywood seems to have a clue about the board’s membership.

‘I’ve been a movie critic for 29 years and I have no idea who those people are,” says Chicago film critic Roger Ebert. “I’ve never received a letter from them. I don’t know anyone involved with them and I never had a friend who knew anyone involved with them. Yet they’re the first out. Who are these people?”

One Paramount source said some in show biz jokingly refer to the group’s unknown members as “mystery meat.” Added a Miramax Films marketing source: “We sit around and kid about it being a bunch of old ladies or guys who hang out at some Manhattan street corner who nobody knows but somehow manage to pull off the quintessential industry joke. . . . Their choices are copied by most of these ‘legit’ critic groups and in turn, the legit critic groups’ picks are copied by the Academy members for the Oscars.”

Lois Ballon, a National Board director, says the group is composed of a board of directors whose members don’t vote, a screening group of about 85 people who see 200 movies a year and submit their selections to the third segment--a voting board of 15 members who do vote. She said the members, directors and voting board members include retired film teachers, film students, Broadway producers and former film critics.

So how does one qualify to be a National Board member? “You have to pay a fee of $250 and be willing to see 200 films a year and say what you think about the movie and performances,” Ballon said. “Usually, a potential member is recommended. We consider the candidates and we choose. That’s it.”

The National Board has been around since 1909, 14 years after cinema was born. A reactionary, anti-censorship group, it was formed in protest of then-New York Mayor George MacClennan’s decision on Christmas Eve 1908 to revoke theater exhibitors’ licenses. MacClennan’s reason: Movies degraded the community’s morals.

The cause celebre for freedom of expression was led in 1908 by exhibitor Marcus Loew and film companies Edison, Biograph, Pathe and Gaumont. The compromise reached between MacClennan and the group was that national distributors and theater exhibitors would show only movies that met the National Board’s approval. For 30 years, most movies carried a logo branding them “Passed by the National Board of Review.”

Ballon says the group knows that other critics’ and awards groups question its esoteric existence but says that in some ways the Board revels in its obscurity. “We’re this mixed bag and what’s important to us is that we’re affiliated with nothing. We avoid having a connection with anybody and maybe that’s why people sometimes attack us.”

The National Board, like some other critics’ groups, doesn’t release the names or occupations of its members. “We have never really had a policy one way or another about releasing our membership. But now that you ask, no, we probably wouldn’t. It has to do with people’s privacy,” Ballon says.

The same pretty much applies to details about the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn.’s voting members. While it does offer a list of its members who vote on the Golden Globe Awards, that list only gives a member’s name, phone number, address and what country he or she represents. It does not say whether the member is a full-time journalist or what the affiliated publication is. In fact, the HFPA requires only that the member be published six times a year and that the member be accredited by the MPAA.

This is the same group that until very recently commanded very little respect in the film industry. In fact, stars used to shun the Golden Globe ceremonies, but now they turn out in full force and black tie.

“It is true that we have been heavily criticized in the past and there have been some recent articles that continue to criticize us for things that happened many years ago,” said HFPA director Lorenzo Soria, who is the Los Angeles correspondent for the Italian daily newspaper La Stampa.

“It is true that there are hundreds of journalists, foreign journalists, who do attend press junkets [and take free gifts and accommodations],” he said. Press junkets are staged interview events, hosted by a studio or film company promoting a film, in which the press members may be housed in plush hotels.

Both Soria and members of the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. also say that there is another sticky rule that often makes the group the butt of criticism. It is the issue of members who are basically grandfathered in--people who were once established film critics but who have essentially retired and rarely if ever review a film.

“You have members of the Motion Picture Academy who haven’t produced a movie in years, who are basically retired from the film business, and they are certainly voting on the Oscars,” said Soria. “What’s the difference? I think if you or anyone else wants to make an issue, the Academy is the area where you should be focusing your attention. The Oscars are a much bigger issue.”

Chicago critic Gene Siskel says, “If you’re asking what effect all of these groups have on the Oscars, the answer is this: They focus the attention on certain films that may have been forgotten by the Academy members over the past year. They set the agenda and basically say to the Academy and to other critics, ‘All right, try and beat these, guys!’ ” Siskel is Ebert’s partner on the “Siskel & Ebert” TV show; the duo will air their choices for the best in film for ’96 on Jan. 19, on a show titled “Memo to the Academy.”

“In the show we are very clearly trying to influence the Academy’s selection,” Siskel says. “The one single performance both Roger and I are pushing for is the nomination for William H. Macy in ‘Fargo.’ I make the case that his role is just as critical and just as difficult as that of Frances McDormand, who is a lock to be nominated and maybe even a possibility to win. But I don’t think Macy will even get nominated because he is not a likable enough character.

“Obviously, Academy voters tend to prefer people who conquer problems in their choices,” he adds. “We have had an impact on the Oscars over the years with our choices.”

Ebert adds that the Oscar selections do often reflect the choices of the critics groups--including the National Board, the Texas Film Critics, the Boston Film Critics, the New York Film Critics, the National Assn. of Film Critics and the newest critics’ group, the 83-member Broadcast Film Critics Assn., which aired its selections Thursday. The New York and National Assn. probably have the strictest membership requirements, since their respective members must be working film critics and credentialed journalists.

“The early critics’ awards may help to establish the agenda for the later critics’ awards,” says Ebert. “And that’s an interesting process in terms of who goes first. Regardless, these groups put the names of stars and writers and directors and movies out there, names who might have gone unnoticed. By doing that, a trend gets underway, sometimes in support of an underdog. You’re going to find that McDormand and ‘Fargo’--which was not a big studio movie--will be the beneficiaries of this. The average Academy voter may see a majority of the movies but not all. These awards are there to make sure there are some they shouldn’t miss.”