DID YOU READ

Comparing the year end film polls

eoypolls-12232011

Posted by on

We’ve got one week left in 2011, so we’re running out of time to make lists, tear apart other people’s lists, make lists of lists, and list the lists we are going to list later. Better make the most of it.

Last night, for example, I spent a couple of hours pouring over the two big annual film critic polls: one from The Village Voice, the other from Indiewire. In both cases, the publications invite dozens of critics to list their favorite films, performances, directors, and assorted other topics. They compile the responses and use them to generate rankings. There’s a pretty large overlap between the two polls — out of the 193 total participants, 63 critics submitted a ballot to both — and some interesting disparities between the two sets of results.

Both polls agree about the best movie of the year: Terrence Malick‘s “The Tree of Life,” which appeared on more than half the Voice ballots and over a third of the Indiewire ballots. But after that, the lists get jumbled — while the two polls share nine out of the ten same films, no other movies occupies the same position on both top ten lists. The #2 and #3 films, “A Separation” and “Melancholia,” are flipped depending on which poll you look at — thorny matters of Iranian divorce were more popular in the Voice while greeting the end of all existing with Danish indifference was more popular with the Indiewire voters. The single biggest difference in placements for one film in the two top ten lists was “Drive,” which ranked as the fifth most popular film of the year on Indiewire but just the ninth most popular in the Voice. The outliers that only appeared on one poll each were “Hugo” (eighth on Indiewire, eleventh in the Voice) and “Take Shelter” (tenth in the Voice poll, fourteenth on Indiewire).

There are similar discrepancies in the acting categories, with a lot of repeated selections in vastly different orders of preference. Picking the best lead performance of the year, Indiewire voters wound up with a tie between Michael Shannon in “Take Shelter” and Michael Fassbender in “Shame.” But in the Voice, Shannon was the runaway favorite, receiving almost twenty more points than anyone else in either gender, while Fassbender came in fifth place behind Anna Paquin from “Margaret,” Juliette Binoche from “Certified Copy,” and Kirsten Dunst from “Melancholia.” Fassbender appeared on 27% of all Indiewire ballots and just 21% of all Voice ballots, a pretty big difference especially when you consider that one out of every three ballots in both polls were essentially identical. On the supporting side of things, Christopher Plummer got similarly Fassbendered. At Indiewire he won Best Supporting Performance by a sizable margin. In the Voice he only placed third, behind Albert Brooks in “Drive” and Jeannie Berlin in “Margaret.”

So what does this all mean? What do I look like, a guy who took more than one math class in college? Because I didn’t. Personally, I think it means that while consensus does exist out there in film critic land, it’s also far more fickle and flexible than we often imagine it to be. You poll 10 critics, you might get complete agreement. You poll 10 other critics, you might get ten different favorites. A few critics invited to vote here, a few critics not invited to vote there, and intentionally or unintentionally you’ve created significant variations in the data.

If you were going to take this research even further down sabremetriciany avenues, you’d need information that the Voice and Indiewire don’t publicly provide, namely the ages and outlets of their contributors. Then you could compare the statistical variations in the two polls with other factors; maybe the average voting age at Indiewire was younger and younger voters tended to prefer “Drive.” Or maybe print critics were more heavily sampled at the Voice, and they were less impressed by Michael Fassbender’s emotionally naked weiner performance.

For now, I guess we’re left more questions. In the meantime, be sure to examine the Voice and Indiewire polls in depth and to report back to me with your own findings. Or if you just want to read my ballots you can find those here and here.

Which poll do you agree with more: the Voice or Indiewire? Tell us in the comments below or write to us on Facebook and Twitter.

Watch More
FrankAndLamar_100-Trailer_MPX-1920×1080

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar

via GIPHY

IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
Brockmire-103-banner-4

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”


Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire_101_tout_2

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”


But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet