Gotham Award Nominees

IndieWire has a story on the Gotham Award nominees. Eugene Hernandez clearly seems nonplussed by at least a few of the selections, stating that it’s “a selection of films that may stun some observers” and then reporting that indieWire asked IFP Executive Director Michelle Byrd to “reiterate the criteria” for nomination.

While I respect indieWire’s attempt at so-called “objective” journalism, wouldn’t it be so much more interesting for them to just come out and say what they really think instead of having us read between the lines? Hm. Perhaps an editorial is in the works?

Clearly, of the five nominees for Best Feature, a couple, maybe even three, seem out of place. Of course, which two or three depends on your definition of “independent film.”

There will probably not be any disputes over the “indie cred” of the “Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You” nominees: Steve Barron’s “Choking Man,” Richard Wong’s “Colma: The Musical,” So Yong Kim’s “In Between Days,” Jake Clennell’s “The Great Happiness Space: Tale of an Osaka Love Thief,” and Goran Dukic’s “Wristcutters: A Love Story.” Congrats to the nominees.

UPDATE: IndieWire gets response from the indie (and indiewood) community and finds lots of questions and criticism.

2 Responses to “Gotham Award Nominees”

  1. eug Says:

    Hi Paul, I appreciated reading your thoughts.

    I respect you considerably and don’t quite know how to take your “attempt at so-called ‘objective’ journalism” comment, but that aside, I was definitely surprised by the nominations and am happy to share some additional insights.

    We felt that it was first indieWIRE’s responsibilty to directly report the information and considered doing so without IFP comments, but I then called Michelle Byrd, feeling it would shed some light. After posting the story on indieWIRE, I immediately posted my personal views on my blog, feeling that it was the proper place for my immediate reaction.

    So, now we are monitoring other reactions and responses to determine what other additional coverage is warranted…



  2. Paul Says:

    Eugene –

    Thanks for the comments, especially the comment pointing out my unfortunate wording.

    Regarding my statement about “so-called ‘objective’ journalism”, etc. I honestly didn’t mean it to be a swipe, though re-reading it I can see now how that could be misinterpreted. I never meant to suggest that indieWire’s reporting was (or is ever) less than professional. Indeed, as I was writing it, I intended the proper emphasis in that block of text to be the word “respect.” Indeed, when I’m writing about matters regarding independent film (or so-called independent film, as may be the case here!) you’re my first source of information. It sounds like these feelings were miscommunicated, so please accept my apology if my comments came across otherwise.

    I’ve not had a chance to check out the comments on your blog, but I’ll look forward to that.