A Critically Important Gang

When he was presented with his best-actor award at Thursday’s marathon Los Angeles Film Critics luncheon at the Westwood Marquis, Steve Martin preceded his acceptance speech with an observation about the event itself.

“This is exactly the kind of situation that if we were outside in the hall walking by and just took a quick glance in and sort of heard the speeches,” Martin said, “you would say, ‘Boy, I’m glad I’m not in there.’ ”

Judging by the laughter that followed, it was a thought that might have occurred to others in the room.

The L.A. critics luncheon is not one of Hollywood’s slicker or more compelling productions. For the winners and the multitude of publicists who accompany them, it is a no-frills, clubby affair, preceded by an overpriced cash bar and a buffet that--for those willing to wait 15 minutes in line--offers a variety of cold cuts, fruits and pastries. The formal program moves slower than the Oscar show and may be the only event on Hollywood’s dense awards schedule where the presenters out-talk the winners.

But it is that very informality, the awkwardness of critics attempting showmanship, that makes the luncheon special. There is an earnestness about these awards that doesn’t exist on the night of the Oscars, and though some of the critics’ speeches spiral off into esoteric zones unfamiliar even to people in the business, they crackle with sincerity.

The Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. has become sort of the Stanford band of the American film industry, an eccentric gang of 28 whose membership requirements are only slightly tighter than those for the Hertz No. 1 Club. Compared to their counterparts in the New York Film Critics Circle, where one has to be a full-time professional critic for a major print outlet (no TV or radio critics allowed), the L.A. group is just another busload of moviegoers.

There are probably not 10 full-time critics in the Los Angeles club, and the only reason Gary Franklin and other local TV personality/critics are not members is that they have not applied.

A few years ago, when a membership qualifications committee proposed that members should have to demonstrate that they have done 12 reviews during the last year in order to maintain their active status, the idea was rejected as being too strict.

Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn.--because it is in Los Angeles and is better at publicizing itself--has arguably become the most influential critics’ group in the country. I cannot think of a recent example where the vote of the august New York Film Critics Circle has had a direct impact on a film.

I can cite three examples where the evidence seems uncontrovertible that the L.A. critics have directly influenced studio action.

--In 1981, the group gave four awards to Paramount Pictures’ “Atlantic City,” a movie that had opened early in the previous year and had done very little business. “Atlantic City” won the L.A. critics’ awards for best picture, best director (Louis Malle) and best actor (Burt Lancaster). A special award was voted to the film’s screenwriter, John Guare. Paramount used the awards as the basis for an Oscar campaign that ultimately netted five nominations, and the film was re-released briefly in various parts of the country.

--In 1986, the L.A. critics named Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” best picture. Gilliam was named best director and he and his two co-screenwriters shared the best screenplay award. The sweep marked a particularly eccentric voting session since the movie had not been released by Universal Pictures, which was busily re-editing the film over Gilliam’s objections. The awards prompted Universal to market the director’s version of “Brazil” and the movie subsequently got two Oscar nominations.

--This year, the critics lined up behind English director John Boorman’s “Hope and Glory,” voting it awards for best picture, best director and best screenplay, and there is no doubt--at least in Boorman’s mind--that the awards prompted Columbia Pictures to belly up to the bar and buy the film a decent major studio release.

Boorman and “Hope and Glory” executive producer Jake Eberts came to Hollywood this week ready for a fight with new Columbia president Dawn Steel and instead said they got a hero’s welcome. The studio had a new marketing campaign and release schedule prepared for the movie before the director and producer got here, they said, and “Hope and Glory”--which Boorman feared would be stuck in the “art house ghetto”--is now being given a chance at Academy Awards and hit status in American theaters.

“Hope and Glory,” Boorman’s autobiographical remembrances of growing up during the London Blitz, is playing in about 100 theaters. On Feb. 19, two days after the Oscar nominations are announced, it will go into wide national release.

Steel made a noticeable point of the studio’s new support for “Hope and Glory” by attending the Thursday luncheon with Boorman.

Boorman had fun throwing the bad reviews he had gotten for previous films back at the critics. He said that no matter how strongly directors insist they don’t care about reviews, they care deeply.

“It’s rather like the cops and the criminals,” Boorman said. “You know, finally at the end of the day, all we have is each other. Now that you’ve finally seen the light, I forgive you for all the false arrests and those beatings in the cell.”

It was apparent that most of the winners took their awards very seriously. Sally Kirkland, whose performance in “Anna” earned her the best-actress award (she shared it with Holly Hunter of “Broadcast News”), had to compose herself a couple of times while thanking the critics for an award that came after “26 films, 40 TV shows and 150 plays.”

Olympia Dukakis, named best supporting actress for “Moonstruck,” said her award gave her a whole new perspective on critics. She recalled the first review she had ever gotten for her work--25 years ago, for a role in the play “The Importance of Being Earnest”--and the critic said she was so bad, he wouldn’t sully his column by mentioning her name. Thursday was definitely a better day.

Steve Martin’s offhand comments were worth the price of admission. If you were outside in the hall walking by and took a quick glance in and heard a little of his speech, you would have wished you could have been in there.

Martin was named best actor for his performance in “Roxanne.” He shared the award with Jack Nicholson, whose plaque was inscribed with the titles of “The Witches of Eastwick” and “Ironweed,” and Martin had people roaring with laughter by merely recounting the conversations with agents and publicists who, on Nicholson’s behalf, were wondering what he planned to say about the absent Nicholson in his speech.

The jokes tend to get a little inside at these events, but if you have followed the management changes at Columbia Pictures in recent years, you’ll appreciate Martin’s brief list of thank-yous.

“I especially want to thank Guy McElwaine, the president of Columbia, who gave the project the go,” Martin said. “I want to thank Steve Sohmer, the next president of Columbia, who oversaw (the project) during the casting phase. I want to thank David Puttnam, the next president of Columbia, who was behind us all the way. And Dawn Steel, the now president of Columbia, who supervised the release on cassettes.

“I just hope that each of you will be as supportive when you’re president of Columbia.”

Even Dawn Steel laughed.