What Oscar Snub of “Page One: Inside the New York Times” Might Tell Us About A Misplaced Losing-the-Battle (and War) NY Times Bet

How many New York Times reader review rating stars has “Battle For Brooklyn,” the Michael Galinsky/Suki Hawley documentary about Atlantic Yards earned? Answer: It’s was rated 5 out of a possible 5 with 14 unanimously positive written reader reviews on the New York Times movies page. That’s good to know and commit to memory because going to the Times reader review page you were likely to see it rated at only 1 or 1.5, the inaccurate underrating being due to a an uncorrected computer glitch snafu.

This mistaken underrating was not the first case of the Times, for whatever reason, giving this Oscar-caliber film less than its due.

I use the term “Oscar-caliber” advisedly because “Battle For Brooklyn” is on the short list of films up for the for Best Feature Documentary.

In fact, “Battle For Brooklyn” and “Bill Cunningham New York,” both films reviewed by Noticing New York appear, respectively, as Number One and Two on the short list list of 15 films winnowed down from the 124 films that originally qualified in the category. (For the Noticing New York Reviews see: Friday, June 17, 2011, I Went To See “Battle For Brooklyn” This Weekend and You Should Too Because . . . . and Saturday, April 30, 2011, A List of Reasons Lovers of New York Should See “Bill Cunningham New York,” A Documentary About Photographing New York Fashion.)

Appearing as Numbers Number One and Two on the list is not meant to speak to the actual likelihood of those films winning the Oscar (although who knows): The films wind up being listed as One and Two because they are listed alphabetically. But it is an interesting coincidence that of 15 films on the list these top two are the two films reviewed by Noticing New York this year.

(Last year, three films that made the short list of 15 documentaries were written about here: “Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer,”“Gasland,” and “Inside Job.” “Gasland”and
“Inside Job” were then nominated and “Inside Job” won.)

It may be an interesting non-coincidence that another film written about here, a film specifically about the New York Times, was snubbed for this year’s short list: “Page One: Inside the New York Times.” The inclusion on the list of the two other films written about here matched up against the exclusion of “Page One” may say something telling about a misplaced bet the New York Times has been making about what news that paper covers and how it covers it. Styling itself as a national newspaper the Times is apparently making a bet that it needn't treat coverage of significant local New York news with the same kind of journalistic professionalism. (The Noticing New York review is here: Sunday, June 26, 2011, “Page One: Inside the New York Times” Reviewed; Plus The “New York Times Effect” on New York’s Biggest Real Estate Development Swindle.)


Reviews for the Oscar short-listed “Battle For Brooklyn” and the now snubbed “Page One” appeared in the Times on the same day and on the same page. (See: the photo of the print edition’s page above.) The review of “Page One” was above the fold, filling about half the page. The review for “Battle of Brooklyn” was below the fold taking up minimal column space but was accompanied by a large rendition of a Tracy Collins photograph (see below- I can catch myself in the background) elevating the stature of the coverage. This subordinating treatment of “Battle of Brooklyn” in retrospect now looks like another clear underestimation of the film. The review for “Page One”(subcontracted out to Michael Kinsley for conflict-of-interest reason) wasn’t even that flattering, the reviewer misguidedly gave the misimpression that the film was a total mess.

Those who read the Noticing New York review of “Page One” may remember that “Page One” was recommended by Noticing New York as a very good film and well worth seeing, but that I complained about what had been left out and therefore recommended seeing it conjunction with “Battle For Brooklyn” to fill in what was omitted. Specifically, I pointed out that the film did little to address the absence of coverage of local news countrywide and specifically how that deficiency is a big story in New York City itself. The Times is not stepping in to fill a vacuum. Even worse, as exemplified in the “Battle For Brooklyn,” the local news narrative concerning Atlantic Yards as led by the theoretically dependable and unimpeachable Times has resulted in an economic and political fiasco.

One could analyze the problem with “Page One” as being twofold: First, there are the omissions and inadequate work on the part of the Times itself; second, these omissions and failings were not pointed out by “Page One.”

What a strange quirk of fate then that one of the other films edging out “Page One,” “Bill Cunningham New York,” should be another film which is also about the Times since its subject is the well-known Times reporter who covers both high society and street fashion. What's more, “Bill Cunningham New York,” like “Battle For Brooklyn,” also covers the subject of local news coverage more prominently than “Page One.” In my Noticing New York review of the Bill Cunningham movie I came up with a list a ten reasons why Noticing New York readers should want to see the Cunningham movie. With the principal focus of Noticing New York being development and urban design in New York, together with associated politics, I was able to supply a list of ten reasons for readers to see the film. I commented that the film will give them a prism through which to see the city and to think about quite a variety of related subjects; for instance, how much Cunningham sounds like Jane Jacobs: “I let the street speak to me, and in order for the street to speak to you, you’ve got to stay out there and see what it is.”

You see, (and this is something Jane Jacobs might say too) everything is related.

In writing often about New York Times coverage, most recently how the Time screwed up coverage of Bloomberg’s eviction of the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zucotti Park, I have been making the point that you cannot cover the news selectively. Local coverage is related to national coverage. You cannot selectively cast a blind eye to the misconduct associated with Atlantic Yards as the New York City’s biggest boondoggle. If you try to elide the evils of Atlantic Yards in your pages it will leave holes in the paper-of-record stories about everything else. One of the really big stories about Occupy Wall Street (and even the Tea Party) is the rampant crony capitalism the nation is dealing with. If you are not reporting the real story of Atlantic Yards and the crucial involvement of mayor (who wants to be a national candidate and voice) you are not going to be first, foremost or reliable in reporting about key aspects of the national dialogue.

Something about “Battle For Brooklyn”and “Bill Cunningham New York” was speaking to those selecting films for the Oscar short list in a way that “Page One” addressing the grand theme of the Times as a national paper and institution did not. All three documentaries “Battle For Brooklyn” “Cunningham” and “Page One” involve unfolding of events that could not have been predicted when they were begun. I tend to think that even though “Page One” involves a lot of gripping material it was an easier film to make than “Battle For Brooklyn.” The paper provided access and eloquent talking heads for a year: It is hard to think that with all the national and international stories the Times covers the result was not going to be fascinating. “Battle For Brooklyn,” was undertaken with less certainty about what might result. It was filmed over the course of eight years and in figuring out how to introduce appropriate balance in its perspective faced challenges of access given the heavy duty politics and PR manipulation that has always been so large a part of the Atlantic Yards megadevelopment’s story.

One reason “Page One” can be regarded as a lesser film in the overall contest as films head toward Oscarland is that it does not evade the trap, which must have been apparent from the beginning, of producing a self-laudatory result full of praise for the Times. If it had taken on and absorbed some of the local news coverage issues presented by “Battle for Brooklyn” (or perhaps even “Bill Cunningham”) it might have become a truly great film. Let’s see if New York gets featured amongst the Oscar winners this year. Let’s see if “Bill Cunningham New York” wins for best documentary or perhaps the David against the 1% Goliath/Occupy Wall Street themed “Battle For Brooklyn.”

In that regard we are only talking the documentary film world reporting on the real world. But the Oscar race is a clue to a bigger real world story. That bigger story is about how the New York Times could become a significantly greater paper by setting aside its misplaced bet that it can get away with sidestepping proper coverage of important local news stories like Atlantic Yards or Columbia University’s the similarly problematic use of eminent domain to take over West Harlem or. . . the list of stories goes on. It is a long one because everything is connected.

A List of Reasons Lovers of New York Should See “Bill Cunningham New York,” A Documentary About Photographing New York Fashion

(Poster for Bill Cunningham New York, click to enlarge.)

Noticing New York readers are in luck. Here I was thinking this post would be too late, but it’s not: You can still catch the documentary “Bill Cunningham New York” in New York area theaters. The sweetly charming Cunningham, a man of extraordinary magnanimity of spirit, is a beautiful nerd, a man who, by giving himself over entirely to his obsession with fashion, achieves a singular greatness few of us can ever hope to achieve. With his two contrasting photographic features appearing weekly in the New York Times, Cunningham meticulously and with relentless energy chronicles the upper echelon fashion at New York’s exclusive charitable soirees and, also, more important, street fashion.

I’ve met Cunningham a couple of times and found him to be exactly as charming as depicted in the film. As he is also something of a ubiquitously present street character, famously relying on his bicycle (his 29th) to traverse the city, you may realize upon seeing the film that you too have seen him busy at work without it ever registering who you were seeing. Concentrating on his work, Cunningham has a genial way of blending into the background as he happily snaps photos of woman’s footwear or other accouterments (or men's) whereas some other similarly preoccupied fellow might be have everyone around on edge with suspicions that he was some sort of fetishist.

Impressively, the film by Richard Press is apparently one of the first things Press has done. According to the narrative of the film, it took many years for him to persuade Cunningham, now in his early 80's, to consent to the project. Cunningham is still plying his trade and the bike riding seems to have kept him admirably spry.

Cunningham isn’t like your typical fashionista. Totally brilliant about style and what superb craftsmanship may be essential to the mechanics of achieving a look (Cunningham once designed hats), Cunningham isn’t a snob; he is totally egalitarian which is really the story behind his coverage of street fashion, something he is probably more responsible for than any other individual.

What Cunningham seems to value more than anything else is fashion courage as individuals find ways to express themselves. When he goes to the high society social soirees, the rich and powerful who go there to be seen and hob nob importantly don’t get photographed by Cunningham unless they are wearing something interesting. As one of our party on the trip to see the movie observed: “Cunningham is more of an anthropologist of fashion than anything else.” (This particular viewer from our party was back to see the film for the third time in one week. The rest of us were newbies.) Cunningham is quite aware of all the ways that fashion is used to signal the nuances of social strata; it is just that he doesn’t participate in those value judgments while observing them.

The only thing Cunningham might be a snob about could be an illegitimate pretenses of originality. Blessed with a remarkable memory of the fashion past Cunningham can readily exhume archived material to show when a design has been done before, sometimes, as the film shows, with devastating effect.

Intensely moral and scrupulous about his standards, Cunningham is unusual in the way he will not compromise his integrity. He refuses to be seduced into supporting any of the prevalent stratifying cruelties of the fashion world. It is interesting to learn that Cunningham (and therefore, to a significant extent, the New York Times) selects the multitudinous weekly charity events he attends based on what he thinks is the value of the work the charity is doing. Cunningham, will also, when attending society events, never accept food or drinks, not even so much as a glass of water.

A List of New York Reasons to See This Film

Here is a list of the particular reasons Noticing New York readers will want to catch this film, the trailer for which is below or you can find it here.



It will give you a prism through which to see the city and think about ALL the following subjects (and then some):

• The contrast between the elite high-cost fashion of the power brokers (making, for instance, decisions about rezonings and mega-projects using eminent domain) and the fashion that generates up from the street level is emblematic of many of New York’s most important contrasts. One doesn’t have to scrutinize it very hard to find in it the Robert Moses/Jane Jacobs dichotomy of city life. A Cunningham quote from the trailer: “The best fashion show is always on the street; always has been and always will be.” And here is a quote from the New York Times review that sounds like an admonition lifted from Jane Jacobs herself: “I let the street speak to me, and in order for the street to speak to you, you’ve got to stay out there and see what it is.” The Times review also comments: “Mr. Cunningham has molded himself into the designated noticer and interpreter of the city. . .” - Humm, a “noticer”. . .

• Biking as an alternative form of transportation, biking in all weather, where to keep a regularly used bike if you own one, the possibility of accidents, where to lock up bicycles on the street and the frustrating rate of bicycle theft. Also, the concern of finding bike-friendly apartments and workplaces.

• The difficulty of finding an apartment. The film was made when Cunningham, on the presumably restricted salary of a journalist, needed to find a center-city replacement for his extremely modest apartment which apartment he gives over, almost entirely, to his work, with file cabinets occupying almost all the space.

• Whether charities to whom the city dispenses special privileges such as tax exemptions are serving the purposes once envisioned or are just submerging indistinguishably into the dull grey corporate mesh of things. The reason Cunningham had to look for a new apartment was his eviction from his studio apartment in Carnegie Hall Towers, a saga in itself. The movie looks in on its waning days. For more than a hundred years the Carnegie Hall Towers studio apartments, once numbering 170 in all, had been occupied by an intermingling collective of musicians, dancers and artists who lived and spent time there, including Mark Twain, Marlon Brando, Leonard Bernstein, Norman Mailer, Agnes de Mille, Martha Graham, John Barrymore, Garson Kanin, and Isadora Duncan. When built by Andrew Carnegie, the spaces were specifically designed as workable living space with artists in mind, with high ceilings and north-facing skylights. The Carnegie Hall Corporation began evictions to clear the building of artists with steep rent increases in 1981 and the protracted struggle to clear the building of artists didn’t end until the final eviction in 2010.

• The way that charity event life meshes with money and power (and therefore, the astute will extrapolate, politics and political agenda.)

• Whither the New York Times? The future of the city, at least for the time being, is probably inextricably linked with the New York Times. As Cunningham’s work now and over the years has mostly been for the Times the film provides a valuable window into the culture of the paper, including a scene with Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger (called "Pinch" because his father was nicknamed "Punch"). A lot of the film is shot inside or just outside of the New Times building that the Times, employing eminent domain, built in a business partnership with Bruce Ratner, the notorious politically-connected subsidy collector reviled for Atlantic Yards, (a mega-project the Times refrains from criticizing or scrutinizing). The Times review of the film describing Cunningham as “legendary” gets a lot of its assessments right. See: Bill Cunningham New York (2010), By Carina Chocano, March 15, 2011. See also this Times coverage: March 23, 2010, Capturing the Elusive Bill Cunningham, by David W. Dunlap.

• The mores of journalism: If the future of the city is inextricably linked to the Times, it is also inextricably linked to the mores of professional journalists. It’s doubtful that Cunningham’s standards are representative of the ethical standards of journalism in the city in general, but the film supplies ample meditation on the subject, including the temptations involved. Among other things Cunningham consciously avoids taking money for much of the work that he does in order to maintain his journalistic freedom. A Cunningham quote from the trailer: “You see, if you don’t take money then thay can’t tell you what to do. That’s the key to the whole thing.”

• The fight to save the city’s garment district beset by globalization together with Bloomberg administration upzonings. The Bloomberg administration may or may not be interested in earnestly taking steps to preserve area rather than have it be displaced by financial institutions. In the film Cunningham talks with people he knows from the industry attending a demonstration to save it. Cunningham discusses with these insiders the way firms in this once key business have been driven out of the city.

• Parks. On the weekends Cunningham is photographing the fashion action in Central Park.

• Enthusiasm and energy. The film is all about the kind of enthusiasm and energy that makes the city so identifiably New York.

You will probably come away from the film feeling inspired and uplifted, finding Cunningham an endearing marvel of a man, even as you still are still agog at the improbable and eccentric gift to New York Cunningham has chosen to make of himself.