You'll never guess who's been put up for a Pulitzer. Thanks to tipster CTB for this link to WWD:
The New York Times, for instance, seems to have caused a slight fuss this year by nominating co-chief film critic Manohla Dargis for criticism. As a rule, the paper does not discuss the Pulitzer process, but several Times sources confirmed that Dargis was nominated by management for the category, along with art critic Michael Kimmelman and architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff. (The Pulitzer Board advises publications to nominate three or fewer candidates per category. Joseph Legaspi, who works with the board, said, "We put it in good faith that this is the best work from all over the country. That's why we ask editors to limit their selection.")
While Dargis has many fans at the Times, the nod surprised some colleagues there, particularly since respected critics with longer histories at the paper have yet to win the award — or even been named as Pulitzer finalists. (Chief theater critic Ben Brantley and Dargis' fellow chief film critic A.O. Scott were most often mentioned by sources. Scott was nominated by the Times at least twice, in 2000 and 2004; it is unclear how many times Brantley has been up for the award.)
"By no means do you ever hear that [Dargis] is the best critic [the Times] has," said one person who's worked with her there. "She's known for synopsizing and giving stuff away. You're not supposed to read her if you don't want to know what's going to happen."
...One colleague likened the Times' nominations of Dargis and Ouroussoff this year to backrubs for joining the team. "It's like the Yankees," he said, implying the Times was celebrating its gets.
Mrrrow! Followed quickly by, they've nominated Scott twice already? Oy gevalt.
What I wouldn't give for an arch George Sanders commentary as the politicking picks up.
