"Can it really be awards season already?" Our own Eric D. Snider asked that question when reporting that IFP (Independent Feature Project) announced the nominees for the Gotham Awards, honoring the best of indie films in 2007. And now the Alliance of Women Film Journalists (AWFJ) has announced their awards categories. AWFJ has two types of categories: the traditional "Best of" awards (film, director, actress, actor, etc.) are presented annually, but the "Special Mention" awards categories are "subject to change each year, depending on the list of films released during the year," according to their site. The awards aim to recognize "the amazing work done by and about women -- both in front and behind the camera."

Most of the categories from last year are back -- AWFJ Hall Of Shame Award(s), Actress(es) Most in Need Of A New Agent, Best Of The Fests, Movies You Wanted To Love But Just Couldn't, Best Depiction Of Nudity or Sexuality -- but seven additional categories have been added for this year's awards. Three of them sound generic: Unforgettable Moment , Cultural Crossover, Bravest Performance. Actually, "Unforgettable Moment" could be cool if it recognizes an isolated scene of genius in an otherwise horrible film, but what constitutes a "Bravest Performance"? Acting without make-up? Risking your life to do a stunt, a la Zoe Bell in Death Proof?

I really love the other four new categories, though: Sequel That Shouldn't Have Been Made (there are so many candidates, how will the AWFJ narrow them down?), Best Leap from Actress to Director (I'm looking at you, Sarah Polley!), Best Seduction and Most Egregious Age Difference Between The Leading Man and The Love Interest. Not to play the sexist card, but the latter two categories -- especially the "Age Difference" one -- would never be considered by a male-dominated critical group. Here's hoping the awards will call attention to lesser-known, quality films and the women that make them.

You might have noticed that the much-touted AFI Top 100 list is missing something: female film directors. Few of the films have strong female leads, or were written by women. I suppose AFI would argue that they're not looking at the race or sex of filmmakers or stars, they just want to pick good American movies that everyone loves. But the Top 100 list does leave a lot to be desired if you're looking for diversity of any kind.

Enter the Alliance of Women Film Journalists, who decided they would make their own list of Top 100 films -- not 100 films directed by women, just the journalists' idea of what the all-time top 100 films might be. They wanted to see if for them, "great films" would have such a small representation of women. And unsurprisingly, the AFWJ list does include many more movies written and/or directed by women, as well as women in strong leads. The AFWJ Top 100 list, released on Monday, does overlap a little with AFI's list -- the inevitable Citizen Kane and Casablanca, for example. Howeer, AFWJ doesn't rank the films in order of goodness, but gives you an alphabetical list, which I prefer. In addition, AFWJ did not limit their choices to American films, although the AFI's definition of "American" has always seemed shaky to me. (A Clockwork Orange qualifies for the AFI list, but not Brazil? Weird.) Also, I am a little annoyed that AFI wants you to register with their site in order to download their top 100 list and the original ballot -- do a Web search and find it on a news site instead. The AWFJ list is viewable by anyone.

Should a movie review include references to gossip or buzz surrounding the celebrities or filmmakers involved with that movie? That's the issue that the Alliance of Women Film Journalists (AWFJ) is pondering this week on the AWFJ blog. For example, a number of Georgia Rule reviews have included sly mentions of co-star Lindsay Lohan's personal life, or reminders about the rumors about her behavior on the set of that film. AWFJ isn't only considering salacious gossip, though, but also discussing whether references to the late actress/director Adrienne Shelly's life (and death) are appropriate when reviewing Waitress.

The film critics and journalists responding on the AWFJ site have a variety of opinions that are well worth reading. Some reviewers note that Waitress may be receiving "softball" reviews because critics have been influenced by their feelings about Shelly's tragic death. The AWFJ members are more divided on whether it's appropriate to mention gossip about Lohan -- some feel that comparisons can be drawn between the actress and the character she plays. I'd argue that even though we are surely affected by rumors or news about a cast or crew member, and that it is impossible to be unbiased, we should at least try to be as fair as we can. Rehashing celebrity gossip seems to decrease the perception of fairness in the eyes of readers -- sometimes it even seems like a cheap shot.

So what do you think? Does it bother you to read celebrity gossip, news or buzz in a movie review, or does that add welcome spice and entertainment to the piece? AWFJ doesn't have space for comments on their blog, but Cinematical does ... so feel free to share your thoughts about this issue here.