This year’s race for Best Picture has some wonderful films in the lineup suddenly. There doesn’t seem to be room for movies that aren’t quite as good as the ones that are making it in. But the Producers Guild’s preferential ballot gives voters ten spots. One has to think that if a movie can’t make it on a ten picture ballot, how can it make it on a five picture ballot?
Selma did not send enough screeners out in time for the PGA vote. That doesn’t mean the movie is out of the race. With only three days left to vote for the Oscars, it’s hard to know if Selma makes it in. My guess is that it does.
206 films were directed by women this year. Three that I can think of were directed by black women. Only one shimmers on Rotten Tomatoes with 100% positive reviews and that’s Ava DuVernay’s Selma, the story of the march from Selma to Montgomery and the lead up to the Voting Rights Act. Things were going pretty well for the film until today’s announcement that it did not make the cut for the Producers Guild. And, as was pointed out by Kris Tapley, it hasn’t hit any of the major guilds, from the Editors to the Art Directors. It’s becoming increasingly worrisome to me that this door might remain shut.
If the reason is because this magnificent film isn’t what the steak eaters like? So be it. But if the reason is that it supposedly “got LBJ wrong?” Shame on them.
When Argo was up for Best Picture a scandal erupted in Toronto that great liberties were taken with history, specifically who took credit for the freeing of the hostages and whose credit was quietly removed. That’s history. This year, several films take liberties with the facts for the sake of drama. It isn’t that what LBJ did for the civil rights movement isn’t important. Of course it is important to maintain his revived legacy, to allow for that legacy to nestle peacefully in time.
LBJ is not the primary subject of the film. It shows his resistance as a point of conflict. LBJ’s image was tarnished by the extreme right and has since been rehabilitated. It’s a thing to be proud of that, of all the leaders at the time, LBJ stepped up and did the right thing. And did so because he thought it was right. He was facing opposition at every turn, which the movie shows.
But … guess what? This isn’t a movie about LBJ. This isn’t a movie about his presidency. This is a story about a man who has never had a film made about him. As director Ava DuVernay talks about the film’s history:
“The original script was passed around in 2007, but no major studio was willing to fund it. Brad Pitt’s small production company Plan B Entertainment and French investors financed it in 2008 with a modest budget. For years, it struggled with financing and changes in its director. It wasn’t until Oprah Winfrey stepped in this year that the project turned into a major motion picture event. With her financial backing, Paramount jumped in to distribute the film.
“It’s been 50 years since the events that we chronicle occurred,” said “Selma” director Ava DuVernay at the recent panel discussion. “The fact that there hasn’t been any theatrical portrayal of who he was and what he did is — I think — criminal.”
The Oscars are a game of dirty pool. You have to watch your back if you’re in the race because there are so many forces gunning for your spot. You’re lucky if you are working for a company that is connected to high places, like network television or reputable newspapers. All the better to make sure the distracting message is heard. NBC News devoted significant airtime to it tonight, with Oscar ballots still outstanding. (NBC of NBC/Universal, a studio with its own dog in the hunt.)
Though I appreciate LBJ’s contribution to the civil rights movement, I didn’t walk out of Selma thinking about him. This was an opportunity to watch a richly made film about Martin Luther King, Jr. That message has now been diminished. In one month’s time, when the ballots are counted, no one is going to give a damn. They put their collective footprint down to preserve a US president’s legacy — for whom? tfor people who agree with them? Probably. Or did they think, in their own way, that they were “teaching” DuVernay a lesson?
What did I think of when I watched Selma? I thought of the once-in-a-lifetime appearance on the scene of Martin Luther King, Jr. at a time when oppressed non-voting citizens of the United States needed him most. I thought of the people who laid their lives on the line to make sure that year people in America and in our government knew what was happening in Selma and all over the South. I thought of the story of Selma, and how few stories about America’s civil rights movements have ever made it to the big screen. I thought of Fruitvale Station and The Butler and how they were similarly shut out of the awards race because they confront the ongoing racial tension that weaves through our society now, even with (especially with) a black president. I thought of Ava DuVernay’s Middle of Nowhere winning Best Director at Sundance but then having nothing come of it in the awards race — except for the few of us that were paying attention.
I thought of King’s words, his famous speeches, what he changed, how he changed it, and what lingers in our culture 50 years later – and how important it is to celebrate this American hero. I thought of how carefully made Selma was and what a good filmmaker DuVernay is and how she took on the challenge of a much bigger production and combed through it painstakingly, so much so that it wasn’t even ready to produce screeners in time for voting. But I appreciate that kind of meticulousness.
I thought suddenly about Oscar history, and how it might be made this year, how those doors might be flung open for women of color to make some kind of progress. I thought about those doors that will remain shut.
But if it doesn’t, is that going to take away from the film’s impact? I don’t think so. You see, the Oscars are a mirrored reflection of their own tastes. With or without an Oscar nomination, I hope people seek out Selma for its richness of character, its persistence of vision, its unimaginable place in film history — this opportunity will not present itself quite the same way again.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. One of the primary forces for social change was killed by some loser with access to weaponry. That it happened so long ago makes it seem like it wasn’t one of the greatest tragedies we’ve ever faced as a nation. To make your topic of conversation coming out of Selma that it didn’t emphasize LBJ’s enthusiasm for civil rights is to ignore the legacy of the man who is all too often forgotten.
He is a man who left us with words that would influence generations. DuVernay’s film has the opportunity to extend that legacy, not just to young black ticket-buyers throughout the country, not just to the many living in poverty who fight, daily, for their own civil rights, but to the black artists, to the women especially, who face nothing but roadblocks, day in and day out both behind and in front of the camera.
As King himself once said in his Nobel speech:
“Doors of opportunity are gradually being opened to those at the bottom of society. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are developing a new sense of “some-bodiness” and carving a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of despair. “The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.”21 Here and there an individual or group dares to love, and rises to the majestic heights of moral maturity. So in a real sense this is a great time to be alive. Therefore, I am not yet discouraged about the future. Granted that the easygoing optimism of yesterday is impossible. Granted that those who pioneer in the struggle for peace and freedom will still face uncomfortable jail terms, painful threats of death; they will still be battered by the storms of persecution, leading them to the nagging feeling that they can no longer bear such a heavy burden, and the temptation of wanting to retreat to a more quiet and serene life. Granted that we face a world crisis which leaves us standing so often amid the surging murmur of life’s restless sea. But every crisis has both its dangers and its opportunities. It can spell either salvation or doom. In a dark confused world the kingdom of God may yet reign in the hearts of men.
That man, that beautifully thoughtful, heroic diamond of a man, deserves to shine.
Shut the fuck up Paddy with all your relevant and agreeable reasoning. 😀
Wow, can’t believe that’s actually a real movie, Antoinette!… Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)… Weird…
I saw a movie one time where Elvis and JFK saved all the elderly people in a rest home from having their souls sucked out of them by a mummy. I assume that since Elvis and JFK were real people that the film was totes historically accurate.
Ryan, you and I have a fundamental disconnect in the rule of who must provide the burden of proof. My point is: The movie does show LBJ asking Hoover to go after MLK (MLK doesn’t cancel the march and LBJ says ‘Get me Hoover’, then Coretta gets the call – it’s very clear, and that’s what every viewer and critic sees it as too). There is no historical evidence to say that LBJ siccing Hoover on MLK to silence MLK happened, nor has their ever been historical debate that it did or didn’t happen. The only reason we’re debating the veracity of such an event is because ‘Selma’ made it up! This was never a claim that was debated before. So the burden of proof is on the movie. Further more, the screenwriter and Ava DuVernay have not offered to show some new historical data substantiating their plot point because there is none. There’s also no data that shows that Johnson slept with Jackie O or that Johnson ordered the hit on Malcolm X. But let’s say those events were depicted in a movie – are they then legitimate subjects of debate? Ryan, there is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THOSE EVENTS OCCURRED. Furthermore, there is NO HISTORICAL DEBATE AMONG HISTORIANS THAT IT OCCURRED. It was made up whole cloth for the movie. And the number one person who denies it? Andrew Young – MLK’s right-hand man at the time.
” but we do know that LBJ did not order then FBI head J. Edgar Hoover to undermine King…”
…because we had sputnik drone following LBJ around 24/7 365 days a year all through 1964 and 1965, and the drone was recording everything LBJ ever did, so that’s how we know, so shut up, we know, we know, we know [puts fingers in ears]
Ryan, seriously? Come on, man! You are basically saying because we don’t know that LBJ didn’t NOT do something, then people like me have no right to be upset when a movie says he did something. The point is this: the burden of truth is on the accuser, not the accused, and the accuser here is a film which is making unfounded accusations that are historically incorrect. Unless the screenwriter and Ava DuVernay know something that know historian has ever known. Look, they could’ve added a scene where Coretta Scott King has an affair (she didn’t! there is no evidence of that! but bear with me!) and that would’ve rightfully upset people. I could use your argument and say, ‘OH because we we had a sputnik drone following around Coretta Scott King …” Come on. Besides, if anyone WAS followed around and had his every move documented back then IT WAS THE PRESIDENT. He was always surrounded by aides, every one of his actions in the Oval Office was recorded – (yup, just like Nixon in a lot of ways!) – and there were schedules, photographers, and reporters everywhere. But mostly – there were recorders in his office and aides in the room too. So I actually trust that if something isn’t a part of the historical record, and it’s this big (hey, we KNOW that RFK contacted Hoover about MLK, right?) then we’d know.
We also know Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone too, so please just stop asking silly questions about that. We know we know we know.
Why can’t you just believe what the people in power are you telling you. WE KNOW everything LBJ ever did. And everything LBJ never did too.
Ryan, come on. Just because it’s in a movie you like doesn’t mean it’s true, or that it needs to be debated. I think you understand that.
what possible reason would people in power have to lie to us about anything?
The only reason we’re discussing this is because the movie changed history in a radical and arguably offensive way for a very plausible reason: it made the script simpler to write and even more sympathetic to King. Again, this is not some massive media conspiracy. These are historians from across the political spectrum and activists who were there INCLUDING ANDREW YOUNG HIMSELF who are saying that the movie grossly misrepresents LBJ.
Ryan Adams: But… what… I just… why…?
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Because I said so.
“we do know that LBJ did not order then FBI head J. Edgar Hoover to undermine King.”
…what’s this about Prince Andrew having sex with the 17-year-old though?
Buckingham Palace: “any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors is categorically untrue”
ok then, thanks. sorry for asking. whatever you say, Media Thought-Police.
Are you serious? ‘Media Thought-Police’??
Why don’t you all stop arguing with each other and come argue with me instead?
Can’t believe you people are fighting and no-one’s even mentioned me yet. Insulted, actually.
“the first entry left many people clueless about some character developement, specially round the Hobbits themselves, assuming we would either knew about what a Hobbit was and meant, or we would simply love them straight away. I was unfamiliar with Hobbits and simply couldn’t care for them, all through the film. Till I got to the extended version.”
I, on the other hand, as a counter-example, had never heard of Tolkien or hobbits in my life before I first saw The Fellowship, yet I didn’t think anything was confusing and I had no problem rooting for the hobbits from early on in the film, because, hobbits or not, I found them to be pretty unique and interesting characters. To say they’re not, and you can’t root for them, if you ask me, sounds like a personal thing, not something emanating from the way they’re built in the movie. I’d actually find that point of view way more convincing coming from someone who’d read the books beforehand, because they probably would have had their own ideas/expectations about what the hobbits might/should be like and, naturally, should those not have been met, they would have had trouble relating to the hobbit characters in the movie. Plus, I think there are quite a few others like me, who didn’t know anything about Tolkien’s oeuvre when they first watched The Lord of the Rings. And yes, I’ve seen the extended version of Fellowship (this was a while back, admittedly) – and honestly, the changes were so “meaningful” I don’t even remember what they were… I’ve always watched the theatrical version since then, it’s still the one I love.
“It’s a dangerous game to bypass the guilds. I would not do it myself. Critics, sure. Guilds, no way. The reason being a film builds momentum that way – not just with nominations and discussions of snubs but at the awards shows themselves where they are celebrated and applauded – their presence tested as “winners” or nominees.”
“but the race is so much about perception and exposure besides getting people to like your movie by actually seeing it and relating to it. Missing out on the guilds takes away some of the very best opportunities for getting that exposure and hitting that stride where momentum builds and the whole thing takes off.”
That’s what I was thinking – not as eloquently formulated in my mind, of course. 🙂 I don’t think this kind of approach is going to work out, if that was their plan. But, maybe, who knows?!…
“But if I were a Paramount PR guy I would definitely try to play a ‘shocking guilds snub’ card right about now and see where it leads. It might amount to an ‘Argo’-like scenario, where people (arguably) reacted to the snub of Affleck as much as the actual movie.”
Yeah… but Affleck is a beloved white male actor… Selma is a movie (not a person), made by and about black people, directed by a black woman. I don’t think it could ever get anywhere as great a wave of sympathy for being snubbed. Plus Argo had to overcome ONE snub, in ONE category, and a category which it got nominated for (and won) everywhere else. Selma’s getting snubbed all over the place, at least by the guilds. Which brings us back to the screener thing… if you buy that as the sole cause for the snubs, you can argue it doesn’t matter, in which case there’s hardly enough reason to get angry at the guilds for not nominating it (you can get angry at them for their over-reliance on screeners, but I’m not sure how much that helps Selma gain sympathy points). If you don’t… then the snubs are just too significant, because of the very large numbers of common voters (between the guilds and the AMPAS).
Overall, this scenario sounds very much like wishful thinking, and nothing more, to me.
“If “Selma” ends up pulling in multiple nominations, and winning Picture and Director, I think this will forever change how Oscar business is handled.”
Interesting perspective. It could work out in the end, I guess, but the race is so much about perception and exposure besides getting people to like your movie by actually seeing it and relating to it. Missing out on the guilds takes away some of the very best opportunities for getting that exposure and hitting that stride where momentum builds and the whole thing takes off. But if I were a Paramount PR guy I would definitely try to play a ‘shocking guilds snub’ card right about now and see where it leads. It might amount to an ‘Argo’-like scenario, where people (arguably) reacted to the snub of Affleck as much as the actual movie.
UNLIKELY HOOD: CB – can you link to a source that confirms what you’re saying about LBJ supporting the Selma march and not directing Hoover to threaten MLK – a source that didn’t work for Johnson?
I have to admit my white non-privilege at this point -as an ordinary person who doesn’t live in a major city, I haven’t yet seen Selma and thus can’t comment on these specific scenes you mention. For all I know, the movie dramatizes a few select moments when Johnson was less supportive of the Selma march, before he became more supportive. I don’t know but I plan to see the movie this week and will have more thoughts then.
Here you go – from US News and World report – apologies for the block text – here’s the article – http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-fenn/2015/01/05/what-selma-gets-wrong-about-lbj:
That is why it is so unfortunate, as so many have pointed out (including King-aide and later Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young), that the protrayal of President Lyndon Johnson was so far off base. Johnson was portrayed by the film’s director, Ava DuVernay, and the writers in a highly negative light, opposing King and what he was trying to achieve.
In fact, LBJ was supportive of focusing attention on voting rights and urged King in a recorded telephone conversation to “find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana or South Carolina … and get it on radio, get it on television, get it in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it everyplace you can. And if we do that we will break through. It will be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting this ’64 (Civil Rights) Act, I think the greatest achievement of my administration.”
This is not about artistic license. It is not about historical interpretation. It is not just an unimportant “detail” in such a movie. It is definitely not just about, as a Washington Post reporter called it, “fact-checking.” It is integral to the story, a key element of the narrative, and involves the actions and attitude of a key player: the president of the United States.
This movie does not claim to be “based on a true story.” It claims to be history. This movie does not simply combine events or create dialogue, which viewers understand, but misrepresents one aspect of the history. As we still struggle with racial politics in America, as we still try to make sense of senseless killings, as we find such a wide divergence in how whites and blacks perceive civil rights, this movie has created a bit of a firestorm, and at the very least a sense of mistrust.
We will never know all that LBJ was thinking nor have a true sense of the complexity of the relationship between King and Johnson, but we do know that LBJ did not order then FBI head J. Edgar Hoover to undermine King. We do know that LBJ led the politically risky fight in 1957 as majority leader of the Senate for a civil rights bill and again as president for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We know that Johnson was integral to the strategy to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Nuff. Said.
In fact, LBJ was supportive of focusing attention on voting rights and urged King in a recorded telephone conversation to “find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana or South Carolina … and get it on radio, get it on television, get it in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it everyplace you can. And if we do that we will break through. It will be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting this ’64 (Civil Rights) Act, I think the greatest achievement of my administration.”
:((
yes, that’s in the movie.
” but we do know that LBJ did not order then FBI head J. Edgar Hoover to undermine King…”
…because we had sputnik drone following LBJ around 24/7 365 days a year all through 1964 and 1965, and the drone was recording everything LBJ ever did, so that’s how we know, so shut up, we know, we know, we know [puts fingers in ears]
We also know Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone too, so please just stop asking silly questions about that. We know we know we know.
Why can’t you just believe what the people in power are you telling you. WE KNOW everything LBJ ever did. And everything LBJ never did too.
what possible reason would people in power have to lie to us about anything?
===
Ryan Adams: But… what… I just… why…?
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Because I said so.
“we do know that LBJ did not order then FBI head J. Edgar Hoover to undermine King.”
…what’s this about Prince Andrew having sex with the 17-year-old though?
Buckingham Palace: “any suggestion of impropriety with under-age minors is categorically untrue”
ok then, thanks. sorry for asking. whatever you say, Media Thought-Police.
When Selma is not nominated.. don’t come knocking 🙂
CB – can you link to a source that confirms what you’re saying about LBJ supporting the Selma march and not directing Hoover to threaten MLK – a source that didn’t work for Johnson?
I have to admit my white non-privilege at this point -as an ordinary person who doesn’t live in a major city, I haven’t yet seen Selma and thus can’t comment on these specific scenes you mention. For all I know, the movie dramatizes a few select moments when Johnson was less supportive of the Selma march, before he became more supportive. I don’t know but I plan to see the movie this week and will have more thoughts then.
Off topic: Ryan’s MAD moderation SKILLZ are what make these comment sections so much better than, say, Tapley’s or Poland’s. Having Ryan here is like having Stephen Curry on the floor – you better bring your A-game. And many do.
Sasha, what if we are in the midst of a game-changer? “Selma” is missing out on the guilds, not because of some “controversy,” but because Paramount decided to bypass guild support, and focus on Academy voters themselves. What we are witnessing is the shrewd decision of a studio to just cut out all the middlemen, because Oscar nominations(and wins) are ultimately the end goal, right? If “Selma” ends up pulling in multiple nominations, and winning Picture and Director, I think this will forever change how Oscar business is handled.
Sasha, what if we are in the midst of a game-changer? “Selma” is missing out on the guilds, not because of some “controversy,” but because Paramount decided to bypass guild support, and focus on Academy voters themselves. What we are witnessing is the shrewd decision of a studio to just cut out all the middlemen, because Oscar nominations(and wins) are ultimately the end goal, right? If “Selma” ends up pulling in multiple nominations, and winning Picture and Director, I think this will forever change how Oscar business is handled.
I was thinking that very thing. It’s either one of the two. It’s a dangerous game to bypass the guilds. I would not do it myself. Critics, sure. Guilds, no way. The reason being a film builds momentum that way – not just with nominations and discussions of snubs but at the awards shows themselves where they are celebrated and applauded – their presence tested as “winners” or nominees.
I think PTA is a lock for an adapted screenplay nomination and has to be considered at least a dark-horse in that category, given he’s never won anything. (Could apply the Wes Anderson theory, in a sense, there too.)
(Ryan in another thread):
“When you have proof that Solomon Northop spent 12 Years in Tahiti and proof that Margaret Thatcher sucked dog dicks, then come back and use them as ammunition to take jabs to undermine what I’m trying to say about Chris Kyle.”
Snarky, but kind of fun.
(Scott in this thread):
“Maybe you have a Gandhi quote that can be used in relation to the red carpet fashions, and a Nelson Mandela quote for People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive issue.”
Snarky, but kind of fun.
What’s the big difference? Are we gonna fight about who’s more rude than the other? All I’m saying is: Most of us get snarky here from time to time. Scott knows it, Ryan knows it, I know it. And most of us make a retreat when the dust settles.
Stubborn goats, right?;)
Btw, Ryan, thank you for taking some time and effort to undermine every single word ever uttered by Chris Kyle, the most deadly sniper/liar in the world.
@BRAD
JANUARY 6, 2015
“Wrap your head around the possibility that multiple complex factors can contribute to outcomes?
Or do you prefer dumb cause-and-effect stories like, “9/11 happened so we need to go slaughter 150,000 Iraqis” ?”
I love how Ryan Adam’s only means of defending a statement and/or reacting to a post is to call or insinuate that someone is dumb, bigoted, or any other negative connotation. Dude, I admire the passion but just because someone doesn’t agree with or understand Sasha or your statements doesn’t give you license to bare your claws and be a complete dick.
THANK YOU, Brad.
Ryan is the hall monitor, constantly berating people for being rude and for their tone and language, yet he is so often rude and snarky in his own responses, like this one, where there is simply no reason to be. Nothing in the message he was responding to justified being such a crab.
Also, Sasha, I find it vaguely tasteless to use a famous MLK quote about opportunity for blacks essentially in support of a point you are making about Oscar nominations — really, it rather trivializes the point MLK was making. Maybe you have a Gandhi quote that can be used in relation to the red carpet fashions, and a Nelson Mandela quote for People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive issue.
– Or do you prefer dumb cause-and-effect stories like, “9/11 happened so we need to go slaughter 150,000 Iraqis” ?”
– I love how Ryan Adam’s only means of defending a statement and/or reacting to a post is to call or insinuate that someone is dumb, bigoted, or any other negative connotation.
The story of “we need to invade Iraq because 9/11” is central to Chris Kyle’s mindset in American Sniper.
That lie was so pervasive on Fox News that half the country fell for it. Poll after poll showed 50% of Americans believed Saddam had WMDs. Even 10 years after 9/11, 43% of Americans still believe Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11.
Simple question, gang: Are people who continue to believe Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11 dumb or are they smart?
The lie was constructed to appeal to the most simpleminded vengeful mentality.
“arabs” attacked us.
we have to attack back.
which arabs? does it even matter?
let’s just go spend $2 trillion killing 500,000 arabs, preferably some arabs with oil. let’s ruin the lives of 500,000 american servicemen and scar them for life so Halliburton can soak up all those trillions of war-profiteer dollars.
rah, rah, USA! USA! USA!
is that dumb or is that smart?
ok, now I’m a big mean jerk for thinking it’s dumb?
===
here’s how I read K. Bowen:
“what’s your SELMA excuse? screeners? or LBJ? which is it? make up your mind. which excuse will it be.”
K. Bowen is a smart person. K Bowen KNOWS that a complex set of factors contributed to this outcome.
in comment after comment, K. Bowen has gleefully anticipated a blow to SELMA
need examples?
“If Selma doesn’t get it, I’m running here with popcorn.”
“Selma. Popcorn, please. It’s going to get …. something …. around here.”
that’s K Bowen, really getting a kick out of Selma’s PGA absence.
K. Bowen, please jump in here and let me know if I’m reading you wrong. Were you not tingling at the prospect of a meltdown here if Selma missed out? Yes or No?
K. Bowen, I think when you say, “WELL WHICH IS IT? Screeners or LBJ? ” I think you’re being stabby and facetious. Am I wrong? We you taking a swipe or not?
K Bowen, I do like having you around. I like how you stand up to fatuous Jeff Wells at HE. I’m not crazy about the fact that your last 12 comments here have included 7 comments mocking Sasha’s feelings about women in the film industry.
you get by with an enormous amount of insults that you throw at us, (mainly at Sasha). I rarely strike back, do I?
K. Bowen, am I wrong to think that you don’t come here and make repetitive snarky comments about Sasha’s opinions about female filmmakers, and have done, every week, for years?
Now’s your chance to speak up, K Bowen, and let me know if I’m wrong to think you enjoy coming here to take swipes at Sasha, week after week.
===
So listen, Scott (the other one), I’ve known K Bowen for years and I know what sort of snarly swipes K Bowen likes to dish out. Half the things K Bowen has ever written on this site are snide sniper attacks. (The other half of K Bowen’s comments help make up for the constant snark attacks. But barely)
K Bowen knows that comment about screeners vs LBJ was brimming with sneer. I can see it, whether you do or not.
meanwhile we get this bullshit from you, Scott:
“Maybe you have a Gandhi quote that can be used in relation to the red carpet fashions, and a Nelson Mandela quote for People Magazine’s Sexiest Man Alive issue.”
and then you have the nerve to call me “rude and snarky”
dude, I give back in the same tone I receive. Don’t play this sad wittle “ryan’s so rude” game with me and then in the same fucking breath you bitterly mock Sasha, trying to make her sound ridiculous.
look at your own words, you little smartass.
please quit with the faux outrage about harsh comebacks to harsh attacks.
”Original can get really, really messy, and it’s Linklater’s to lose.”
Gee, I don’t it that way. I think Original Screenplay is where Wes Anderson finally gets recognized by the Academy. (I’d also predict that ”Grand Budapest Hotel” takes Production Design.) Linklater is more likely to earn his kudos for Director and Best Picture. (And Sandra Adair, for Editing.)
The question is: Who does this ”Whiplash” switch help? It’ll probably open a slot in Original Screenplay. I’m assuming the 3 B’s are in: ”Birdman,” ”Boyhood” and ”Budapest.” So who gets the final 2 slots? I’m rooting for Dan Gilroy’s ”Nightcrawler.” And … ”Selma”? ”The Lego Movie”? ”Foxcatcher”?
Adaptation looks weaker: ”Gone Girl,” ”Imitation Game,” ”Theory of Everything,” ”Whiplash” and ??? ”American Sniper”? ”Unbroken”?
CB, are you dumb enough to think the more peaceful protests around the country would have started if people weren’t trying to temper things down after Ferguson? Know your humans. Don’t like my posts? Don’t respond to them. First you say it’s not rioting then you tell me not to celebrate that rioting. Why don’t you work on sorting out your own mind before you start telling me what to think and what to say. I said what I meant. You don’t like it, move along.
Antoinette, somehow I misconstrued two things:
1. That posting on a public forum was an invitation to a community to discuss your points.
2. That getting one’s mojo back was a positive thing.
You ask me to ‘know my humans’. You’re saying that the peaceful protests were a result of the so-called riots in Missouri? Really? And what people are these trying to ‘temper things down in Ferguson’ by marching in NYC? I’m not sure I follow, nor do I see how a peaceful protest springs out of a violent protest, or rather how a violent protest was necessary to lead to a peaceful protest. Occupy Wall Street – a very peaceful fixed protest – did not come out of a violent anti-corporatist moment. It was always peaceful. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
re: ” But why ddin’t AMPAS inform Damien Chazelle or Sony of this ruling before the Oscar ballots went out Dec. 29? Conversely, why has it taken a week before Chazelle or Sony to discover this switch?”
Indeed. But also, isn’t this just another fracture (added to the screener debate) in the system? Why/how is possible for studios to throw so much attention at FYC materials before they even know if and what they’re eligible for with The Academy? It’s as if, against all our judgment, that The Academy really gives 0 fucks about the race and campaigning (until of course something like Alone Yet Not Alone happens). The machine is messed up in such a way that seems increasingly beyond help.
WW, “Whiplash” which face smaller competition (even for the win) on Adapted. Original can get really, really messy, and it’s Linklater’s to lose.
“12 Years a Slave” is a masterpiece, and my #2 film of 2013 (#1 is The Wolf of Wall Street)
Yes, AMPAS has drummed ”Whiplash” out of the Original Screenplay competition & put it in Adapation.
http://deadline.com/2015/01/academy-and-wga-at-odds-over-acclaimed-whiplash-screenplay-will-it-hurt-oscar-chances-1201341846/
So that puts it at odds with the Writers Guild of America, which ruled it an Original. But why ddin’t AMPAS inform Damien Chazelle or Sony of this ruling before the Oscar ballots went out Dec. 29? Conversely, why has it taken a week before Chazelle or Sony to discover this switch? … And this comes in the wake of the ruling that disqualified Antonio Sanchez’ percussive score for ”Birdman” from Oscar competition. Time to bang the drum slowly …
On 2001, depending on which day of the week you ask me, I’ll tell you that out of the nominees, the price would have had to go to “Gosford Park” or “Moulin Rouge!”… and overall, that the best film of the year was either “Mulholland Drive” or “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”. As years go by, and with repeated viewings, Hedwig I tend to aprecciate Hedwig more and more, and same with “Shortbus”, the great film John Cameron Mitchell did several years afterwards.
Jesus, I was afraid you were going to say 12 Years a Slave!
Brad,
Respectfully, the Iraq War was indefensible in absolutely every respect and the maniacal efforts by some people to rewrite history regarding that fiasco makes me wonder. Is the revisionism pure hubris, or are we being conditioned to remember that war differently as a way to justify whatever the next war the PTB want to launch. Look at how W is being feted as a grand old statesman and Cheney as a strategic genius. If anything Ryan wasn’t harsh enough in either his asessment of the war or Clint’s not so subtle whitewashing of said war and Kyle’s part in it.
Antoinette, I love you but in no way does rioting mean “getting their mojo back.” People lost their businesses or are rebuilding it. I’m glad something is being done to stand up to the racist cops that actually are racist but there are innocent cops and business owners getting caught in the crossfire. Selma is the kind of movie that is needed RIGHT NOW not because of the violence we saw then and see now but because the protests being done then were peaceful, arm in arm.
re: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. I’m afraid the theatrical version shouldn’t have been even nominated for Best Picture. It’s the extended version that actually makes a great film, almost a masterpiece. Thankfully enough, Peter Jackson did better theatrical cuts for “The Two Towers” and “Return of the King”, but the first entry left many people clueless about some character developement, specially round the Hobbits themselves, assuming we would either knew about what a Hobbit was and meant, or we would simply love them straight away. I was unfamiliar with Hobbits and simply couldn’t care for them, all through the film. Till I got to the extended version.
The two most undeserving winners, that I recall, in that perspective (biopic) were “Gandhi”, which is a great film anyways, but not on the same league of “Missing”, “Tootsie” or the fantastic and groundbreaking genre films or 1982; and “A Beautiful Mind”, which was Shyamalanesque version of a biopic, beyond bland, and even with embarrassing aging make up, that made me laugh at the film itself, and was marketed (for Oscar) as a “challenging and serious look on schizophrenia”, quite shamelessly. And people bought it! My facepalm still resounds. And that, the year of “Moulin Rouge!”, “Gosford Park”, and more specially masterpieces like “Mulholland Drive” and “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”…
CB, are you dumb enough to think the more peaceful protests around the country would have started if people weren’t trying to temper things down after Ferguson? Know your humans. Don’t like my posts? Don’t respond to them. First you say it’s not rioting then you tell me not to celebrate that rioting. Why don’t you work on sorting out your own mind before you start telling me what to think and what to say. I said what I meant. You don’t like it, move along.
Jesus Alonso, I think the movies that should have beat A BEAUTIFUL MIND hands down were THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING or MOULIN ROUGE! I knew it then, and it’s pretty obvious to everyone now I think. Genre bias is eternal it seems.
“Wrap your head around the possibility that multiple complex factors can contribute to outcomes? ”
I can wrap my head around that. I can also wrap my head around the possibility that you all are wildly speculating.
“Gandhi” and….”Tom Jones?”
Jesus, I agree with you there. The Oscars should be based on the quality of what’s being judged, not the politics. Which 2 winners were undeserving?
I’m not saying Selma should or shouldn’t be nominated.
I say it should or shouldn’t JUST for its filmmaking qualities and the quality of the film itself, NOT because of the themes and personalities is based on.
It isn’t that difficult. We had two undeserving winners in Oscar history, at least, because people was too blinded by the real person the films were based on, and not the actual film itself. I don’t want that, to happen again. When I see both films, i’ll come back and give my personal opinion on them. There are some really great films of this kind (Amadeus, The Last Emperor), and some really mediocre ones (Milk, the pure definition of an hagiography, removing almost everything dark about Harvey Milk’s persona) getting to the final fight. I just hope this is not the case again, of people getting blinded by surface.
I mean, I live in part off the government and in part off my family because I earn so little, and I still manage to see every single fucking film I can as soon as I can. I’ll pay out my arse to live in London and attend the film festival there for ten days every year just to see a few films I could see a few months later when they’re made available to me. I don’t need a fucking screener. What are all these producers doing that they can’t get their arses out of their seats and go the fuck to a fucking cinema? They’re hardly all out producing masterpieces, plz. And weren’t we all thinking a few weeks back how the Bumfuck, USA critics weren’t voting for Selma because they hadn’t been shown it? These L.A. cunts need to get their act together and start fucking nominating Selma snappy.
“Gandhi” is probably the best example of why you have to judge the film itself and not let you rule by any bias.
But the films have never been judged on merit alone. Gandhi’s a very good example of that. The Oscars are never, ever, ever going to be about the best, or else we wouldn’t have publicists for these films, there wouldn’t be a rush of titles released every December and nobody would have written nothing about poor LBJ and his poor legacy. The Oscars are just big, expensive, self-congratulatory exercises in advertising Hollywood and its product. I’d rather they advertised films that are capable of changing the industry, and society, for the better, regardless of quality, than American Sniper.
I love how Ryan Adam’s only means of defending a statement and/or reacting to a post is to call or insinuate that someone is dumb, bigoted, or any other negative connotation.
Fuck insinuations. As a moderator, Ryan’s free to speak his mind whenever he likes. I’m sure if he thinks anyone’s dumb or bigoted, he’ll let them know. But sure, read into his statements however you like, Brad. I’m sure you can deduce any insinuations you like from any comments you find from any reader on this topic if you want to.
Why give the Oscars so much importance? It has clearly shown throughout the years immense corruption. It’s all about the campaign and the people behind it. The only importance about the Oscars is its history, that’s why many think it is one of the biggest awards, but it is not, when it is not honoring its legacy. The oscars are to honor the best in film, and clearly there haven’t been much of that lately. Selma is the best picture of the year, i’m afraid it will be another great movie that could have been but never will because of the corruption of the Academy.
“Wrap your head around the possibility that multiple complex factors can contribute to outcomes?
Or do you prefer dumb cause-and-effect stories like, “9/11 happened so we need to go slaughter 150,000 Iraqis” ?”
I love how Ryan Adam’s only means of defending a statement and/or reacting to a post is to call or insinuate that someone is dumb, bigoted, or any other negative connotation. Dude, I admire the passion but just because someone doesn’t agree with or understand Sasha or your statements doesn’t give you license to bare your claws and be a complete dick.
Academy should open the door, yes, but to cinema. To cinema only. Not to politics, not to “history”. It’s time art finally prevails. Imposing a Selma nomination (even a win) just because of its subject or of its director is intellectually dishonest. If you believe in cinema, let cinema speak for itself. No moral blackmail, please.
Jesus Alonso, Selma might actually deserve to be in not just because it’s important or history making (which I don’t think are good reasons to get in alone) but because it’s actually good. I remember Sasha made some of these same cases with The Butler, a movie I found wholly average at worst, great at best (and that “great” was only 2 scenes). Selma has the reviews and the good word of mouth to back it all up. I’m seeing it this weekend, along with Inherent Vice (!), so I’m sure I’ll be gushing over it. Going off the trailer alone shows I’m in for something special.
If we’re to believe these small reports, namely from Mark Harris, that AMPAS has deemed Whiplash an Adapted Screenplay, does this make room for a Selma Original Screenplay nomination where it once maybe had a tougher chance?
UNLIKELY HOOD: This controversy is a nontroversy. When someone with Robert Caro’s level of authority denounces Selma, I’ll listen. Til then it’s like hearing Kissinger denounce a Nixon movie. Should that surprise anyone?
Actually there are conversations with King and LBJ that directly refute the movie’s lies. Besides the fact that the worked together and LBJ is on record – you know, factual record, of supporting the Selma march, LBJ NEVER ORDERED HOOVER to threaten King. The fact that the movie showed that is awful and insulting. You don’t need Robert Caro for that.
ANTOINETTE: Anyway, off topic kinda, I’m going to say for the record that when the people finally started rioting in Ferguson, I was glad they finally got their mojo back.
What happened in Ferguson was hardly ‘rioting’ if you look at the history of riots in this country, for one thing. Secondly, are you serious? You think that acts of (minor league) destruction equals ‘getting our mojo back’? No. I think the civil protests that occurred in NYC and across the country after the insane Eric Garner grand jury verdict is getting mojo back. Read some history – actual rioting (Watts, the 1968 DNC) is what helps the forces of segregation, racism, and conservatism assert power. If you want a third President Bush, then go ahead and celebrate ‘rioting’.
I don’t get JESUS ALONSO’s flippant post. He hasn’t seen Selma, but Sasha and Ryan have. They consider the film to be great. Who the heck is saying the film should win just because of its subject matter, sight unseen?
Nice strawman fallacy, there, JESUS.
But … guess what? This isn’t a movie about LBJ. This isn’t a movie about his presidency. This is a story about a man who has never had a film made about him.
Except that it is a movie about LBJ in the same way Lincoln is a movie about Thaddeus Stevens. (There has never been a movie about LBJ either, I might add – also a HUGE reason there’s been no MLK movie is because the estate won’t license out the speeches. Hollywood has been aching for an MLK movie forever because it’s Hollywood and MLK is one of the most iconic Americans of all time.)
No, I’m sorry, I cannot buy your arguments, Sasha, no matter how well written. Let me address them in 3 points:
1. The film, itself, is not particularly distinguished in terms of cinema excellence. The writing is not up to standard – it’s wooden, choppy, checklist plotting, and not one line from the film is memorable. Not one. The direction is at times stunningly inept and lacks the sweep that I would want from such a film. I found the cinematography oddly hazy and the lighting dull.
2. The film should not be upgraded because of the race and gender of its director. That is wrong, insulting to the director (and the film), and a truly poor precedent to take in terms of awarding excellence in art. I didn’t vote for Barack Obama to set a precedent (though it certainly was nice) – I voted for him because he’s got that unusual blend of wisdom, intelligence, cool-headedness, and liberalism that I want in a leader (though he didn’t take on the GOP hard enough in his early years, but that’s another story). Similarly, there is no reason to vote for Ava DuVernay unless one thinks she did the best direction of the year. That is simply impossible for many people to say, including those who like the film and didn’t find it subpar as I did.
3. It DOES MATTER that the film misrepresented LBJ. Why? Because the film, by the inclusion of that ultra-topical end credits song (referencing Ferguson among other contemporary events), holds itself as a political document. And so it should get this vital part of history right. But beyond the ethics of misrepresenting LBJ – I mean REALLY misrepresenting him – showing him opposing MLK and even asking Hoover to threaten him (!) – by doing so, ‘Selma’ dumbs down a much more interesting story. I’ve discovered my own patented rule for historical films: If the fiction the filmmaker creates makes the story LESS interesting, then that is a failure. Making LBJ just another villain is a far less interesting story than him and MLK, president and Civil Rights leader, figuring out how to shape the media narrative and play George Wallace’s racism (and all codified racism) against itself. Now that’s an interesting movie. ‘Selma’ is not.
OK, enough… I haven’t seen Selma, but to defend it should be “in” and “locked” and even “deserving” of a Best Picture win, just because is about MLK and important issues, is beyond ridiculous.
Please, join me, if you will, to a little time trip back to 1982, the year were “Gandhi” swept the Oscars, with 8 wins, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor to Ben Kingsley. Let’s remember the other nominees…
“E.T. The Extraterrestrial” – at the time hailed unanimously as a complete masterpiece, and the highest grossing movie of all time. Its problem: genre bias.
“Missing” – a film about how the USA helped a dictator to kill thousands. Amazing Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spaceck performances. Oh, wait, it’s so “communist” to remind us the dark side of “freeing” latin american countries from the lefties.
“Tootsie” – an instant classic with a masterful and fun and touching Dustin Hoffman performance. Hey, it’s a comedy, just be thankful we nominated you.
“The Veredict” – an intense film with Paul Newman… no, “too light” in comparison to “Gandhi”.
… and left out of the Best Picture nom… brace yourselves…
“Blade Runner” – say no more
“Victor / Victoria” – one of the best comedies of the 80’s
“Tron” – a groundbreaking film in so many ways
“Poltergeist” – Steven Spielberg’s other 1982 classic. Oh, wait, it’s supposed to be signed by Tobe Hooper.
“John Carpenter’s The Thing” – probably the year’s best film, in one of the best years in american movie history.
… and “My Favorite Year”, “The World According to Garp”, “Frances”, “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” (an underrated one), “An Officer and a Gentleman”, “Das Boot”, “Diner”, “Sophie’s Choice”, “Quest for Fire”, “One from the Heart”…
… and despite so many richies to choose from, “Gandhi”, a very good film, but that time has made almost forget, went on to win 8 Oscars… 2014, you offer this list, and probably the 5 most recognisable and beloved would be “E.T.”, “Tron”, “Blade Runner”, “Poltergeist” and “The Thing”, those are the ones that have endured the most. Then, probably “Tootsie” would come next. “Gandhi” is probably the best example of why you have to judge the film itself and not let you rule by any bias.
Waiting still to see “Selma”and “Boyhood”, in advance my vibe is both are capitalizing two facts… “Selma”, the card of being an “important” film because of its subject. Well, other films this year prefer to deal with equally important matters in a more subtle and allegoric way (look no further than “Snowpiercer” or “The Lego Movie”, if you laugh at this comment, you didn’t pay attention to them at all) and are getting no praise at all for that, just a more superficial recognition.
On “Boyhood”, people is focusing on the sense of “reality” of the gimmick used to shoot the film. Well, haven’t the “Harry Potter” franchise did exactly the same technique through 8 films, adapting one of the best book franchises in history, and working also as a satire of human society and a study of the teenagehood pass from child to man and woman, by the way?
A reminder to everyone… looking “important” doesn’t mean a film may be actually the best.
And I better not remind you of 2001 and 2005, which had way more embarrassing wins… “A Beautiful Mind” in the year of “Hedwig & The Angry Inch” and “Mulholland Drive”, and “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain”.
So, if “Selma” didn’t get the PGA nom, maybe there was something more than just “lack of screeners” arriving in time. I mean, IF they felt any interest for the film, they surely could have gone the theaters to see it, or requested to watch it. Instead, they went for “Nightcrawler”, for example.
We tend to forget, that most of the times, the BEST film of the year, gets nowhere close to a Best Picture nomination.
Quite a bit of surprise for Selma not to have made it on the PTG Top 10 list.
With a few days or so remaining (?) re the Oscar voting process, I am hoping the Academy voters have so far managed to see as many films as possible including the Japanese anime #The Tale of Princess Kaguya, (and to relate to the thread) Selma, etc.
By the way, I am just wondering whether or not the studio, the PR firm involved in the project or those in charge have managed to dispatch screeners to most of voters (if not all of them). While I believe it is fundamentally voters’ main responsibilities to watch as many films as possible so they could cast their votes in fairness, it is irrefutable as far as the Oscar race (etc.) goes that screeners delivery also helps make things easier for the voters and the film in competition [I am not siding with the voters; suspending the reality, I’ve just put it from the studio’s standpoint].
I still think Selma will get a best picture nod come Oscar morning. And Du Vernay will be nominated also.
I predict:
Picture
Director
Actor
Screenplay
Cinematography
Costume Design
Song
John Oliver, fingers crossed, I hope you’re right, I hope you’re right on every category.
Since we know Selma sent screeners to the AMPAS membership, maybe we will get some affirmation that lack of screeners to any of the guilds is the reason for the apparent faltering at the moment.
I don’t cry at movies, hardly ever. 3 times in Selma I felt my heart being torn up and my eyes got wet. More emotionally compelling than 12 Years, for me. I don’t even really want to think about an Academy that can not be touched on profound levels by Selma.
All this DC beltway wankery over whether LBJ ever had a trace of hesitancy should fall away like scales from the eyes of any moviegoer who goes to movies to be inspired.
Selma is a wonderful film that needs to be seen by everyone especially people who are to young to rember the 60’s. It should be nominated for best picture, but Boyhood needs to win best picture and director.
There are other awards with categories honoring humanitarian achievement in film. Oscars may say that in PR, but it was not set up to be one but an industry award, and NGOs are not prominently featured, but stars.
In light of all this, was such a late release that necessary? Let the film around the festival circuit, build word of mouth, generate positive talk. Releasing the film so late that you dont even have screeners to send out to guilds is like shooting yourself in the foot.
I just saw Selma this weekend. It’s a fine film. Although it’s chances of a Best Picture nomination may have diminished a bit, the film is not out of the Oscar race yet. However, people seem to forget that the film was barely on the radar until it premiered at the AFI Fest, where it overshadowed “American Sniper.”
I do think following “The Butler” and especially, “12 Years a Slave,” may have hurt its chances a little. Also, having the screeners sent out late didn’t help.
It’s best chances for a nomination are probably David Oyelowo for Best Actor and perhaps Best Original Song. Best Picture and Best Director nominations may come depending on how many people jump on the “Selma” bandwagon. Although I think Carmen Ejogo is a wonderful actor and her performance in Selma is superb, I think her getting a nomination for this film is a long shot. There were just too many good performances by better known actors this year. I don’t think the release of the film is a factor at all. The studio was very wise in opening it on a limited release. It had a strong opening in a very crowded field. Ironically, it’s release was overshadowed by “American Sniper” which opened in even few theatres.
Sing it from the mountaintop, Ryan!
“My guess was that voters were comparing it to 12 Years a Slave.”
Selma is different from 12 Years A Slave : there is no white savior in Selma that HW white majority voters can identify with.
Selma is directed by a black woman. The movie is too black for HW white majorities.
HW is sexist and racist.
Why didn’t voters compare American Sniper to The Hurt Locker then? Because the story of the American war vet in the Middle East doing an extremely dangerous job that causes him to be unable to cope with his day-to-day family life in America seems a lot more like The Hurt Locker than Selma seems like 12 Years a Slave. Are you saying the PGA is a bunch of clueless bigots?
DaneM
Who can explain why Hollywood has made 1000 war movies? the public never seems to tire of them (maybe I just answered my own question).
Who can explain why 3 movies featuring black casts in 5 years is perceived as ‘overkill’? when audiences never seem to tire of an endless parade of blondes who shake their butts. (maybe I answered my question again.)
but the fact is: We have dozens of Oscar-winning movies about war, and how many Oscar-winning movies about the black experience? One? One, in 87 years?
It’s not clueless bigotry in the PGA. It’s industry-wide institutionalized clueless bigotry.
“My guess was that voters were comparing it to 12 Years a Slave.”
The lack of hoop skirts, frock coats and shackles should have tipped them off that it’s not the same story, but I understand – sometimes I confuse Bonnie & Clyde with Brief Encounter. Those love stories all start lookin’ alike after ‘while.
once again, to Ryan, word.
My belief is that Selma’s most important constituency is veterans of the marches, their children and their communities, not the Academy. Most important as in its long term financial prospects and its legacy.
I once saw a group of black kids, all from different schools, put together a 30 minute musical spectacular, poetry and dance, on the civil rights movement. They put it together in a couple of hours. The audience for this movie is steeped in this history.
Sasha, don’t give up hope yet. I still think it will get a Best Picture nomination, and that will itself be a nice victory and PR bump for the film. And don’t count out the DGA and AMPAS Directors Branch. This is the likeliest bunch to see many nominees even without a screener provider because they truly know everything that goes into a film and what a film means. I think between them they’ve had some very thoughtful and diverse nominees in recent years (Ang Lee, Zeitlin, Haneke spring to mind). DuVernay can get in.
Well which is it? Is it that there were not enough screeners? Or was it fallout from the LBJ controversy?
Well which is it? Is it that there were not enough screeners? Or was it fallout from the LBJ controversy?
Wrap your head around the possibility that multiple complex factors can contribute to outcomes?
Or do you prefer dumb cause-and-effect stories like, “9/11 happened so we need to go slaughter 150,000 Iraqis” ?
How were things going well for Selma in the Oscar race until today?
Welp! I’m having major Zero Dark Thirty flashbacks & now live in perpetual dread that they will include Selma in Best Picture, but shut it out of Best Director and other deserving categories. Like Zero Dark Thirty. And when the dust settles it will be all too plain how ridiculous and unnecessary it all was. It’s just too painful to watch.
I like to think that we exaggerate how ludicrously sexist these things can be – and hopefully we do – but I can’t help but wonder why far more valid “historical indiscrepancies” didn’t stop A Beautiful Mind or Argo, directed by good hard-working actors-turned-directors, also men, from winning Oscars.
My guess was that voters were comparing it to 12 Years a Slave.
So often I feel like whether or not I agree with the bottom line of these articles, the reasoning is flawed (e.g. The Butler didn’t get nominated because it was a bad film, not because it told a black story).
But this time… if Selma and DuVernay don’t get in I just… Screeners explain SAG, MAYBE PGA, but if they miss out at the DGA and Oscars… well… I won’t complain if Sasha posts article after article about injustice. The Butler was a bad film. Didn’t get in. Fruitvale Station was a good film in a year with better films. Didn’t get in. 12 Years a Slave was a great film and won best picture. Selma might just be the best of the whole bunch and I can’t think of a damned reason why it shouldn’t get in for Picture and Director at the very very least. If that happens, given the year we’ve had, then there are a whole lot of people who will and should feel ashamed of their voting body if not themselves.
Even if one stipulates that everything Califano said is true, his commentary is still stupid, selfish and immature, a stinking cow pie. The point of leadership is for common people to take ownership of achievement – and I state as a large and loud fact that ownership of the Voting Rights Act is felt at the grassroots level here.
Even if one stipulates that everything Califano said is true, his commentary is still stupid, selfish and immature, a stinking cow pie.
If he really cared about Johnson’s Voting Rights legacy, instead of asking “What’s Wrong With Hollywood?” Califano should be asking “What’s Wrong With the Supreme Court?”
Califano blasting the SCOTUS for dismantling his boss’s proudest piece of legislation. Now THAT might actually have been an op-ed that sparked meaningful debate, instead of just petty carping.
^^^on principle? I hope you’re not talking about the man who shot his girlfriend in Baltimore then drove to NYC and shot cops.
I’m glad you brought Ferguson up. If the industry can’t take notice of Fruitvale Station in the year of Trayvon Martin, I’m not sure why I had my hopes up for Selma in the year of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
I certainly hope all the people who didn’t want to see Exodus: God and Kings because of the casting show up to see Selma. If not, they’re full of crap.
Anyway, off topic kinda, I’m going to say for the record that when the people finally started rioting in Ferguson, I was glad they finally got their mojo back. After all that peacefulness after the Trayvon Martin thing, I thought everybody had completely given up. I’m glad they didn’t. It’s been time to fight back for a while. I hope they don’t get tired the way the Occupy people did. Everyday the police prove themselves to be more ridiculous. The way they keep turning their backs on the NYC mayor means their heads are so far up their own asses that they can’t even see what asses they are. I’d actually been wondering for a long time when a gang member was going to shoot a cop or two on principle. It took way longer than I thought, but I never doubted it was coming. This is no time to stand down or for this movie to get buried if it’s half of what it should be. But due to this release schedule, I wouldn’t know if it’s the movie Dr. King deserves.
Well said.
This controversy is a nontroversy. When someone with Robert Caro’s level of authority denounces Selma, I’ll listen. Til then it’s like hearing Kissinger denounce a Nixon movie. Should that surprise anyone?
And I agree with Lou. This movie is going to be watched for years–it’s the only flipping MLK movie!–and the Academy loses more than the movie should they overlook it. Nevertheless, the same old [expletive] song and dance… In a year w/o women in the nominated films, it would at least have been nice to champion a woman who made a great one. A really, really great one.
Hear, hear.
My bad memory: The PGA decided to just stick with ten, right?
Oddly, I feel like the new Oscar ballot benefits Selma. The haters can hate–it doesn’t stop it from getting to 5%.
I do wish it were contending for a win or at least a DuVernay directing nom, tho. Still holding out hope for the latter. Bigelow’s advocacy might be especially meaningful with DGA.
this is very nice, and I fully agree. Sometimes I wish the Oscars didn’t have such a big impact in terms of what regular people chose to watch (when it’s not the avengers vs. transformers, of course). Regardless, I believe this movie will find an audience this year and for years to come, and it will have a bigger impact than any other movie produced this year, not only on the movie-making but on people’s hearts and minds.
I’m also very happy Gone Girl made it, not because it’s a good movie (it’s competent enough, but many many others are more deserving in my opinion) but because we were spared the inevitable rant on this site…
One of the things that sucks about the flawed rollout of this film is that the film’s best performance — by Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King — has gone almost virtually ignored during this awards season. If the film had been better positioned, the performance would have been one of the easy locks.