This year’s Best Picture race is wide open except for the film right at the top of the list and that continues to be Richard Linklater’s Boyhood. How the Best Picture race is shaped is going to depend on which Oscar race they want to embrace. Is it the one where they pick daring, exciting films that push the envelope, like Birdman, Foxcatcher, Gone Girl, Nightcrawler? Or are they going heroic straight down the line, with Selma, Imitation Game, Theory of Everything or Unbroken? Will it be a little bit of both? We don’t now the answer to that yet – not even close.
The Oscar race is like politics in nearly every way you can think of, from kissing babies, to acting grateful, to having your picture on every cover of every magazine – if you show up and look the part, you too can be an Oscar contender. With good will towards Angelina Jolie and a desire to encourage her newfound artistic endeavor, voters may be inclined to overlook the poor reviews for Unbroken and give it a slot in the end of the year’s selection of the year’s best. It will be a prime example of how the Oscar race works like a political election; the same way George W. Bush’s charisma overrode every other negative thing about him. Conversely, David Fincher’s team is doing the opposite – not kissing babies, not doing meet and greets, not doing lots of publicity or advertising. Guess which way the pundits are predicting this thing will go?
Before the major guilds confirm or deny the consensus so far, we still have this nervous-making next few weeks, before Oscar ballots are turned in, before the consensus forms. How many nominations a film receives is indicative of how much the entire branch overall loved the film. How much they love the film is often dependent upon image. Has any film ever started at such a high peak in the race and then taken such a hard fall as Zero Dark Thirty in 2012? A bigger question, does anyone give a single shit about that now?
And so it came to pass that 2012 came whirring painfully back, like a gust of Doritos breath and beer at a holiday party. Remember that whole Zero Dark Thirty non-story? Remember how such a well-regarded film took such a dramatic fall? Remember Glenn Greenwald flipping out about how the film supposedly condoned torture? Remember Andrew Sullivan condemning the film before even seeing it then, upon seeing it, retracted his objections? Remember Martin Sheen and others demanding a boycott of the film? Remember how a few months later no one gave a damn? The reason no one gave a damn is because the film’s Oscar prospects and much of its political power deflated once the nominations were announced and Bigelow was shut out.
Remember the silly congressman who challenged Spielberg’s Lincoln because it got a fact wrong about how Connecticut voted? It was used a character smear against Spielberg himself, just as the torture debate was used as a smear against Bigelow. Human beings are so susceptible to that – it’s how elections are run and how the Oscar race is run. It’s the horrifying reality of a low stakes game where the only thing on the line, really, once you sweep away egos, is money. We’re right up against it now and just look at how the media is latching on to that swollen tit.
We don’t even realize we’re sinking into it. Tensions run high on Twitter. There’s a sentence you never really want to write, much less read. Op-ed articles draw clicks and RTs and linkage and furious comment debates — suddenly you’re relevant. You’re relevant because people are reading you. They’re reading YOU and nobody else. It reaches a fever pitch that doesn’t die down until ballots are counted and another controversy floats by.
You have entertainment reporters acting like Woodward and Bernstein, digging up the truth. The Selma controversy (translation: a couple of people get offended) somehow morphs into a credibility problem and before you know it that’s all anyone hears about a movie.
Somehow my pals in the race don’t seem to get that this is business as usual with modern press, social networks and people with agendas to play out. Even with Google a few clicks away, even with the world’s most informative resource right at their fingertips. To puff up in anger about the scene where LBJ asks for J. Edgar Hoover and the very next scene is the FBI taping of King’s sexual exploits.
Hollywood-Elsewhere’s Jeff Wells has been trying his best to stay quiet about Selma. It has to bother him that people have been writing about it as a real threat for Best Picture. None of Selma’s upswing made it onto Hollywood-Elsewhere but once the LBJ so-called controversy hit, he was all over it like white on rice. But a quick Google search brings up this story as reported in Mother Jones in 2013 by David Corn:
Hoover did not let up. A little more than a year after the march, after King had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Hoover told a group of reporters that King was “the most notorious liar in the country.” But the FBI’s war on King was uglier than name-calling. Weiner writes:
[William Sullivan] had a package of the King sex tapes prepared by the FBI’s lab technicians, wrote an accompanying poison-pen letter, and sent both to King’s home. His wife opened the package.
“King, look into your heart,” the letter read. The American people soon would “know you for what you are—an evil, abnormal beast…There is only one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”
The president [Lyndon Johnson] knew Hoover had taped King’s sexual assignations. Hoover was using the information in an attempt to disgrace King at the White House, in Congress, and in his own home.
Worse, it seems the FBI was trying to encourage King to kill himself.
Hoover kept feeding Johnson (who’d become president after JFK’s 1963 assassination) intelligence suggesting King was a commie stooge. In 1967, when the FBI mounted an operation to disrupt, discredit, and neutralize so-called “black hate” groups, it focused on King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, as Hoover publicly blamed King for inciting African Americans to riot. The following year, King was assassinated by James Earl Ray, who subsequently evaded an FBI manhunt, to be captured two months later by Scotland Yard in England.
As the March on Washington is remembered five decades later, it should be noted that King’s successes occurred in the face of direct and underhanded opposition from forces within the US government, most of all Hoover, who did not hesitate to abuse his power and use sleazy and legally questionable means to mount his vendetta against King.
But despite tgat backstory, the only message that reads loud and clear this week is that the image of LBJ matters more than any other minute of film in Selma. Forget about the moment when the first black woman directed such a high profile film to such rousing acclaim. Forget about a country ripped apart by racially fueled actions by police and even self-appointed neighborhood watch patrols. Forget about the country’s first black President in his second term obstructed more than any sitting president in US history.
What I learned about LBJ growing up was that he liked to take a crap with the door open and that he was a good ol’ boy from the South until he had a major turnaround. This debate is ongoing, as is the debate about JFK’s own position on civil rights. The debate about President Lincoln, whether he was really sympathetic to black rights or whether he, too, was a closet racist.
Let’s talk about what’s really at stake here – who gets to take credit for being a civil rights leader back then – LBJ or Martin Luther King. I’m going to tip the credit in King’s favor because without his pressure and leadership there would have been no change. None.
The problem with the Oscar race now is that there are too many people writing about it and not enough stuff to write about. The feeding frenzy that’s about to take hold on Selma is straight out of the Fox News playbook. Clearly we haven’t learned our lesson from 2012.
The buzz around Selma on the eve of its opening was deafening. To date, it’s second only to Boyhood as one of the best reviewed films of the year. It is moving, entertaining, inspiring – and it gives voice to the many who remain silent because their stories aren’t regularly covered in the press, nor represented in the Oscar race.
In the end, it is just the voter and the screener. The publicity fills in the rest. If it becomes about image, as a few movies are trying to do this year, quality goes straight out the window. Now that we’ve arrived at the sticky business of image making in the Oscar race, you’re about to watch a brief but powerful character assassination of DuVernay take place, just like you watched, with horror, the same thing happen to Bigelow back in 2012.
What is tragic about it, and what people should be paying attention to instead, is how the mirror always gets turned back in the same direction, doesn’t it? The only thing that matters is how we are portrayed – humanity in the best possible light.
The haughty protests coming from the op-ed pieces on Selma aren’t that much different from the same shrill protests that came out against Gone Girl. It’s as though those writers have forsaken their ability to actually think for themselves and are somehow confusing films for pulpits, classrooms and churches. They’re films, they’re art, they are interpretations of ideas, celebrations of human character – but they are never meant to replace real life, or real history.
We give over our living history to people who don’t deserve to shape it, not in the moment anyway. Someone, someday is going to write a wonderful book about how the Obama presidency impacted black American filmmakers. At the top of that list will be DuVernay’s marvelous, exceptional film about the march on Selma. It is a film that speaks to the minority, not the majority.
Best Picture
Boyhood
Selma
The Imitation Game
Birdman
Gone Girl
The Theory of Everything
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Mr. Turner
Contenders
Nightcrawler
Unbroken
Foxcatcher
American Sniper
Interstellar
‘Unbroken” would hardly be the worst BP nominee ever. (Geez, have you ever actually looked through all the Best Picture nominee lists.) I thought the first half of the film was good, but the POW stuff got boring fast. You can’t build a film around the scenario of a totally crazed (and stereotypical–I’m surprised he didn’t have buck teeth) Japanese officer torturing someone. Even if it was actually all true.
Exactly. Any political, or films with political undertones, gets this treatment. Or at the very least somebody who nitpicks a little fact that might be wrong. Selma, Argo, ZD30, Lincoln, probably Unbroken too if it makes a lot of money at the box office.
I blame whoever is in charge of managing the Selma Oscar campaign for this mess — they should have anticipated the LBJ attacks and gotten out in front of it. Didn’t they screen this film for politicians and historians in advance? Always know the attacks that are going to be made against you in advance and have good answers for them. They’ve mismanaged what should have been contained to Joseph Caliphano, a bit player from the 60s and 70s.
As Sasha has pointed out, this happens every year. You put out a historical/political film, you’re going to take fire. Know that and prepare for it. Either that or release the film months earlier so that you can build up support at a time when the Oscar assassins aren’t out yet.
If Unbroken gets in, which I doubt it will, it will be because of the subject matter and not for its actual merit.
@LCBASEBALLL22
As much as I hate to break it to you, the Oscars are once again about the best and NOT what is popular. Sure, you could make the argument that Nolan’s films deserve recognition from the Academy more, but I sure would barf if Captain America or Avengers got in. They may be great, but they do not come close to Nolan’s auteur sense of bravura filmmaking.
Oh, and about Unborken getting in because of its subject, well that’s the way the academy works. Personally, I don’t think it should get nominated for Best Picture, but if it does, I won’t mind. Besides, the Academy prefers lofty historic epics over visual, sci-fi action masterpieces.
If Unbroken gets in the BP category, then we know for sure the Oscars are rigged. Why does a mediocre film by Angelina Jolie deserve nods? The movie has mediocre to bad reviews and the only people who were ‘amazed’ by it were her loons. Unbroken was not that great of a film. But we all know how Angelina is desperate for those Oscars. She has hired a top notch Oscar campaign PR team lead by Tony Agolotti to make sure they get those noms. Just because the movie is doing well at the box office doesn’t mean jack in terms of whether it will win Oscars or not. Unbroken was being touted an Oscar winner back in 2013. Thats 2 years of campaigning. Talk about shady and desperate.
This woman didn’t even finish making her film, she ran off to do another movie with Brad Pitt and left it to others to complete her film. What kind of director behaves like that? You can tell Angie only made Unbroken to win Oscars. Its pretty obvious when watching the trailers and even the whole movie. Why should someone who does a sloppy and messy job deserve praise and be showered with awards nominations? Its like giving a student who puts in barely any effort in their work and giving them an A+.
Please don’t accuse me of being an Angelina Jolie ‘hater’ I am not one but I think its unfair how she might end up getting Oscar noms based on her fame and popularity and not so much how good her movie making skills are. There are other directors who have talent and worker harder then she does and might get passed over because of her.
An important difference between Zero Dark Thirty and Selma is that the political worry over ZDT had to do with left-leaning concerns. People like Martin Sheen were starkly against it. I am less concerned over this “controversy” around Selma, because who in the Academy is really in an uproar about the relative credit of MLK vs LBJ? It’s simply not that divisive of a question. Selma will go recognized, when it comes to nominations anyway.
I just got home from UNBROKEN. I was LOLing at first but it won me over by then. 8/10
Ava Duvernay should not “back down” from anything.
If they want an LBJ Hagiography then they should make one themselves and not expect a black filmmaker to do it for them
Happy New Year!
The Selma MLK-LBJ controversy is not going away. This morning there are several articles about the relationship between the two (an excellent article in the New York Times where historians weigh in critically on the film’s version of the relationship) and in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/selma-sets-off-a-controversy-amid-oscar-buzz/2014/12/31/7551108e-9100-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html
When Andrew Young (who was present in the meetings between MLK and LBJ) contradicts the relationship as presented in the film, Ava Du Vernay needs to back down gracefully, accept the error and thereby validate the rest of the film.
Truthfully, this is not a minor issue and it’s going to get bigger. She should get ahead of the debate. Sasha is right: there are too few women directors and even fewer who are people of color. Du Vernay is an important addition to Hollywood’s A list of directors. But this is a glaring error. Didn’t Du Vernay inherit this from Lee Daniels? Blame him! Lee Daniels is an easy person to find fault with and his depiction of LBJ in The Butler seems to be of a piece with this.
steve50 – what are the “since validated assertions of Zero Dark Thirty” that you mention?
That torturing people helped the war on terror, and/or led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Please tell me you think that, so that I can link to the many book-published authors who disagree with you, starting with Jane Mayer, who has done a LOT more research into this than you, me, or especially Sasha.
As long as I live (and happen to see the relevant post), Sasha doesn’t get away with saying that ZD30 was smeared as though it was Scorsese’s Gangs of New York and people over-reacted to a few little artistic licenses with history. The film excuses torture. Show me one frame, one moment, one scene, that contradicts any of Dick Cheney’s versions of events. That’s your problem right there.
There’s a funny little irony lurking behind this thread, although I’d say at least half of the posters here haven’t bothered to realize it, partly because they’re so deep in the muck Sasha mentions. If Bigelow is America’s most-honored female director (she won an Oscar, after all), and Jolie is America’s most-famous female director (uh, she’s Angelina goddamn Jolie), then it’s interesting that both of them made films about torture. In fact, when you read Unbroken (has anyone here read it?), you keep thinking to yourself, “Goddamn, did America treat its POWs this way during World War II?” and then you do a little research and you find out a very simple answer:
No, we sure as fuck didn’t.
We never summarily executed thousands of POWs in a single day. We didn’t do a Rape of Nanking. Nor execute millions in concentration camps. That wasn’t us.
Why did every country on the planet want to be America in the 20th century? Because of how we behaved during the first two World Wars. We were Rick in Casablanca, we didn’t meddle, but when pushed at, we pushed back HARD, decisively, and victoriously. That’s how everyone wants to see themselves – not a bully, but not to be bullied, ever. Granted, the atomic bomb may have taken some bloom off our rose (or it may have ended the war sooner and saved millions of lives), and the actions of the CIA may or may not have been justified by the Soviet threat…I didn’t say we were perfect. We put Asian Americans in concentration camps, but I don’t see George Takei saying we tortured them, do you?
When Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, John Yoo, and some of these other knuckleheads decided to ignore all military advice and torture everyone in Gitmo, it did many things, but one of the most important was that it took away the admiration of the world. That’s why it matters. If the studios recognized that Bigelow was peddling the same fake crap that those people had forced down our throats for ten years, that’s not a SMEAR CAMPAIGN. That’s recognizing that America WAS better and can be again.
To me, Spielberg’s Lincoln is kind of a corrective to Birth of a Nation, especially because of the vindication Spielberg and Tommy Lee Jones give to BoaN’s lead villain. In a weird way, Jolie’s Unbroken is a kind of corrective to Zero Dark Thirty. It reminds us, especially in the final act: we don’t do this. We don’t act the way some of these Japanese officers acted. There is, or at least was, a difference. Don’t let people tell you otherwise.
As per my usual, I have a lot of other thoughts about a lot of the rest of this, but that’s enough for now. I hope Ava Duvernay isn’t smeared out of the race but I doubt she will be.
This part of the race is a lot more fun when you aren’t backing any horse. It’s like the circus broke out in the middle of the Jerry Springer show.
Speaking of blockbusters though, CriticsTop10 has updated again with this note: “Now that all the major critics’ lists have been counted, lesser-known film critics are beginning to voice their opinions. Because of this, Hollywood blockbusters have been moving up quickly, with Guardians of the Galaxy cracking the top 10. Boyhood continues its dominance, as it now has a 100 list lead over The Grand Budapest Hotel. 630 lists have been accounted for.”
Interstellar has continued to climb as well; currently at #17 and in position to probably surpass two more films and end around #15 for the year.
John, the same could more or less be said of a number of films from year to year; Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Skyfall, Star Trek, Iron Man, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, etc. All of these are Top 50 box office finishers and were better reviewed than Unbroken. Many of these snubs have made the Academy “look bad” and frankly they don’t seem to give a shit. Hell, you want to talk about something that makes the Academy look bad, look no further than the fact that Chris Nolan has been nominated by the DGA three times and yet the Academy has continuously ignored this…
For 2014 the films that should technically be in consideration with excellent box office and reviews but will rather likely join the group of aforementioned films is Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, LEGO Movie, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
I just watched THE IMMIGRANT. *sigh* Why was it dropped from the discussion?
I have a question.
SInce Unbroken is doing great at the box office and the public is really digging it (A- CinemaScore), wouldnt it look bad if the movie – big, well-intentioned, patriotic, satisfactory to many, many who likely watch the Oscars – missed out on a BP nom? I think a lot of normal movie-goers (not cynics, critics, online community) would be surprised, confused, and disappointed if that were to happen. So where is the line drawn between small, brilliant movies that no one cares about, and big popular movies that strike a chord with the public? I realize that the Oscars are supposed to celebrate the best of the best, but there should be some room for one or two “generally accepted” popular films in there.
Hmm. It’s a lot harder to run a smear campaign against a film with a wholly original story.
The feeling of déjà vu is just too real. I really hope the voters will not fall again for this BS, as they did with ZD30 and Lincoln. But I guees is only a case of wishful thinking…
HAPPY NEW YEAR to All of YOU, from Brazil! May 2015 be filled with peace, health and happiness! Oscars may come and go, but our love for film will live on! 😉
Phantom, thanks for the stats on Lincoln. I loved that film and did not believe myself to be in a minority. Daniel Day-Lewis was fascinating to watch and so deserving of his Oscar. He was not merely portraying a president, he inhabited a character. And yeah, Sally Field was awesome too.
OT, RIP Edward Hermann
Bradford Young’s cinematography is amazing in Selma and A Most Violent Year. He should be nominated for one of them. I need add Ava Duvernay rewrote Selma script and she rewrote Dr. King’s speech due to copy right issues. She is a remarkably talented writer and director.
There’s a much more compelling reason for predicting Unbroken, Ada, than its success with select groups, and it’s why I’ve re-added it to my predictions: its box office. That’s the film’s crowning achievement this season, and at exactly the perfect moment to ensure that voters keep it in mind when filling out their ballots.
BFCA? Contrary to what Ryan has claimed, they kinda don’t tend to vote for their favourites. As an institution (rather than as individuals), they tend to vote for the films and the people that they expect to get Oscar nominations.
AFI? Supposedly important and influential, but very easy to ignore since they don’t operate as a traditional voting / awards body in the race. Also very small, so it’s easy to curry favour with them (whether intentionally or not).
NBR? Their reasoning is rarely not subjected to some very valid scrutiny. If we’re gonna bring up Unbroken’s chances in this context, it’s worth noting the many anomalies in their choices each year.
Contrary to what Ryan has claimed, they kinda don’t tend to vote for their favourites.
Now what have I done? What am I wrong about now?
My crazy idea that individual people with their own minds don’t sit down with their ballots and don’t pretend to say, “hmm, now I have to wonder which movies Beyonce and Ed Asner would vote for… never mind what I LIKE. I want to pretend that I’m Academy member Adam Sandler. This should be easy. Just figure out which movies Vanessa Redgrave and Russell Brand both like.”
Well of topic from the subject of this piece. I watched The Most Violent Year and found it excellent. Shout out to this director of photography Bradford Young! It was beautiful. He also shot Selma beautifully. Is he getting any kind of buzz for an academy award for either of the films? He really should.
Sasha, thanks again for, year after year, having the best Awards site.
Most sites gush about how great the Awards season is, but you expose the negative: the politics, the campaigning, the smears, the groupthink. You show that you can love film but also love the Awards races, while recognising the two are often mutually exclusive!
It always intrigues me that some films never even get into the conversation. For me this year it’s CALVARY. Has all the necessary ingredients, but no buzz and no mention.
How great would be if awards actually honoured the best?
If Oscar voters ballots are anything like the critic’s top ten then based on percentages of top votes for each respective film from the top ten lists so far if we extrapolate to the 6,000 Academy members we might expect the following amounts of #1 votes for the first round…
Boyhood- 1,439
Birdman- 318
Whiplash- 222
Grand Budapest- 192
Selma- 147
Interstellar- 106
Gone Girl- 74
Nightcrawler- 74
Theory of Everything- 42
Most Violent Year- 42
Foxcatcher- 32
The Imitation Game- 31
First round qualifies any films that receive 10% right? So Boyhood would be the only one after the first round and over half of its votes would be redistributed…
Re: Sammy. You’re very right in saying that Haneke’s nomination wasn’t out of nowhere, though I’d still say that he was more of a surprise nominee than Russell simply because DOR was a former nominee who’d directed a big studio movie full of stars while Haneke had directed a much less commercial film. I personally thought Russell was a shoo-in for a nomination all the way given how much buzz Silver Linings Playbook had during that whole awards season.
Re: Phantoms. Lincoln indeed got very good reviews and generated some major box office returns, yet I’d still argue that doesn’t really translate to passion. Lots of movies make money without being loved, and lots of Best Picture nominees are the proverbial “fifth slot on a top 10 list” that everyone agrees is a very good movie but nothing too special in terms of being an actual contender. This could just be my personal feelings talking, but it seemed to me that everyone basically forgot about Lincoln immediately after February 2013….this is generally the case with most “history lesson” biopics. I will say, however, that I appreciate Lincoln and King’s Speech a lot more in the wake of this year’s crop of thin-gruel biopics; those two films have much more substance to them than the likes of Theory Of Everything, Unbroken or Imitation Game.
In regards to the “admired by many but loved by virtually none” line, Tree Of Life doesn’t fit that description at all. It didn’t have anything close to broad support — it had its small minority of fans and AMPAS voters who thought it was a masterpiece and a much larger segment of viewers who thought it was borderline lousy.
If Unbroken gets in BP race, it is the most undeserving of this year. I hope Oscar voters have decency to vote truly deserving movies.
I don’t think the “controversies” will hurt Selma BP nod only will hurt its winning chance. Selma is universal praised by critics. Oscar voters don’t want to be called racists
ADA was Monuments Men nominated for an Oscar for best picture? If so, you just gave my post even more validity because a famous movie star directed that piece of crap as well. Again, it’s this entitlement factor. It’s why the Oscars is the least prestigious award to get in my opinion. It’s a game of hype and undeserved idol worship.
@steve50 I’m aware of that. I should have quoted this sentence:
“The problem with the Oscar race now is that there are too many people writing about it and not enough stuff to write about.”
You can talk about the race in a few different articles each day and then have another to talk about a specific film. If you wanted. But I wasn’t complaining about there being nothing to talk about.
“embarrassingly bad reviews” Nine, Hyde Park, Pearl Harbor, Monuments Men had “embarrassingly bad” reviews. Unbroken has 6.1/10 and 6.4/10 with top critcs. it isn’t good but sheesh some people here are acting as if the scores are low 20s. I think Unbroken has 50% chance of getting nominated. Pundits aren’t dropping it from the list because it made AFI, NBR BFCA and Jolie even received a director nod when the voters write in their top 3 directors and she made the cut same happened with Daldry and Extremely loud. That is why some are predicting the movie, not because they like it or they want it to get nominated but they are looking at precursors. Since Oscars expanded the last BFCA director nominee to miss best picture is Drive(corret me if i am wrong). Get mad at BFCA,AFI, and NBR not the Oscar bloggers. People thought Unbroken would get GGs and it didn’t so Unbroken may not get a single nod if there is no passion for the film. We haven’t heard about the Academy’s reaction. they may agree with critics
It seems this article contributes to what it indicts — as does much of this site.
The problem that I have been having with Unbroken has been this big entititlment issue that hasn’t made any sense. It happens every year that a big movie will get this insane amount of Oscar buzz before anyone has seen it but usually it goes away as soon as critics see it and hate it. This has not happened with Unbroken at all! It is if Jolie is intitled to get the Oscar nod for this movie and it annoying when so many way better and deserving movies are below it! I’m not personally bashing Jolie, but I have actually seen the movie and it’s got many flaws that if anyone else would have made this movie it would be called out and dropped from every list on all of these Oscar race sites as a Oscar hopefull. But it’s not, but the far superior Foxcatcher has been, American Sniper barely mentioned, Gone Girl barely hangs on most of these sites and Nightcrawler is just now getting recognition. Yet Unbroken with its embarrassingly bad reviews were it’s been called campy, torturous porn, boring with no point, and on and on with probably get an Oscar nod because Jolie is a movie star therefore intitled. It won’t win but who cares it will get its money shot. Unbroken nominated for best picture! Now that will help with those Blueray sales!
The Civil Rights Institute here in Birmingham s organizing viewings of Selma. Let Califano come here and get up on stage with the marchers and explain how the Selma March was Johnson’s idea. Seriously. I’d be curious to know why he thought that Washington Post piece was a good idea in any case.
Ada, I highly doubt Hollywood was silent about the ZD30 thing because Bigelow is a woman especially since 3 years prior they gave her the biggest awards in the industry. I think executives, maybe actors too, didn’t want to get involved with the torture debate.
As for this fake controversy. Will AMPAS even care? Do they even read this stuff. ZD30 was so big that members of Congress was involved and even Hollywood actors. That hit job on ZD30 was one of the worse I have ever seen. Bigelow deserved that 3rd and 4th Oscar. Why was Hollywood so silent when they were attacking her movie. Is it because she is a woman. Everyone was saying poor Ben but what about Bigelow whose movie had more critical acclaim and actually won major critic awards. I hope Hollywood will not be silent on this hitjob against Selma.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-hack-new-evidence-points-760586?facebook_20141230
Ryan, Sasha… I TOLD YOU SO, SINCE DAY ONE.
The Sony “hack” had NOTHING to do with North Korea.
my previous comment is awaiting moderation but there was a typo. I meant Maleficent made $516 abroad, more than any other movie marketed completely around a female even big franchises based on a females like Hunger Games has yet to make $500mil abroad, popularity is bigger in the states. we are talking about the world.
to Steven maybe you missed in this piece this part
“The Oscar race is like politics in nearly every way you can think of, from kissing babies, to acting grateful, to having your picture on every cover of every magazine – if you show up and look the part, you too can be an Oscar contender. With good will towards Angelina Jolie and a desire to encourage her newfound artistic endeavor, voters may be inclined to overlook the poor reviews for Unbroken and give it a slot in the end of the year’s selection of the year’s best. It will be a prime example of how the Oscar race works like a political election; the same way George W. Bush’s charisma overrode every other negative thing about him. Conversely, David Fincher’s team is doing the opposite – not kissing babies, not doing meet and greets, not doing lots of publicity or advertising. Guess which way the pundits are predicting this thing will go?”
If you look at the Last piece on this site which was also suppose to be about Selma, Unbroken was also mentioned alot. That is why some are saying there seems to be an obsession with Unbroken as opposed to the other contenders that actually have a shot. As far as being the worlds biggest star i would say its Leo and Angelina. Keep in mind we are referring to the WORLD not the US. Maleficent made just aboard $516 million which is more than any female led movie including Hunger games and Gravity. Angelina is also the only American actress to ever be given damehood and they gave her the second highest honor DCMG(no actress in general has ever gotten this title, they usually get DBE). She is also known in many impoverished countries because of her humanitarian work. Asia loves her in particular Japan look at her box office numbers there(although i dont know about now with the whole Unbroken controversy)Also was named one of the most admired in the world.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KlQQSVBEWyw/UtP7hT2DYGI/AAAAAAAAR3A/7mHck1YSGww/s1600/BdupAqHCcAAta_V.jpg
The annual US Gallup poll just released on Monday for most admired women Oprah holding strong at Number 2 but Angelina also makes the list. whereas no other celeb to be found
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180365/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-extend-run-admired.aspx
i know i sound like a fanbot but just showing you some evidence to support why many call her the biggest star in the world. Her movies, humanitarian work, and celebrity contribute to that title.
As for Sasha I read her pieces on Maleficent and they were excellent and so supportive. Unbroken sucks, do we have to bring it up in every piece she writes.
It’s possible that it was an Argo/Life of Pi/Lincoln race in 2012 since Life of Pi won the most Oscars that year. Pi obviously had a lot of support that year.
“These Angelina freaks are the most annoying thing to ever happen in this site.”
So true. The lovers AND the haters! Sasha didn’t mention one thing about Unbroken since the article is about Selma and then we get this:
“What is this obsession with Unbroken? I don’t know why this site seems so obsessed with a movie that isn’t going to make a big splash at the Oscars. ”
There never has been any obsession with Unbroken! I come here every day, checking in maybe every hour at times and never have I ever seen any obsession. Talk about smear campaigns. Then it’s followed with this lovely note:
“It’s funny that for the first time in living memory the biggest movie star in the world is a woman but somehow this would-be feminist site hates it.”
First, this is the first time the biggest star is a woman? I guess Marilyn Monroe, Julia Roberts and countless others weren’t at one point the biggest stars in the world. Second, this site wouldn’t hate it if Jolie was the biggest star in the world, which she’s not. People obviously weren’t coming around when Sasha reviewed Maleficent and even Lucy. I’ll call bullshit when I smell it. What we have here are people who are trying to create false controversies (like the very articles Sasha’s bringing up).
^ The banner is “State of the Race”
There are plenty of things to talk about besides these shenanigans. With ballots open this would be a great time to talk about each of the films instead of the race. If you get my meaning.
“They’re films, they’re art, they are interpretations of ideas, celebrations of human character – but they are never meant to replace real life, or real history.”
This is the one pure truth that gets dumped during the Oscar race when films are perceived less as art and more as representations of a group’s collective self image. Campaigners know this. As with any election, half-truths and distortions stick to an image whether or not they are valid, chipping away at the support of those who always vote for the film that best represents how the voters want to be perceived when it’s all over. I”ll wager 3/4 of the voters could care less about a film’s artistic achievements when the voting begins. How else can one explain the Oscar success of the likes of Gandhi, The King’s Speech, Argo, etc. Even last year – does anyone honestly think that 12 Years a Slave won soley based on the vast artistic merits of director Steve McQueen? Not on your life. It was a great selection, but made for reasons that had little to do with filmmaking.
Controversy doesn’t hurt films that are harmless or inspiring, but it’s the death knell for films that may be thought-provoking or revealing of some darker corner voters would rather not consider. That is precisely why the fabrications of Argo trumped the since validated assertions of Zero Dark Thirty. Art, skill and intelligence has nothing to do with it.
For this reason I think that Sasha’s list of eight is probably the best line-up that we can expect at this point, and depending on how much mud is thrown in the next 4-5 weeks, any of those top eight that are vulnerable to attack could easily be replaced for safer, more superficially inspiring fare – however unsubstantiated or weakly crafted they may be. Selma and Gone Girl could easily be replaced by Unbroken and American Sniper, or even Whiplash, simply because those films are more easily digestible and do your thinking for you.
It’s all about what Oscar voters like and what they want to represent them; being “best”, whatever that means, has nothing to do with it.
this editorial about Selma in today’s NY Times:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/selma-and-real-world-voter-intimidation/?ribbon-ad-idx=13&rref=opinion&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress®ion=FixedRight&pgtype=Blogs
Sadly, voting rights are now partisan, and because Selma is about voting rights we have a rich and powerful partisan apparatus already in place that will smear it out of hand, just another day at the office.
We knew the guy who took many of those iconic civil rights era photos – and we knew another guy who was an official photographer for LBJ. Just mentioning it because a bunch of these people are still around, the racists and the marchers. Birmingham was known as Bombingham. I have met a guy, a civil rights activist, whose house was blown up while he was in bed asleep (his mattress saved him). There are thousands of people here, just in this county, who take great pride in having been a foot soldier, as they are called, at very great personal risk. This campaign against the film is a campaign against them and is deeply insulting. It’s the same old thing.
Oh yeah – I think you missed a sleeper: ‘Wild’. At the very least Reese Witherspoon will get a Best Actress nomination.
Zero Dark Thirty got torn apart by the controversy. Its credibility was ruined. Selma’s problem is that it doesn’t have the same level of credibility just yet, not having dominated the early weeks of the season like Zero Dark Thirty did. It’s also unfortunate in seeing these takedown articles appear just as voting commences. You’ve got to peak at the right time in order to secure success. Argo reached its peak just after the Ben Affleck snub; it became impossible to ignore. I wonder if Selma will now even have the opportunity to peak at all.
The Zero Dark Thirty fiasco was one thing, but this is another. That was a film from an Oscar-winning director, with a major star in the lead role and a shitload of Best Picture awards already in its hands. Selma is a pertinent, important film from a black female director with no major Best Picture awards already to its name. If it takes a nosedive in the race due to these articles, it’ll rank as one of the saddest and most shameful chapters in the entire history of the Oscars.
I haven’t seen any of the contenders yet but I must say I want ‘Selma’ to win. The way I think this is going to play out is that the major races will be close – no one picture will dominate like some years. I don’t think people really care about “Best Picture” any more. It’s about the actors and directors.
I think Sasha’s top eight is pretty solid for a BP nod. PGA will validate that further in a couple of days time.
Q MARK – Haneke had already been nominated for Best Director by BAFTA and also Amour had won LAFCA best picture and numerous other critics. So Haneke’s nomination wasn’t a surprise – it was coming. The surprise was David O. Russell and Zeitlin over Bigelow & Affleck.
This is the thing about the Oscars that I hate. The dirt, the malevolence. Now it seems to be Selma’s turn. I haven’t seen it yet, but I’ve been waiting for it for ages and knowing that it could be killed by some hate campaign before the race even starts is simply obnoxious. I don’t want it to be ZD30 all over again.
Q Mark
OK, I’m not just saying this because I revisited Lincoln over the weekend and found it even more astonishing the second time around but the “admired by many but loved by virtually none” line simply won’t fly. This was no The Tree of Life (a film that may fit your description), Lincoln was not only loved by critics (rave reviews from the ‘names’ like Ebert, Travers, Hornaday, Morgenstern, Gleiberman, Scott, Turan), it was also absolutely LOVED by the public. After opening to 21M, it ended its US theatrical run with 182M…that’s a MUCH leggier run than that of famous crowdpleasers like The Blind Side, The Help, Bridesmaids etc.. Long story short, NO, films that are only “admired” (=respected) ARE not capable of delivering multiples like that, Lincoln quite simply was a big BELOVED hit with critics and audiences alike. Fact.
One more reason….Bigelow and Spielberg were both somewhat competing against themselves. For Bigelow, she had Hurt Locker (also a “Middle East war movie,” though obviously on a much different theme) just three years earlier, and while I enjoyed ZD30, I felt HL was a better movie. For Spielberg, he’s competing against four decades’ worth of his own classics. Whereas a fellow legend like Scorsese continues to make vital, fresh new movies that can stand alongside his masterpieces, can anyone really argue that Lincoln is even a borderline top-10 Spielberg film? For me, Lincoln wasn’t even the best Spielberg movie of 2012 thanks to Tintin.
I really think that the Affleck snub was the best thing that could’ve ever happened to Argo’s Best Picture chances. As Sasha notes, the “poor Ben” narrative took over everything — Affleck stood out far more as the unfairly snubbed golden boy than he would’ve as “just another nominee.” Had Affleck indeed been nominated, I wonder if Argo’s own backlash (i.e. the fact that the film’s story was almost completely exaggerated and fictionalized from real life) would’ve taken greater hold and we might’ve ended up with Life Of Pi as the Best Picture winner.
@K Bowen
Fair weather feminists here, what do you expect? Just wait until the oscars are over and they start talking about how Unbroken was unfairly maligned and passed over because of her star power
It’s quite possible the “smear campaigns” hurt Lincoln or ZD30 in the Oscar race. It’s also possible they didn’t, since there are competing reasons about why Argo ultimately won Best Picture.
* Lincoln was admired by many but loved by virtually none — it’s the kind of film that a none-too-imaginative history teacher shows their class during a slow day. Even DDL winning Best Actor seemed like a coronation rather than as recognition of a performance that was truly elite (though granted, even DDL at three-quarters speed is still an astonishing actor).
* I suspect that ZD30 was more hurt by the generally well-known but under-reported fact that the majority of AMPAS voters probably don’t see the majority of these movies. For the casual voters, they’d be like “wait, didn’t Bigelow just do an Iraq war movie three years ago?” and didn’t even bother watching their screener. That also might’ve contributed to her Best Director snub, though…
* …the Best Director race was such a weird outlier that it’s hard to make any definitive conclusions. I’m still stunned that a) BOTH Affleck and Bigelow weren’t nominated, as you maybe could’ve seen one get aced out but absolutely not both since they and Spielberg were the three pre-race favourites, and b) that it was Zeitlin and Haneke, of all people, who got those two other BD nods over past Oscar winners like Hooper and Tarantino.
HI posted this response to that article on Deadline but for some reason it was not published.
The Academy Board of Governor’s needs to come out very strongly against the kind of smear campaign tactics employed by certain camps throughout the campaign season. They have to realize that the only person who loses when a deserving film is denied their due accolade is them; it’s a direct hit on their credibility. Members must be heavily cautioned against paying attention to the noise and hullabaloo that characterizes any campaign season and seek to judge a film strictly on its artistic merits.
I went on to say that the Oscars lost some lustre for me after Argo, and if the pattern of politics being allowed to dominate craft/merit during campaigns continued, the whole thing would just go lower and lower in esteem to me. I speculated that I could guess the source of Selma’s big negative campaign push -a non frontrunner desperate to sneak into the race by unseating Selma. As it was just speculation, I did not leave any names.
The curious thing about this revelation – and this is not to undermine the occurrence of the incident or injuries suffer red, by why wait six months after the incident and almost four after getting a medical report to check if anything was filed by your employer. and why would Deadline, who have now published at least three articles that cast Selma in a bad light just the past two weeks alone….wait until today to post this story, why not November or early December when some of these facts came to light. You really have to question their motives at this point.
Another lively read; and i can’t help sensing Bette Davis is somewhere uttering ‘ fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a BUMPY night’.
I certainly hope Ava Duvernay will get Best Director nod despite of all the controversies. Selma is a brilliant directed movie.
The smear campaign against Selma is going to get uglier as awards season continues
If they can’t attack and discredit the film they will go after the director just like they did with Bigelow.
“what is this obsession with Unbroken. i don’t know why this site seems so obsessed with a movie that isnt going to make a big splash at the Oscars. ”
It’s funny that for the first time in living memory the biggest movie star in the world is a woman but somehow this would-be feminist site hates it.
“It’s funny that for the first time in living memory the biggest movie star in the world is a woman”
The biggest female star on earth is Jennifer Lawrence — if pundits were humping her leg and pushing Mockingjay for Best Picture would we be violating feminist law if we were aghast about that bullshit?
Feminists are not obligated to praise Khloe Kardashian to high heavens either.
“as those ‘controversies” didn’t hurt Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty’s nominations”
That’s just it, they DID hurt the ZD30 nominations, Kathryn Bigelow was widely considered a lock or a frontrunner even after receiving nominations from the DGA, HFPA, BFCA, BAFTA and winning NYFCC, NSFC, WAFCA, yet she wasn’t nominated for Best Director and that basically destroyed the film’s chances in the Best Picture race. Sure, that was a history making year with Affleck pulling off BP without a BD nod but he campaigned his ass off for it and his team used that “Poor Ben Narrative” like nobody’s business.
Lincoln, sure, it got the nominations it was supposed to but for a critically acclaimed smash hit and Spielberg epic about one of the most beloved presidents, that film was supposed to pull off a sweep. An EASY sweep. And in the end it won 2…out of 12.
Bottom line : Those controversies tend to have an impact. If they didn’t, people wouldn’t feel the need to spread them year after year. The truth is ugly…but it is still the truth.
phantom is exactly right.
People need to stop sloppily conceptualizing these Oscar battles as massive pendulum swings of thousands of votes and please try to remember that rivalries can be so close that 10,000 PGA voters can TIE on 12 Years and Gravity.
So when a race hinges on razor thin margins (as I believe Lincoln and Argo did) then if little kerfuffles and slanderous freakouts can cause even 50 voters to get skittish and waffle away from a favorite, then those 50 ballots can swing things from victory to defeat.
I think these “controversies” won’t affect Selma and Duvernay’s Oscar nominations as those ‘controversies” didn’t hurt Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty’s nominations, but the smear campaigns are nasty.
Just to clarify a point where a reader of your very interesting article could be misled into thinking LBJ had asked Hoover to bug MLK’s phone and hotel rooms, as I mentioned in the other thread, read Schlesinger’s Conversations with Jackie (a book published a couple of years ago with Caroline Kennedy’s approval). Jackie Kennedy gossiped extensively with Schlesinger about MLK’s sex life. Stories she had been told by Bobby Kennedy and by her husband about MLK’s extramarital affairs. So it was Bobby Kennedy who gave approval to Hoover to bug MLK. Whether or not LBJ heard the tapes, I don’t know (but I bet Robert Caro does). But Bobby and Jack Kennedy certainly had and – the hypocrites – had given plenty of details to Jackie.
These Angelina freaks are the most annoying thing to ever happen in this site.
what is this obsession with Unbroken. i don’t know why this site seems so obsessed with a movie that isnt going to make a big splash at the Oscars. Focus your energy on how a movie like imitation game with a MT score of 71 can possibly win best picture over a movie that has 100 or 90s like Selma, that’s the real injustice. If Unbroken gets best picture. who cares, it won’t be the first time or last that the Oscars nominated a mediocre movie. Where are the articles on American Snipers resurgence or into the woods both movies have even a better shot than Unbroken because they have box office and reviews. being a star doesn’t guarantee a nomination. Affleck was snubbed and his movie had great reviews and big box office. although interesting diablo cody and jada smith(Will smith’s wife) tweeted this, so who really knows what they are thinking this time out
Diablo Cody @diablocody · Dec 26
Easy to brush off her accomplishments bc she’s a big cheesy movie star or whatever, but holy shit, Jolie is AMAZING. Like, HOW does she?
0 replies 25 retweets 142 favorites
and Jada Pinkett Smith
Jada Pinkett Smith @jadapsmith · Dec 26
Just watched Unbroken! What an inspirational film. Congrats Angelina!
0 replies 98 retweets 269 favorites
This is getting ugly, so ugly.
Makes me root for the movie even more.
Replace Mr. Turner with American Sniper. 😉
You’ve sure predicted it, though : “you’re about to watch a brief but powerful character assassination of DuVernay take place”. First she was “unprepared”(LBD), now she is “irresponsible” (injured crew member). Both seem to suggest that she is incompetent. Or as Hollywood calls it : a woman.
*managed to start
P.S. Starting the piece with a Sarah Jones / Midnight Rider comparison is also just fuel to the fire. If there is one film related incident in 2014 NOBODY wants to be in a sentence with, then that’s the tragic death of that innocent, young crew member. But somehow the guy who wrote this article, mentioned to start a Selma article by a comparison.
Someone is hellbent on making Selma look bad. First the LBJ “story”, now this :
http://deadline.com/2014/12/selma-accident-crew-worker-electrocuted-1201338224/
It happened on 4th of June. It was first heard of almost six whole months later, on 30th of December…or as I like to call it, Day 2 of Oscar voting. Coincidence ? I’m having a very disturbing ZD30 deja vu right about now and I can only hope the outcome won’t be the same.
Oh wow. I didn’t even see that….