All these wonderful things

Academy Welcomes Nanette Burstein, Heidi Ewing, Liz Garbus and, Holy Shit, SHEILA NEVINS(!) to the Club

Each year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences welcomes new members (nominated and approved by the branches in which they work) and this year, the documentary branch is adding five women to its ranks, led by previous nominees Nanette Burstein (nominated with Brett Morgan for ON THE ROPES, soon to be in theatres with AMERICAN TEEN), Heidi Ewing (nominated with Rachel Grady for JESUS CAMP, shortlisted for THE BOYS OF BARAKA) and Liz Garbus (nominated with Jonathan Stack for THE FARM: ANGOLA, USA).

Also in the class of 2008 are filmmakers Michaelle Ohayon (STEAL A PENCIL FOR ME) and Deborah Shaffer (WITNESS TO WAR: DR. CHARLIE CLEMENTS). 

But the big headline, and pardon us if we've buried the lede, is that the Academy is finally welcoming HBO's Sheila Nevins, who has had her hands in more documentary nominees (including shorts) than anyone over the past two decades.  Tellingly, particularly for those who know the somewhat tortured history of the effort to get Nevins into the Academy - a move that was regularly blocked by higher ups within the documentary branch - Nevins is being inducted as an At-Large member, not as a member of the documentary branch itself. 

The full Academy list of 105 new members can be found on the Academy website.

How the NY Times' Review of POLANSKI Threw a Wrench in This Year's Oscar Season

Late last month, the indie film community and a number of film writers and bloggers took notice when Marina Zenovich's ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED, the Sundance hit that was acquired by HBO, played an undercover Oscar qualifying run at NYC's Colliseum Cinemas on West 181st Street. 

More attention was drawn when the NY Times film critic Manohla Dargis ran a review of the film, effectively shining a large spotlight on HBO's strategy.

But while the POLANSKI screening and review stories made news for a few days, most did not anticipate that Dargis' review would signal potentially huge changes for the way distributors and filmmakers plan their Oscar qualifying strategies.

In the Oscar rule changes intitiated last fall, the Academy dropped their requirement of a qualifying run in LA or NYC (followed by a 14 city, 10 state rollout) in favor of a mandate that film must play for a week in the County of Los Angeles and the Burrough of Manhattan.  Since then, it was unclear whether the new rules would have any specific affect on the qualifying process.

But the Times review of POLANSKI put the Manhattan requirement in an altogether new light.  What if POLANSKI wasn't an aberration, the case of a popular Sundance title and a big name TV network.  What if any documentary that was trying to qualify for the Oscars in an underground fashion (weeks or perhaps months before any potential theatrical release or distribution deal) was risking a NY Times review.

Why risk you ask?  Because if filmmakers tried to qualify early, then the Times review would come weeks if not months prior to an actual theatrical release, perhaps prior to a film's distribution deal (since so many seem inclined to use the Academy Shortlist process as a route to a theatrical deal, despite lack of evidence that the approach works) or even prior to the film's world premiere (as at least five titles bound for Toronto did last year).

Considering that a number of NY papers are dropping reviews of documentaries from their pages entirely, the loss of a Times review could depress box office and the potential for a wider roll-out.

In an email exchange the week after her review, Dargis said that while this specific issue had not been officially discussed internally at the Times, it was the newspaper's policy to review every film that opened commercially for a week in Manhattan.  She added that she couldn't see the Times changing or altering this policy for Academy qualifying.

And unlike POLANSKI, which Dargis had seen at Sundance and which she re-watched on a Saturday afternoon in Pasadena, future films may not be reviewed by one of the Times' top critics. 

Earlier this month at the Full Frame Film Festival, HBO's Nancy Abraham told me that the network wasn't terribly bothered by the Times review.  "It kind of shows that they are interested in the film," she said. 

Abraham acknowledged that getting a theatrical review for the film probably ends any chance for the film to get a television review when it premieres on HBO, but suggested that the paper would likely run feature articles about the film.  She added that she can't see HBO changing its strategy for future Oscar qualifying runs, even knowing that an early NY Times review may be in the offing.  "If you think (a film) has a shot at the Academy Award, you have to do a qualifying run.  What can you do?"

(Note: Since Full Frame, the Cannes Film Festival has announced that they will screen POLANSKI as a special event.)

But Tom Quinn of Magnolia Pictures, which will likely mount a big Academy campaign for James Marsh's MAN ON WIRE, offered a more concerned take.  "It's a difficult position to be in.  I mean, seriously.  You're working under guidelines mandated by the Academy.  To also work within additional restrictions (brought on by a) NY Times review?" 

A&E IndieFilms' Molly Thompson, whose recent titles JESUS CAMP (which was nominated) and MY KID COULD PAINT THAT had qualifying engagements prior to their theatrical releases said the POLANSKI review was a kind of warning shot to anyone who hoped to qualify without any attention.  Thompson's latest film - AMERICAN TEEN - will be in theaters long before the Academy cutoff and won't need to do an underground qualifying run.

When I asked Magnolia's Quinn if any of his titles might have to change it's strategy, Quinn mentioned an unnamed film that Magnolia had hoped to debut at Toronto while doing a qualifying run in August.

The issue of the Toronto Film Festival is particularly touchy.  The festival's documentary programmer Thom Powers (who is, full disclosure, my partner at the Cinema Eye Honors) has attempted for the past several years to get the Academy to shift its qualifying deadline so that it would fall after the festival. 

Former Academy documentary branch chair Freida Lee Mock has told me in the past that such a shift would be impossible for the Academy, as it must name it's shortlist just 2 months later.  This year, should films follow the lead of 2007's BODY OF WAR or JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS, we could be seeing NY Times reviews for films that are scheduled to have their world premieres a month later in Toronto.

"It’s a shame that the Academy rules have the doc qualification deadline right before the festival because it adds an extra burden to doc makers who want to experience the same advantage as fiction films at TIFF," Powers told me.  "When it comes to TIFF docs trying to qualify beforehand, the festival has always treated them on a case by case basis to make it work best for everyone."

When asked if TIFF would have to rethink including films that had already effectively "opened" in NYC, Powers said, "The specific case of POLANSKI being reviewed in its qualification run seems very rare to me.  If I’m ever presented with an exception, I’ll deal with it then."

That uncertainty was reflected by other industry figures.  IDA Executive Director Sandra Ruch said that a potential NY Times review would likely not effect her organization's DocuWeek Oscar qualifying program.  "They always had the possibilty of being reviewed.  There have been short reviews in the LA Weekly.  It's open to the public.  It's a theatrical rollout."

But a short review in the LA Weekly doesn't preclude a larger review (by a better or different critic) when your theatrical comes out.  With the Times, it's one and you're done, something that Ruch acknowledged.

"It won't affect the IDA but it could affect the filmmakers," Ruch said.  If they don't have a Times review when their film is released, "they're going to have to do a lot of viral marketing.  It's going to be more responsibility on the filmmakers and on the distributor to get the message out that the film is playing."

Manohla Calls HBO's Bluff and Reviews POLANSKI

Kudos to Manohla Dargis and the NY Times for running a review in Monday's edition of Marina Zenovich's ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED, the Sundance hit turned HBO premiere that has set the film world abuzz with its undercover Oscar run somewhere just south of Bronxville.

As noted in our piece yesterday - as well as in posts by Stu Van Airsdale, Karina Longworth and Eugene Hernandez - HBO's goal was to qualify under the newly revised AMPAS rules for documentary features (you have to play for a week, two screenings a day, in the Borough of Manhattan and the County of Los Angeles.  It was all supposed to happen without anyone noticing.  But after a weekend of bloggers spouting off (with sentiments ranging from Oscar rules are ridiculous to shame on HBO), the Gray Lady herself weighed in:

"WANTED AND DESIRED, which opened on Friday without advance press screenings, was bought by HBO at the Sundance Film Festival in January. Its one-week theatrical run will make it eligible for Academy Award consideration, though given that organization’s often pitiful record when it comes to nonfiction film, it seems unlikely that a movie this subtly intelligent would make its short list. That’s especially true because the director, Marina Zenovich, refuses to wag her finger at Mr. Polanski, even when presenting the sordid and grimly pathetic details of his crime, like the Champagne and partial Quaalude he furnished the 13-year-old girl and her repeated nos."

For years, these types of Oscar qualifying screenings have been going on, particularly in August in Los Angeles, where whole theatres are turned over to rotating screenings of films that won't officially be in theaters until months later, if they make it to theaters at all.  The LA film press has always let this pass by without notice, without reviews, a kind of gentleman's agreement if you will, as if to say, these films aren't really playing - despite the fact that admissions are charged and the public is, in fact, welcome.  Despite the raft of online coverage and the NY Times review, the LA Times has yet to cover the Polanski doc's run in Pasadena.

The interesting thing here is that while all of this has been going on for years here in Los Angeles - indeed, I had a piece last August about eventual Oscar winner TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE's forced scramble to complete an undercover run so that it wouldn't be disqualified by a pending television broadcast and I don't think a single blog linked to the story - it's now really happening for the first time in New York due to the new rules.  The story broke on Defamer, but maybe wouldn't even have run under the site's old LA-based editor.  However, it was a natural piece for NY-based Stu to print. 

That LA-denizen Dargis brings the story into the mainstream dailies via her position as chief film critic for the Times makes the irony even nicer (although I loved Karina's imagery of the Times putting Manohla on the A train).

Meanwhile, much more coverage online in the past 36 hours, including Anne Thompson's not so surprising defense of HBO:

"It's the HBO way. The fuss is all about the HBO launch--and getting an Oscar nom, natch--not building a successful theatrical release. Marina Zenovich knew this when she made her rich HBO deal"

Erik Davis at Cinematical disagrees:

"If they have to screen it theatrically in order for it to be in the running for an Oscar, why don't they screen it at a reputable indie-centric theater in NYC, like Film Forum or the IFC Center. Sh*t, screen it at my apartment -- I bet more people would see it at my crib than on West 181st street."

In the comments to Eugene's post on Sunday, Bryan Stamp of Participant draws the bigger picture on HBO's maneuvering and the Academy's fumbling:

"The nominating process is at least inefficient, and at most fundamentally fucked up. There are other motives at play inside the branch than simply ensuring nominations for the best films. Obviously, the Academy's rule of last year yielded one of the most polarizing shortlists in recent memory, not to mention a seemingly hypocritical list of films that qualified only by the minimum standards. Rather than honor the films that actually had marketing dollars and higher profile releases (most of which were more "cinematic or "theatrical" and in my opinion "better" than the actual shortlist) the shortlist was contrary to the very purpose of the rule (to guarantee that the eligible films were legit theatrical films). So instead of honoring widely liked films released by mini-majors (which helps raise the profile of the entire pool of films, and the genre itself), the rule and the committee failed to achieve that. From the shortlist, the eventual nominees were mostly deserving; it’s just a shame that some of the best theatrical/cinematic documentaries of the year were ignored (by the Academy, anyway, and a large percentage of the population)."

Meanwhile, Karina reminds us that this Oscar talk is overshadowing the film itself and that's "(say it with me now) Bad For Cinema", so let's go back in the Spout archives and revisit Karina's original review of the film.  That piece, combined with the impassioned reader comments on Dargis' review, suggest that this is exactly the kind of conversation-starting, thought-provoking, debate-inciting film that many documentaries strive to be.

Wow, if only such a film was in theaters.

HBO Laughs at the New Oscar Rules, Qualifies POLANSKI Doc On W. 181st Street

When the Academy loosened its qualifying rules for Oscar Docus last fall, more than one longtime member of the doc community told me that the difficulty of the new rules would be finding theater screens in art house-challenged Manhattan.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Coliseum Cinemas on W. 181st Street, where for the rest of this week, you can check out the Sundance favorite ROMAN POLANSKI: WANTED AND DESIRED at 2 PM and 4 PM.

As reported Friday by Stu at Defamer:

"Where is the marketing? Where are the reviews? Where is the heated discussion about the Polanski case?...

HBO Documentary Films purchased Wanted and Desired for $1 million out of Sundance, planning a cable premiere and a DVD release — but no theatrical run. Except that to qualify for an Oscar, you have to screen "for a minimum of seven days in both Los Angeles County and the Borough of Manhattan."...  HBO is protecting its audience for the June 9 cable premiere and keeping its Oscar hopes alive by dumping it in the farthest reaches of Upper Manhattan for the bare minimum two afternoon screenings per day...

This isn't exactly the kind of treatment supposedly Oscar-worthy films deserve, is it?"

In Los Angeles, the same bare minimum is taking place at Laemmle's One Pasadena, deep in the basement bowels of an alley off of Colorado Blvd.

Look, God bless HBO.  They've been pushing documentary as much or more than anyone for decades.  And Lord knows that Sheila Nevins should have been invited into the Academy years ago.  I give them that and a bag a chips.

But like they're bought and paid for run of WHITE LIGHT/BLACK RAIN last year, HBO is, once again, laughing at the Academy and it's nonsensical rules.  No matter what the Academy does in terms of setting the bar for true theatrical runs, HBO writes the check and qualifies.  14 cities?  No problem.  Manhattan?  We'll take care of it.

What they won't do is give the film a real theatrical opening.  Put the movie at the Film Forum or the IFC - two venues that would likely take the film in a second - and let it get reviewed and be seen by paying audiences on a big screen?  Nope, not interested.  Even though a film about Polanski that was a hit in Park City might actually be a big draw in Manhattan (not to mention doc-phobic LA)?  Still not interested and please go fuck yourself.

And I don't buy Stu's insinuation that this is about "protecting its audience" for the HBO premiere in June.  Sheila has made it clear that she thinks "the war is over between TV and theatrical", but in the same interview, she said that "Maybe the happy home for documentaries is the very short theatrical release with no expectations".  The latter is not what's happening here.

So, not on the merits of POLANSKI - which I haven't seen but have heard great things about - but the Academy's a bunch of suckers if they shortlist any HBO film when HBO won't even do the minimal work to allow that film to be a true theatrical release.  Give them a raft of Emmys.  Give them Peabodys.  Give Sheila the Academy membership that she so deserves.  But don't let them anywhere near the Kodak unless the films get reviewed, get publicized and get seen by paying audiences.

181st Street's a joke and no one at the Academy should be laughing.

Oscar Telecast Musings #2: One Happy Oscar Family

A question:  With Joel Coen's three Oscar wins on Sunday (for writing, directing and producing NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN), his previous Oscar for writing FARGO and his wife, Frances McDormand's statue for her performance in Fargo, are there any other married couples who have a collective five (or more) Oscars?

Oscar Telecast Musings #1: Why the Low Ratings?

So, apparently the Oscars had bad ratings - by the far the worst ever.  Gee, who'da thunk that audiences wouldn't be psyched to see presenters like Miley Cyrus, Patrick Dempsey, Katherine Heigl, Jessica Alba and Steve Carrell.  Or basic cable host Jon Stewart (who did a fine job by the way, even if he was no Rainn Wilson).  It's not like these people are on television that often. 

Oscar Acceptance Speech by TAXI's Alex Gibney

Acceptance Speech by Alex Gibney:

"Wow.  Thank you very much, Academy.  Here's to all doc filmmakers.  And, truth is, I think my dear wife Anne was kind of hoping I'd make a romantic comedy, but honestly, after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, that simply wasn't possible.

This is dedicated to two people who are no longer with us.  Dilawar, the young Afghan taxi driver, and my father, a Navy interrogator who urged me to make this film because of his fury about what was being done to the rule of law.  Let's hope we can turn this country around, move away from the dark side and back to the light.

Thank you very much."

TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE Wins the Oscar

TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, Alex Gibney's piercing and rigorous look at the Bush administration's torture policies, won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature last night in Los Angeles. 

The THINKFilm title, which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, had a long, consistent march to the Kodak Theatre stage, playing a number of summer and fall film festivals and qualifying for its Academy run via the IDA's DocuWeek.  It opened in theaters in January.  Before its Oscar win, TAXI was nominated for the IDA Award for Feature Documentary, the Gothams and the Directors Guild Award, among others.  Gibney is up for a Cinema Eye Honor next month for Outstanding Achievement in Directing.

I was particularly pleased with the TAXI win - it was on my list of my ten favorite nonfiction films of 2007 - and very happy for Gibney, one of the hardest working and generous filmmakers around.  Additionally, Gibney and his team have done a fine job standing up for TAXI when its poster was rejected by the MPAA and when the Discovery Channel recently announced that it wouldn't air the film over apparent controversy fears.  The latter contretemps occurred in the midst of Academy voting.  That, pooled with breaking news from Washington on the issues surrounding torture and interrogation, might have spurred voters.  As I noted on Saturday, while the safe choice for your Oscar pool might have been NO END IN SIGHT, it was beginning to look like the day would belong to TAXI.

Meanwhile, internet provocateur Jeffrey Wells reacted to Gibney's win with this:

"The winner of the Best Documentary Feature Oscar is a surprise. All along I was hearing No End in Sight, No End in Sight, No End in Sight. Hooray for Alex Gibney's Taxi to Dark Side, which won, but it's a surprise is all. Nobody I know called this. That I can think of."

Well, aside from us, Anne Thompson, Peter Howell and Jack Matthews (among others)...

Less pleased was I with the short film category.  Beyond the fact that the winner is a textbook case of (deservedly important) topic over craft, one can't help but be bothered by the naked ambition involved in the Oscar campaigning for that particular film.  A person I respect told me this afternoon that I had to give the filmmaker credit - she had a goal of winning an Oscar, she was completely open about that being her sole motivating factor, she launched a year-long campaign to accomplish that goal and Sunday night, the last piece of the puzzle was added.  I suppose one has to agree that it was a masterful strategy, but one hopes to never see its like again.

Wagering on This Weekend's Doc Awards

As we head into a rainy awards-laden weekend in Los Angeles, a few postulations for the Spirit Awards and the Oscars, which seem to be fairly cut and dry in most categories, but where the doc awards are surprisingly competitive.

This afternoon in Santa Monica, it looks to be a big afternoon for Jason Reitman's JUNO, which seems like it could take home four awards - Picture, Director, First Screenplay and Actress.  Of the two awards for nonfiction, one (Best Documentary) is voted on by the Film Independent membership, so one would have to give the edge to the film that's got the highest profile.  But which one is that?

Best Documentary

CRAZY LOVE
LAKE OF FIRE
MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES
THE MONASTERY - MR. VIG AND THE NUN
THE PRISONER OR: HOW I TRIED TO KILL TONY BLAIR

Although THE MONASTERY and THE PRISONER are critically acclaimed (and, like the other three films, both are Cinema Eye Honors nominees, with THE MONASTERY up in three major categories), they had smaller releases and are probably less familiar to most of the membership.  Of the other three, MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES and CRAZY LOVE had the biggest success theatrically, while LAKE OF FIRE has a very well known filmmaker in Tony Kaye (which certainly was a benefit to last year's winner, Michael Winterbottom).  I think it's probably between LAKE OF FIRE and CRAZY LOVE, but that CRAZY LOVE will take the prize in the end.

Truer Than Fiction Award

HELVETICA
RUNNING STUMBLED
THE UNFORESEEN

Three excellent films.  Beyond that, I'm not telling (I was on the jury).

And on Sunday, the Oscars, which seems likely to be dominated by the Coen Brothers' NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN:

Best Documentary Short

FREEHELD
LA CORONA (THE CROWN)
SALIM BABA
SARI'S MOTHER

A stable of HBO titles, with good reasons to predict any of them as winners.  At Wednesday's IDA reception, clips from each of the four films were screened and the biggest response was for the charming and humorous SALIM BABA.  It wouldn't be the first time that the Oscar went to the lightest (in tone) of the nominees.  FREEHELD benefits from emotional subject matter and a bare knuckled, year-long campaign to win an Oscar.  Accomplished doc veteran Amanda Micheli and first-timer Isabel Vega could take the stage for their prison beauty pageant film, LA CORONA.  But, I suspect that the Oscar will go where it should have gone last year, into the hands of James Longley, for his IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS follow-up, SARI'S MOTHER.

Best Documentary Feature

NO END IN SIGHT
OPERATION HOMECOMING: WRITING THE WARTIME EXPERIENCE
SICKO
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
WAR/DANCE

The first time in years where there are three legitimate front-runners - and when there are three front-runners, anything can happen, just ask Marisa Tomei.  If I had to bet the house, I'd probably go with the safe choice and probable winner, NO END IN SIGHT.  And it wouldn't surprise anyone if SICKO, the biggest doc of the year, by far, won the award.  In fact, in four of the past five years, the winner was also the most successful theatrical release (BORN INTO BROTHELS over SUPER SIZE ME was the exception).  But something's telling me that the winner might very well be TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, for a number of reasons: Alex Gibney's much liked ENRON film, the knowledge that Gibney was Executive Producer on NO END IN SIGHT, the fact that the issue of torture has dominated the news during the voting period and the controversial decision by Discovery Networks to decline to air the film (they sold the rights to HBO this week).  I think that all of the above may make TAXI the very deserving Oscar winner tomorrow night.

The IDA Celebrates the Oscar Nominees, Michael Moore Calls for "Doc Night in America"

The IDA held it's annual reception celebrating the 2008 Oscar nominees for Best Documentary Feature and Best Documentary Short Wednesday night at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in Beverly Hills.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the self-described "almost" 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Oscar winner (for BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE) and nominee this year (for SICKO), Michael Moore.

Moore, who was MIA at last year's IDA Awards gala (where he was to receive a career achievement honor) took to the stage last, after the year's other nominees had taken their turn at the podium, and built on themes that he had proposed in the speech read by his sister at the awards in December, namely that he had made it his new year's resolution to do something about the poor distribution situation for nonfiction films in the US. 

Stating that he was tired of reading gloom and doom forecasts of the death of documentaries at the box office, Moore stated that he was going to be sitting down with the heads of major theatre exhibition chains to propose a business model, which he said he has already worked out, wherein he will try to convince megaplexes to devote one of their screens to documentaries or convince theatres to convert their worst night of the week, Mondays, to "Doc Night in America".  Moore said that he was lining up other filmmakers and studio figures who would "volunteer" to help in this effort, which Moore said would include help with promotion.

Moore's call to arms came at the end of a lengthy speech - by far the longest of the night (not that it seemed that anyone in the crowd minded) - that began with detailed and effusive praise for the work of his co-nominees Charles Ferguson (NO END IN SIGHT), Alex Gibney (TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE), Richard E. Robbins (OPERATION HOMECOMING) and Sean Fine & Andrea Nix-Fine (WAR/DANCE), the only absentees amongst the quintet.

Prior to Moore's speech, both Ferguson and Gibney issued strong statements on the Iraq war and torture, respectively, but it was the speech by Robbins, which may have been the most emotional of the evening.

Robbins (seen above with fellow nominee Eva Orner, producer of TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE), whose film is based on the writings of Iraq war soldiers, has in the past attempted to steer clear of the debate over the war itself, proposing that "talking about the politics of was avoids having to talk about the human implications".  This stance has been applauded by some and derided by others, note particularly a fiery discussion with Women Make Movies' Debra Zimmerman at IDFA last November.

But tonight, Robbins said that the fact that these soldiers were willing to fight and die for their country meant that the rest of us had better be vigilant and must pay attention to the actions of our country, particularly in deciding when and under what circumstances to deploy troops.   Michael Moore later reiterated the point, imploring the audience to see Robbins film (which he noted was the only one of the five not to get larger distribution) and saying that it was crucial to hear what the soldiers are saying about their experiences in Iraq.

Robbins also took time to recognize not just his fellow nominees but all the great work that he had seen at festivals during the year and thanked the community at large for making him feel welcome within the nonfiction family, saying that his previous profession - television news - was not quite as warm and fuzzy.

Most of the nominees gave thanks to the IDA, deservedly so - whatever complaints I may have with the IDA's award process does not take away from the work the organization does on so many fronts, including, as noted tonight, working to bring in insurers who will work with filmmakers under fair use provisions.  And each of the documentary shorts nominees took time to mention HBO Documentary Films - it was a varitable HBO lovefest, reminding again how petty it is of the Academy to consistently refuse to make Sheila Nevins a member of the documentary branch.

The Doc Oscar 2009: And the Nominee is... Nanette Burstein?

Here's a little something to mull over with your evening cocktail or your morning coffee...

Are the Sundance juried awards for documentary predictors of the following year's Oscar nominees? And if so, does this herald good news for AMERICAN TEEN director Nanette Burstein but sad tidings for the filmmakers of TROUBLE THE WATER?

For each of the past four years, the winner of the Documentary Directing prize has been shortlisted for the Oscar - and for three of those years, the winner was nominated.

Surprisingly, for each of those past four years, the winner of the Grand Jury Prize was not shortlisted (and thus also not nominated.

Here's the list:

2007
Grand Jury Prize: MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET)
Directing Prize: WAR/DANCE - nominated for 2008 Oscars

2006
Grand Jury Prize: GOD GREW TIRED OF US
Directing Prize: IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS - nominated for 2007 Oscars

2005
Grand Jury Prize: WHY WE FIGHT
Directing Prize: THE DEVIL AND DANIEL JOHNSTON - shortlisted for 2006 Oscars

2004
Grand Jury Prize: DIG!
Directing Prize: SUPER SIZE ME - nominated for 2005 Oscars

(FYI - in 2003, the Jury prize went to the Oscar nominated CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS while the directing prize went to the non-nominated MY FLESH AND BLOOD.)

The Oscars Nominate Michael Moore and 4 on War

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced their nominees this AM and in the two documentary categories, the nominees are:

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

NO END IN SIGHT
Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs

OPERATION HOMECOMING: WRITING THE WARTIME EXPERIENCE
Richard E. Robbins

SICKO
Michael Moore and Meghan O'Hara

TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
Alex Gibney and Eva Orner

WAR/DANCE
Andrea Nix Fine and Sean Fine

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

FREEHELD
Cynthia Wade and Vanessa Roth

LA CORONA (THE CROWN)
Amanda Micheli and Isabel Vega

SALIM BABA
Tim Sternberg and Francisco Bello

SARI'S MOTHER
James Longley

All in all, one of the better lists that the Academy could have come up with considering the shortlist. Congrats to all the nominated filmmakers.

Fearless Oscar Predictions

First, a suggestion. Want to reduce your general level of outrage? Do something about the thing that outrages you.

So, with that in mind, a bit about Tuesday’s Oscar announcement and some predictions that I warn in advance may be well off the mark. That’s how it’s been with me and the Academy this year. I zig, they zag.

But generally, my own excitement about building a new award that celebrates the breadth of content and craft within nonfiction, has left me feeling fine about this year’s potential nominees. Not fine as in “upon further reflection, I think those screeners did a great job”, but as in, “best of luck to all shortlisted films and to whoever moves to the finals on Tuesday.

That said, here’s what I think is most likely to happen when the Oscar nominations are announced.

My usual formula is this: 3 of the films are going to be highprofile theatrical films, one is a about international topics, one is about politics.

But with this crop of war-heavy features, it almost feels like you have to throw that out the window.

Another thing – since the Academy began tinkering with the qualifying rules earlier this decade, no one has been nominated for the feature documentary Oscar more than once.

This year, two frontrunners – Michael Moore (for SICKO) and Alex Gibney (for TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE) could become the first to bust this “spread the wealth” theory. I think both will, but if either or both are not named on Tuesday, that may be the reason.

Add to SICKO and TAXI the third frontrunner – Charles Ferguson’s NO END IN SIGHT, which may actually be the top contender for the prize.

Filling the other two slots? I predict one will go to LAKE OF FIRE, Tony Kaye’s piercing look at the abortion conflict in America. Before the Academy shortlist was announced, I couldn’t see a great deal of support for that film. But I think I was letting my own misgivings about the film (I couldn’t get over the fact that almost all of it takes place in the 1990s) cloud my judgment. Although it wasn’t nominated by any of the guilds and it was skipped by almost all of the major critics, I sense now that this might be the year’s “political” film.

If not LAKE OF FIRE, that slot may go to FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO. Either film would provide a healthy dose of religious introspection that marked two of last year’s nominees – JESUS CAMP and DELIVER US FROM EVIL.

I think the fifth slot is almost a toss-up. Richard Robbins’ OPERATION HOMECOMING has received a tremendous amount of support (including a DGA nomination). Last year, the Academy nominated two Iraq films – IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS and MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY, but will they pick 3 films about Iraq (assuming TAXI and NO END both get nods)? And if they go for 3, will Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro’s BODY OF WAR make the cut?

I have a weird sense that a subconscious desire to focus on the war in Iraq might mean that the Academy passes over films about other conflicts, including NANKING and WAR/DANCE.

And will the Academy want to add something a little lighter, something heartwarming, effectively countering Seinfeld’s long-remembered “incredibly depressing” comment at last year’s Oscars?

If so, the (not-so-)surpirising fifth nominee could be Tricia Regan’s AUTISM: THE MUSICAL.

Frankly, almost anything can happen. But I predict that the five films that the Academy will nominate this year will be:

LAKE OF FIRE
NO END IN SIGHT
OPERATION HOMECOMING: WRITING THE WARTIME EXPERIENCE
SICKO
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE

Last year, I was 3 for 5. We’ll see if I do better or far, far worse this year.

For the Academy, the Hits Just Keep On Coming - Now, It's Outrage Over the Foreign Language Shortlist

Imagine this scenario. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences releases a shortlist of nominees in a feature film category. There is shock and outrage over the number of high profile, excellent films that are missing. Bloggers and commentators say that while they mean no disrespect to the shortlisted films, the absence of so many important films cannot be overlooked. Wholesale changes are proposed. Academy members, in sotto voce, confide that they are appalled and have no idea how it happened. Garments are ripped, teeth are gnashed.

Sound familiar?

Well then, imagine that it happens again less than two months later.

Today, the Academy announced its foreign film shortlist and, well, if you thought I was a vocal Oscar critic in November, just take a gander at the response that greeted this list:

From David Poland, who headlines "The Weirdest Noms Yet":

"The handling of docs and foreign language films continue to be an embarrassment to The Academy. With due respect to the excellent films on the foreign language short-list, released today, you have to wonder how these things come to pass.

Not on the list is the most acclaimed and qualified foreign language film of the year, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and the second most acclaimed qualified foreign language film of the year, Persepolis. I count myself as a fan of a number of these films, but really... puh-leeeeze!"

Anne Thompson at Variety has more background:

"Oscar foreign film committee head Mark Johnson's worst fear has been confirmed. The nine films advancing to the next round of voting in the Foreign Language Film category for the 80th Academy Awards do not include Cristian Mungiu's lauded Romanian abortion drama 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, which won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and the European Film Award, as well as landing on many ten best lists.

Also not included, perhaps because it will turn up in the animation category, was Marjane Satrapi's artful adult animated feature, Persepolis, which was France's Oscar submission. The country might have been better off submitting La Vie en Rose, which was a stateside crowdpleaser and a rare foreign-language hit. The Golden Globes both nominated 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and Persepolis in the foreign language category. "I'm mortified," said one Academy member....

The first phase of voting consisted of several hundred L.A.-based Academy members who each saw a selection of the 63 qualifying films. (Not qualifying were France's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Israel's The Band's Visit.) From Friday, January 18, through Sunday, January 20, in both Hollywood and New York City, a second phase committee comprised of ten randomly selected members from the first phase plus invited ten-member groups in NY and LA, will view the nine film shortlist and select the final five nominees. They will be announced January 22."

Scott Foundas goes ahead and calls it an "Oscar Scandal":

"The final voting for the Foreign Language Oscar (Phase III, if you will) is open to any Academy members who can prove they have attended screenings of all five nominated films — a process that has itself resulted in more than a few upset victories over the years, including the insipid Italian travelogue Mediterraneo over Zhang Yimou's Raise the Red Lantern in 1991, and the frothy Spanish comedy Belle Epoque over Chen Kaige's Farewell My Concubine in 1993. But hey, there's no accounting for taste, right? And at least if a film makes it into the final nominee pool and then loses, it can be said to have been fairly judged by the Academy en masse. But how many Academy members ultimately put the kibosh on 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days? One subset of one committee comprised of — oh, I don't know — the sound guy from Airport '77, the costume designer from Oliver!, and Ernest Borgnine?. If this is the Academy's idea of reform, may I be the first to propose abolition?"

Foundas even gets Mark Johnson, the chair of the Academy's Foreign Language nominating committee, to go on the record saying that the results are a debacle:

""I thought we had made big strides last year, but apparently not big enough," said Johnson with regard to the two-phase nominating process. Asked if further retooling (including the possible involvement of more active Academy members earlier in the nominating process) may lie in the future, Johnson was unambiguous. "That's what has to be done, because in my mind it can't continue like this," he said. "I don't believe these choices reflect the Academy at large.""

Karina Longworth adds to the list of the missing:

"Like festival favorite(s) Edge of Heaven... Like the great Silent Light, which Tartan has still not set a US release date for, and probably won’t now that their hopes for free publicity have been dashed."

Earlier today, Jeffrey Wells was calling for an flash mob:

"One of the biggest outrages in the history of the Academy's foreign film committee -- a scandal fed by deficient taste and myopic, mule-like obstinacy -- has just happened with the release of the nine-film short list that doesn't include Cristian Mungiu's widely hailed 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days. The people who pushed for this decision need to be identified and, with all charity and compassion, expelled from this group for life. What will it take? Torches and pitchforks at the corner of Wilshire and La Peer at 8 pm this evening?"

There's still time if you leave right now.

Anthony Kaufman:

"I can understand that "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" was too dark and bracing for the Academy or that "Secret Sunshine" was too smart and subtle for them to recognize, but how did "Persepolis" not make the cut, and Denys Arcand's latest mediocrity "Days of Darkness" make the shortlist?

I haven't seen all of the films, but the appearence of Cao Hamburger's "The Year My Parents Went on Vacation" and Giuseppe Tornatore's roundly dismissed "The Unknown" suggest that the same-old, formulaic foreign-language films are still the ones that are welcomed by the Academy, while more artistic films ("Secret Sunshine") and genre blends ("The Orphanage") are overlooked."

The Academy overlooks artistic films and genre blends? Say it ain't so.

I feel for everyone's outrage, I really do. I've been there. But you can always start your own awards.

Denver's Starz FilmCenter Latest Theater to Feel Effects of Lawsuit Against Shortlisted Doc Price of Sugar

Brit Withey has the latest at La Pistola:

"This morning our office received a letter from the law firm Patton Boggs informing us that a lawsuit was underway against Bill Haney and his production company Uncommon Productions by Grupo Vicini asking to cease and desist any further screenings of the film. Included was a copy of a cease and desist letter from Patton Boggs to Bill Haney and copies of 24 pages of the complaint filed against Haney and Uncommon Pictures in the United States District Court of Boston."

Patton Boggs is the powerful lobbyist and law firm in DC whose partners have included former Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis and Ben Ginsburg, who represented George Bush in the Florida recount of 2000.

Brit links to a November LA Times article by Gina Piccalo that gives some background:

"The Price of Sugar, which opens today in select theaters, isn't the first film to chronicle the plight of the Haitian immigrants in Dominican sugar cane fields. But its influence has been powerful and swift. Since its debut on the film festival circuit in March, the documentary has sparked interest from outspoken Haitian advocate Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles; and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., has requested a copy to screen for the House Human Rights Caucus. Meanwhile, the plantation-owning Vicini family tried to legally block the film's release and, when that didn't work, its Washington lawyers filed a slander suit, claiming the film misleads viewers and includes fabricated scenes."

Patton Boggs letters to theaters seem to be falling on deaf ears. Recently, the Reeler interviewed PRICE OF SUGAR director Bill Haney after a packed Manhattan screening:

"Swearing off gotcha filmmaking, Haney instead met off-camera with the intensely reclusive Vicinis, who threatened him as well. " 'Are you sure for a million dollars you don't want to solve the problem?'," he said he asked them. "These guys are spending more money suing me now than it would cost to solve the problem. So I wrote and told them this is what we're doing. They told me I was a fool and that the priest was tricking me; the conditions were different. We had the furthest possible thing from a meeting of the minds. They wanted me to go to the country club for dinner; I wanted to show them the batey that they said was really wonderful.""

2007: The Year in Nonfiction - The Issues

While an exceptional year for film quality, tt would be a mistake to argue that 2007 was a good year for the nonfiction film "industry", such as it is.  Despite the best efforts of many (from filmmakers to writers to distributors to exhibitors), the year featured one bad news story after another - box office down, interest down, distribution options down.  And then, come the end of the year, the bad joke that was the Academy's Documentary Feature Shortlist - long on staidness, short on imagination.

So, grab a stiff drink and revisit the lowlights of a thoroughly depressing year as we recap The Top 5 Issues in Nonfiction 2007:

5. All Michael Moore, All the Time

The unveiling of a new Michael Moore opus is starting to seem like the release of a new Harry Potter book.  In addition to the release itself, there's the nonstop hubbub and hoopla that surrounds it.  With Potter, this means costumed kids standing in line at bookstores.  With Michael Moore, it means an endless series of "fact-checks" from the "serious media", lambastes from conservatives ("it didn't gross 100 million, it's a flop!") and tortured second-guessing from the left ("someone has to say it, I just wish it didn't come with all his baggage").

This year, the SXSW-premiere of a new, supposedly unbiased anti-Moore film kicked off the debate a full three months early.  The subsequent whining by the film's makers that festivals were blocking their film in deference to the mighty Michael added some questionable last-minute PR to their cause.  Throughout all of it, it became clear that it wasn't enough to debate SICKO, Moore's treatise on the health care crisis, because we were still having an active debate about Moore's first feature, ROGER & ME.

But SICKO provided it's own controversies (including the aforementioned idiocity that it was somehow a flop), with charges of hypocrisy (why is he staying at the Four Seasons if he's such a "man of the people", wondered the very un-serious LA Times) and loose journalism (from the likes of Wolf Blitzer). 

Seems unlikely to stop the kudos to come: Moore's position as "the most important man in nonfiction"™ neatly guarantees loads of critics prizes (especially from groups that barely see more than 5 docs a year) and a probable Oscar nod.  Meanwhile, Moore-haters and liberals who like to seem above it all can bask in the critical drubbing of CAPTAIN MIKE ACROSS AMERICA, his Toronto-premiering tour film.

4. Oscar Qualifying Rules

What started in late 2006 as a bit of anger and much head-scratching over the Academy's charge that films had to play 14 cities in 10 states, ended just as bizarrely this fall with a total reversal - you only have to play in New York and Los Angeles.  In between was months of debate over whether the new rules would make it impossible for films to qualify or would guarantee that the shortlisted films were true theatricals.  The verdict - no and no.

It hit a nadir when IRAQ IN FRAGMENTS producer John Sinno wrote, days after the Oscars, an Open Letter to the Academy, in which he blasted the new rules.  His screed captured the "sky is falling" attitude of some in the doc community and prompted many uninformed film writers to guess that most films would be out of the running under such a system.  The truth was that plenty of films would have been able to qualify in past years and 70 films still found a way to qualify this year, and (as you'll see at issue #2) being a true theatrical release was in no way a mandate.

But beyond the surface reactions, there were serious issues.  The Academy seemed to have no idea what venues actually qualified a true theatrical venue.  They planned to leave such research up to filmmakers and theater owners to determine.  Meanwhile, a cottage industry was born, as filmmakers without distribution (or whose distribution was pending) spent tens of thousands of dollars making sure their films traveled to enough cities.

The Academy seemed to realize that the whole theatrical mandate was a debacle, but their fix is likely even worse.  In a repudiation of the last decade's push for theatrical releases, we're back to a 2-city requirement.  It may not be the bad old days of Saturday morning screenings at 11 AM, but it's not much better - a week in Los Angeles (likely again hidden in the sparsely-attended downtown Laemmle) and a week in New York (hey Anthology Film Archives, your phone is ringing).  You know that the likes of HBO and THINK will be able to secure a week, but will you?

3. Declining Distribution

One of the not-so-quiet secrets of the year has been the struggle of many award-winning films to get distribution.  The storyline usually goes something like this - film premieres at a major festival and wins prizes and plaudits, interest is expressed by one or two of the usual doc-distributing suspects (Magnolia, THINK, IFC, etc.), a deal is discussed and seems to be in the offing.  Then, suddenly, the deal is off and the filmmaker ends up making a deal with a smaller, start-up company that promises grass-roots marketing with fingers crossed that theaters and press will come aboard.

Of the 7 major North American festivals that award prizes for nonfiction - Sundance, SXSW, Full Frame, Hot Docs, Tribeca, Silverdocs & Los Angeles - only one grand jury prize winner, Alex Gibney's TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE, ended up with an experienced distributor - THINKFilm.  The others, which include Jason Kohn's MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET), Jennifer Venditti's BILLY THE KID and Pernille Rose Gronkjær's THE MONASTERY - MR. VIG & THE NUN, all ended up patching together distribution, with MANDA BALA thus far fairing the best.  The Sundance jury winner has made more than $

One would have to go back to 2001's Southern Comfort (about the life of transsexual Robert Eads) to find a grand jury winner at Sundance that didn't wind up with an established distributor on board.  And this was before the two big purchases out of Sundance - IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON and MY KID COULD PAINT THAT - disappointed at the box office.  So what does that bode for 2008?

2. The Oscar Shortlist

After all the maneuvering by the Academy and the posturing about the importance of theatrical distribution (see issue #4), when the Academy released its vaunted Shortlist of 15 films in November, shockwaves reverberated through the nonfiction community.

On its face, the list made a lie of the Academy's so-called theatrical mandate.  Only six films of the fifteen had actually had a traditional theatrical release.  Three of the films had already aired on television.

But it was the films that didn't make it that brought the most heat.  During a year in which the notion of a nonfiction new wave began to take hold - auteurs (not journalists) taking real risks with craft and filmmaking style, telling true stories with vision and artistry - the Academy ignored so many truly great films that the mind reeled.

A number of impassioned words were written on the topic here and elsewhere, and these brought a strong, mostly supportive, response.  Startlingly, we received a great deal of positive reinforcement from where you might least expect it - from members of the Academy and members of the IDA (which was also criticized).  So if Academy members know that this year's list is - as more than one Academy member told me - "a scandal", then how did it happen?

We'll likely never know, other than oft-repeated tales of out-of-touch members receiving boxes of DVDs and picking films that played well for them on their television screens, which is an impressive way to reinforce a theatrical mandate.

For our part, the entire episode, from the list to the response, has inspired us to tackle something we began discussing with folks earlier in the year.  You'll be hearing about it in the days to come.

1. Dismal Box Office

I'm as big a cheerleader for theatrical nonfiction viability as the next person, but after months of trying to wish it untrue, even I have to admit that it was a terrible year for nonfiction at the box office.

Part of it was our own fault.  Filmmakers and distributors left the first half of 2008 nearly dry of high profile releases.  By October, there were as many notable nonfiction films opening on a weekend as there were in the first five months of 2007.  Not a good idea.

But there was something else too.  A sense that documentaries are medicinal?  That Seinfeld was right - we're incredibly depressing?  Too much bad news in the world anyway and you don't want to pay $10 for it, you'll just wait to put it in your queue? 

Compared to any year since 2002, when BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE changed everything, it was the worst year for docs by far.  Expected hits like IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON were big disappointments.  Folks at Magnolia are still scratching their heads over why mobs didn't show up for CRAZY LOVE.   And after coming up way short on both MY KID COULD PAINT THAT and JIMMY CARTER MAN FROM PLAINS, how much does Sony Pictures Classics have to make on Errol Morris' upcoming film to ever want to pick up a doc again.

Waves come and go and 2008 could change everything, what with Errol and Spurlock's did-he or didn't-he find bin Laden flick.  But in a year with a lot of bad news, the site of an empty theatre was the worst news of all.

The Shortlist Fallout

Lots of folks have been writing, calling, texting and generally commmunicating about our previous posts (here and here) on the Oscar Doc Shortlist.  Thanks to all who've been in touch - even (and perhaps especially) those that have disagreed.  Obviously it was a piece that I hoped would spur discussion.  In addition to the raft of responses to my commentary here at the blog, there's been more conversation spurred elsewhere.

Here's some of that:

Danielle DiGiacomo weighed in here as well as at the Indiepix blog:

"I remember when the Academy finally recognized Errol Morris (the reason I became interested in documentary filmmaking) in 2004. He said “I’d like to thank the Academy for finally recognizing my films. Thank you so very, very, very much! I thought it would never happen.” At the time, I thought he was being cocky and arrogant. (And having seen him speak several times, I can’t say he is not both of these.) However, his frustration at not having been recognized previously is completely fair. The fact that last year a filmed Power Point presentation (featuring a bold-faced name and huge box office numbers) won the award, proves AJ’s point that the Academy only sometimes (seemingly begrudgingly) recognizes that documentary filmmaking is not limited to reconstructions - dry, sentimental, whatever - of historic events - but is truly an artform that illuminates and questions the truths and experiences of everyday life."

Agnes Varnum has weighed in on my post a few times on her excellent blog.  But in a post today, she took issue with the last sentence of Danielle's post and uses it to start a conversation about Tony Kaye's LAKE OF FIRE (which made the Shortlist) as well as ruminate on her own mixed emotions about the whole Oscar thing:

"Lake of Fire could do no more to illuminate a current struggle, as far as I’m concerned, so I can emphatically disagree with Danielle about this particular film and her comment. But, I also reacted strongly to criticism of Billy the Kid (Danielle was credited as associate producer on it). It is a film that sparked discussion among those who saw it and to my mind also illuminates the human experience in a profound way. This is where my reaction to the Oscar list stumps me because I understand that what moves and excites me is not necessarily what will move or excite Academy voters. They are of a certain socio-economic group that wants to not only recognize good film but have the right people at their cocktail parties, so what excites them is going to be different.

I don’t want to minimize the work of those on the shortlist. When I said “uninspiring” in a previous post, it was unfair because it was about the totality of the list as opposed to a critique of the films. I think this boils down to naivete about what this award is. To think that it is democratic or fair in any way is to be disappointed. It is guided by the hands of a select few. AJ might just have convinced me over the course of the year that all one had to do was to qualify to be on equal footing, and I too had hopes that some of these outstanding works might be accepted by the establishment. But those who comprise the establishment aren’t ready, and maybe never will be. They gravitate toward a certain kind of film (big issue-oriented, traditional styling). Maybe it will take a turnover in members to change the course, and that will be more than a few years. If Richard Robbins (Operation Homecoming) were to win, he would be on the voting body and might place his vote for a film like Manda Bala, for example."

Earlier, Agnes' blog served as a forum for Shortlisted directors Tricia Regan (AUTISM: THE MUSICAL) and RIchard Robbins (OPERATION HOMECOMING), who have also posted here.

Meanwhile, Ingrid Kopp at Shooting From the Hip finds herself agreeing with the criticism:

"I was really disappointed that films like Billy The Kid, We Are Together, Manda Bala, and The King of Kong didn’t make the list. The King of Kong is one of the funniest and most skillfully constructed documentaries I have seen in a long time and I wish that films like this would get more recognition just for being great films and telling great stories."

Stepping in for the always reliable Karina Longworth (still recovering from our days in Denver no doubt) at the Spout Blog, Chris Campbell writes:

"Other favorites not shortlisted include In the Shadow of the Moon, The Devil Came on Horseback, My Kid Could Paint That … I could go on and on. I guess it’s a good thing that there are in fact so many great documentaries being made in the world that we have to close the door on some. Yet I wonder why there couldn’t be a music doc once in awhile — Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten has been well-received. And what about my favorite documentary of the year, The Life of Reilly. Honestly, it isn’t a good enough FILM to be nominated, but if An Inconvenient Truth can win the award, certainly this monologue movie could be shortlisted."

At the Salt Lake City Tribune, film critic Sean P. Means casts his vote:

"My pick for biggest snub is Manufactured Landscapes, Jennifer Baichwal's brilliant and beautifully photographed look at photographer Edward Burtynsky and his work - which casts a light on what industry is doing to the Earth. Close behind was the fascinating "Deep Water," about an amateur sailor in over his head in an around-the-world race."

I would have loved to have seen Manufactured Landscapes on the list - but I have to say that this made me laugh a little bit, cause Sean thought that my film was "self-consciously arty".   Ah, God bless 'em.

Bob Turnbull at Eternal Sunshine of the Logical Mind writes:

"I've only seen "Please Vote For Me" (which was great, but a big surprise), but certainly expected "No End In Sight" to be in the running and am not surprised at "Lake Of Fire" and "For The Bible tells Me So" (from what I've heard about them and their subject matter). But there seems to be an absence of, I don't know...something different, something to root for...something like "Audience Of One", "Helvetica", "Wordplay" or "The Bridge"."

Meanwhile, reacting not to my commentary but to the list itself, Matt Dentler congratulates UT film professor Ellen Spiro on her shortlist nod:

It's great to have someone from the booming Austin doc community recognized by the Academy, and what's even more remarkable, is how this milestone fits into my alma mater's recent history. The University of Texas Film Department Faculty received a major injection of nonfiction filmmaking talent in the 1990s. So much so, that when I attended UT film school, I felt out of place because I didn't wanna direct docs for a living (after I graduated, the school has certainly expanded its scope).

Dentler also links to an interview that local film blogger Chris Garcia did with Spiro.

COMMENTARY: A Dark Day for Documentary as the Academy Changes Course, Fights the Future

Just three months ago, as filmmakers gathered at the Arclight Theatre in Los Angeles, the coming Oscar season seemed remarkably clear cut.  There was already a front runner and a likely winner: David Sington's IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON. 

In an ordinary year, the failure of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences to name a film like SHADOW to its Shortlist would be a fairly major story.  But this year, it's but one film from a long list of omissions.  Singularly, each film is a head scratcher, perhaps even a shock.  Yet, each is also probably something that you could dismiss with a single line and a shake of the head.   "I can't believe THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK isn't on that list" or "I kind of thought they'd skip over KING OF KONG, but still...". 

But as word began to leak last week about which films had not been named to the Academy Shortlist and, later, which films had, emails and text messages and phone conversations flew with words like "sad", "disgusted", "appalled" and "abomination".  The feeling of anger and despair was not based in the exclusion of a single film but in a whole group of films, many of which pushed creative and stylistic boundaries or marked the arrival of a major new talent.

Instead of recognizing a few of these films, the Academy - following in the footsteps of the IDA just days before - ignored nearly every single one of them.  And in doing so, put the lie to a year's worth of bluster that the Academy only desired to nominate "truly theatrical films". 

In one fell swoop, the Academy's decade-long campaign to repair its scandal-plagued 1990s reputation of nominating television-styled or extremely conventional films, was reversed.  And, combined with the Academy's recent announcement that it will no longer require a theatrical rollout, made one wonder if the bad old days of Oscar are truly here again.

At this point, it's time for full disclosure.  My own film, KURT COBAIN ABOUT A SON, qualified this year under the Academy's rules.  We were not Shortlisted.  You can be excused if you can only view this commentary as a reaction to a personal rejection.  If I say to you that I thought the odds ran against us being Shortlisted, that I am well aware of the Academy's tendency not to recognize films about popular music figures - or biographical films in general, and if you still think this is a major case of sour grapes, I can accept that.

But, longtime readers of this blog can hopefully attest to something larger in what I am write today.  That here, in the midst of one of the most creatively exciting and expansive periods in nonfiction filmmaking, the Academy has made a choice between two kinds of filmmaking:

When presented with the following choice - do we prefer a competent, conventionally-styled film that maintains a even keel or do we prefer a film that swings for the fences, a film whose highs hit us in unexpected ways, even if it occasionally falters in its risk-taking - the Academy and the IDA have chosen to stand on the side of conventional and competent. 

And when faced with a second, even more important, choice - do we favor issues and message or filmmaking craft - both the Academy and the IDA have answered resoundingly.  Craft comes in dead last.

That's why there's not a single craft award at the longtime Full Frame Film Festival.  Not a single craft award given annually by the IDA.  Nothing for editing.  Nothing for cinematography.  Nothing for music.  Nothing for direction.  And when the IDA chose to bestow an one-time award for cinematography this year, who did they choose as a recipient?  The longtime DP for Ken Burns.  And when the IDA had the opportunity to give an award to an emerging filmmaker, did they tap Jennifer Venditti or Seth Gordon or Jason Kohn or Paul Taylor or the team of Sundberg and Stern?  No, they went with a guy whose resume boasted a couple of basic cable productions, a position as assistant professor of screenwriting and a debut film that has received unimpressive reviews.  But at least the film was about a serious subject.

Inside this realm, there's no room for a film like MANDA BALA (SEND A BULLET) or MY KID COULD PAINT THAT or BILLY THE KID or PROTAGONIST or KING OF KONG or WE ARE TOGETHER or DEEP WATER or MANUFACTURED LANDSCAPES or JOE STRUMMER or any number of other films that took big risks or didn't tackle a sanctioned, serious subject or made films that wanted to be more than conventional approaches to the form.

That's not to say that every film on the Shortlist is an outrage, although there are those.  Some were clearly never more than television pieces and rushed through their required theatrical release in order to get to their already scheduled date with cable TV.  At least a handful are completely deserving - led by Alex Gibney's TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE. 

But I was recently involved in looking at some of the documentaries of this year and when these films were narrowed down to a dozen or so, we had what I am convinced are truly the cream of 2007.  And not a single film, not one, made it to the Academy's Shortlist.

Not one.

That, my friends, makes today a dark day.  And not dark for the loss of single film - a GRIZZLY MAN or a CRUMB or even a HOOP DREAMS - but for the cream of the year's talent and filmmaking vision.  The Academy and the International Documentary Association have both chosen to pretend that much of the past year never happened, that the future is not here and that conventional and competent are good enough.

Who gives a shit, you may say.  And you may well be right.  Why should an artist of any stripe put focus and effort into the whims of organizations that have proven over time to be more interested in recognizing the right cause rather than the best filmmaking.  I suppose its a little like whining when the American Music Awards doesn't do the right thing.

But this year doesn't seem like an oversight.  It seems like a deliberate, purposeful choice.  After all the hand-wringing over Oscar qualifying rules that mandated a true theatrical release, the Academy first reverses completely, eliminating requirements for a rollout and then names a Shortlist littered with films made by and for and of television. 

It's as if the Academy's grand experiment to select only true theatrical releases has been called off. 

At this point, I feel it necessary to call out one of the Academy's choices - the HBO financed, backed and already broadcast WHITE LIGHT/BLACK RAIN, perhaps the most embarrassing film on the list, even if it is not the most surprising.  Everything about the film - from its standard interviews with atomic bomb victims intercut with what clearly appears to be B-Roll footage of the subjects walking around in their neighborhoods on the same day as the interview - is borrowed from the oldest trappings of the interview/B-Roll/archival documentary form.  It is filmmaking at its most conventional and competent. 

Forget the fact that it never had a theatrical bone in its body.  Can anyone, seriously anyone, make a case that WHITE LIGHT is a better film than KING OF KONG on any level?  Better than MANDA BALA?  Better than BILLY THE KID?  Better than PROTAGONIST?  Better than any of the films named above?  Better filmmaking?  More of a challenge?  More successful?  Or is it just the so-called seriousness of an atomic bomb story?  Is it just "more important"?

We have come to a crossroads in documentary once again.  Those of us who are the children of Morris and Moore and Zwigoff and Pennebaker and Maysles and Reggio have seen it happen to our elders and mentors, filmmakers whose best work was often ignored by their peer groups because it played with form or tackled less "important" topics. 

But supposedly these peer groups had learned a lesson.  They would become more open.  They would bring in new blood.  They would recognize the filmmakers they had previously shunned. 

Yet, given the chance, at the height of a new wave of documentary filmmaking, the Academy and the IDA closed their eyes, their ears, their doors.  And now, one must look to organizations like Film Independent and their Spirit Awards to somehow close the gap between craft and recognition/encouragement.

And one must look to a new body, be it the American Film Institute or some consortium of festivals or some brand new organization to stand up for, to recognize filmmaking craft, to support innovation and risk-taking.  To say damn what is important, damn the issues, we stand with artists.

And we need film critics to dig down deep within themselves and write about films from the perspective of the filmmaking, not on whether or not a subject is worthy or important.  You need to learn to write about the art of making nonfiction as much or more than you write a summary of the events that transpire in the documentary.

This year, the Academy and the IDA stand on tired notions of righteous causes.  They, along with organizations such as Full Frame, believe that nonfiction exists first and foremost to shine light on the great issues.  And while the social justice tradition has and always will (and should) exist in nonfiction, many of us believe in nonfiction filmmaking as more than a teaching tool, as something that can be entertaining, as something that can be artistic, as something that can push stylistic boundaries, as something that can reveal the human condition, as something that can be as rival narrative as a filmgoing experience. 

In that is the craft of filmmaking.

It was a bad day for documentary.  And while the anger was just and the sadness was real, we should not waste time in despair.  Because the future of nonfiction is to stand with artists. 

And the future is now.

Update - January 7, 2008: From this post, a groundswell of support within the documentary community has led to the announcement of a new award for nonfiction filmmaking. You can read the initial news, see our inaugural shortlist and read how we got from this commentary to today's announcement.

IN DEPTH: The Academy's Documentary Shortlist

Nine films dealing with war and five more dealing with social issues ranging from health care to gay rights, abortion to slavery highlight an exceptionally serious and shockingly straight-forward list of documentaries that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has chosen to highlight as the cream of the 2007 crop.  But more than the films that were selected for this year's Oscar Shortlist is the stunning list of films - both in length and in quality - that did not hear the Academy's call.

While we will cover some of the issues raised by the Academy's Shortlist in this report, I will have a special commentary on the choices made by the Academy's screening committee - as well as those made by the International Documentary Association - posted shortly.  (Update: The Commentary is now posted here.)

Here's an in-depth look at this year's films and some of the important facts behind this list of 15.

Theatrical?  What Theatrical?

Despite all the endless debate over making sure the Oscar nominees were theatrical documentaries and not television docs in disguise, the Academy's screening committee selected just 6 films which have pursued a true national theatrical release, with an additional two more set to do so in the coming months.  In part because of all of the mumblings made by the Academy, I had naively predicted that the Shortlist would include a minimum of 8 (and maximum of 12 films) that had already pursued such a release.  In fact, while presumably all 15 films have played the required 14 cities in 10 states, nearly 2/3 of the films that made the Shortlist have yet to make themselves available for review by critics nor have they reported their box office receipts.  Three of the films have already aired on television in the US.

Whattya Know? Seinfeld Was Right!

There was a bit of grumbling last year when Jerry Seinfeld described the Oscar field as "incredibly depressing".  But apparently that wasn't a concern for the screening committee, which went full throttle for films about war and social issues.  Even the more crowd pleasing films in the bunch are built around very serious subjects like autism and genocide.

THINKing Big

THINKFilm went into this year's Oscar race with a strong line-up, including four films that screened as part of the IDA's DocuWeek series.  Of the other longtime documentary distributors, only Magnolia, First Run and Weinstein/Lionsgate could manage a single film on the list.  For comparison, last year no distributor had more than one film on the Shortlist.

The four films also happen to be some of the only films on the list that took significant steps regarding style, craft and sometimes pushed the boundaries of the form.  Surprisingly - particularly considering the competition - THINK's most conventional doc, IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, was one of the biggest snubs.

But There's Plenty of Snubs to Go Around

The truly big story is the long list of acclaimed films that didn't make the list.  It starts with IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON and THE DEVIL CAME ON HORSEBACK, and it extends embarrassingly for at least another dozen.  In fact, 7 of the top 10 critically acclaimed theatrical docs of 2007 (according to our list published last week) were left off the Academy's Shortlist.  8 of the next 20 were also missing.  While two years ago everyone was shocked that GRIZZLY MAN was excluded, this year the list of missing films is so lengthy that no one exclusion stands out as most egregious.

The IDA/Academy Mind Meld

The International Documentary Association matched its tally from 2006 by helping to qualify five of the Shortlisters through its DocuWeek program, including three films from THINK.  In addition, five of the IDA's ten shortlisted films are also on the Academy's Shortlist, including three finalists: OPERATION HOMECOMING, SICKO and TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.

Sundance Maintains Dominance

Also matching its tally from last year, five of this year's films debuted in Park City.  Among the rest, Toronto came in second with three films (one from 2006 & two from 2007), Tribeca was third with two titles.  Cannes, SXSW, Adelaide and Boston Jewish each had one.

The Boys Are Back

In 2006, 2/3 of the film's nominated were directed solely by women or all-female directorial teams.  This year, just a single film - Tricia Regan's AUTISM: THE MUSICAL - fits that description.  Further, only three other films have a woman working as a co-director.

The 2007 Shortlist

Here now, in alphabetical order, are the 15 films on this year's Oscar Shortlist:

AUTISM: THE MUSICAL
Directed by Tricia Regan

Vital Statistics:
IMDb page

Festival Premiere:
Tribeca

Other Major Festivals:
Mill Valley, Newport, Vancouver

Festival Laurels:
Audience Award - Newport

Distribution:
Acquired by HBO

Qualified:
Underground theatrical release

IDA Nominee?:
No.

Sample review:
"Eloquently attesting to the transformative power of theater, "Autism: The Musical," an upbeat docu about putting on a musical for, with and by autistic children, proves as riveting as it is revelatory." - Ronnie Scheib, Variety

Notes:
One of only a few uplifting films in this year's crop, it is also the one that seems most made-for-basic-cable-reality-television.  Produced by the production company that brought you The Real World and Road Rules, the film mixes interviews of parents with footage of their autistic kids preparing to stage a musical on LA's affluent westside (home to many Academy members).  Apparently resonates with parents concerned about the growing issue of autism.  One of the few films this year to somewhat successfully utilize the trappings of the competition doc.

BODY OF WAR
Directed by Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro

Vital Statistics:
IMDb Page

Festival Premiere:
Toronto 2007

Other Major Festivals:
Hamptons, AFI

Festival Laurels:
Audience Award - Hamptons

Distribution:
Pending

Qualified:
Underground theatrical release

IDA Nominee?:
No.

Sample review:
"By documenting the difficult life of their paraplegic subject, helmers Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue succeed in personalizing some of the war's grim statistics, but the purview of their portrait feels too limited for the pic to play widely." - Alissa Simon, Variety

Notes:
Often referred to as "the Donahue movie", a distinction that ignores veteran doc helmer Ellen Spiro, BODY OF WAR is one of the only films by a high-profile maker to advance to the short list.  One of four films dealing with the Iraq war, it has galvanized audience reaction through its short festival run.  Still looking for distribution (although this may help, even in a climate that supposedly steers clear of Iraq films), it also has the benefit of a high profile musical contributor - Eddie Vedder - who could be this year's Melissa Etheridge (a rocker nominated for Best Original Song for documentary work).

FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO
Directed by Daniel Karslake

Vital Statistics:
IMDb page

Festival Premiere:
Sundance

Other Major Festivals:
Full Frame, Seattle, Outfest, Vancouver, Denver

Festival Laurels:
Human Rights Award - Full Frame
Audience Award - Seattle
Audience Award - Outfest

Distribution:
First Run

Box Office:
$229,716 as of 11/19/07

Qualified:
Theatrical release with underground qualifying run.

IDA Nominee?:
No.

Rotten Tomatoes page:
94% (32 out of 34)
100 percent cream

Metacritic score:
72

Sample review:
"A brisk, entertaining and even moving exploration of the sometimes frayed intersection where Christianity meets homosexuality... (I)t's never strident or chest-thumping, and its methodology is superbly thought out." - Stephen Hunter, Washington Post

Notes:
One of only 6 actual theatrical releases on the list, and one of the few that had both a successful festival and theatrical run.  An emotionally important and timely film about the still-looming issue of gay rights and religion.  It's a somewhat conventional mix of interviews and archival material (the film's one major bout of style - an animated sequence - is the one thing that many don't like), but it's powerful, gripping and critically acclaimed.  And one year after the double nods for JESUS CAMP and DELIVER US FROM EVIL, it could be the religious-issue film that hits with Academy members.

LAKE OF FIRE
Directed by Tony Kaye

Vital Statistics:
IMDb page

Festival Premiere:
Toronto 2006

Other Major Festivals:
Full Frame, Santa Barbara, Sarasota, Seattle, Denver

Distribution:
THINKFilm

Box Office:
$25,317 as of 11/19/07

Qualified:
Theatrical release with underground qualifying run.

IDA Nominee?:
No.

Rotten Tomatoes page:
95% (37 out of 39)
100% cream

Metacritic score:
83

Sample review:
"This is a brave, unflinching, sometimes virtually unwatchable documentary that makes such an effective case for both pro-choice and pro-life that it is impossible to determine which side the filmmaker, Tony Kaye, stands on.." - Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

Notes:
Beloved by critics, somewhat less so by audiences (in part due to its 2 1/2 hour running time), LAKE OF FIRE was the sole THINKFilm title not to be chosen for DocuWeek this summer.  With all the talk and praise the film has received, some have been shocked by the film's poor performance at the box office.  Surprisingly not mentioned in discussion of the film is the fact that the vast majority of the action takes place during the abortion clinic bombings of the 1990s.  Like FOR THE BIBLE, the film taps into a religious examination that seemed to resonate with the Academy last year.  Just wondering, do they know Tony Kaye's reputation for controversy?

NANKING
Directed by Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman

Vital Statistics:
IMDb page

Festival Premiere:
Sundance

Other Major Festivals:
Tribeca, Vancouver, Denver

Festival Laurels:
Best Editing - Sundance

Distribution:
THINKFilm

Qualified:
DocuWeek premiere and multi-city rollout.  DocuWeek Director Q&A can be found here.

IDA Nominee?:
Y