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.

Comments

[stephen hopes]

I totally agree with your assessment of the doc feature shortlist. Some incredible films missed out and some very boring cut and paste big issue films included. Please keep up the insightful articles, even hough, like a lot of filmmakers, you are probably feeling very disappointed by the whole rotten system. A dark day indeed.

[david]

I don't have a lot more to add . . . You've said everything worth saying. And while I'm usually able to enjoy the Oscars but not care too much about them, there's no denying that this is THE most visible platform for nonfiction films and a nomination can bring an otherwise unheralded film into dozens (if not hundreds) of theaters.

So, yes, a disappointing day for those who love the craft, the creativity, the storytelling and the cinematography of modern nonfiction films. That the Academy has little creativity of its own was already known - that they could miss so many easy marks is just pathetic.

Here's to burying the dinosaurs and dancing on their graves. . .

David Wilson
True/False Film Fest

p.s. There ARE great films on that list and to those directors, I offer my congratulations. This disappointment is not directed at any film or filmmaker - it's the bigger picture that frustrates me.

[Sean Farnel]

Thanks as always for all this AJ. Great information, though as somebody who watches hundreds of docs every year, I don't think this list is any more questionable than usual. Too bad it sullies deserving inclusions like NO END IN SIGHT (my pick from this group). Hopefully the final five includes the best of this suspect shortlist. Beyond the notable exclusions you mention, its a really a shame that this list is so thin on non-American productions.

[Toby Leonard]

Must be exceptionally frustrating in a year where many filmmakers with quality films like many of those you mention were forced to four-wall theaters at the last minute on non-preferable days and certainly non-preferable showtimes just to jump through the rings for something as deceptively simple as "qualification". Being that those rules have also been changed for next year (NY/LA only), what will that say for the rush of documentary filmmakers fighting over NY screen space which is already severely limited? Just a thought. Great post AJ

Toby Leonard
Belcourt Theatre
Nashville

[Karsten]

Thank you for writing so exceptionally engaged and emotionally involved in favor of the nonfiction-filmmaking craft. And at the same time you put forward an admirable rationality about this whole problem (well put in the above comment, david, about it being an issue about the bigger picture, not singular films.. I agree).

Being a foreigner I also miss more non-American films, but who are we kidding? I never expected much, so the inclusion of "Vote for me" was a great suprise - I loved that film (its very verité, yet also cinematic I think.).

[VHS]

I don't care if a doc was made for TV. Mulholland Drive and Elephant were made for TV and they're masterpieces. A risk film with an weird editing doesn't mean a good film as much conventional editing doesn't mean a conventional film. This is like music, sometimes I prefer traditional music like Marianne Faithful to music made for teenager like Cobain's music.
I know AMPAS doesn't have a history of good choices but your explanations didn't convinced me like that one with HBO prejudice.

[Robert Wills]

I totally agree with VHS. You are talking apples and oranges. Sometimes I like apples. Sometimes an orange hits the spot. Sometimes I might prefer the noble failure with high expectations. At other times the obvious success that squarely hit an easier target.

[richarderobbins]

craft craft craft. I'm all for craft. I'd just like people to actually seem my film - which many have suggested is truly groundbreaking in terms of craft, BEFORE making these kinds of sweeping generalizations.

thanks

Richard Robbins
director, Operation Homecoming

[bryan stamp]

the only thing "non-American" about PLEASE VOTE FOR ME is the filmmaker and the subject; i realize those are 2 very significant variables, but considering the issue, I do not think this film is "non-American.” in fact, it's deliberately made easy to digest for Americans by ignoring the broader implications of experimetning with Democracy. The film is very entertaining, but light on socio-political and cultural commentary, and hardly enlightening or illuminating. Perfect for an American audience.

[David]

Finally! Someone has the guts to say it, especially pointing out Full Frame. That's why I will never submit my films to that festival, ever. Thanks, AJ. You've said what a lot of doc filmmakers have been discussing behind closed doors.

[Dandig]

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. I respect the hard work of each one of the filmmakers short-listed here, some more than others; but it seems the Academy chooses to downplay the very first definition of documentary, put forth by one John Grierson: "documentary is the artistic representation of actuality", rather than just a high school film strip waiting to happen.

[Junior]

I admit, your argument eventually swayed me away from my "sour grapes" first assumption of your post :)

It's a fact of life that AMPAS will always be about five years behind what's really relevant and "happening" in modern filmmaking. This happens all the time in every voting branch, even the short films: last year, Don Hertzfeldt's animated masterpiece "Everything will be ok", the most creative, envelope-pushing jaw-dropping best short film I've ever seen, failed to get nominated after making the shortlist. And the trash they nominated instead... don't get me started! And of course "Everything" then went on to win Sundance and a bazillion other awards. There's no accounting for taste.

But I also don't believe that there is a grand CONSPIRACY in the Academy against all the gutsier movies out there. The Academy is just old, and slow on the uptake. They'll catch up.

The lesson here is: Don't make movies for awards, or money, or for accolades. Only make movies for your audience - they're what's most important!

[Christopher]

thx, AJ, for your very well written, thoughtful (and dare i say "angry" post). i agree with you on most points, and couldn't help but think that some of the docs must have been pushed forward by some very surreptitious and powerful forces. how else to explain the inclusion of RAPE OF EUROPA? the one thing that doesn't seem to make sense is the exclusion of IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, a seemingly sure-fire hit with the older AMPAS crowd. go figure.

[AJ Schnack]

Just a quick response to Richard Robbin's comment. I have seen OPERATION HOMECOMING and I am impressed by the risks that he took and the stylistic choices he made in the creation of that film.

I didn't say anything negative about Richard's film but I can understand his desire that he not be lumped with other efforts that haven't made similar attempts.

[Roger]

While I agree with AJ's general observations about AMPAS' tendencies, I do think that we need to be careful about lumping films into these 2 categories: A) conventional, issue-oriented works and B) well-crafted, artistic works. For example, "White Light/Black Rain" may look rather conventional on the surface, but I found it to be an extremely well-crafted film full of artistic decisions that enabled the filmmaker to tell the story of A-bomb survivors in a compelling and moving manner, all while avoiding the typical trappings of a didactic "message" film. Was it stylistically groundbreaking? No. But I thought it was an exemplary treatment of a story that, up til now, has only been dealt with in a preachy manner. The form was perfectly suited to telling this story the way it needed to be told. And for that, I thought it was an extremely successful film.

[jeffmcm]

I worked on one of the 15 shortlisted movies and my honest appraisal would be that it's thoroughly mediocre.