MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Academy Doc Short List

Update 11:30pm – Variety reports that Imaginary Witness: Hollywood & The Holocaust and Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession have NOT made the cut, along with Guerilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst and our earlier reported Metallica doc.

That leaves three titles left (on our list… six on Variety’s) to be released tomorrow by the Academy… we hope… they really drag behind on docs…

Tuesday – 7pm
The Academy always makes this process difficult for those of us who love docs, but the nine of twelve total on the "short list" that are 100% confirmed are:

Born Into Brothels
Bright Leaves
Home of The Brave
In The Realms Of The Unreal
Riding Giants
Super Size Me
Tell Them Who You Are
Touching The Void
Twist of Faith
(which may actually be In Good Conscience: Sister Jeannine Gramick’s Journey of Faith)

Still awaiting confirmation are:

Imaginary Witness: Hollywood & The Holocaust
Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession

That still leaves one outstanding title to be found… It will not be Metallica: Some Kind Of Monster.

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Responses to “The Academy Doc Short List”

  1. graig says:

    A question…what about Tarnation? Did the notoriously persnickity documentary branch decide it was ineligible?

  2. bicycle bob says:

    wow what a list
    bring home da oscar

  3. Sandy says:

    Some Kind of Monster was one of the best docs this year, what a shame!

  4. NathanielR says:

    Judging on TORONTO reaction I’m guessing TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE is a sure thing to land in the final five. Strong emtional reaction plus it’s got the whole ‘about the movies’ angle to work with.

  5. ryan werner says:

    TARNATION was eligible but did not make the cut. we are very happy that our film IN THE REALMS OF THE UNREAL by Academy Award winner Jessica Yu did make the list. We hope TARNATION will continue to be recongized by other Awards groups this season.

  6. J. says:

    What about the vastly entertaining Broadway: the Golden Age? Is it not depressing enough for the nominating branch?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon