By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Final Oscar Short List

How short is a list of 15 films amongst 82 eligibles?
That would make the Best Picture shortlist (based on last year’s 269 eligible entries) at 49. Are there really 49 B.P. eligible films that you think are worth of consideration?
The one good thing is that this list will give, I hope, lots of people opportunities to see all of these docs on a big screens. And that is never a bad thing.
The Academy Short List:
“After Innocence”
“The Boys of Baraka”
“Darwin’s Nightmare”
“The Devil and Daniel Johnston”
“Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”
“Favela Rising”
“Mad Hot Ballroom”
“March of the Penguins”
“Murderball”
“Occupation: Dreamland”
“On Native Soil: The Documentary of the 9/11 Commission Report”
“Rize”
“Street Fight”
“39 Pounds of Love”
“Unknown White Male”
My List Of The Missing (a list I hope you will all contribute to):
The Aristocrats
Ballets Russes
Gunner Palace
Grizzly Man
Protocols Of Zion
Reel Paradise
Touch The Sound
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill
IDA Nominees That Made It:
The Boys of Baraka
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Favela Rising
Mad Hot Ballroom
Murderball
Street Fight
DocWeek Films That Made It:
Darwin’s Nightmare
Occupation: Dreamland
39 Pounds Of Love
More on the doc race from late September.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Responses to “The Final Oscar Short List”

  1. J says:

    Harrumph. Didn’t even think Grizzly Man was Herzog’s best doc this year. That would be White Diamond…
    …which also wasn’t shortlisted.

  2. What about “Inside Deep Throat”?

  3. Joe Leydon says:

    Where can I get a list of all 80-odd documentaries that were eligible for nomination?

  4. jeffmcm says:

    I’m assuming that’s a frame from one of the doc picks on the Hot Button front page? With the African guys in surgical gear? What movie is that?

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