MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Doc Shortlist

A very strong list… heavy on good deeds with a few titles about show biz thrown in for entertainment value.
Of course, the first thing many of us wonder about is who got left out… and so… docs that have been released, had some real heat, and did not make the cut…
Capitalism: A Love Story
Anvil: The Story of Anvil
The September Issue
Tyson
It Might Get Loud
We Live in Public
Crude
The Yes Men Fix the World
Collapse

It is possible that a couple of these were not qualified or were disqualified. (Anvil may have been last year’s qualifier) But after We Live In Public went through the process of actually getting dispensation from The Academy for a webmaster webcast, we know that political positioning does not always take in this very odd system of nomination.
Every Little Step, The Cove, and Valentino: The Last Emperor would have to be considered the frontrunners now, though I would be keeping an eye out for Garbage Dreams, and The Beaches of Agnes coming up from behind.
Of course, the way things work at The Academy, any number of those 5 titles could miss the final nominations list.
(You can meet the filmmaker behind Garbage Dreams in this DP/30… and the Every Little Step guys are here…)
ADD 4:20p – It seems there is going to be a lot of whining, screaming, and general complaining about this list. I would guess that less than 10% of the whiners have seen all the movies and that less than 20% have seen 10 of the 15.
That said, much as I personally care for some of the left out titles, the only one that strikes me as truly offensive in its absence is Tyson, a movie that does such a mighty job of getting through that history and a truly unique interview with the man, showing skills far more complex than the split-screen shenanigans. It is worthy in the way Errol Morris’ The Fog of War was.
But there is not a single title on that list that urges me to wonder how “that piece of crap” made the list. Some are better than others, but even on the weaker ones, it is pretty clear why a committee would find them so compelling.
And frankly, the guts to leave Michael Moore off the list for the first time since they idiotically snubbed Roger & Me, aside from the dubious removal of Fahrenheit 9/11 from consideration, is kinda a winning notion. He made a weak movie. Happens. And he didn’t get a free pass for being America’s best-loved doc filmmaking character. He will recover. He’s a very smart and capable man.
The September Issue was very overrated, a shadow of the Valentino doc. I’m not 100% sure Collapse was qualified, but it is also a chat doc based on an little known guy. Loud & Yes Men are not really Academy speed. Crude is- can’t believe I am actually typing this – last year’s issue. And Public might have been too public for the committee, perhaps hurt politically by the special treatment it was given. Or maybe they just didn’t like it.
In any case, not as shocking a list as I think some are saying. Not the greatest year ever for docs. The system is still a bit screwy. But overall… pretty good.

Be Sociable, Share!

12 Responses to “The Doc Shortlist”

  1. EthanG says:

    No “Outrage.” =/
    You wouldn’t consider “Food Inc.” one of the frontrunners?

  2. Chucky in Jersey says:

    “Food, Inc.” is the agricultural version of “An Inconvenient Truth”. The only difference is it’s not being financed with cash collected by Al Gore at the Buddhist temple.

  3. EthanG says:

    Wow I didn’t know Food Inc was a 2 hour powerpoint hosted by a famous figure!!!
    I guess that means “Sicko” isthe Inconvenient Truth of healthcare, and IOUSA the “Inconvenient Truth” of debt. Come to think of it, “The Cove” is The Invonvient truth of fishing! Great analysis as usual Chucky!!!=)
    And if it were the “Inconvienient Truth” of Food, wouldn’t that make it a front-runner?

  4. I’m just glad there’s NO docs about non-political figures, NONE that are fun and NONE that don’t have you leave the theater being enlightened or feeling anything but concern, fright or more conscious of the world around you. Yay for docs! They’re serious stuff. Always. That is, if you want to be awarded for one.

  5. Tam says:

    I’m surprised “We Live in Public” didn’t make the cut, especially given its reception at Sundance and the mostly positive notices it’s gotten in industry media.
    On the other hand, I thought “Tyson” never really had a shot, because it’s sometimes difficult for people to separate a documentary from its subject. The audience’s perception of Tyson the man likely had a negative impact on the Oscar hopes of “Tyson” the film.
    Still, this is a good shortlist. I think “The Cove” will win, but I’m rooting for “The Beaches of Agnes”.

  6. jeffmcm says:

    I agree that Tyson never really had much of a chance, but that’s the one I feel most deserved it as well – it’s simply a richer and more complex film than most of the others.
    Chucky, it’s not clear from your post who you consider to be the most offensive: Al Gore, Buddhists, or environmentalists. A little more explanation and a little less frothing maybe?

  7. chris says:

    I’ve only seen eight of them, and that does not include “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsburg and the Pentagon Papers.” But if that movie is any good at all, it sure sounds like a doc Oscar nominee.
    (And it sucks that Berlinger wasn’t even nominated in previous years for the brilliant “Brother’s Keeper,” “Paradise Lost” OR “Metallica, Some Kind of Monster,” but, although I like “Crude,” it’s just not in the league of those films. Me, I’m rooting for the lovely, witty “Beaches of Agnes.”)

  8. movieman says:

    Overall a generally respectable slate of films.
    “Food, Inc.” and “The Cove” seem to have the do-gooder edge (always a factor when it comes to Academy voting).
    I’m partial to “The Beaches of Agnes” and “Every Little Step” myself.
    The latter is, admittedly, a sentimental favorite, but it’s as well-made–and yes, entertaining–a doc as any I’ve seen in recent years.

  9. Chucky in Jersey says:

    I saw “Food, Inc.” Manipulative and pandering just like Al Gore and his cronies. Easily the worst movie of the year.
    For those like jeffmcm who have a short attention span I direct your attention to what Slick Willie’s veep really did.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, thanks for indirectly answering the question – you hate Al Gore. (Hatred of Buddhists and/or environmentalists remains undetermined.)

  11. Discman says:

    Does “Burma VJ” have a shot? Saw it recently and was deeply moved.

  12. Josh says:

    I agree with you. I would be watching out for Garbage Dreams, it is an amazing film and I am should make the top 5 count. I can’t say the same about the Beaches of Agnes, though. I wasn’t feeling that one.

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