So I just fell into this…

Pete Hammond ran a story on Friday, “OSCAR: Brazil’s Foreign Language Film Entry Causes Election Eve Controversy” that I hadn’t really paid any attention. However, Cinema em Cena editor and occasional MCN contributor Pablo Villaca was paying attention. (All politics are local.) And after tweeting something, he sent an extended lists of both subjective and objective errors in Pete’s piece.

Of course, the only reason why Pete would have any news to write about the the selection from Brazil would be someone in L.A. telling him/Deadline that there was a controversy. I have never known Pete to offer himself up as an expert on the film industry of other countries. He is certainly well versed in the reindeer games in this town. I don’t see this as a maliciously intended piece from Pete’s side of it, but it probably should have been spiked for lack of reporting.

At best, it seems to be a tempest in a teapot, At worst, it sounds like someone with a clear agenda of promoting one film and damaging another… and good guys like Pete certainly shouldn’t (and generally do not) put themselves in the role of promoting bad intentions, no matter where they are filing this season.

And for the record, Reuters bit on the controversy story as well, though the piece was much less harsh and included some of the detail that Villaca noted in his e-mail.

In any case, Pablo added in a second note that “the strategy behind (selecting) “Lula’s choice is obvious and it was stated by the committee: they hope the president’s international profile will attract attention to the film and raise its chances of being nominated. It’s as simple as that.” And outside of Oscar foreign language powerhouses like France, Spain, Italy, Israel, and Canada, that kind of angling is often behind the choices that are made.

So, here is what Pablo sent… make of it what you will…

(Hammond’s text in italics)

“(Lula) was chosen as Brazil’s official entry for the Academy Award’s Best Foreign Language Film race. Problem is, the selection came just 10 days before this Sunday’s Presidential election. Lula is not running again even though he enjoys a popularity rating of 75%, but his handpicked successor, Dilma Rousseff, is.”

First factual mistake: there are two different statistics regarding Lula. His government is approved by 77% of the population, but the president’s PERSONAL approval (or “popularity”, as Hammond puts it) is way bigger than he said: 85% – the biggest ever for a Brazilian president.

Another problem with Hammond’s reporting is that he doesn’t seem to realize that the fact the selection of “Lula” was announced 10 days before the election was something pre-scheduled by months. Every single year, this is the time the committee formed by the Ministry of Culture announces their selection – it just so happened that in 2010 we’re also having the election.

“Some factions are crying foul, saying the film was only chosen to boost Lula’s interests and help his protegé Rousseff’s by association”

This is his biggest mistake. This year’s election is one of the most dirty campaigns I’ve ever seen in Brazil. Lula’s opponent, José Serra, is known for his scare tactics during the elections and he’s being vastly supported by the Old Media. (I’ve nicknamed FOLHA, the major Brazilian newspaper, FOXlha.) So, every chance they had of slamming Lula and Dilma, they took. Every. Single. One.

But you know what? “Lula’s” selection as an Oscar hopeful wasn’t one of them. And you know why? Because the committee who chose the film was formed by people who are above suspicion, including Leon Cakoff, who is the head of Sao Paulo International Film Festival (the major Brazilian movie event) AND (get this) Cássio Starling, who WORKS for Foxlha (ops, sorry. Folha).

Although we’re not friends, I’ve known Cassio professionally and he’s a very good film critic and a good guy — and although I don’t think he condones Foxlha’s actions during this campaign, the fact remains that he works for them — so that alone stopped the Old Media and the opposition of slamming the choice as a political one.

And I repeat: this has been one of the dirties campaigns I’ve seen and even so Lula’s choice barely got any mentions on that context. I don’t know where Hammond got his report, but he’s just plain wrong.

“The argument against anointing the film, Lula, o Filho do Brasil (Lula, The Son Of Brazil) is given further credence because it was widely considered a commercial and critical flop when it opened earlier this year.”

Yet another mistake. Yes, the film was not a success. Actually, it disappointed its producers, who (unrealistically) had predicted a HUGE commercial success based on Lula’s popularity. But a “flop?” No way. And it wasn’t a “critical flop” either. It got mixed reviews – and deservedly so.

“Yet it beat 22 other candidates — while Rousseff has erased a one-time 10 point deficit in the polls and taken a new commanding 20 point lead heading into Sunday’s vote.”

Just to clarify:  Dilma had already surpassed José Serra by a huge margin waaay before “Lula” was announced as Brazil’s pick. There’s no link between the two facts.

“Many critics think Brazil’s selection should have been Wagner de Assis’ Nosso Lar (Our Home), based on a popular book written by the leader of Brazil’s spiritualism movement. That pic was reportedly the country’s most expensive home-grown production ever at about $11 million and has won high praise and big box office since its release a month ago.”

I hope that by “many critics” he doesn’t mean “film critics”, because “Nosso Lar”, although a commercial hit (every time we make a film that involves religion, it’s a hit), was panned by critics way  more than “Lula.” And, again, deservedly so. So I really don’t know how Hammond could say it has “won high praise”, because that’s just a plain lie. The film is mediocre at best and Brazilian film critics pointed that out consistently.

“But officials for Brazil’s government bodies that instead made the selection of the prez biopic  — The Culture Ministry, Brazilian Film Academy, and National Film Agency — deny politics played any part. Lula, o Filho de Brasil certainly is pedigreed. It is directed by Fábio Barreto, the youngest son of the well-known family of Brazilian film producers in Brazil, and covers the President’s life from his birth in 1945 to his emergence as a labor leader in the 1980s.”

Hammond neglects to inform that Fábio Barreto got into an accident while doing the press rounds for “Lula” and has been in a coma since January. And he probably won’t come out of it. I think that’s relevant, don’t you?

“We voted for the film we thought was best, one that honors Brazilian cinema and has an actress like Gloria Pires,” Brazilian Film Academy President Roberto Faria told Thaindian News. The vote was said to be unanimous but Nosso Lar producer Iafa Britz throws water on that in comments he made in Vega. “I’ve never seen anything unanimous in my life. I can’t think of a single example of unanimity, but I prefer to keep quiet and accept [the decision].”

First of all, it’s “Veja”, not “Vega”. And it fits that Veja printed Iafa Britz’s single protest, because the weekly magazine has been the Foxest of all the Fox-like publications during this campaign. Actually, Veja was the only one who tried to create a little controversy regarding the choice of “Lula”, but it gave up after just one article because it realized it wasn’t going to play.

Now… Britz’s extremely impolite, sore-loser comment was also extremely unfair. Like I said before, the committee was not formed by a group of nobodies. It’s a different group every year and this year it had some of the most respected names in our industry and our Academy, including Jean Claude Bernadet, who is revered as a film theorist. There’s absolutely no way that people like Bernadet and Cakoff would sit in silence if Roberto Faria was lying about the vote being “unanimous.”  No way at all. And they would no lack media space for their protests, believe me.

So Britz should follow his own advice and really keep quiet. His film was mediocre at best and he should be happy it was a commercial hit. Nobody would ever consider it as an Oscar hopeful.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•