Home Forums Movies New Doc Branch rules wouldn't have allowed "O.J." to win

New Doc Branch rules wouldn't have allowed "O.J." to win

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
Created
7 months ago
Last Reply
7 months ago
12
replies
1051
views
6
users
4
3
2
  • GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060047

    Saw this on Hollywood Elsewhere and I’m pretty disappointed. O.J.: Made in America’s win this year seemed to mean that the Academy had finally opened their doors to what the definition of “film” is now — and this is how they would adapt to new times, and survive. But no. Apparently they took the conservative route (one that many youngsters online frustratingly seem to adopt too), and that means that the new Netflix doc “Five Came Back” (which is available in three hour-long episodes) has probably no chance of a nomination also.

    “The Academy’s Board of Governors approved Oscars® rules and campaign regulations for the 90th Academy Awards® at their most recent Board meeting on Tuesday, 3.28” — 10 days ago. The story continues: “In the Documentary categories, multi-part or limited series are not eligible for awards consideration. The Documentary Branch Executive Committee will resolve all questions of eligibility and rules.”

    http://moviecitynews.com/2017/04/academy-sets-new-rules-for-oscar-90/%5B/quote%5D

    My hunch is that if you’re a good friend of the ones in charge, they will deem you eligible. If not — better luck next time, Mark Harris!

    Reply
    M
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060364

    Single sitting features should be the primary focus. Since ninety-eight percent of what the Academy sees won’t be broken up elsewhere in installments, but presented for a single sitting. Seems fair. And if they have to eventually readjust the rules they’ll do so.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Sagand
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 13th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060378

    The only rule change that was needed is that if you enter the Oscars you are ineligible for the Emmys and if you enter the Emmys you are ineligible for the Oscars. Let the film makers decide which they feel they belong to.

    ReplyCopy URL
    manakamana
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060433

    If it were something like Shoah, I think that would have been eligible and I would have no problem with it competing. But I’m sorry, I do not buy the idea that OJ was produced with anything other than television in mind — I think that’s fair because that is it’s own distinctive medium. It’s not a bad thing, but if OJ was meant to be more cinematic than televisual in how its presented and made, it does not justify that kind of running time which makes more sense to consume episodically.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060516

    but if OJ was meant to be more cinematic than televisual in how its presented and made, it does not justify that kind of running time which makes more sense to consume episodically.

    That’s a pretty strange statement to make after you brought up Shoah two sentences earlier

    ReplyCopy URL
    manakamana
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060542

    but if OJ was meant to be more cinematic than televisual in how its presented and made, it does not justify that kind of running time which makes more sense to consume episodically.

    That’s a pretty strange statement to make after you brought up Shoah two sentences earlier

    Is it? I understand Shoah justifying its length as cinema in a way that I don’t see OJ having done.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060595

    Is it? I understand Shoah justifying its length as cinema in a way that I don’t see OJ having done.

    The fact the OJ structure doesn’t work in the “chapters” ESPN created for it, but is near-perfect as a feature film says it all to me. What both Shoah and OJ do is expand the conservative definition of film, the same way Cahiers du Cinema did when they name that Bruno Dumont “miniseries” as the year’s best FILM. A film is not what people here seem to think; it’s not defined by sittings — ask Lav Diaz how he wants his films to be seen; ask the ghost of Bergman how he intended Fanny and Alexander (which won four Oscars) to work. Furthermore, the issue here is not OJ or Shoah, but how the Academy is shutting down a way to reach out to new forms; rather, a committee will decide! This is old and stinks. It’s not the future.

    The only rule change that was needed is that if you enter the Oscars you are ineligible for the Emmys and if you enter the Emmys you are ineligible for the Oscars. Let the film makers decide which they feel they belong to.

    I have a problem with this because many documentaries that get considered for American awards are tied to HBO, PBS, Netflix, ESPN, Amazon, A&E etc, and that’s how/why they got made in the first place. I don’t think Behind the Candelabra or Fahrenheit 9/11 are less of a film because they went to tv first. It’s ultimately ridiculous this idea that a channel has to book a small theatre to show a doc for a week just to qualify for the Oscars. IF (and a big if for me) they have to commit to a qualifying rule, I think the one for the shorts is fair: play at a festival. The Academy is setting up for long term irrelevance if they insist that the films invited to the party are these precious things shows at arthouse theatres.

    ReplyCopy URL
    M
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060606

    Movies that aim to be an endurance exercise based on length are not a greater artistic achievement. And documentaries hardly count as cinema to most people in the movie business. Hence them having their own category simply to be recognized in a given year — where surely in the history of critically favored docs had no shot at a Best Picture nod despite being eligible.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060608

    Movies that aim to be an endurance exercise based on length are not a greater artistic achievement.

    I never said that.

    And documentaries hardly count as cinema to most people in the movie business.

    I don’t think anyone who thinks of movies as business care to “count as cinema” anything

    ReplyCopy URL
    eastwest
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 6th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060804

    Good. As much as I loved O.J. it had no business competing for an Oscar. It’s a doc that was made for television, so it should be honored for TV accolades. These qualifying Oscar releases are problematic. It’s like pick a lane.

    ReplyCopy URL
    manakamana
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060856

    Is it? I understand Shoah justifying its length as cinema in a way that I don’t see OJ having done.

    The fact the OJ structure doesn’t work in the “chapters” ESPN created for it, but is near-perfect as a feature film says it all to me. What both Shoah and OJ do is expand the conservative definition of film, the same way Cahiers du Cinema did when they name that Bruno Dumont “miniseries” as the year’s best FILM. A film is not what people here seem to think; it’s not defined by sittings — ask Lav Diaz how he wants his films to be seen; ask the ghost of Bergman how he intended Fanny and Alexander (which won four Oscars) to work. Furthermore, the issue here is not OJ or Shoah, but how the Academy is shutting down a way to reach out to new forms; rather, a committee will decide! This is old and stinks. It’s not the future.

    Bergman readjusted and had his films edited respectively for cinematic and televisual consumption, no?

    To me it just comes down to how the films were conceived and produced. Perhaps OJ was imagined as one film but it ended up being a TV mini-series. Should Ken Burns’s upcoming 18-hour documentary on the Vietnam War be considered as a film for Oscar consideration? I mean, they have to set some guidelines.

    ReplyCopy URL
    GusCruz
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 26th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202060943

    Bergman readjusted and had his films edited respectively for cinematic and televisual consumption, no?

    He had cuts, but preserved the integrity of the material.

    To me it just comes down to how the films were conceived and produced. Perhaps OJ was imagined as one film but it ended up being a TV mini-series.

    Who says it can’t be both, as Mike D’Angelo says? That’s ultimately the point I’m trying to make — and you seem stuck in a definition of “film” that I simply cannot embrace. Do you think Claude Lanzmann would agree with these new Academy rules? And who would you trust to define film?

    Should Ken Burns’s upcoming 18-hour documentary on the Vietnam War be considered as a film for Oscar consideration?

    http://www.pbs.org/about/blogs/news/the-vietnam-war-a-new-film-by-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-to-air-fall-2017-on-pbs/ PBS already says it’s a film, and I don’t see why it can’t be.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Alex Meyer
    Participant
    Joined:
    Mar 28th, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1202063672

    It’s a good thing O.J.: Made In America won while it still had the chance.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
Reply To: New Doc Branch rules wouldn't have allowed "O.J." to win

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Andrew D - Oct 23, 2017
Movies
Jeffrey... - Oct 23, 2017
Movies