Documentaries, Oscar, and Michael Moore : Lawyers, Guns & Money

This will probably hurt so many independent and low budget documentaries. Also, it sounds like a media lobby to enforce the relevance of the LA Times and the New York Times. But then again, the Academy is also struggling for relevance in a world where “word of mouth” is a lot more meaningful than a mainstream endorsement.

(via redlightpolitics)

That is so filled with bullshit, you can smell the white elite supremacy from like half a world away.

(via jhameia)

the FUCK

(via isabelthespy)

All of the Oscars is a dumb festival of politicking and inconsistency, but the Best Documentary Feature Oscar has long been one of the worst at being completely dishonest with its rules. Grizzly Man didn’t get nominated because it’s supposedly made up entirely of archival footage (even though it isn’t). The Thin Blue Line and Touching the Void didn’t get nominated, supposedly because they include reenactments. Yet the fact that March of the Penguins uses nature footage to construct a fictionalized narrative didn’t stop it from winning the Oscar (because penguins are cuter than death row inmates, I guess). 2011 has been an exceptional year for documentaries - Cave of Forgotten Dreams! Into the Abyss! Tabloid! The Arbor! The Interrupters! Senna! Being Elmo! El Sicario: Room 164! - yet none of those got shortlisted. But you know what does? Battle for Brooklyn, a simplistic harangue against gentrification that is not particularly well-made, inventive or relevant to 99.99% of the population. It’s not just the Documentary Feature category for that matter - I’m still irked that Strangers No More won Documentary Short Subject last year, seemingly for no other reason than because it was the only feel-good nominee. So basically, whatever the Academy decides to change regarding its documentary criteria hardly matters when its criteria are more or less BS to begin with.