(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)

Eric - 2008-02-29 14:03:55
It was on my ten list, and my favorite doc of the year, but it wasn't even submitted to the Academy for consideration, which is why it didn't get a nod. Which is ridiculous. . .
-------------------------------
Paula - 2008-02-29 14:25:12
Interesting.
-------------------------------
grigorss - 2008-02-29 15:32:31
The Documentary nominating board at the Academy has a very narrow definition of what they regard as a proper "documentary"; they like doc.s with explicitly political topics and not too much in the way of cinematic inventiveness -- they don't like recre's or "staged" events -- so King of Kong was most likely deliberately left out of the loop from the git-go. Note that Errol Morris -- very possibly America's finest, and certainly most critically well-regarded documentary filmmaker -- was not even nominated (!!!) for an Academy Award until he won for The Fog of War in 2004; a documentary with a decidedly political slant.
-------------------------------
Eric - 2008-02-29 18:59:23
I was equally mad when Grizzly Man was given the shaft back in 2005.
-------------------------------
grigorss - 2008-03-01 03:48:13
RE: I was equally mad when Grizzly Man was given the shaft back in 2005

A perfect example -- Herzog's made almost as many docs as narrative features -- but they're mostly character studies, not political diatribes. Also, the Producers of Grizzly Man are definitely not part of the Academy "in-crowd"; another reason it was snubbed.
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland