Statue of limitations

Our panel of pop culture parsers has plenty to say about the recently announced Oscar nominations, including all the ways the Academy continues to get it wrong

Matt Cauthron: The big headline from the Oscar nominations was a perceived snubbing of the Martin Luther King Jr. biopic “Selma”—most notably that, despite its Best Picture nod, director Ava DuVernay and actor David Oyelowo were shut out in the directing and acting categories, respectively. The internet was immediately awash in think pieces and social media commentary about the racial implications of those snubs, though many pundits noted that the timing of the film’s release, problems getting screeners to voters and other boring industry machinations were partly to blame for its lack of support. 

Not for a moment do I dismiss that issues of race and gender impact this process, or that the Academy is too white, too old and quite often just plain out of touch. But what I really want to ask is this: Setting aside real-life issues and judging strictly by what’s on screen, did “Selma” deserve more than it got? If DuVernay and Oyelowo should be in, who should be out in their respective categories?

Joshua Kline: I only recently saw “Selma,” well after the Oklahoma Film Critic Circle’s voting deadline, so I wasn’t able to include it in my own top ten.Like many other critics and Guild members, I never received a screener. I think there’s merit to the idea that an anemic awards campaign and the lack of screeners (combined with not releasing wide until after most voting deadlines) really handicapped the movie’s chances. Not Hollywood’s innate racism.

But “Selma” is one of the year’s best and it’s a shame that for whatever reason the Academy didn’t find room to recognize its director and lead actor.

MC: I couldn’t agree more, particularly in the case of David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King. In so many cases when an actor is charged with portraying a modern historical icon—a figure whose voice and mannerisms are so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness—the tendency to veer into cartoonish impersonation seems all but impossible to avoid. But Oyelowo never goes there. He evokes King through sheer charisma, whether in casual moments with his inner circle, pointed arguments in the oval office, rousing speeches from a pulpit, or calm defiance in a public standoff teetering on the brink of violence. His quiet dignity and assured gravitas are palpable. You believe this man led a revolution. 

Throw in the degree of difficulty that he’s a Brit doing a pitch-perfect southern American accent (something for which non-Americans get far too little credit, compared to how much credit Americans get when it’s the other way around). To me, Oyelowo doesn’t just deserve a nomination, he deserves that trophy.

But, back to my question—if “Selma” had gotten the love it deserves, what gets chopped to make room?

JK: I would bump “The Imitation Game” director Morten Tyldum for Ava DuVernay and “American Sniper” nominee Bradley Cooper for David Oyelowo. “The Imitation Game” is just fine in that soft, “King’s Speech” sort of way, but Tyldum has no business sitting next to those other four directors. Cooper was phenomenal as the fictionalized, whitewashed version of Chris Kyle, but I have major issues with “American Sniper” and it’s six nominations. The Academy continues to have a hard-on for Clint Eastwood, and I just don’t get it. It’s a mediocre movie from a grumpy old man who so clearly stopped giving a shit years ago. Add that to the fact he’s celebrating the life of a man who—whatever his redeeming qualities—loved killing brown people, lied in his memoir and bragged about sniping American citizens during Katrina. The movie refuses to engage with the more troubling aspects of Kyle’s life, and it just doesn’t sit well with me. But, politics aside, the movie sucks and the Academy sucks for nominating it. Everyone sucks. The end.

Joe O’Shansky: Never forget that the Academy loved “The Hurt Locker.” That’s something I still don’t understand, though I am glad it resulted in the first Oscar awarded to a female director. And it’s not as though missed calls for Oscar winners aren’t a target-rich environment in pretty much any given year. “How Green Was My Valley” won Best Picture over “Citizen Kane” and “The Maltese Falcon” in 1942. Kevin Costner bested Martin Scorsese—and “Goodfellas”—for Best Director and Picture for “Dances with Wolves.” A seriously WTF moment. Three years ago, “The Artist” swept Best Picture, Director and Actor. It might as well be “Avatar” by now. No one remembers or revisits it.

You can scorecard this shit all day long, but the median age of Academy voters is still 63 years old. They’re mostly white men, and there are about 5,000 of them. Hardly a representative sample. That’s why “The Theory of Everything” is up for Best Picture and “Inherent Vice” is not. 

What’s flummoxed me is not so much what got in as what got left out. “Life Itself” isn’t up for Best Documentary. “The Lego Movie” isn’t up for Best Animated Feature. Jake Gyllenhaal isn’t up for Best Actor for “Nightcrawler.” Robert Elswit isn’t up for Best Cinematography (between his work on “Nightcrawler” and “Inherent Vice”? Really?). There are still some fine choices, but those omissions speak to a disconnect. 

MC: For me, that disconnect, and the long list of laughable blunders the Academy has made over the years (you didn’t mention the year Art Carney won Best Actor for “Harry and Tonto” over Al Pacino in “The Godfather Part II,” Jack Nicholson in “Chinatown” and Dustin Hoffman in “Lenny”), makes it that much more satisfying when they do manage to get it right. I can count on one hand the number of times in my life the Best Picture Oscar has gone to the movie I would’ve chosen, yet if “Boyhood” somehow pulls it off this year, that will make twice in a row.

I know “Inherent Vice” topped Joe’s list of 2014 films, but what about you, Josh? Is your favorite movie of the year up for Best Picture? And, generally, what did the Academy get right with these nominations?

JK: My two favorite movies of the year were “Citizenfour” and “Boyhood.” Both were nominated—“Citizenfour” for Best Documentary and “Boyhood,” of course, for everything else. Despite my complaints, there is a lot for me to be happy about this year, starting with the five nominations for “Whiplash.” This little $3-million movie about jazz school has been touted as this year’s great indie hope since Sundance, and I think the most amazing thing is that it’s survived a year of hype with zero backlash. I haven’t heard or read a single negative word about this movie; everyone who sees it instantly falls in love with it. It’s so freaking good, and it only gets better with multiple viewings. 

A few other highlights for me: Steve Carell’s nod for his incredibly creepy, off-putting, heartbreaking performance as John Du Pont in “Foxcatcher.” Rosamund Pike, a great British actress who’s been working for years, finally earned her first nomination for “Gone Girl.” I was pleasantly surprised to see Paul Thomas Anderson nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay despite “Inherent Vice” being too weird and insular for a lot of people. Although, Josh Brolin’s snub for Best Supporting Actor is almost criminal. Toss out Robert Duvall’s obligatory nod for “The Judge” and throw Brolin in there for “Inherent Vice” alongside Ed Norton, J.K. Simmons, Mark Ruffalo and Ethan Hawke, and you’d have a nearly perfect category.

JO: Is there a fantasy version of this like football? We need to start that. We could bet money. And the loser is forced to do something stupid in some brutally public way. Maybe I’ve been watching “The League” too much. 

The Academy has nominated many of the best films of the year. They’ve likely gotten more right than wrong, across many categories, though that will be determined when the winners are announced and some time has passed. I’m happy about “Boyhood,” “Birdman,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel” and “Whiplash” enjoying Best Picture love. Why “The Theory of Everything” is up there mystifies. I’d replace it with something like “Only Lovers Left Alive,” “A Most Violent Year” or even “Guardians of the Galaxy” without a blink. They’re objectively better and far more memorable films. 

Although the absence of “Life Itself” for Best Doc is puzzling considering the voters, like Josh, I feel that “Citizenfour” is not only a worthy nomination, but pretty much the most important film of the 21st Century (or at least since 2008’s “Inside Job”—seriously, why aren’t we overthrowing our plutocratic overlords yet?). The way the real-life drama of “Citizenfour” plays out on screen is extraordinary, especially if you paid attention to the news in 2013. If that nomination draws more mainstream attention to who Edward Snowden is and what he did, so much the better. He’s still a part of our non-fiction, very scary future.

In the end, that’s the best the Academy can do. Damned by a history of barely being right? Totally. But Oscar’s glamour can still draw the unsuspecting to the best of cinema. 

Want more stories like this? Go with Josh and Joe into cinema's scariest moments, and check this Videodrone podcast episode, which includes Josh, Joe and Matt: