Who wee, James Toback is pissed about his documentary, “Tyson” getting the snub from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who announced their Oscar documentary short-list earlier this week and left off his raw portrait of once-boxing great Mike Tyson.
15 docs were picked on the shortlist (“Anvil! The Story Of Anvil” was another very-deserving doc that got shafted as was R.J Cutler’s Anna Wintour doc, “The September Issue”) and “Tyson” didn’t make the cut so the New York Times called up Toback to get his reaction and he’s hopping mad.
And he wouldn’t give exact details, but apparently the doc was snubbed because of an irregularity that he says is tantamount to “extortion.” “How is some tiny, dirty covert weirdly protective little group within the Academy going to be immune?” he posited to the Times reporter about the funny business that goes on behind-the-scenes in everything from presidential elections to award selection committees.
What happened exactly? Toback won’t say, but when pressed said the experienced had something to do with the selections process, “which I put fully in the category of extortion that I did not go along with.” He adds that he was “furious” at himself for “having chosen to be passive and quiet in the face of that extortion.”
The chairman of the executive committee of the documentary branch was asked if he knew what Toback was alluding to his response was, “I have no idea. It certainly hasn’t come before me.”
Apparently the selection process is different. The Times explains:
Unlike contenders in other categories, candidates for best feature documentary are winnowed from a field of eligible films that this year numbered 89. Mr. Epstein said most of about 150 members participated in one or both of two committees that review feature-length and short documentaries. Because of the way films are distributed for viewing among members, who do not see all submissions, a very small number of people can determine the fate of a film. Mr. Epstein described the process as being fairer than an earlier one, under which a Los Angeles-based committee drawn from all Academy branches reviewed documentaries.
So what is this all about? Toback has a long-standing reputation for being a loose cannon, so who knows, surely more of it will come out in the next few days. Meanwhile, the small consolation the snubbed documentaries receive — which includes, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” “Crude” and “We Live In Public” to name a few —is that they are all still eligible for the Best Picture category. But that’s obviously not much reassurances as none of these picture unfortunately probably have a shot there. Our own personal thoughts? We didn’t find the snub a huge personal affront. “Tyson” was fascinating, but necessarily a bonafide Oscar contender. Should it have at least made the shortlist? Yes, probably? But something of value is always going to get cut when you start measuring art, no?
Update: So is Toback just a nutter spouting off? He apparently released a statement after his NYTimes interview that read, “I regret that I didn’t bring my concerns to the attention of the Academy sooner but I have now done so and I have been reassured that they are looking into the matter.”
What is that matter? An Academy’s executive director told the Wrap that the director’s “concern was that one of the documentarians voting to pick the shortlist bore him a grudge and should have recused himself/herself from the balloting.”
Apparently they have investigated and that one vote wouldn’t have made a difference.
The accounting firm, he says, quoting PwC’s report, “has assured us that ‘no single voter was responsible for [“Tyson”’s] failure to make the shortlist….’”
Sour grapes, being a sore loser, etc.?
What a goofy bastard. Basically guaranteed to never get one now.
/As if it even really matters. Dude, you get to make movies for a living, and you're complaining you're not in the running to win a shiny dildo.
Tyson wasn't nominated because it's not Oscar material. It's very entertaining, but it's biased and the subject matter is not weighty enough for the Academy. He's not exactly Ghandi, nor is he Hitler. He's just a guy who's good at punching people who fucked up alot. I can't believe anyone thought it even had a chance.
I have not seen all the docs that made the short list but I have seen TYSON. It's really good because of what it says about America. It's not just about someone who made it. It's about someone who made it and lost it. Concept in art is always important. That this doc did not make the short list tells me that the persons who choose may not be so good at art. They love politics, anything that shows how hard life is outside of the United States, they love foreign issues, and Daniel Ellsberg – c'mon! I saw that live and it could have put you to sleep then. And how much more stuff do we have to see about Bagdhad? What about all the American soldiers who have been maimed and killed there? No, I don't think the people who choose what gets on the short list are as good as they used to be. Maybe that's why TYSON and a couple others did not make it.
Tyson indeed wasn't nominated because it was not up to par.
If your subject is interesting enough, you don't need to opt for stylistic pretension; you also don't need to indict him as crazy with overlapping audio tracks, which is insulting to both the subject and the audience.
Tyson is a fascinating subject, but Toback failed to make a documentary that was compelling.
Anvil, however, was a total oversight.
tyson is the best Doc of the year….spare me, how is the film biased? its the truth from one mans mouth. could it all be lies, maybe. but that is not a bias.