I'm convinced that the snub of "Precious" at the Gotham Awards proves that there's a backlash against it. But how large? And is Oprah Winfrey to blame? And Tyler Perry -- as NY Post's Lou Lumenick suggests?
Pile on! Give us your votes in our polls plus please express your views -- CLICK HERE
Yes, I think there's a backlash... The picture may have done alright on its own merits but now we get those two enormous spotlight-hoggers "presenting" the film to us mere mortals. Whoop-de-doo.
I can see an argument that there might be a backlash against 'Precious,' but I think it is far less sinister than a "We hate Oprah," or even more silly, a "We hate Obama" sentiment. Does anyone really think that the crew that makes up the Gotham Film Awards panels is a hotbed of McCain supporters?
If I had to chalk up the lack of Gotham nominations to any one factor, it would be more of a desire to spread the wealth. 'Precious' is already the subject of so much buzz that it's deafening. Perhaps the Gotham critics decided to give a few other films their own moment in the sun.
Even if Lisa Schwartzbaum and Kenny Turan aren't big fans of the film (they were on the best film committee), I can't imagine that their feelings have anything to do with factors other than their reaction to the film. If they aren't huge fans (they both saw it at Sundance) that doesn't mean it is backlash - just their comparative reaction to it compared to other contenders.
Backlash implies "we want to put the brakes on the hype." Show me some evidence that this is what happened, then fine - it does occur, it's not that unusual. But to think it has anything to do with Winfrey or Perry is delusional.
The Gothams would register mainly with film enthusiasts and other, interested parties such as journalists and critics, and people here at GD, AD, OW, Criterion, etc.
I'm still left wondering why a film like The Hurt Locker, which received arguably some of the best reviews of the year thus far, is cited, but Precious isnt? I'm not so sure about the "profile" and hype thing. And I seriously doubt that the Gotham panel cares anything about Oprah's involvement, much less Tyler Perrys'.
I hope it isnt this "spread the wealth" mentality again.
I'm interested in the reaction to the film once it opens to the general public. And I'm especially interested in seeing the response from several advocacy groups. There might not be one. But if there is, there's a good chance I'll be siding with them.
Posts: 13901 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
When I said that Oprah might have been a factor in it's lack of Gotham nominations I meant that it could be seen as not "indie" enough. I didn't mean anyone wants to see the film fail BECAUSE of Oprah. There hasn't been any indication of a backlash anyway. Nothing's really happened yet.
It certainly would seem Indie enough for the Gothams.
NOT saying this applies to this group, but these awards are the major fundraising event of the year for their parent organization. It has been known for groups to reward friends, penalize not-so-big-friends. And, again not knowing what happens here, some of these nominations are ultimately decided by an overriding executive committee that takes the individual committees' decisions and then parcels out nominations to, indeed, spread the wealth.
My guess is the answer here is that the members of the committees liked other nominees better, and their reaction had nothing to do with backlash.
From the time this played at Sundance, my gut reaction has been that this is an OK film elevated by very strong/emotional acting (see under Monster's Ball) and the film itself might be less than perfect and vulnerable to more realistic assessments when the major mainstream critics got around to it. We have yet to see, and I easily could be wrong. But maybe this is the beginning of the film finding its true level. That wouldn't be backlash though.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
What I said was merely a suggestion. I mean we see the nominees and they aren't exactly high profile films, I do believed that they liked the other films more in some ways. That doesn't even mean they don't like Precious, just that they like these other films more. But I think this article is premature because nothing has really happened yet.
Yes, I think there's a backlash... The picture may have done alright on its own merits but now we get those two enormous spotlight-hoggers "presenting" the film to us mere mortals. Whoop-de-doo.
F'ing Ditto!
All Queen Oprah had to do was leave well enough alone. I'm taking my sweet time in seeing it, per netflix, cuz of HER pushing it down our throats!
She and Perry want to make sure the film and its message breaks through to the black community - I don't see anything wrong with that. The marketing for this film was always going to be tricky - films with multiple negative storylines like this usually flop big time. They are trying to help transcend it. They both are very successful in marketing.
It's not like Perry had the film reedited so that Madea could make a cameo.
I just don't get this. It's weird. It's making smart posters write some not so smart things.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Originally posted by seanflynn: Pray tell how is she pushing it down your throat?
She and Perry want to make sure the film and its message breaks through to the black community - I don't see anything wrong with that. The marketing for this film was always going to be tricky - films with multiple negative storylines like this usually flop big time. They are trying to help transcend it. They both are very successful in marketing.
It's not like Perry had the film reedited so that Madea could make a cameo.
I just don't get this. It's weird. It's making smart posters write some not so smart things.
That's right, po' black folk ain't got no sense what to make o' nuttin' 'less Miz Oprah and Massa Perry iz sellin' it to 'em! LOL
You just said it yourself, she and Tyler want to make sure the film and its message breaks to the masses, but it's not just to the black audience, they want this film to be appreciated by everyone just like how they appreciate it. Who died and made them cultural representatives of the masses, or, the black community?
And I resent your implying that my opinions of Oprah's marketing scheme is making me (or others) write not so smart things. Just because I question marketing agendas and my lack of enthusiasm differ than yours on those agendas and this film (which I will view in due time), does not make my comments not so smart.
They have been proven successes - both of them - to the community. They likely have the two highest credibility ratings among black media figures.
The community can decide for itself. The purpose of marketing is to make sure the message gets to them. It has nothing to do with the black community being backward or unreachable otherwise.
This is Marketing 101. It has nothing to do with different intelligence levels or independent thinking capacities.
This is going to be a much more successful film, I suspect, because of their involvement. And there is nothing wrong with that.
But when was the last time anyone objected when Martin Scorsese presented a film and got involved with the marketing? Or MTV sponsored/presented a movie AFTER its completion? Or National Geographic became involved with a documentary, again after festival showings?
The answer is never.
Sorry, the visceral reaction to Winfrey and Perry's involvement in this is very ugly to me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
She has used this role in numerous ways, ranging from her book club to attaching her name to the musical version of 'The Color Purple' to endorsing Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries to offering up her viewpoints daily on her shows.
I find nothing objectionable about Oprah doing this. It's not as though she's secretly getting kickbacks from the publishing industry to endorse a book. She's not sleeping with half the guests on her shows. She's not driving over to my house and banging on my door to yell at me if I don't subscribe to her magazine.
Everything she says or does has been completely and totally ethically above board.
If I happen to disagree with her opinion on something, I make my objection felt, whether it is by not picking up a book she has recommended or by voting for a different candidate or by eschewing the comforts of crabmeat and avocado soup.
Oprah's endorsement on something makes such a tiny impact on my life so as to be non-existent. I don't really get or see how her having an opinion on something should cause anyone else on the planet to get their undies in a knot or to feel somehow cosmically "wronged."
In fact, that seems like the kind of thing Sarah Palin would (and has done) do.
The last person on Earth I want to be compared with is Ms. Palin.
