Part 2: Nominating a Documentary for an Acting Award Could Complicate the Best Picture Narrative
Right now, “You Can See Everything” is (rightfully) projected to be the first documentary to get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. It would be entirely deserving of such an honor, and what's even crazier is that the odds of it winning look pretty good at the moment. This is the first mainstream documentary to capture America's attention in over 20 years, and it wasn’t even a takedown of a sitting president. Even though we’re just looking at opening weekend, the potential for this thing to be
the movie of the year is very high. I have no doubt the Academy will have to seriously consider making this film part of the conversation, and there are legitimate reasons for the film community to find that exciting.
However, I think in our excitement over this movie, we are not only overreaching in our prediction of how good Seyfried actually is in her brief time playing Holmes, but we may also be overplaying our hand if we want “You Can See Everything” to be a formidable Best Picture contender. I already explained why I don’t think the performance is worthy, but now I’m going to explain why seeking a nomination may harm the film's chances of winning Best Picture more than it helps.
Before we get into that, let’s establish one thing very clearly: the Academy’s rules
do clearly state that reenactments are perfectly fine to use in documentaries! Specifically, the rule states:
An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic, or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion, or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
So, there is nothing saying Seyfried can’t reenact scenes without disqualifying the movie from being a documentary. However, even if it follows the literal rules, that doesn’t change the perception some voters may have during an awards race.
Oscar campaigning is like politics: it’s messy, ugly, and sometimes hostile in the most passive-aggressive way possible. There are many historical examples where things most of us would consider non-issues were blown into award-killing narratives:
- “Saving Private Ryan” vs. “Shakespeare in Love”: Harvey Weinstein successfully argued that “Saving Private Ryan” was only great for its first 15 minutes, and that the full movie was nowhere near as good. “Shakespeare in Love” ultimately won.
- “La La Land” vs. “Moonlight”: After Donald Trump won the 2016 election, critics like Imran Siddiquee from Salon suggested that “La La Land” created an ideal world for white America, and that movies like “Moonlight” were much more representative of America. This became a huge whisper campaign among voters, and “Moonlight” ultimately won.
- “A Beautiful Mind”: The film was accused of not being honest about its subject matter, particularly John Nash’s personal life. It still won Best Picture, but with a total haul of four Academy Awards, it won fewer than expected and was one of the key reasons Russell Crowe (who had swept precursor awards) lost Best Actor to Denzel Washington for “Training Day.”
- “Marcel the Shell with Shoes On”: While it was ultimately nominated for Best Animated Feature, the perception that it was a live-action film with animated characters overlaid onto it was a narrative the film was never able to shake. “Flow” ultimately won Best Animated Feature that year.
So, fairly or unfairly, minor details that you and I don’t even take into account become major marks against a film during campaigning.
When “You Can See Everything” gets nominated for Best Picture (because I fully believe it will), one of A24’s biggest selling points will be that it is the first nonfiction film to win the Academy’s highest honor, joining the historic ranks of “12 Years a Slave” (the first film about the Black experience in America to win) and “Parasite” (the first international film to win). Those are narratives the public loves, but it doesn’t mean the competition is suddenly going to lie down and let another film win over their movie. They will campaign.
If there is a nonfiction movie in contention for an award that, by definition, is tied to fiction... well, that creates a unique plan of attack for rival campaigners:
- How truthful is the film really if a major nomination is for something that is, by definition, pretend?
- What happens when opponents start pointing out that Seyfried’s best moments are the scenes where she isn’t acting?
- Does that not open up questions of gaming the system?
- In fact, since the Academy
is nominating an actor for a nonfiction film, doesn't that suggest that “You Can See Everything” is more fiction than fact? And if it's more fiction, why give Best Picture to it when you have traditional fiction films like “Fjord” and “The Odyssey” (presumably) in the mix?
- Will the documentary branch support this film if it is known upfront that A24 is campaigning for acting awards, potentially compromising the nonfiction aspect they pride themselves on so much? They’ve snubbed critically acclaimed films for less (see “Grizzly Man” and “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” for good examples).
You can see where this gets really messy, really fast.
Getting a documentary into Best Picture would be a monumental achievement, but the path to victory for these types of films is so tough that there is zero room for error. Assuming the awards race plays out as expected, “The Odyssey” is the film to beat. Netflix is also going hard with “La Bora Negra,” taking it so seriously they are giving it a wide 45-day theatrical release and reporting box office numbers. Meanwhile, Laika hopes “Wildwood” could be the first animated film to win Best Picture.
“You Can See Everything” is the movie of the weekend (and possibly the moment), but a lot can happen in two months. This year's Oscar race will be as brutal and savage as every other year, and the last thing “You Can See Everything” needs is a target on its back for something like this.
Final Thoughts
Amanda Seyfried is a great actress. Truthfully, she may be one of my favorites, and she will get an Oscar nomination someday. But it should not be for this.
Not only are the actual scripted scenes of standard quality while her most effective moments are of her just being herself, but it also creates, I fear, an unnecessary complication come awards season. I’m not even fully convinced the actors' branch will nominate her, as they may feel giving a nod to a “performance” where the best parts are non-acting moments could be seen as compromising to actors as well.
What I
do want to see is “You Can See Everything” nominated for Best Picture, and for more audiences to experience this terrific film. I would hate for the film's quality to be overshadowed by a pedantic debate over whether the movie is "real" or not—all because of a Best Supporting Actress nomination.
