I saw Selma during its wide release opening weekend, and my review is posted in the Movie Reviews link above. But the film continues to be talked about in news and entertainment circles on almost a daily basis. Since the Oscar nominations came out two weeks ago, which included the noticeable omission of Selma from most categories (earning only two nods), much has been made of the apparent lack of respect given to a well-made film that is not only about one of America’s greatest heroes, but in today’s sensitive racial climate, offers a cultural relevance like no other film of 2014.
I will briefly attempt to explain here why this may be the case.
1. Selma is not Lincoln.
So we need to stop pretending that it is. Since they are both historical dramas with similar themes and beloved and charismatic figures as the focus, let’s compare for a moment. Lincoln (which earned 12 Oscar nominations) has a wide cast of interesting characters that are given ample screen time and are still memorable, even amid Daniel Day-Lewis’s powerhouse leading performance. David Strathairn, Bruce McGill, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, and Sally Field all give distinctive performances that add many layers of personality to Lincoln. Selma just doesn’t develop enough other people. Lincoln has a soaring score from John Williams. Selma has points of musical resonance, but not nearly enough. Lincoln offers sweeping cinematography in addition to its beautifully framed intimate scenes. Rarely in Selma, outside of some of the bridge images, do we see much regarding the power of visual scope, showing (not just telling) the audience that while this is a fight for individuals, the issues are far-reaching and bigger than the players in the middle. Lincoln has antagonists that offer real concerns as real people who envision a world that will forever abandon traditional institutions and relationships. Selma has plenty of antagonists, but none of them give legitimate reasons for their unyielding. Sheriff Jim Clark is cartoonish. Governor George Wallace is barely present (a sad underutilization of the excellent Tim Roth). J. Edgar Hoover is so ambiguous he’s like a ghost drifting through the Oval Office. And LBJ is not nearly as interesting as he could be (seriously, go read about how much of a perverted psychopath, and political genius, he was). A deeper exploration of the politics of race is what Lincoln accomplishes, but Selma only approaches.
2. Box office success doesn’t necessarily mean much when it comes to handing out Oscars. After all, recent winners like The Artist and 12 Years a Slave earned hardly anything in theaters, yet both walked away with the Best Picture prize. However, it can be a useful guide in determining what resonates with the public. Box Office Mojo reports that Selma made just over $11 million in its first weekend of wide release and has made just over $33 million as of Jan. 21.
To demonstrate the lack of excitement Selma has produced in black audiences, consider that all but one of Tyler Perry’s films (many of which have nearly all black casts), including all of the ridiculous “Madea” series of eight films, earned more on opening weekend than Selma. Perry’s highest grossing opener was Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail at $41 million. Yes, you read that correctly. Madea nearly quadrupled Dr. King. Films about the wacky high-jinx of a dude in granny drag have repeatedly out-performed a powerful historical drama about an American icon for civil rights.
Since we can probably assume Selma is bringing in more white audiences than Perry’s films (the audience for my show was almost entirely comprised of older, white folks), the disparity in box office receipts from black viewers must be even larger than the numbers indicate. Maybe advocates like Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey are overestimating the power of Selma. Maybe the Academy was actually a bit shrewder (and more in-tune to what the black population seems to be indicating) by saying, “You know, Selma is good, but it’s just not quite that good.” I have no idea if this is true, but it is quite strange what black audiences seem to be signaling to Selma: they’re just not that into you.
3. I agree that David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King probably deserved a Best Actor nomination. However, whom would one remove from the current list? As much as I liked Oyelowo, I’m not sure if his work is “better” (whatever that means) than the other excellent candidates. This is a category that would have been worthy of breaking the rules and granting six nominees this year.
Regarding the lack of other nominations, the major complaint has been with Ava DuVernay’s absence from the Best Director category. As the list stands, the only option to be discarded to make way for DuVernay, would possibly be Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game. The other four nominees are locks, in my opinion. And if I were making space, I think Eastwood’s work for American Sniper was simply more challenging to pull off, and Damien Chazelle’s visual style in Whiplash was more interesting. DuVernay did a fine job (as I highlighted in my initial review), but I felt that the film could have gone further. There are script choices that are questionable, music selections that don’t quite resonate, one too many scenes of on-the-nose exposition, and characters and conflicts that deserve further development. I also thought there was too much reliance on King’s powerful speeches. Since that is an aspect of King’s life with which everyone is already familiar, spending more time away from his oratory might have actually been a more interesting and insightful choice. When DuVernay did do this at times, I felt they were the strongest elements of the film. Again, more showing, less telling. All of these (problems?) fall under the purview of the director. Tyldum’s work seemed more disciplined in serving the story and left me more emotionally affected, and for these reasons, remains deserving of the nod over DuVernay.
Even with some of the flaws I’ve listed here, don’t get me wrong: Selma is a truly good film. And it deserves its place in the large group of Best Picture nominees. One could say that this is one of the reasons the Academy recently expanded the category from five candidates to a possible ten. The increase allows recognition for those films that may be publicly beloved and box office hits, as well as smaller, serious films that some may have missed. To the chagrin of many critics, this is a case of the system working.
Selma is like a student that still gets to make the Dean’s List by getting straight A-minuses. It’s not quite perfect, but it still deserves some adulation. This film has not been ignored by those of us who love movies and pay good money each week to see them. I would say that is the most valuable accomplishment.
I will briefly attempt to explain here why this may be the case.
1. Selma is not Lincoln.
So we need to stop pretending that it is. Since they are both historical dramas with similar themes and beloved and charismatic figures as the focus, let’s compare for a moment. Lincoln (which earned 12 Oscar nominations) has a wide cast of interesting characters that are given ample screen time and are still memorable, even amid Daniel Day-Lewis’s powerhouse leading performance. David Strathairn, Bruce McGill, Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, and Sally Field all give distinctive performances that add many layers of personality to Lincoln. Selma just doesn’t develop enough other people. Lincoln has a soaring score from John Williams. Selma has points of musical resonance, but not nearly enough. Lincoln offers sweeping cinematography in addition to its beautifully framed intimate scenes. Rarely in Selma, outside of some of the bridge images, do we see much regarding the power of visual scope, showing (not just telling) the audience that while this is a fight for individuals, the issues are far-reaching and bigger than the players in the middle. Lincoln has antagonists that offer real concerns as real people who envision a world that will forever abandon traditional institutions and relationships. Selma has plenty of antagonists, but none of them give legitimate reasons for their unyielding. Sheriff Jim Clark is cartoonish. Governor George Wallace is barely present (a sad underutilization of the excellent Tim Roth). J. Edgar Hoover is so ambiguous he’s like a ghost drifting through the Oval Office. And LBJ is not nearly as interesting as he could be (seriously, go read about how much of a perverted psychopath, and political genius, he was). A deeper exploration of the politics of race is what Lincoln accomplishes, but Selma only approaches.
2. Box office success doesn’t necessarily mean much when it comes to handing out Oscars. After all, recent winners like The Artist and 12 Years a Slave earned hardly anything in theaters, yet both walked away with the Best Picture prize. However, it can be a useful guide in determining what resonates with the public. Box Office Mojo reports that Selma made just over $11 million in its first weekend of wide release and has made just over $33 million as of Jan. 21.
To demonstrate the lack of excitement Selma has produced in black audiences, consider that all but one of Tyler Perry’s films (many of which have nearly all black casts), including all of the ridiculous “Madea” series of eight films, earned more on opening weekend than Selma. Perry’s highest grossing opener was Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail at $41 million. Yes, you read that correctly. Madea nearly quadrupled Dr. King. Films about the wacky high-jinx of a dude in granny drag have repeatedly out-performed a powerful historical drama about an American icon for civil rights.
Since we can probably assume Selma is bringing in more white audiences than Perry’s films (the audience for my show was almost entirely comprised of older, white folks), the disparity in box office receipts from black viewers must be even larger than the numbers indicate. Maybe advocates like Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey are overestimating the power of Selma. Maybe the Academy was actually a bit shrewder (and more in-tune to what the black population seems to be indicating) by saying, “You know, Selma is good, but it’s just not quite that good.” I have no idea if this is true, but it is quite strange what black audiences seem to be signaling to Selma: they’re just not that into you.
3. I agree that David Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King probably deserved a Best Actor nomination. However, whom would one remove from the current list? As much as I liked Oyelowo, I’m not sure if his work is “better” (whatever that means) than the other excellent candidates. This is a category that would have been worthy of breaking the rules and granting six nominees this year.
Regarding the lack of other nominations, the major complaint has been with Ava DuVernay’s absence from the Best Director category. As the list stands, the only option to be discarded to make way for DuVernay, would possibly be Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game. The other four nominees are locks, in my opinion. And if I were making space, I think Eastwood’s work for American Sniper was simply more challenging to pull off, and Damien Chazelle’s visual style in Whiplash was more interesting. DuVernay did a fine job (as I highlighted in my initial review), but I felt that the film could have gone further. There are script choices that are questionable, music selections that don’t quite resonate, one too many scenes of on-the-nose exposition, and characters and conflicts that deserve further development. I also thought there was too much reliance on King’s powerful speeches. Since that is an aspect of King’s life with which everyone is already familiar, spending more time away from his oratory might have actually been a more interesting and insightful choice. When DuVernay did do this at times, I felt they were the strongest elements of the film. Again, more showing, less telling. All of these (problems?) fall under the purview of the director. Tyldum’s work seemed more disciplined in serving the story and left me more emotionally affected, and for these reasons, remains deserving of the nod over DuVernay.
Even with some of the flaws I’ve listed here, don’t get me wrong: Selma is a truly good film. And it deserves its place in the large group of Best Picture nominees. One could say that this is one of the reasons the Academy recently expanded the category from five candidates to a possible ten. The increase allows recognition for those films that may be publicly beloved and box office hits, as well as smaller, serious films that some may have missed. To the chagrin of many critics, this is a case of the system working.
Selma is like a student that still gets to make the Dean’s List by getting straight A-minuses. It’s not quite perfect, but it still deserves some adulation. This film has not been ignored by those of us who love movies and pay good money each week to see them. I would say that is the most valuable accomplishment.