<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; New York, LA Times Now Decides What Documentaries Nominated For Academy Awards</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2012/01/academy-awards-documentaries-new-york-times-la-times/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:04:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>New York, LA Times Now Decides What Documentaries Nominated For Academy Awards</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2012/01/academy-awards-documentaries-new-york-times-la-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:45:32 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2012/01/academy-awards-documentaries-new-york-times-la-times/</link>
			<dc:creator>Drew Grant</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/?p=210448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Adding to the already long list of <a href="http://www.observer.com/2012/01/no-joke-funny-or-die-presents-the-academy-awards-video/">confusing and nonsensical plans</a> for handing out the little statues from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it was announced today that documentaries would be considered for Oscar nomination <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/movies/documentarians-concerned-about-proposed-oscar-rule.html">only if they had been reviewed in <em>The New York Times</em> or <em>The LA Times</em> beforehand</a>.</p>
<p>This may not be as terribly insane as it seems. (Though it does seem pretty random, not to mention biased: giving an outside organization the power to wield a nomination verdict conclusively is actually unheard of.) Despite the rise of DIY film making and festival showcases, it's true that both <em>Times</em> do an admirable job reviewing most documentaries of note--one could make an argument that <em>The New York Times</em> actually skews towards the more esoteric form of film-making because traditionally documentaries have been considered  "high-brow" films.</p>
<p>So this shouldn't be a problem, right?<br />
<!--more--><br />
Wrong! Because on top of this arbitrary <em>Times </em>review stipulation, there is an even more arbitrary addendum <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/09/oscar-best-documentary-review-rule#start-of-comments">that the review can't have been written by a Times' television writer</a>. (Sorry, <strong>Alessandra Stanley</strong>.) What about freelance stringers? Or reviews that only appeared online, or in capsule form?</p>
<p>Let's just call this what it is: the fate of the Best Documentary Award now rests entirely in the hands of A.O. Scott. Rule wisely, Mr. Scott, and rule well.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Adding to the already long list of <a href="http://www.observer.com/2012/01/no-joke-funny-or-die-presents-the-academy-awards-video/">confusing and nonsensical plans</a> for handing out the little statues from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it was announced today that documentaries would be considered for Oscar nomination <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/movies/documentarians-concerned-about-proposed-oscar-rule.html">only if they had been reviewed in <em>The New York Times</em> or <em>The LA Times</em> beforehand</a>.</p>
<p>This may not be as terribly insane as it seems. (Though it does seem pretty random, not to mention biased: giving an outside organization the power to wield a nomination verdict conclusively is actually unheard of.) Despite the rise of DIY film making and festival showcases, it's true that both <em>Times</em> do an admirable job reviewing most documentaries of note--one could make an argument that <em>The New York Times</em> actually skews towards the more esoteric form of film-making because traditionally documentaries have been considered  "high-brow" films.</p>
<p>So this shouldn't be a problem, right?<br />
<!--more--><br />
Wrong! Because on top of this arbitrary <em>Times </em>review stipulation, there is an even more arbitrary addendum <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/09/oscar-best-documentary-review-rule#start-of-comments">that the review can't have been written by a Times' television writer</a>. (Sorry, <strong>Alessandra Stanley</strong>.) What about freelance stringers? Or reviews that only appeared online, or in capsule form?</p>
<p>Let's just call this what it is: the fate of the Best Documentary Award now rests entirely in the hands of A.O. Scott. Rule wisely, Mr. Scott, and rule well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2012/01/academy-awards-documentaries-new-york-times-la-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
