Bad Education - Festivals and Awards Watch

[jo]

I think the EMMY people just used the level of popularity of universal favorite Hugh Jackman ( they keep showing clips of him to tease the audience) and the budding future of now-considered as future auteur (Finley) and sharp screenwriter Makowsky ( the script made it to the 2016 Black List -- another indication that this was supposed to be a motion picture for theatrical screening, not for TV entertainment)...and also the past EMMY wins of Allison Janney -- just to raise the EMMY profile?

The EMMY honors are always considered a level below OSCAR's superior list and type of winners.

Were they trying to prove something by this undeserved putdown of an artistic work that had the hallmarks of a fine and true motion picture (hence all those screenings at film festivals)??

Tsk, tsk!


Jo

[jo]

I wish we could all be as sportsmanlike as Hugh

http://instagram.com/p/CFYhEivDxA1

[jo]

[jo]

[jo]

Wow -- there is really such an outpourring for Hugh up to now since the Lead Actor winner was announced! Twitter is full of praise for his portrayal and disappointment for not getting the acting honors.


Jo

[jo]

Interesting -- movie press not happy with Hugh's loss. Kateyrich is a Variety editor; Greg Ellwood writes for Playlist.

kateyrich
@kateyrich
Hugh Jackman not winning anything for his best performance (yes!) is just not right.
9:24 AM · Sep 21, 2020·TweetDeck
6
Retweets
1
Quote Tweet
94
Likes

*******************************

Glenn Dunks
@glenndunks
·
1h
Replying to
@kateyrich
Whoever the sales agent was on that film at Sundance bungled it wildly. Jackman could have won an Oscar, but instead he didn’t even win the Emmy.


********************************

Gregory Ellwood - The Playlist Clapper board
@thegregorye
·
1h
It was a TIFF buy, not a Sundance buy. HBO should have positioned it as having a theatrical release that was scuttled by the pandemic, but by then it was too late. Most studios thought it was a hard theatrical sell at TIFF.

********************************

Glenn Dunks
@glenndunks
·
58m
Okay, I mixed the festivals up.


*********************************
Gregory Ellwood - The Playlist Clapper board
@thegregorye
·
50m
It wasn’t bungled tho. Huge premiere at TIFF. Strong reviews. HBO was the best offer.

*********************************


Glenn Dunks
@glenndunks
·
19m
Tell that Hugh Jackman!

*********************************
FilmGamer
@filmgamerone
·
3h
Replying to
@kateyrich
I agree with you wholeheartedly!

@theacademy
with their altered rules sure can nominate him for Best Actor though.

The buzz was that theater distributors were interested if the release was done in 2020, not 2019.

Maybe Hugh should have rescheduled a few concerts from his tour, so he could push for the movie at TIFF. His presence would have made a big difference!

Or maybe if the producers had not wanted an immediate return of their financial involvement and allowed a late 2019 or even an early 2020 theatrical release, then at least it could have been included in the Oscar qualifying list. That it received so many glowing reviews ( 94 % at Rotten Tomatoes) would have paved the way for strong box office interest ( by that time, Hugh would have had time to do promos for the movie).

HBO found a gem and ran away with it. At first, they made it appear as if it was an original HBO film (as if they actually commissioned the project) until some balked at that.

Jo

[jo]

Thanks to JackmansLanding which caught an Instagram post from Rafael Casal re the movie's EMMY win --

http://instagram.com/p/CFZ38WmlnXF

http://instagram.com/p/CFXw57AHGG0

There's another behind-the-scenes shot. Please click on the rightside arrow.

[njr]

Well, I guess I don’t need to watch the Emmys I DVRed.

[hughmanity]

Guess I'm not as gracious as Hugh either.  Still feeling the sting a little and agree with this editor whom Jo quoted.I remember consoling myself after TFF thinking he won't be in the Oscar race, but an Emmy win will be a lock....

1h
Replying to
@kateyrich
Whoever the sales agent was on that film at Sundance bungled it wildly. Jackman could have won an Oscar, but instead he didn’t even win the Emmy.

[hughmanity]

Daily Mail acknowledges Hugh's "graciousness in defeat" as true to character.  Well at least his face won't become a meme like when he lost the Golden Globe to James Franco and was trying to make sense of his acceptance speech  

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8754779/Emmy-Awards-2020-Hugh-Jackman-gracious-defeat.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

[jo]

This was written on April 27, 2020, after BAD EDUCATION premiered on HBO ( world premiere was at TIFF in September 2019).

decider.com/2020/04/27/hugh-jackman-bad-education-frank-tassone-oscar-buzz/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

‘Bad Education’ Finally Gave Hugh Jackman an Oscar-Worthy Role

By Anna Menta @annalikestweets
Apr 27, 2020 at 1:26pm
Hugh Jackman
Photo: HBO
WHERE TO STREAM:
BAD EDUCATION (2019)

I very nearly didn’t recognize Hugh Jackman when, right before an episode of Westworld, I caught the trailer for Bad Education.


“Is that the Twin Peaks guy?” my partner asked. Based on the YouTube trailer comments for the new film—which debuted on HBO on Saturday—we weren’t the only ones thrown for a loop.

“Hugh Jackman took 30 pounds of age for this role,” noted one YouTube user.

Bad Education stars Jackman (and not Twin Peaks star Kyle MacLachlan, who is ten years Jackman’s senior) as Dr. Frank A. Tassone, the real-life superintendent who was caught stealing millions from his school district. It’s a whole new kind of character for Jackman. It’s the Wolverine star sans beard, sans mutant metal claws, and sans digitally-enhanced abs. It’s a stripped-down, aged-up Jackman. And it feels absolutely right.

The physical transformation came with some help from the makeup department, given that Jackman is a 51-year-old movie star and that Tassone was 60-year-old regular person when he was convicted of grand larceny in 2006. But Jackman’s role in Bad Education—which has already been lauded by many critics as the best performance of his career—goes beyond a brand new look. Frank Tassone is finally a dramatic character that Jackman give himself over to; which he does, with incredible results.

Frank Tassone is a complicated guy. Or at least, he is in this version of the story. Bad Education—directed by Corey Finley (Thoroughbreds), and written by Mike Makowsky, who was a middle school student at Tassone’s school district in Roslyn, New York, when Tassone was arrested in 2004—has plenty of sympathy for the guy, despite the fact that he stole millions of tax-payer dollars and more or less got away with it. (The real Tassone served less than a four-year sentence in prison, and still receives an annual six-figure pension.)

Real Frank Tassone
Photo: HBO, Getty Images

Some of that sympathy stems from the fact that Tassone is a closeted gay man. His only real moments of love and vulnerability—the scenes he shares with a former-student-turned-exotic-dancer played by Rafael Casal—happen behind closed doors. He lives with a man who is essentially his husband (played by Stephen Spinella), but tells his colleagues that his wedding ring is for his wife who died at a very young age. The year is 2004, Tassone is an ambitious man, and clearly, he felt he needed to keep that part of himself hidden away.

Then there’s the fact that Tassone really does want to make a difference. “If I wanted money, I would have gone to Wall Street,” he tells the school board president (played by Ray Romano) at the end of the film, and his words ring true. He listens to the parents. He encourages his students. He loves being an educator. He just also wanted to make money, and, unfortunately, making money and being an educator don’t mix in this country.

As great a movie as Logan is, seeing Jackman shed the rugged anti-hero shtick felt like a huge sigh of relief. There are some similarities between Jackman and Tassone—the actor spent a few years as a PE teacher before college, and he’s been shooting down rumors about his sexuality for many years, despite his 24-year marriage to Deborra-Lee Furness. The incredulous look Jackman gives Romano’s character when he tells Tassone it’s “an open secret”—a look that reminded me vividly of the white guy blinking meme—feels like a wink to the audience.

Bad Education
Photo: HBO

To be sure, playing someone you’re not is kinda the point of the whole “acting” thing. It certainly helps that Jackman absolutely nails the Long Island accent. And yet the real-life overlaps add a layer of authenticity to Frank Tassone; the kind of authenticity that gets awards buzz brewing. It’s an Oscar-worthy role to be sure, but, given that it’s an HBO film that didn’t release in theaters, Jackman would only be eligible for an Emmy. Unfortunately for Jackman, the future of the 2020 Emmys is currently as unclear as every other major event in light of the pandemic. But even if it doesn’t win him awards, Bad Education feels a shift in Jackman’s career, if he wants it to be.

Maybe Jackman would have gotten to a character like this sooner had he not been cast in X-Men back in 2000, a role he played for the next 15 years. Maybe he’d be counting his Oscars and featured on lists alongside Robert De Niro and Denzel Washington.

But I’m not so sure. For one thing, all those X-Men checks no doubt helped get Jackman to a place where he could be picky about his roles. For another, maybe Jackman, like Tassone, wasn’t yet ready to reveal to the world the vulnerability the comes with a great performance like this. Credit should be given to Finley, for casting Jackman for the role in the first place. Hollywood stars, especially ones who make millions of box-office dollars playing superheroes, can get stuck in a box. Hugh Jackman’s just made a new box for himself, and I certainly hope it’s a box he keeps pulling from.

WATCH BAD EDUCATION ON HBO

Tags
Bad Education (2019)

[jo]

www.eonline.com/news/1190532/emmys-2020-hugh-jackmans-hazmat-suit-man-reveals-what-it-was-really-like-behind-the-scenes

Excerpts --

His other job at the Emmys? One of those hazmat suit people waiting outside or inside celebrities' homes.


2020 Emmys: Celebrity Pajamas
Per Rosenberg, when he realized he was unable to travel to Los Angeles for the award show, he volunteered to be of help for the nominees based in New York City.

He recalled, "I just luckily was on the show already and was like, 'I'm in New York so, if you need me, I'm not doing anything night of the show.'"

In an incredible turn of events, Rosenberg was stationed at Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or Movie nominee Hugh Jackman's home.


"Every single one of us were sent an Emmy, none of them were engraved," Rosenberg shared on protocol for the unconventional award show. "Only Ernst & Young knew who the winners were, they keep that under lock-and-key…We had to send [awards] to every person's house."

Rosenberg credited a Walkie-Talkie-esque app for the worldwide team being able to stay connected.

He further explained, "We really weren't finding out until seconds before, because they really, really wanted to keep everything under wraps."


Thus, when Hugh Jackman lost to fellow Marvel superhero Mark Ruffalo, Rosenberg witnessed the Bad Education actor's reaction in real-time.


"Before they went into the category, during a commercial break, there was a moment where all of the nominees got pushed into a Zoom together and they could chat," Rosenberg shared. "I overheard them congratulating each other."


But, what about Jackman's reaction? While Rosenberg did mention there "was tension in the room" after host Kimmel's Hulk vs. Wolverine joke, Jackman was a gracious loser.


"They seemed great about it," Rosenberg said about Jackman and his family. "They had a great time, they were the sweetest of people."


Yet, when asked if they wanted to take a photo with the Emmy, Jackman passed on the offer.

Rosenberg revealed, "He was like, 'I got one, it's fine.'"

[jo]

If at all - let us hope that the EMMYs realize that their categories need to be reviewed to promote fairness!

[jo]

The quandary faced by BAD EDUCATION re being able to qualify for the Oscars has become even more telling because in the EMMY selection for acting honors, the movie's acting honors were rated alongside acting from continuing episodes for a limited series. The issue of how to handle BAD EDUCATION as award-worthy work was raised much earlier when the AMPAS changed its rules for the year of the pandemic and led to some intense discussions among film critics ( in this case, Peter Debruge and Owen Gleiberman, both from Variety)

Thus --

variety.com/2020/film/opinion/should-the-oscars-recognize-films-that-are-streaming-only-1234613534/

PD: It’s curious, all this religious verbiage in our description of moviegoing, and yet, I do feel it’s fitting. When it’s just me and the screen in a movie theater, I feel a sense of communion with the characters, which doesn’t happen in my living room. But then again, I didn’t grow up with TV in the house or an iPad in my hands. Cinema may be my cathedral, but it isn’t everyone’s. To paraphrase Emily Dickinson, “Some keep the Sabbath going to church / Others keep it, staying at Home / With a Subwoofer for a Chorister / And a Flatscreen for a Dome.”

The problem with insisting on the theatrical experience is that the best pictures don’t play cinemas for long. They might do a couple weeks in Los Angeles, if they’re lucky, then resurface on HBO or on demand, where the majority of people see them months later. When “Roma” went up on Netflix three weeks into its limited theatrical release, it was suddenly available everywhere in America at once. And just because it was seen on TV screens doesn’t make it a TV movie. Heck, the best film I’ve seen this year is arguably “Bad Education,” a widescreen, big-screen, star-driven drama that HBO acquired at the Toronto Film Festival. And Hugh Jackman oughta get an Oscar for it.




OG: I loved “Bad Education.” It is, quite simply, a sensational movie. And though I would argue that it’s a real anomaly (in terms of a film of that quality being available not in theaters and only on HBO), the truth is that even before the age of “Roma” and “The Irishman,” one could always point to something on television — a self-contained feature-length entertainment — that was worthy of being called an amazing movie. I remember back in 2001 when I saw the two-part ABC TV-movie “Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows,” starring Judy Davis. I told people, “That’s one of the best biopics I’ve ever seen.” Minus the commercials, it was two hours and 50 minutes long, and technically speaking it wasn’t a “movie,” but come on! Even then the distinction was starting to feel awfully semantic.

So do we want to start blowing what’s left of the distinction to smithereens? My biggest concern is that once you open the streaming floodgates, you’re going to turn the Oscars into something wildly overstuffed and unwieldy and sort of hazily defined. Right now, about 1,000 movies open theatrically in one year. If the new rule becomes permanent, the number of things that qualify for the Oscars may multiply by a factor of two or three. Is that really something we need?

Yes, if we stick to the way it is now, a movie as terrific as “Bad Education” will be forced to compete for Emmys, and not Oscars. But maybe that’s a small price to pay. Turning the awards race into a free-for-all of everything that streams is something it’s hard to argue against in any technical sense. But my gut says that it will make the movie awards season more diffuse, more exhausting, and less special. All the things that are already happening to it! I’m not sure that’s really what people want.

[jo]

So, the real casualty here is Hugh Jackman! He was judged by a group of voters whose tastes are highly influenced by how the episodes developed the character in a limited series. But can they be blamed for that? It is an EMMY rule that should be reviewed.

The real issue is: not because a movie is seen on TV does not make it a TV movie! So argues Peter Debruge. On the side of the AMPAS, they should have been more broadminded - so long as a movie complies with the artistic parameters for Oscar-qualifying movies, then it should recognize that in this unusual pandemic era what should be given honors is artistic excellence... and not only for movies shown physically or intended to be shown physically for a theatrical distribution.

Sounds more like politics to me ( the case of the theatrical distributors not wanting for movies shown elsewhere getting a foothold)! Instead the AMPAS decided to add ridiculous standards to accommodate inclusivity instead! They should have recognized artistic excellence instead!

Hugh got the raw end of the deal! And those blind EMMY voters went their way to recognize a really showy performance instead of judging how an actor uses all his skills to show human behavior in varying ways!

Blah!


Jo

[jo]

AMPAS rules for qualifying for Oscar consideration has been amended again. How will this affect Bad Education?


Amended Rules on April 28, 2020 --

Search

NEWS / AWARDS RULES AND CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR 93RD OSCARS®
AWARDS RULES AND CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS APPROVED FOR 93RD OSCARS®

Posted:
Tuesday, April 28, 2020 - 12:15



The Academy’s Board of Governors has approved rules and campaign regulations for the 93rd Academy Awards®.

The devastating COVID-19 pandemic forced the closure of all Los Angeles County movie theaters as of Monday, March 16, 2020. Current Academy Awards rules (under Rule Two, Eligibility) require that a film be shown in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily. Until further notice, and for the 93rd Awards year only, films that had a previously planned theatrical release but are initially made available on a commercial streaming or VOD service may qualify in the Best Picture, general entry and specialty categories for the 93rd Academy Awards under these provisions:

The film must be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member-only streaming site within 60 days of the film’s streaming or VOD release;

The film must meet all other eligibility requirements.

On a date to be determined by the Academy, and when theaters reopen in accordance with federal, state and local specified guidelines and criteria, this rules exemption will no longer apply. All films released thereafter will be expected to comply with the standard Academy theatrical qualifying requirements.

“The Academy firmly believes there is no greater way to experience the magic of movies than to see them in a theater. Our commitment to that is unchanged and unwavering. Nonetheless, the historically tragic COVID-19 pandemic necessitates this temporary exception to our awards eligibility rules. The Academy supports our members and colleagues during this time of uncertainty. We recognize the importance of their work being seen and also celebrated, especially now, when audiences appreciate movies more than ever,” said Academy President David Rubin and CEO Dawn Hudson.

For films to more easily meet theatrical exhibition requirements when theaters reopen, the Academy also will expand the number of qualifying theaters beyond Los Angeles County to include venues in additional U.S. metropolitan areas: the City of New York; the Bay Area; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; and Atlanta, Georgia. The Awards and Events Committee will evaluate all matters of rules and eligibility.

Film festivals that have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic may provide films online through either a transactional pay wall or password-protected entry, which will not affect the films’ eligibility for future Academy Awards qualification. The Academy will allow an exemption for those films that are released online through an impacted festival’s online platform, provided that proof of inclusion in the festival is submitted. With these provisions, films will be expected to comply with all other eligibility requirements for the 93rd Academy Awards.

Further Amendment on October 6. 2020 --

RULE TWO – ELIGIBILITY

ADDENDUM
Approved by the Academy’s Board of Governors on Tuesday, October 6, 2020

With the gradual re-opening of theaters, there are two methods of qualification for awards consideration in
Best Picture and general entry categories through the remainder of the 93rd Academy Awards year
(February 28, 2021):

1) Films which are intended for theatrical release, but are initially made available through
commercial streaming, VOD service or other broadcast may qualify under these provisions:

• That the film be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member site
within 60 days of the film’s streaming/VOD release or broadcast;

• That it meets all other eligibility requirements

OR

2) Films that open in theaters in at least one of the six qualifying U.S. cities, depending on theater
availability, may qualify under these provisions:
• That the film completes a qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days in the same
commercial venue, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily,
with at least one screening beginning between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. daily
• That it meets all other eligibility requirements
• Six qualifying U.S. cities include: Los Angeles County; City of New York [Five Boroughs];
the Bay Area [counties of San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, San Mateo and Contra Costa];
Chicago [Cook County, Illinois]; Miami [Miami-Dade County, Florida]; and Atlanta [Fulton
County, Georgia].
• Drive-in theaters are included as a qualifying commercial venue in the above cities (must
run for seven consecutive days with at least one screening daily)
• Academy Screening Room would be optional

[jo]

Let's focus on the eligibility requirements --

April 28, 2020 --

Until further notice, and for the 93rd Awards year only, films that had a previously planned theatrical release but are initially made available on a commercial streaming or VOD service may qualify in the Best Picture, general entry and specialty categories for the 93rd Academy Awards under these provisions:

The film must be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member-only streaming site within 60 days of the film’s streaming or VOD release;

The film must meet all other eligibility requirements.

October 5, 2020 --

1) Films which are intended for theatrical release, but are initially made available through
commercial streaming, VOD service or other broadcast may qualify under these provisions:

• That the film be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member site
within 60 days of the film’s streaming/VOD release or broadcast;

• That it meets all other eligibility requirements

Is there significance in the difference in phrasing to signify different intentions --

a previously planned theatrical release

intended for theatrical release,

The second issue as to the eligibility of Bad Education is whether HBO has made a decision to let it compete also at the Oscars...and, if so, have they complied with the 60-day requirement of submitting the film to the AMPAS?


Jo

[jo]

Assuming HBO wanted to compete for Oscar honors likewise --

What can they do to prove "intended theatrical screening"?

*It premiered at a film festival (TIFF, Sept 2019) before being acquired by HBO. There is no indication that HBO did NOT plan the movie to be also released for a limited time in movie theaters ( like Netflix or Amazon do for films intended to compete at the Oscars). There is room for doubt. After all, HBO allowed the Tribeca FF participation ( which was ahead of the HBO premiere) after they acquired the film distribution rights at Toronto.

*It was also planned to be shown at the Tribeca FF ahead of the HBO screening, but the virus had forced the Tribeca festival to go online.

*Maybe the technical aspects of making the film ( cameras used, etc) can justify that it was intended for theatrical release? That the creatives and cast had been known to have voiced disappointment that a theatrical distributor did not win the film rights was proof as to the filmmaking intention of the movie?


Jo

[jo]

His review has been included in the Reviews thread.

[jo]

[jo]

I wonder if those producers of Bad Education who sold out to HBO have any regrets? They must feel guilty that they are depriving their cast and creatives from any potential recognition at the highest level of honors-giving, the Oscar!

And all for $$$$


They could have sweetened the deal by negotiating with HBO for a limited theatrical release before the movie is screened on HBO...but did they forego that to optimize the initial financial return to them

[jo]

Dec 9, 2020 5:49:51 GMT -5 jo said:

Peter Debruge cites this Honorable Mention --

Honorable Mention: Bad Education

Bad Education
Photo : Courtesy of HBO

There’s no question in my mind that Cory Finley’s terrific second feature is a “movie”: This ultra-smart, surprise-packed look at a Long Island public-school embezzling scheme was conceived for the big screen, shot on 35mm and premiered at the 2019 Toronto Film Festival. Then again, it’s a sign of how radically the industry is changing that “Bad Education” was acquired by HBO and released to television, where it went on to win an Emmy for best TV movie. Such categories aside, this incredible true-crime story deserves wider attention still, showcasing a career-best performance by Hugh Jackman and pitch-perfect support from Allison Janney as a pair of educators who meant well, but twisted the system to their own advantage. (Watch on HBO Max.)

[hughmanity]

BAD EDUCATION comes in at #3 on People Magazine's list. Can't help but wonder if there would be inclusion on more lists had it had been intended for a "theatrical" release. Too much ambiguity when a film is not Oscar eligible...☹


people.com/movies/the-top-10-movies-of-2020/

[hughmanity]

Hugh included on this list of top 2020 film performances by actors ☺

www.indiewire.com/2020/12/best-performances-actors-2020-1234603059/

[jo]

Thanks, hughmanity

If I may --

Bad Education
“Bad Education”

HBO/screenshot

Hugh Jackman, “Bad Education”

The incredible magic trick of Cory Finley’s “Bad Education,” a diabolically smart true-life crime drama that stars Hugh Jackman in his best performance since “The Prestige,” ]is how it manages to balance that asymmetry in the most savage and softhearted of ways, inviting sympathy for the devil even after it convinces you why he should go to hell. In this case, the devil is Jackman’s preening, closeted, and thoroughly knotted take on Dr. Frank Tassone, the superintendent of Long Island’s Roslyn Union Free School District circa — when he engineered the largest public school embezzlement in American history. Jackman plays Tassone as someone who doesn’t have the good sense to realize that he’s the main character of a movie; someone who thinks that he’s always just outside the eye of the storm. That self-misperception gives Jackman the space needed to be life-sized in a way that his “bigger” roles seldom have.

This is the most human performance the actor has ever given, wrapped in translucent vanity and cut with finely sliced layers of doubt and denial. Whether locked in an oppressive close-up or trying to wrestle back control of Frank’s domain, Jackman always threads the needle between shock and showmanship. Through him, Frank seems both innocent and guilty at all times, and the actions he’s able to justify (good optics sometimes require bad choices!) steer him right into his blind spots. Early in the film, Frank tells a struggling lower schooler that he was also bad at math, and now look at him: He’s the guy who designs the math curriculum. The tragic thing about Frank — and the most brilliant thing about Jackman’s performance — is that he honestly doesn’t understand why that might not add up. —DE

This truly deserves an Oscar!

What is the AMPAS going to do about it??

And those $$$ producers who sold out to HBO should be ashamed of themselves for robbing Hugh of this chance


Jo