Bad Education - Festivals and Awards Watch

[hughmanity]

I don't know who The Futon Critic is, but it's listed here


www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2019/10/29/hbo-max-programming-highlights-unveiled-at-warnermedia-day-689511/20191029warnermedia10/

[jo]

Thanks! Excellent find - the other trade paper and film blogs are not even mentioning it.

Bad Education

Long Island school superintendent Frank Tassone and his assistant superintendent for business, Pam Gluckin, are credited with bringing Roslyn School District unprecedented prestige, pleasing the board and raising property values in the town. Frank, always immaculately groomed and tailored, is a master of positive messaging, whether before an audience of community leaders or in an office with a concerned student or parent. Frank can do no wrong, until the Roslyn High School newspaper decides to dig deep into some expense reports uncovering an embezzlement scheme of epic proportions, revealing secrets about Frank and forcing the community to question their values and ambitions. Inspired by a true story, Bad Education is a potent dark comedy and commentary on the cost of the pursuit of educational excellence.


Genre: Film
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Allison Janney, Ray Romano
Director: Cory Finley
Writer: Mike Makowsky
Executive Producers: Leonid Lebedev, Caroline Jaczko
Producers: Fred Berger, Eddie Vaisman, Julia Lebedev, Brian Kavanaugh-Jones, Oren Moverman, Mike Makowsky
Produced by: Automatik, Sight Unseen

It still confounds me that they paid north of $ 17.5 million for the movie... and to treat it with such a dry writeup! Why would people in general watch it... they made it sound almost like a documentary - tsk, tsk!

Had it received a more dramatic presentation ( to justify its acquisition cost) - Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com. Variety would have hailed it as part of the major attractions to launch HBO-MAX

Jo

[jo]

That writer noted that some films were critically-acclaimed. He/she should have researched how the new films not released via regular cinemas have done. He/she could have used the RT reviews and ratings for Bad Education to beef up interest.

On a sadder note -- of all past Hugh movies released thru Warner Bros, only HAPPY FEET ( of which he is just playing a supporting role) is available during the first year. No Fountain, Prestige, Prisoners or Pan

Jo

[hughmanity]

I just saw Deadline and Just Jared list the same synopsis.

[jo]

Oh good - maybe the list came later from Warner Bros. The initial reports must have been edited.

But with that kind of unimaginative write-up -- why would people watch it ( except for the cast's fans) given that it sounds like an investigative report on a social concern? Melissa McCarthy's SuperIntelligence had much better publicity!

I wish it had been highlighted in the summary reports ( given the publicity surrounding its sale to HBO-MAX) - I had to wade through a very long list of HBO-MAX offerings before I found it. The movie offerings are ( or close to) the last in the very long list!

Jo

[hughmanity]

Exactly...most people without a vested interest probably wouldn't even make it that far down the list.  I can only hope HBO does it justice later on and highlights some of the excellent reviews.  Also, that some of those trades will publicize it in accordance with the glowing
reviews their critics wrote!

Oct 29, 2019 22:38:53 GMT -5 jo said:

Oh good - maybe the list came later from Warner Bros. The initial reports must have been edited.

But with that kind of unimaginative write-up -- why would people watch it ( except for the cast's fans) given that it sounds like an investigative report on a social concern? Melissa McCarthy's SuperIntelligence had much better publicity!

I wish it had been highlighted in the summary reports ( given the publicity surrounding its sale to HBO-MAX) - I had to wade through a very long list of HBO-MAX offerings before I found it. The movie offerings are ( or close to) the last in the very long list!
Jo

[jo]

We also do not know if the new movies will be released all at the same time...or will be given piece-meal month by month. The longer it takes to stream BAD EDUCATION, people might start to forget that it got glowing reviews and that WarnerMedia must have found it to be an excellent acquisition given what they paid for it.

And why aren't past Hugh Jackman movies with great following ( The Prestige, Prisoners, even the cult movie The Fountain) even given one slot among the offerings at this point? Unless WB only owned theatrical film distribution rights, not streaming rights, to those movies? Are movies forever owned by the producers?

Jo

[jo]

Btw, Bad Education is tied with Logan as the highest-rated Jackman movie on Metacritic ( a more rigid rating system, compared to Rotten Tomatoes) at 77 %

Others --

Days of Future Past - 75 %
Prisoners - 74 %
XMen-2 - 68%
The Prestige - 66 %
Les Misérables - 63 %
The Wolverine - 61 %
The Front Runner - 61 %
The Fountain - 51 %
The Greatest Showman - 48%


How sad that it will not get the opportunity to be seen by movie fans, unless they subscribe to a streaming service!

And not all overseas fans may have an opportunity at all --

AT&T will juice signups by offering HBO Max for free to its existing 10 million HBO customers. That will give it a base to grow to a forecast 75 million to 90 million customers in the U.S., Latin America and Europe, including 50 million domestic subscribers, by 2025. Executives said onstage that they are in discussions with other cable distributors to offer HBO Max to those HBO customers

Hope we qualify for the "Others" mentioned in the last line... Hope they release a DVD/BluRay eventually.

Jo

[jo]

I can't find it on this VARIETY List - Are they unwittingly ignoring it? Or did it escape the reporter's eyes?


variety.com/2019/tv/news/everything-coming-to-hbo-max-1203387225/

[hughmanity]

At least this article mentions Hugh up front and as one of the big names to watch for


parade.com/944754/alexandra-hurtado/hbo-max/

[jo]

What happens to backend bonuses for talent when the film is shifted to streaming ?


www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/as-movies-go-direct-streaming-talent-bonuses-just-go-window-1250781

As Movies Go Direct to Streaming, Talent Bonuses "Just Go Out the Window"

Contracts haven't kept pace with studios' stepped-up efforts to forgo theatrical releases for direct-to-consumer options: "There is no recourse."

Still, reps are now seeking ways to protect clients against streaming pitfalls. Those with actors appearing in independently financed films are including streaming bonus language. And if the sale of a film eclipses a certain amount, talent bonuses increase (think HBO Max acquiring Hugh Jackman's Bad Education in September out of Toronto for $20 million). Kole adds, "Of course, people are nervous because it's new, but being nervous doesn't help your clients."

[hughmanity]

Credit Jackman's Landing

http://instagram.com/p/B4c7TkIlQUw

[jo]

I've seen the clip itself ( also on JL) -- but it seemed more to focus on Allison Janney. And it was part of a clip that seemed to be advertising the new streaming service from WARNER MEDIA.

I was hoping it carried better news about the possibility of a theatrical release. As to it being an HBO-MAX offering -- why advertise it this early when the streaming service is not going to open till May 2020?


At least NETFLIX is giving "The Irishman" a chance to be seen by the public ( even if the major theatre chains refuse to exhibit it because of the short period to screen it) - so some have seen it at a Broadway theatre, the Belasco ( alhough theatres have far more uncomfortable seats and spaces compared to cinemas).

Jo

[jo]

Deadline.com is holding its yearly awards season roundtable on potential Oscar honors and the actors/creatives behind them.

It is called THE CONTENDERS - and Hugh was part of it for Logan and TheFrontRunner. It is disheartening that this year when so many have acknowledged his BAD EDUCATION portrayal as possible career-best performance that he is not part of the group

Jo (still in a RANT mood )

[hughmanity]

Yes, aggravating then; aggravating still. I apologize for stirring it up again with posting the clip!  

Nov 4, 2019 21:27:03 GMT -5 jo said:

Deadline.com is holding its yearly awards season roundtable on potential Oscar honors and the actors/creatives behind them.

It is called THE CONTENDERS - and Hugh was part of it for Logan and TheFrontRunner. It is disheartening that this year when so many have acknowledged his BAD EDUCATION portrayal as possible career-best performance that he is not part of the group

Jo (still in a RANT mood )

[jo]

Lol - we grieve as well

Jo

[jo]

This article written by Martin Scorcese touches base on why BAD EDUCATION has been relegated to the trenches ( streaming services)!

Nov 4, 2019 21:41:15 GMT -5 jo said:

A film auteur speaks!

From The New York Times --

Opinion


Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
Cinema is an art form that brings you the unexpected. In superhero movies, nothing is at risk, a director says.

By Martin Scorsese
Mr. Scorsese is an Academy Award-winning director, writer and producer.
Nov. 4, 2019, 7:00 p.m. ET

“It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever,” says Mr. Scorsese.
Credit...
Jasu Hu


When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.




And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.



Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.

And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.

Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.




They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.



So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.


That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.



In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”



Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.


Martin Scorsese is an Academy Award-winning director, writer and producer. His new film is “The Irishman.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [e-mail].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@nytopinion) and Instagram.

Very insightful piece and written from the heart of true cinema artist! I wonder how he regarded LOGAN, if he ever saw it?


Jo

[luzie]

Nov 4, 2019 21:40:51 GMT -5 hughmanity said:

Yes, aggravating then; aggravating still. I apologize for stirring it up again with posting the clip!  

Nov 4, 2019 21:27:03 GMT -5 jo said:

Deadline.com is holding its yearly awards season roundtable on potential Oscar honors and the actors/creatives behind them.

It is called THE CONTENDERS - and Hugh was part of it for Logan and TheFrontRunner. It is disheartening that this year when so many have acknowledged his BAD EDUCATION portrayal as possible career-best performance that he is not part of the group

Jo (still in a RANT mood )

I third that! I stick to it what I've already said when the HBO deal was announced - it sucks! It's a real shame that one of his best reviewed movies and performances is wasted on a subscription channel for a limited viewership and possibly goes unnoticed and unseen by many others! I still hope HBO promotes and highlights the film and in particular Hugh more nearer the time when it premieres on HBO or on their streaming platform, but I wouldn't bet on it. In the advertising clip for HBO Max at least it gets totally lost in the shuffle - if you blink you miss it, and even in these three seconds the focus seems to be more on Allison Janney!

It's not the point that it will be presumably at least released on DVD some day - hopefully also worldwide sometime next year and not only in the US as region code DVD!! Or that it might air later on any other - probably pay TV - channels in some countries. This is a movie made for the big screen that could have earned Hugh a few accolades and more wide recognition during award season or at least would have brought him a bit more back into the public light again! Let's face it, his tour wasn't covered by the media and most of the general public wasn't and isn't even aware of it. How many of his peers and directors have attended one of his concerts??? Not too many, I suppose! Outside the relatively small (online) fan world and perhaps those who have seen him on tour, it's like he has fallen off the face of the earth. It's been nearly two years since he had his last movie in cinemas. We all know what has happened with Front Runner. He needs another fairly (critical acclaimed and/or commercially) successful movie in theatres pretty soon. Who knows when (or despite a studio-produced movie, if ... ) Reminiscence will be in cinemas and how it will be received. His long Broadway commitment doesn't help either - again it's only for a relatively small group of people and doesn't generate enough buzz outside this sort of Broadway bubble. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all, if he would return as Wolverine for a last time ..... or would be part of another franchise like so many of his peers ....

[luzie]

Nov 4, 2019 22:09:26 GMT -5 jo said:

This article written by Martin Scorcese touches base on why BAD EDUCATION has been relegated to the trenches ( streaming services)!

Nov 4, 2019 21:41:15 GMT -5 jo said:

A film auteur speaks!

From The New York Times --



Very insightful piece and written from the heart of true cinema artist! I wonder how he regarded LOGAN, if he ever saw it?


Jo

This is a good piece! And how annoying that the media as usually has taken some of his quotes out of context like "Scorsese disses Marvel films ..."!

[jo]

I wonder if the movie is allowed to be shown in other film festivals around the world?

[luzie]

Hm, actually this would be the kind of movie that could be shown in one of the sections at the Berlinale in February ...

[jo]

Let's hope that is one of the exemptions from the HBO deal - that festival screenings would be allowed. HBO-MAX is opening its streaming services in May 2020 but no word on when Bad Education is scheduled for availability - although it could be an inaugural offering?

Jo

[luzie]

I don't hold my breath, neither HBO nor HBO Max is availaible in Germany, so it actually wouldn't make much sense to show it here at the Berlinale, unless it's shown anywhere else later (hopefully not only on a pay TV channel like Sky!!). But the Berlinale has different sections for all kind of productions, one is even for series, so who knows ...

[jo]

The Hollywood Reporter provides insights on what's happening with the Oscars -

Dec 5, 2019 16:27:56 GMT -5 jo said:

The realities of Oscar campaigns and the deep pockets involved --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-oscars-rarely-go-underdogs-anymore-1258854

Movies


AWARDS
Why the Oscars Rarely Go for Underdogs Anymore
6:30 AM PST 12/5/2019 by Stephen Galloway


A tighter awards window, lavish FYC campaigns and the return of A-listers en masse has limited the opportunities for indie breakouts and newcomers to reach Academy voters.

In the summer of 2013, word began to spread about a new film soon to unspool at the Telluride Film Festival and an extraordinary young actress making her debut in a major role. She was newly out of Yale drama school, was appearing in a lowish-budget period piece directed by a filmmaker on the rise, and the odds against her getting any recognition were immense — and yet six months later, she won an Academy Award.

Lupita Nyong'o's journey to the Oscars was fueled not only by her talent but by an awards environment notably more hospitable to newcomers than it is today. In the half-decade since her victory for 12 Years a Slave, you can count on the fingers of one hand the outsiders who've become serious contenders in the acting and directing categories.

True, writer-director Barry Jenkins won for 2016's Moonlight, but Mahershala Ali, who also took home a statuette for best supporting actor, was hardly a novice: He'd been a jobbing actor for two decades and found fame with House of Cards. Similarly, Olivia Colman's best actress win this year for The Favourite came after years starring on British television and onstage and was helped by her casting in The Crown.

At the 2020 Oscars, the chances of anyone without a brand name taking home a top award are slim to none. That's not because talent is lacking. Such actors as A Hidden Life's Valerie Pachner, Waves' Renée Elise Goldsberry, Honey Boy's Noah Jupe and Just Mercy's Rob Morgan have all drawn acclaim and yet none is in the serious awards conversation. Indie titles such as Kelly Reichardt's First Cow, Robert Eggers' The Lighthouse and Olivia Wilde's Booksmart once might have been must-sees, but few Academy members now feel compelled to check them out.

Instead, the race is dominated by A-list helmers (Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Mendes) and stars (Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Renée Zellweger, Scarlett Johansson). The only genuine outsider, Parasite's Bong Joon Ho, has a long list of credits and is loved by cinephiles.




So why the change? Three factors play a part.


First, there's the tighter awards window. Last season's Academy Awards were held Feb. 24; the upcoming awards take place Feb. 9. That means campaigners have two fewer weeks to get their movies seen — and, with an avalanche of demand for screening rooms and guild presentations, fringe contenders get squeezed out.

Second, deep-pocketed backers have inflated the sums lavished on campaigns. Harvey Weinstein once drew ire for allegedly spending as much as $10 million on some pictures; now Netflix is spending four times that amount and has an awards staff 60-people deep. The streamer is also paving the way for Oscar success with meaty campaigns on precursors such as the BAFTAs and Golden Globes. Don't think that matters? Just look at Irishman star De Niro's visibility in the past weeks with Netflix's guidance.

Third, stricter campaigning rules mean a greater emphasis on in-person events. Big names (J.J. Abrams, Regina King, Margot Robbie) are hosting screenings for friends' films along with their own. A-listers such as Pitt and DiCaprio are taking part in Q&As. Even latecomers such as Universal's 1917 and Warner Bros.' Richard Jewell are using events with Mendes, Clint Eastwood and top studio execs to promote them, an option unavailable to low-budget contenders like Neon's Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which won a screenplay prize at Cannes.



One small-scale distributor says he's counting on his director to do shuttle diplomacy among groups of Oscar voters because he doesn't have the funds for anything else. "Our exit scores are incredible," he says. "I just hope people notice." Additionally, Mark Duplass held a one-man FYC campaign for his Paddleton co-star Ray Romano earlier this month.


Can anything be done to stem the rich-get-richer tide? Yes, say insiders.

The Academy could alter the rules for a supporting role, limiting the screen time an actor gets per movie. That would spotlight genuine supporting performers as opposed to stars.

The Oscar organization could also create an award for best newcomer, acknowledging performers with limited credits. In the past, it's bestowed special Oscars including a Juvenile Award to Shirley Temple in 1934.

Ultimately, the absence of fresh faces stems from a more profound change in the industry at large that cannot be finessed by the Academy: the disappearance of the indie film. With fewer low-budget pictures getting large-scale distribution and marketing campaigns, there are also fewer opportunities for outsiders to make the mark Nyong'o did.

The death of the underdog contender is about something far more troubling than the Academy Awards; it's about the demise of the underdog film itself.


Stephen Galloway
[e-mail]
@thr

That's why I sometimes take a cynical and/or pragmatic view of the chances of winning an Oscar!


Jo

Presumably, there wasn't enough major studio interest in Bad Education that would have surpassed the bid of HBO ( rumored to be in the $ 17.5 - $20 million range) at the Toronto International Film Festival. Even if a major studio/streamer picked up the movie, would it have been the film ( and cast) of choice to mount an Oscar campaign for?


Jo

[jo]

How ironic that we are using the same thread started at the time of the Toronto International Film Festival when the film rights have not yet been sold to HBO yet.

May 2020 --

Today, because the amended Oscar rules seem to disqualify BAD EDUCATION for awards consideration, the focus is on EMMY ( and Golden Globes) honors.


Awards Daily is one of the more respected film bloggers, run by the occasionally controversial Sasha Stone, The assessment of potential EMMY honors is done by another member, Clarence Moye --


www.awardsdaily.com/2020/04/24/emmy-spotlight-bad-education/

Home
Awards Calendar 2020

Emmy Spotlight: Jackman, Janney Lead Powerhouse ‘Education’

by Clarence Moye April 25, 2020 in ADTV, ADTV Feature, Emmy Spotlight 0


Oscar nominee Hugh Jackman has never been better than he is in Cory Finley’s Bad Education. Playing real-life (and larger than life) personality Dr. Frank A. Tassone, Jackman creates a character oozing a fluid, effortless charisma. It’s easy to see why an entire school community looked the other way while he…
Let me stop there.

Bad Education is a film best suited to those who know nothing about Tassone’s story. It’s the kind of film that appears to be one thing but then shifts into a different gear completely. It offers a story of prestige, of white privilege, of corruption, and of secrets and lies. It’s all underscored by Michael Abels’ (Us, Get Out) score that announces this a tragic downfall story through its operatic intent. Bad Education comes to us on HBO, but it’s the most compelling film I’ve seen this year – cinema or television.

The beauty of Mike Makowsky’s brilliant screenplay is that it entertainingly illustrates the criticality of Roslyn High School to the local community. Money flows like water through its halls, downstream like tendrils into the community itself. Pumping dollars into a high school striving to achieve that all-American goal of being Number One allowed gross financial negligence and corruption within its halls. The film highlights the evils of a capitalist society that allows crimes to be swept under thanks to the delicate, but persistent, ecosystem of white privilege.

Stars Hugh Jackman and Allison Janney will be nominated for Emmys in their respective Limited Series / TV Movie categories. They both deserve every accolade coming their way. Janney’s Pam Gluckin embodies the expectation that “I get what’s coming to me.” She works hard for the children of Roslyn High School, and she accentuates her compensation any way she can. Oscar-winner Janney gives us tremendous moments of genuine, comic incredulity. She’s brilliant here, one of our very best actresses stretching her muscles flawlessly.



Jackman draws on the ringmaster charm employed in The Greatest Showman but uses it to mask the secrets of Tassone. Jackman’s Tassone thrives on personal interaction as much as he thrives on his tightrope walking. He’s essentially a con man, but a con man who wants to do good for his community. He wants the image of perfection but with personal secrets and complications that, let’s say, make perfection unobtainable. It’s a complex and accomplished performance. It’s also something that only a handful of actors with the right amount of charisma and showmanship could pull off. Jackson does so brilliantly.

They are both well supported by a game cast, including Ray Romano and Geraldine Viswanathan. Viswanathan plays an ambitious student with a strong moral compass and journalistic integrity. Think of her as the Woodward and Bernstein of the high school set.

Bad Education should be broadly embraced by the Television Academy. It’s the kind of film that’s perfectly within their wheelhouse: ripped from the headlines, political, and just sensational enough. It’s a great document of the dangers in mixing American capitalism with the educational system. And it’s just fantastically entertaining in telling its story.


Guaranteed Nominations

TV Movie
Leading Actor in a Limited Series / TV Movie – Hugh Jackman
Supporting Actress in a Limited Series / TV Movie – Allison Janney
Music Composition For A Limited Series, Movie Or Special (Original Dramatic Score) – Michael Abels
Screenplay

Possible Nominations
Supporting Actor in a Limited Series / TV Movie – Ray Romano
Supporting Actress in a Limited Series / TV Movie – Geraldine Viswanathan


Clarence Moye is an editor at Awards Daily.


© 1999-2018 AwardsDaily.com