Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Very easy to speak of the dead when they aren't around to defend themselves.

Refuted by whom? I saw Sasha's defense of Streep - the only one I've seen - and she, not the article, was rebuffed in minutes.

The research is accurate. Disney was no saint, but half-truths are dangerous and the article by an acknowledged expert on the history of animation correctly calls them out.

At first I thought Streep's comments may have come from an embittered Disney employee she met while filming Into the Woods for the studio, but, no, she got them from Neil Gabler's book which itself was based on second hand information.

Be wary of that article. I saw it posted on Facebook and was refuted within moments, so Disney defenders probably jumped on it fast.

Streep's anti-Disney diatribe, basically informed by Neil Gabler's 2006 book, largely debunked:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/fact- ... 94380.html

That is true. Saving Mr. Banks, a well made film it may be, is a complete distortion of historical facts. After all, the film references Roy not having anything to do with Travers, but historically, he's the one who went after her in the first place. Additionally, the film makes it sound like after Travers realized what she did about the connection between Mary Poppins, Walt Disney and her past, she still hated Disney, hated the film and specifically prohibited any further adaptations of her work by Disney.

As always, Disney Disneyfied the past to make for a happier, more politically correct film that made them look like saints when they were far from that.

OscarGuy wrote:She may be trying to bring down Saving Mr. Banks, which puts a rosy spin on him.

The movie puts a rosy spin not just on Disney, but Travers as well.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mov ... 30akz.html

So what happens next year when Streep will no doubt be a bloggers' favorite once again for the Disney produced Into the Woods?

It seemed like a particularly crass thing to do, especially since it took the spotlight away from Emma Thompson who Meryl’s speech was supposed to be about. Meryl doesn’t usually get political so I found this a bit odd. Is she perhaps annoyed at the August: Osage County backlash and accusations that her performance teeters on the border of camp? (Or, does is? I haven't seen the film yet.)

I agree with Italiano that historical perspective is important to consider with these kind of hindsight reviews. The truth of the matter is that a lot of Americans at that time were anti-Semitic (obviously this was not good). Erik Larsen’s brilliant In the Garden of Beasts explores this to great effect. But Saving Mr. Banks is not a biopic of Walt Disney. His racism and anti-semitic nature, while important parts of the historical version we now have of Disney, didn’t exactly have a place in that story. I mean, unless they left out of scene where PL Travers had created a Jewish character in Mary Poppins that Disney expressly turned into a Gentile. Emma Thompson’s Best Actress award isn’t meant to celebrate Walt Disney, is it?

Ah, the American passion for feminism and the politically correct - again

Don't ger me wrong - what Meryl says about Walt Disney is true - it's not exactly the first time we hear it, but true things can and probably must be repeated. No problem with that. (Though, to be honest, Disney wasn't the only person, in the 30s, who felt that way about women... Historical perspective is important. But ok, he was wrong about that - and his antisemitism was especially unforgivable, EVEN and I'd say especially in the 30s).

So, all very true. Still... How shall I put it? I'm not sure that Saving Mr Banks is the kind of movie one should say those things for. And I'm not sure that that place and time were the right place and time to say those things. And I'm not even sure that they were said in the right way (as others have pointed out, she's not too well informed on Ezra Pound).

And most importantly, I'm not sure that Meryl Streep - who stood up and applauded Elia Kazan - is the right person to say those things. Great actress, definitely, and I will be happy when she gets a fourth Oscar (not this year hopefully)... but she's not Vanessa Redgrave. Politics just aren't her thing, and she's not very convincing when she deals with them.

She may be trying to bring down Saving Mr. Banks, which puts a rosy spin on him.

Streep isn't "set to appear" in Into the Woods. She's already completed it. The film is scheduled to open on Christmas Day.

What her point was in dredging up of all of this generally well known ancient history was at an awards ceremony, I have no idea, but you can read her entire speech here:
http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/read-mer ... l?mid=imdb

Looks like Meryl went a little off-book during her introduction of Emma Thompson.

From Los Angeles Times:

Meryl Streep calls out Walt Disney as sexist, anti-Semitic

One of moviedom's modern icons called out one of Hollywood's historic heroes Tuesday, as Meryl Streep delivered a sharp rebuke to Walt Disney for alleged sexist and anti-Semitic views at the National Board of Review awards gala in New York.

Streep was on hand to present an acting award to Emma Thompson for her portrayal of the prickly British author and "Mary Poppins" creator P.L. Travers in the new film "Saving Mr. Banks," which dramatizes Disney's efforts to persuade Travers to adapt her books into a musical.

According to Variety and other news accounts, after a series of humorous quips and nods to Thompson's talent, Streep turned serious and called Disney "a gender bigot," noting that "some of his associates reported that Walt Disney didn't really like women." She quoted a letter that Disney's company wrote in 1938 to an aspiring female animator, which said, "Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that task is performed entirely by young men."

Streep also said that Disney "supported an anti-Semitic industry lobbying group." Streep's comments offer a markedly different perspective from the sparkly portrayal of Uncle Walt in "Saving Mr. Banks." In the film, Disney is portrayed by yet another beloved Hollywood star, Tom Hanks, as a wholesome, good-natured genius whose main concern is making merriment.

Hanks recently told the Times that "Saving Mr. Banks" is more about Travers than Disney, which is why the film didn't address some of the skeletons in Disney's closet.

Presumably, Streep's grudge against Disney isn't insurmountable, as she is set to appear in the upcoming Disney film "Into the Woods," based on the Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine musical.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mo ... z2prmmBBic

Mister Tee wrote:

Sabin wrote:

Mister Tee wrote
At this point, if LA doesn't pick 12 Years a Slave, can it seriously be called front-runner?

Yes.

FURTHER ELABORATION: Amour, The Descendants, The Social Network, The Hurt Locker, WALL*E, There WIll Be Blood, Letters from Iwo Jima, Brokeback Mountain, Sideways, American Splendor, About Schmidt, In the Bedroom, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Insider, Saving Private Ryan, L.A. Confidential, Secrets & Lies, Leaving Las Vegas, Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List. Bam! Two in twenty years!

FURTHER ELABORATION STILL: but I get your meaning. I wrote down Her as my LAFCA prediction and I'm not likely to change it. 12 Years a Slave has to be considered the front-runner, if not the predestined winner. The reason I'm not sold on it as a predestined winner or the front-runner is because I've seen it, not because it didn't dominate the Iowa equivalent of the Oscar season.

It's all-but guaranteed the most Golden Globe nominations, right? Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Screenplay, Score. The only film that can ratchet up that many is American Hustle, and group think, which sways by the minute, may be ecstatic about its chances but it's competing in a different category and apparently the HFP doesn't love it. I'll be seeing it tonight so I'll tell you all what i think of it.

It wasn't so much an LA win as the idea of a movie being sold as the Oscar front-runner BECAUSE IT'S A CRITICAL SMASH getting through NY/NBR/LA without winning a single best picture prize seems discordant. Crowd-pleasers like Argo or The King's Speech could survive such a shutout. Darker movies like No Country and The Hurt Locker needed critics' wins to become what they became. And, even though they ultimately won, I don't think it would have been justified to call The King's Speech or Argo the front-runner at this point in the year; when King's lost NBR and the Globe, it looked pretty dead. That tells us, of course, there could be many curves in the road ahead. I just think the idea of 12 Years as front-runner is proving more ephemeral than anticipated.

Good point Tee.

On the other hand, as Gravity is looking like this year's Avatar, I can see American Hustle taking it in the end. David O. Russell might me considered as due for a win at this point.

Sabin wrote:

Mister Tee wrote
At this point, if LA doesn't pick 12 Years a Slave, can it seriously be called front-runner?

Yes.

FURTHER ELABORATION: Amour, The Descendants, The Social Network, The Hurt Locker, WALL*E, There WIll Be Blood, Letters from Iwo Jima, Brokeback Mountain, Sideways, American Splendor, About Schmidt, In the Bedroom, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Insider, Saving Private Ryan, L.A. Confidential, Secrets & Lies, Leaving Las Vegas, Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List. Bam! Two in twenty years!

FURTHER ELABORATION STILL: but I get your meaning. I wrote down Her as my LAFCA prediction and I'm not likely to change it. 12 Years a Slave has to be considered the front-runner, if not the predestined winner. The reason I'm not sold on it as a predestined winner or the front-runner is because I've seen it, not because it didn't dominate the Iowa equivalent of the Oscar season.

It's all-but guaranteed the most Golden Globe nominations, right? Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Screenplay, Score. The only film that can ratchet up that many is American Hustle, and group think, which sways by the minute, may be ecstatic about its chances but it's competing in a different category and apparently the HFP doesn't love it. I'll be seeing it tonight so I'll tell you all what i think of it.

It wasn't so much an LA win as the idea of a movie being sold as the Oscar front-runner BECAUSE IT'S A CRITICAL SMASH getting through NY/NBR/LA without winning a single best picture prize seems discordant. Crowd-pleasers like Argo or The King's Speech could survive such a shutout. Darker movies like No Country and The Hurt Locker needed critics' wins to become what they became. And, even though they ultimately won, I don't think it would have been justified to call The King's Speech or Argo the front-runner at this point in the year; when King's lost NBR and the Globe, it looked pretty dead. That tells us, of course, there could be many curves in the road ahead. I just think the idea of 12 Years as front-runner is proving more ephemeral than anticipated.

Mister Tee wrote:At this point, if LA doesn't pick 12 Years a Slave, can it seriously be called front-runner?

I'm still of the mind that the guilds are the true precursors, not the critics groups, as there are many guild members who are also members of the Academy, but no critics group members.