Please stop comparing this with all the other documentaries

It doesn't matter which fruit each of the Oscar nominees are, it matters that this particular documentary won out against the others. Awarding one of group creates comparison, you hold each nominee up to the light and see what delivered the most interesting ideas in the most interesting ways.

This film may be fun and inspiring, but it didn't contain anything revolutionary or make any statement other than it's hard to be a black, female back up singer in the music industry.

I'm going to stand up for this as a documentary. First, gotta get 2 things straight:

1) the subject isn't the same as the documentary. Obviously some subjects are "heavier" than others but not all docs can be about genocide: you've got to judge it on its own merits.

2) documentaries are editorials, not articles. There should be (imho) more to them than just the recitation of facts. They should make you think and challenge your opinions.

So this documentary has a fairly "light" subject. But I'm not going to penalize it for not being about orphans or the Holocast. I do think it's a topic that does have interest since it's something that we tend to see and take for granted. In terms of the "does it make you think" question, I actually give "20 Feet" pretty high marks. It raises (gently) the issue of fairness. Then it lets you hear from people who know a lot -- the vast majority actual participants, with only a few interruptions from the random PhD or journalist.

Where I think this shines is in being very sympathetic to the women, while at the same time providing enough evidence to let you decide why they're not stars. Is it racism? Sexism? Lack of ego? Rotten luck? Bad decision making? Or is there some "star power" that exists that these women lack? Your experience may vary, but I actually found myself thinking that there IS something that differentiates the stars from the backgrounders -- some combination of charisma plus the choice of what and how to sing. (Obviously, being on Phil Spector's bad side doesn't help!) To me, that's a pretty deft bit of filmmaking -- to be both very sympathetic to the women and enormously appreciative of their talent, while suggesting that maybe there's a reason they're not the big stars.

My only complaints would be that they don't really feature backups who do make it big. What do they have that these women don't? It's a shame not have heard from Luther Vandross. I never knew that was him backing on Young Americans, but google tells me he wrote a song for David Bowie shortly thereafter, so his genius obviously came through pretty quickly -- what made his career arc different?

But this was a fine documentary, while The Act of Killing was a great documentary. Subject matter aside, The Act of Killing was still better. Add to that the subject of Act of Killing, what went into making it, etc., it is quite stunning that this fine documentary won against perhaps one of the greatest ever.

I have to agree with others here. Having seen both "20 Feet from Stardom" and "The Act of Killing" recently, it is very clear that the latter is the superior film.

It isn't subject matter that makes the difference either. There are plenty of mediocre movies about genocide but "The Act of Killing" brings something truly unique to the screen, not only in terms of what it shows, unrepentant murderers glorifying their pasts, but in the manner in which it presents the subject to the screen.

Stylistically "20 Feet from Stardom" is a pretty run-of-the-mill talking heads documentary which in no way pushes the boundaries of how the medium works. Add to that the fact that it is hardly presenting us with anything very original in terms of subject and it does seem remarkable to me that the Academy would choose it over such a breathtakingly original and powerful alternative that genuinely broke new ground in documentary filmmaking.

The comparison is there to be made. There is nothing at all unfair to "20 Feet from Stardom" in making it.