Is There Any Way to Fix Oscar’s International Film Category?

by

In the Best International Film category at the Oscars, “The Zone of Interest” currently holds the title. This movie was directed by a British filmmaker, filmed in Poland, and features dialogue primarily in German. Although director Jonathan Glazer received the award, it was technically given to Great Britain – marking their first win in this category and their first nominee who didn’t make the film in Welsh.

In this year’s race, the lead contender seems to be “Emilia Pérez,” a groundbreaking musical about trans empowerment that garnered 13 Oscar nominations. Despite being set in Mexico and primarily filmed in Spanish, it represents France for the competition. This is due to the film being written, directed, and largely produced in France, with scenes shot on a soundstage near Paris – demonstrating both French creative ingenuity and their lengthy history of intertwining with Mexico. If “Emilia Pérez” should stumble (a possibility that seems slightly more likely following the re-emergence of controversial tweets from lead actress Karla Sofía Gascón), an alternative could be “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” a drama based on real events chronicling the protests that erupted in Iran during 2022. As expected, this film is Germany’s entry for the awards.

Over the past decade, the Academy’s membership has become increasingly diverse with an international flair, and this trend has extended to the Oscars as well. For seven consecutive years now, foreign-language films have been nominated in the Best Picture category. Interestingly, two such films made it this year – “I’m Still Here” from Brazil and “Emilia Pérez.” The International Film category is no longer a secondary competition but serves as a launching pad for these films into the main Oscar race.

Nevertheless, this strict rule has led to an even greater focus on the Academy’s intricate submission process for films. Known as the “one country, one film” rule, it stipulates that if a nation produces two outstanding cinematic works in a year, only one can be submitted. The decision about which film gets selected falls upon each country’s selection committee. These committees can be linked to official government bodies like Brazil’s Ministry of Culture, or independent organizations such as Ireland’s IFTA. The Academy requires that a majority of these committees should consist of filmmakers, artists, and craftspeople.

As the limelight expands, so does the recognition of issues within the existing system. In today’s era of global film collaborations – with movies like “The Zone of Interest” boasting production companies from three distinct countries – it might no longer be appropriate for a film to be associated solely with one nation. Moreover, the selection process for awards like the Oscars often becomes entangled in domestic politics. In nations where ministries oversee the committee, films that are deemed too critical of their governments rarely get submitted. The method of categorizing contenders by countries also fosters an excessive form of international competition, such as the current one surrounding “Emilia Pérez“, which is a joint effort between Brazil and Mexico.

The point of contention here is that unlike other Oscar categories, the International Film category allows non-Academy members to decide which films Academy members can vote on. This has been a contentious issue for the past three seasons, as several well-regarded films have failed to receive nominations from their home countries. For instance, two years ago it was “RRR” from India, followed by “Anatomy of a Fall” last year, and this season’s Cannes winner, “All We Imagine as Light.” Fortunately, this doesn’t necessarily mean the end of a film’s chances at winning an Oscar. For example, “RRR” won Best Original Song, while “Anatomy of a Fall” was considered a major contender, receiving nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Picture, Director, and Actress. However, “All We Imagine as Light,” despite earning a Golden Globe nomination for director Payal Kapadia, did not receive any Oscar nominations.

Critics often second-guess these choices on Mondays, particularly those that appear to stem from shallow, exclusive motives. When Justine Triet’s film “Anatomy of a Fall” was overlooked by France, whispers spread that the committee took offense at Triet criticizing president Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform plan during her Palme d’Or acceptance speech, despite accepting government funding for the movie. (Fans of Triet ultimately had the satisfaction when the French nomination, the culinary romance “The Taste of Things“, failed to receive a nomination.) However, the consequences can be significantly more substantial.

The movie titled “Seed of the Sacred Fig” initially portrays a domestic story within an Iranian family, but eventually broadens its scope to critique the entire Iranian judicial system. Interestingly, this film was clandestinely produced, with director Mohammad Rasoulof directing from afar via remote guidance of the cast and crew. Just before the premiere at Cannes, the same legal system issued a warrant for Rasoulof’s arrest, causing him to leave Iran. Predictably, Iran did not select “Sacred Fig” as its representative film. The fact that “Sacred Fig” was still eligible for International Film consideration is partly due to Rasoulof’s choice to seek refuge in Germany. According to the Academy rules, creative control must primarily reside with citizens or residents of the submitting country; the involvement of a German production company may have also contributed to its eligibility.

In simpler terms, Although it’s an exceptional instance, similar incidents like this happen regularly. The movie All We Imagine As Light, a drama set in Mumbai hospitals, might not be as overtly political, but as Siddhant Adlakha points out, its director’s work serves as a quiet critique of the Hindu-nationalist policies of the Modi administration. This could potentially explain why it was also overlooked. Meanwhile, last summer, 20 filmmakers from Greece chose to withdraw their films from consideration due to government meddling in the selection process.

Is there any method to revamp the global Film Awards system as we know it? The Academy has shown willingness to implement small adjustments to the category. Notably, they phased out the Best Foreign-Language Film title, acknowledging that languages such as Spanish and Mandarin are familiar to many Americans. Previously, they also bypassed a rule requiring dialogues to be in the submitting country’s official language, thereby excluding films like Michael Haneke’s Caché. The Academy continues to make tweaks to the nomination procedure. For the record: A group of approximately 1,000 members with connections to the international film industry narrow down the numerous submissions into a shortlist of 15. From there, another committee of similar size determines the five nominees.

For some time now, I’ve pondered over whether it would be more effective to eliminate the overseas submission boards entirely within the Academy. After all, the Academy already possesses its own committees responsible for narrowing down the field; why not grant members the authority to select each country’s official entry instead? The main argument against this idea came from representatives of the Indian committee, who explained that they didn’t choose “All We Imagine as Light” because it seemed less like an Indian film and more like a European movie filmed in India. (It’s worth noting that the film was actually a French co-production, and without “Emilia Pérez,” might have been their submission instead.) In their perspective, their role is not just to pick the film with the highest likelihood of being nominated but also to preserve India’s rich filmmaking heritage. This rationale deserves consideration. Additionally, it’s important to consider whether abolishing these committees would only amplify the influence of the international cinephile community that largely dominates film festivals such as Cannes. These are the individuals who have praised “Emilia Pérez” profusely — a testament to their biases within this group as well.

In my talks with the Academy, it seems they view their organization similarly to many large entities, unwilling to abandon longstanding traditions in light of recent controversies. They liken the International Film category to global events such as the World Cup or Olympics – arenas where nations compete against each other, with each nation deciding how they want to be represented. The Academy firmly believes that the “one country, one film” rule is crucial for avoiding an annual influx of films from countries like France and Italy.

Tom Quinn, CEO of Neon Studios, who often competes in global film events like the U.N., states that while it’s fair to consider every country’s representation as equal within the U.N., he points out that this isn’t akin to Eurovision. He argues that the “one country, one film” rule doesn’t accurately reflect the diverse landscape of international cinema in any given year. If we were to compare it with something similar, imagine if the Best Picture race only allowed one submission per studio.

Quinn advocates for eliminating a particular rule. He highlights the Golden Globes’ foreign-language category, which remains intriguing and varied without any such limitations, as an example. However, he doesn’t intend to eliminate selection committees altogether. Instead, his proposal is to broaden all specialized categories – International Film, Documentary Feature, and Animated Feature – to include ten nominees, similar to Best Picture. Approximately seven or eight of the International slots could be filled by films chosen by the committees. The remaining spots would be open for Academy members to fill, allowing them to ensure recognition for deserving films that might have been overlooked during the submission process.

Quinn’s proposal, similar to others, has its advantages and disadvantages, and it might spark discussions about category expansion in general. However, it could potentially help movies such as “All We Imagine as Light” gain recognition, a film that many agree should appear on the Oscar nomination list.

According to Quinn, the people involved at the Academy who are handling this matter are very mindful about the importance of this issue and are aiming for the finest movies to be included among the five finalists. However, he notes that if any one movie gets left out, it’s like a career that has been unjustly overlooked.

From Flow to Disco

https://youtube.com/watch?v=watch?v=jP0PClHx41I

Among this year’s International Film nominees, one that stands out with unique characteristics is the Latvian entry titled “Flow“. This film, unusual in this year’s competition, is an animated story about various animal species banding together to endure a flood. What makes it even more exceptional is that it doesn’t use any human language at all – only meows, squawks, and barks. I initially believed “Flow” would be the first film of its kind to receive a nomination, but upon further research, I found out it’s actually the second wordless film to be nominated in the International category. The first was an Algerian movie from 1983 named “Le Bal“, which communicates through the universal language – dance!

Under the guidance of Italian communist Ettore Scola, the movie “Le Bal” serves as a symbolic exploration of 50 years of French history, utilizing dance choreography to convey its narrative. This historical account spans from the Popular Front era, through World War II and the Algerian War, offering a ballet-like interpretation of “Mitterrand: A Study in Ambiguity“. Although it lost the Oscar to “Fanny & Alexander“, its unique cultural significance remains undeniable. You can watch the film’s trailer above, and a full version can be easily found on YouTube.

News and Notes

– A dispatch from a more innocent time when everything was coming up Emilia Pérez.

– A detailed timeline of every single Emilia Pérez controversy.

– A story that does not mention Emilia Pérez at all.

Read More

2025-02-01 17:54