Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Foreign Language Films
A Very Long Engagement got me thinking about the Academy Award for Foreign Language film in general. I think the title of the award is misleading; it should be called Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. The L. A. Times had a recent piece about this, but it's in their CalenderLive section so it's subscribers only; it's summarized by Studio Briefing here.
Eligibility for Best Foreign Language Film is governed by the Academy's rule 14, here; by reading the rules, it's clear that this award is designed to reward national cinema, i.e., movies that can be assigned to a particular country. This makes less sense now than it did when the award was created: look at the production companies involved in The Motorcycle Diaries for an example: seven different countries were involved in production. (And none of them are Focus Features, which distributes the film in the US and gets top billing in the advertising campaigns and trailers here).
Like the issue with government subsidies and A Very Long Engagement, the issue here is really what qualifies as a foreign film. I don't think being shot in a foreign language is enough; otherwise The Passion of the Christ is eligible, and that's not a foreign film. Reading subtitles is not good in itself. Being shot in a different country clearly isn't enough either; I love Maria Full of Grace, but it's an American movie, cause Josh Marsten wrote and directed it. The key clause in eligibility, for me, is this:
The submitting country must certify that creative talent of that country exercised artistic control of the film.
As it stands now, this award is more like a film Olympics for non-English-speaking countries. Every country gets one entry (and their film does not have to have shown in Los Angeles, but it must be made available to the Academy with English subtitles). I don't have a problem with this setup; I think there's a lot to be gained and nothing to lose by encouraging other countries to create their own national cinema.
I have mixed feelings about movies like The Motorcycle Diaries, where most of the talent and money is non-American, but the movie can't be attributed to any one country: the director's Brazilian but none of the money is. This sort of thing will happen more and more often as more production companies try to share risks with others. Maybe the award should be called "Best Film Funded and Created In A Single Non-English-Speaking Country." It doesn't scan, but it'd be honest. They could add "Best Film Funded By A Consortium of Production Companies, None Of Which Are American," or "Best Motorcycle Diaries," for short.
Postscript: If the Academy really wants to encourage national cinemas, they should get rid of this requirement:
Viewing Foreign Language Film entries on videocassette or DVD will NOT qualify a member for voting purposes in this category.
Since only Academy members who have seen all five nominated films can vote in this category, films that do not have U. S. distribution get an advantage, paradoxically. Make it harder for Academy members to see one of the films (without U.S. distribution or screener DVDs, the only options are Academy screenings and foreign-studio arranged screenings), and only people who really want to see a particular nominated film will see it. If they really wanted to see it, they're more likely to want to vote for it, and if only those people get to vote...
For an example of this principle in action, see One Day In September, which had no distribution anywhere at all but beat out Buena Vista Social Club. ODiS is a fine movie, but it won because only members who'd managed to see it during the one week it screened in Los Angeles could vote. I say, count DVDs so as many members as want to are able to see all the nominees.
Comments(0) |
Eligibility for Best Foreign Language Film is governed by the Academy's rule 14, here; by reading the rules, it's clear that this award is designed to reward national cinema, i.e., movies that can be assigned to a particular country. This makes less sense now than it did when the award was created: look at the production companies involved in The Motorcycle Diaries for an example: seven different countries were involved in production. (And none of them are Focus Features, which distributes the film in the US and gets top billing in the advertising campaigns and trailers here).
Like the issue with government subsidies and A Very Long Engagement, the issue here is really what qualifies as a foreign film. I don't think being shot in a foreign language is enough; otherwise The Passion of the Christ is eligible, and that's not a foreign film. Reading subtitles is not good in itself. Being shot in a different country clearly isn't enough either; I love Maria Full of Grace, but it's an American movie, cause Josh Marsten wrote and directed it. The key clause in eligibility, for me, is this:
The submitting country must certify that creative talent of that country exercised artistic control of the film.
As it stands now, this award is more like a film Olympics for non-English-speaking countries. Every country gets one entry (and their film does not have to have shown in Los Angeles, but it must be made available to the Academy with English subtitles). I don't have a problem with this setup; I think there's a lot to be gained and nothing to lose by encouraging other countries to create their own national cinema.
I have mixed feelings about movies like The Motorcycle Diaries, where most of the talent and money is non-American, but the movie can't be attributed to any one country: the director's Brazilian but none of the money is. This sort of thing will happen more and more often as more production companies try to share risks with others. Maybe the award should be called "Best Film Funded and Created In A Single Non-English-Speaking Country." It doesn't scan, but it'd be honest. They could add "Best Film Funded By A Consortium of Production Companies, None Of Which Are American," or "Best Motorcycle Diaries," for short.
Postscript: If the Academy really wants to encourage national cinemas, they should get rid of this requirement:
Viewing Foreign Language Film entries on videocassette or DVD will NOT qualify a member for voting purposes in this category.
Since only Academy members who have seen all five nominated films can vote in this category, films that do not have U. S. distribution get an advantage, paradoxically. Make it harder for Academy members to see one of the films (without U.S. distribution or screener DVDs, the only options are Academy screenings and foreign-studio arranged screenings), and only people who really want to see a particular nominated film will see it. If they really wanted to see it, they're more likely to want to vote for it, and if only those people get to vote...
For an example of this principle in action, see One Day In September, which had no distribution anywhere at all but beat out Buena Vista Social Club. ODiS is a fine movie, but it won because only members who'd managed to see it during the one week it screened in Los Angeles could vote. I say, count DVDs so as many members as want to are able to see all the nominees.
Comments(0) |
