The Hot Blog

Stupid for those two films to be ignored.

I thought MONGOL was terrific, though.

For what did Bodrov win an Oscar. I'm looking at his Wikipedia page and it says he was nominated for Prisoner of the Mountains but the winner that year was Kolya.

Why on Earth is Black Book not there?

I am not at all surprise that these films were not included. The reasons why films do or do not get nominated are very complex and cultural, but is it really surprising that there are not enough people in Hollywood who

A) want to acknowledge the horrors of communism

or

B) want to acknowledge the horrors of Islamic tyranny

Neither of these films are conservative by any definition, but both also shake and rattle many core truths that Hollywood liberals hold dear.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, while not pro-life by any definition, also does not make the decision to have an abortion an easy one and also forces all of those who can't wait for next year's Che double bill to acknowledge that communism is not the blissful progressive worker's paradise they envision.

Same with Persepolis. First off,I love the style of the animation. It actually had a very 70's NFB feel which I enjoyed thoroughly. But while the film humanizes people who might be thought of in a B & W way, it also forces the progressive viewer to realize that there really is a problem with Islamic fundamentalism and the kite in the sky culture that Michael Moore wants you to believe is not true. With Bush talking tough about Iran, can we really be surprised this was not nominated?

Both of those films would be tough, bitter pills for the average progressive Hollywood academy member to swallow.

I sincerely doubt that either film didn't make the cut because of what you're suggesting, Nicol. One is (from what I have heard) a difficult to watch, hardcore art drama and the other is animated. Just like DP says, two modes of filmmaking the Academy has never been big on.

And as usual, you indulge in the exact same stereotyping that you abhor in the 'other side'.

Jeff,

I said right at the beginning of my post that the reasons were complex and cultural. I never wrote these were the - only - reasons. But to not even acknowledge the possibility of this influence is to be unbearably naive.

You are correct, Slim. Will correct. He was also "nominated" when East-West, which he co-wrote, lost in 1999.

Black Book was qualified last year.

Yeah, Nicol, you said 'complex and cultural' but that was just the strategic way you chose to arrive at your point, which is, 'Hollywood is full of crazy liberals'. You do have a point in there somewhere but it's not modulated properly or delivered in a truly evenhanded manner. Of course, I am also biased because of my preconceptions of you whenever I see that you've posted.

And the winner last year was The Lives of Others.
What was that film about, again, Nicol?

The Lives of Others is far more subtle and does not hit the peddle on the core issue of abortion. Very different film, Jeff.

Sorry that you cannot see that.

Yes, it is a very different film. It's a film about the agony of Communism wrapped up in a conventional thriller package, which is the kind of thing the Academy prefers.

You'd be more fun to talk to if you weren't so incessantly condescending. Along those lines, I apologize if my earlier post sounded snotty.

Apology accepted.

It is the 'thriller' element that makes The Lives of Others easier to digest. It doesn't have to be about communism. It is more incidental. 4 months is pretty explicit.

Nicol: What about Dr. Zhivago? That one pretty much said Communism sucks, didn't it?

Joe,

Zhivago is a wonderful film that was made 43 years ago.

Different culture, different times, different generation.

Nicol, I doubt that most liberals have any problem with a movie saying life in an eastern european communist country in the 80's was awful (mostly currently lefties that are far more radical than anyone in the academy foreign film comitee is likely to be are ok with that). But you do have a point about the abortion scenes, they show the proccess in a concrete way that does turn plenty of people off (and it does force pro abortion members of the audience to deal with it in a way something like Vera Drake doesn't).

Nicol, your original position was that it was the subject matter (Communism sucks) that the Academy had a problem with and not the presentation (thriller vs. intense personal drama), which was my contention. It sounds like we don't disagree that much after all.
The Academy's tradition is not to reward explicit, gut-punching dramas in general and to give preference to softer, more easily digestible films.

On the same subject, a good friend of mine who is also liberal had a problem with Vera Drake being insufficiently pro-choice. I disagreed with her, though, because I thought it was the best film of that year.

What is very disappointing about not seeing 4 Months go forward is that it would appear that the Academy committee failed to see beyond what they deemed to be "the issue."
The issue is not abortion. It is the humanity that one girl shows to her best friend in the face of inhumanity everywhere in the film. Contrary to what the reviewers are saying, the film does take a stance. It is a humanitarian stance. It cares for and loves both the girls intensely...
Of course, I absolutely agree that the inhumanity in the film is in part so ubiquitous because of the brutal, savage Communist regime.
Speaking of Communism... I had students who lapped up The Motorcycle Diaries and prance around campus wearing Che t-shirts. It is shocking to think that there is a trend towards communist chic.
4 Months is one of the most moving and troubling films I have seen in many years.

So, was The Host not 2007 eligible?

Doug R: I saw The Host at the 2006 Denver Film Festival, long after it had made big bucks in South Korea -- so, yeah, it wasn't '07 eligible. Also, I don't think it was South Korea's official Oscar entry last year, either.

South Korea's entry this year was Secret Sunshine, which for my money is as deserving as 4 Months but never had a chance of making the shortlist. Mediocre films by Arcand and Wajda are worth more to the Academy than a genuinely good film by a director who already got the shaft once (for Oasis).

then why did magnolia send out 'for your consideration' screeners of 'the host'?.... just wondering...

It was eligible in other categories.

Scratch that -- it doesn't show up on last year's eligibility list, or this year's. Magnolia was probably gunning for the critics' lists and "lesser" awards.

Here's how the system works using Zhang Yimou's Hero as an example. Hero was submitted by China in 2003 and was subsequently nominated making it ineligible for any other awards in it's actual year of release (2004).

However, if Hero didn't make it as one of the five nominees then it would have been eligible for the 2004 Oscars (and surely would've been a cinematography nominee).

It's also why City of God was eligible. It was submitted by Brazil and didn't make the five nominees so when it was released the next year it was eligible and ended up with it's four amazing nominations. If it had been nominated into the final five then it would not have been eligible. Make sense? I hope so.

What nobody is mentioning though is the HORRIFICALLY TERRIFYING aspect that from now on countries like France won't bother taking chances on submitting movies like Persepolis and will just submit the most typical awards-bait movies about the war, or about children and so on. No more Persepolis type bids, but far more Joyeux Noel and The Chorus type bits. And you can bet a fortune that La Vie en Rose would've made it if producer Alain Goldman had his way.

Hopefully with The Home Song Stories not making the cut it can receive an American '08 release and get Joan Chen into the awards race.

That link was meant to be http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2007/10/world_cinema_th.html

Your basic point is sound, but Hero wouldn't have been eligible in 2004 because it opened commercially in China and Hong Kong in December 2002 (the earliest a film could open outside the U.S. and still be eligible for 2004 was January 1st of '03).

Fact is that it isn't Magnolia's decision whether The Host is Korea's entry for the Oscars... it's the Korean government's and they realized that a genre/monster movie wouldn't go over well with the Academy. In case it wasn't mentioned (haven't read all the comments), Black Book was Holland's submission *last* year even though it was only released here in March (presuming that it would get nominated)

I forgot to be bitching about Secret Sunshine...

No kidding. I saw both Secret Sunshine and 4 Weeks at Telluride, and I'd be bitching more about the former not making the cut. I wasn't crazy about 4 Weeks, but I'm rather shocked it didn't make the shortlist, just the same. And Persepolis would have been my pick to win, so I'm pissed it didn't get through. Damn Academy.

Yes, Black Book was submitted last year and didn't make the cut so it is eligible for other awards at this year's awards due to it only being released in March of '07.

And wouldn't that be a hoot?

Oh god, I saw Arcand's L'Age de Tenebres at TIFF and it really is a horrible, unfunny mess. Such a disappointment compared to Invasions or Decline. I have to presume the selection committee slept through 4 Months.... And I agree with Nicol D, that there seems to be a "consensus" opinion amongst certain 25-30 y.o. sets that communism really wasn't as bad as all that, just a tool of "the government" to crack down on renegade artists. I can see that contributing to the dislike of 4 Months..., although, while not a difficult film, it is more intense than the Academy usually cares for.

Scott Foundas has different view.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/foundas/2008-academy-awards/how-do-you-say-oscar-scandal-i/

[But 4 Months is something different: It's the sort of movie the Academy has often acknowledged in the past, which is to say a film of high artistic merit that it also easily accessible for the general moviegoing audience. (For other, Oscar-winning examples, see Costa-Gavras' Z, Buñuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Bertrand Blier's Get Out Your Handkerchiefs, Bergman's Fanny & Alexander, and Pedro Almodovar's All About My Mother.) That's one of the reasons why 4 Months has been a sell-out attraction at film festivals around the world, from highbrow affairs like Cannes (where it won the coveted Palme d'Or of the main competition) to less industry-centric regional events like Telluride and L.A.'s own AFI Fest. ]

Finished releading Scott Foundas;s long article. It looks like even Mark Johnson aren't totally happy with the shortlist.

Look, I gave up on figuring why countries submit the films they submit back when France DIDN'T submit Claude Lelouch's Les Miserables back in 1995.

Kambei, on what are you basing your "there seems to be a "consensus" opinion amongst certain 25-30 y.o. sets that communism really wasn't as bad as all that"?
Just asking.

there's this gas station/convenience store that's owned and operated by a bunch of young Russians. I asked the other day what language they were speaking, because there are like 16 different languages.

The guy explained that it was Russian and then went into a rant about what dicks the communists were and how they forced everyone to learn Russian.

Trust me, the people in that region did not like Communism.

The funny thing about the whole "the Academy won't acknowledge the horrors of communism" argument is that Katyn makes The Lives of Others and 4 Months look like Red Army recruitment films by comparison.

The funny thing about the whole "the Academy won't acknowledge the horrors of communism" argument is that Katyn makes 4 Months look like a Red Army recruitment film by comparison.

The funny thing about the whole "the Academy won't acknowledge the horrors of communism" argument is that Katyn makes 4 Months seem like Battleship Potemkin by comparison.

Haven't seen Katyn, but that is the one bonus of 5 unexpected foreign film nominees. Regarding the "consensus" opinion, I put it in quotes because I have absolutely no scientific data to back it up, merely conversations with 40 or so friends over the past couple of years--pretty much all university educated, however, so the sample is not really generalizable.

Nicol is spot-on in his take. The people who vote on the Oscars are a decidedly reactionary bunch.

I love the cognitive dissonance of Chucky agreeing with Nicol.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: