MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

The Weirdest Noms Yet

The handling of docs and foreign language films continue to be an embarrassment to The Academy. With due respect to the excellent films on the foreign language short-list, released today, you have to wonder how these things come to pass.
Not on the list is the most acclaimed and qualified foreign language film of the year, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days and the second most acclaimed qualified foreign language film of the year, Persepolis. I count myself as a fan of a number of these films, but really… puh-leeeeze!
The oddball process continues with 30 Academy members sitting down to watch all 9 of the short-listers next weekend… to eliminate 4.
The four of nine who have taken home Oscars before are: Denys Arcand, Nikita Mikhalkov, Giuseppe Tornatore, and Andrzej Wajda. Sergei Bodrov has been twice nominated, once for a film as writer/director and once as co-writer. None of the other four – Joseph Cedar, Srdan Golubovic, Cao Hamburger, Stefan Ruzowitzky – have gotten nominated in the past, though some have been nominated by their countries.
The great irony of all of this is that the two films left behind were “arty intense” (4 Months) and animated (Persepolis), which is pretty much what The Academy doesn’t go for in their main nominations either. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised in the least.
(Corrected for awards error – Tues, 2:03p)

Be Sociable, Share!

40 Responses to “The Weirdest Noms Yet”

  1. Alan Cerny says:

    Stupid for those two films to be ignored.
    I thought MONGOL was terrific, though.

  2. Jackrabbit Slim says:

    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.

  3. Dr Wally says:

    Why on Earth is Black Book not there?

  4. Nicol D says:

    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.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    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’.

  6. Nicol D says:

    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.

  7. David Poland says:

    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.

  8. jeffmcm says:

    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?

  9. Nicol D says:

    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.

  10. jeffmcm says:

    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.

  11. Nicol D says:

    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.

  12. Joe Leydon says:

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

  13. Nicol D says:

    Joe,
    Zhivago is a wonderful film that was made 43 years ago.
    Different culture, different times, different generation.

  14. Filipe says:

    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).

  15. jeffmcm says:

    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.

  16. The Pope says:

    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.

  17. doug r says:

    So, was The Host not 2007 eligible?

  18. Joe Leydon says:

    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.

  19. Bob Violence says:

    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).

  20. scooterzz says:

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

  21. Bob Violence says:

    It was eligible in other categories.

  22. Bob Violence says:

    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.

  23. 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.

  24. Bob Violence says:

    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).

  25. EDouglas says:

    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)

  26. David Poland says:

    I forgot to be bitching about Secret Sunshine…

  27. Kim Voynar says:

    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.

  28. 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?

  29. Kambei says:

    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.

  30. marychan says:

    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, Bu

  31. marychan says:

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

  32. Joe Leydon says:

    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.

  33. jeffmcm says:

    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.

  34. anghus says:

    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.

  35. Bob Violence says:

    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.

  36. Bob Violence says:

    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.

  37. Kambei says:

    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.

  38. Chucky in Jersey says:

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

  39. jeffmcm says:

    I love the cognitive dissonance of Chucky agreeing with Nicol.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon