By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

9 FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILMS ADVANCE IN OSCAR® RACE

Posted Friday, December 19th, 2014 - 1 Comment »
Be Sociable, Share!

LOS ANGELES, CA – Nine features will advance to the next round of voting in the Foreign Language Film category for the 87th Academy Awards®. Eighty-three films had originally been considered in the category.

The films, listed in alphabetical order by country, are:

Argentina, “Wild Tales,” Damián Szifrón, director;

Estonia, “Tangerines,” Zaza Urushadze, director;

Georgia, “Corn Island,” George Ovashvili, director;

Mauritania, “Timbuktu,” Abderrahmane Sissako, director;

Netherlands, “Accused,” Paula van der Oest, director;

Poland, “Ida,” Paweł Pawlikowski, director;

Russia, “Leviathan,” Andrey Zvyagintsev, director;

Sweden, “Force Majeure,” Ruben Östlund, director;

Venezuela, “The Liberator,” Alberto Arvelo, director.

Foreign Language Film nominations for 2014 are being determined in two phases.

The Phase I committee, consisting of several hundred Los Angeles-based Academy members, screened the original submissions in the category between mid-October and December 15. The group’s top six choices, augmented by three additional selections voted by the Academy’s Foreign Language Film Award Executive Committee, constitute the shortlist.

The shortlist will be winnowed down to the category’s five nominees by specially invited committees in New York, Los Angeles and, for the first time, London. They will spend Friday, January 9, through Sunday, January 11, viewing three films each day and then casting their ballots.

The 87th Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Thursday, January 15, 2015, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.

The Oscars® will be held on Sunday, February 22, 2015, at the Dolby Theatre® at Hollywood & Highland Center® in Hollywood, and will be televised live by the ABC Television Network. The Oscar presentation also will be televised live in more than 225 countries and territories worldwide.

# # #

ABOUT THE ACADEMY
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is the world’s preeminent movie-related organization, with a membership of more than 6,000 of the most accomplished men and women working in cinema. In addition to the annual Academy Awards—in which the members vote to select the nominees and winners — the Academy presents a diverse year-round slate of public programs, exhibitions and events; acts as a neutral advocate in the advancement of motion picture technology; and, through its Margaret Herrick Library and Academy Film Archive, collects, preserves, restores and provides access to movies and items related to their history. Through these and other activities the Academy serves students, historians, the entertainment industry and people everywhere who love movies.

FOLLOW THE ACADEMY
www.oscars.org
www.facebook.com/TheAcademy
www.youtube.com/Oscars
www.twitter.com/

Additional information about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Academy Foundation may be found at http://www.oscars.org

© Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ® “Oscar®,” “Oscars®,” “Academy Awards®,” “Academy Award®,” “A.M.P.A.S. ®” and “Oscar Night®” are the trademarks, and the ©Oscar® statuette is the registered design mark and copyrighted property, of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. (Terms & Conditions of Use http://www.oscars.org/legal)

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | 1 Comment »

One Response to “9 FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILMS ADVANCE IN OSCAR® RACE”

  1. JoeS says:
    December 19, 2014 at 11:34 am

    IDA is sublime. A big exhale that it made the shortlist, particularly when you consider all the worthy films that have failed in the past.
    The Dardenne Brothers 0 for 4 shutout is head-scratching. Perhaps the subtlety and lack of overt drama in their work just doesn’t strike a chord with enough voters. And, the sheer deluge of movies the voters have to wade through doesn’t help (particularly amongst those who still have very active professional careers). The Dardennes slow pacing and tiny impressions that add up during a movie demand full attention. It may be difficult for some Academy voters to give themselves over to their way of doing things and just shut down their normal way of viewing movies. Just a theory.

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