The Oscars Should Change Its Best Foreign Language Film Processes

Antonio Banderas and Elena Anaya in The Skin I Live In which is not Spain's entry therefore ineligible for the Oscars (Sony Pictures Classics)

The official submissions for Best Foreign Language Film are now in and the nominees, like those for all other categories, will be announced on January 24th, the shortlist will be announced today. The list of submitted films does immediately indicate some issues with the nomination process in this category that should be addressed.

The Process

This sections facts were clarified with the help of this Hollywood Reporter article.

Here’s how the system works:

Each nation through its national film board creates a list of contenders and then the constituency therein picks one film to submit for Best Foreign Language Film. Each country is allowed one submission, chosen by its film board. Sixty-three films have submitted this year. Some noticeable omissions this year include: Albania’s first pick, Joshua Marston’s Forgiveness, was disqualified because it didn’t have enough Albanians in key behind-the-scenes roles, which Marston calls “ridiculous.” Similar grounds were used to to knock out Angelina Jolie’s debut In the Land of Milk and Honey because it was so international no one country claimed it, however, those sort of casualties occur yearly and are a bit harder to legislate against but I will address them.

The Academy’s foreign-language selection committee, which consists of any Academy member prepared to sit through many a film, are divided into four color-coded groups, and each member must see at least 80% of the pictures in his/her group.

Few active members have the time this requires, which means older and retired members figure heavily among the voters, which can factor into the strategy of selecting a film the avant garde will stand less of a chance. Hence, Greece’s selection of Dogtooth last year and Hungary’s The Turin Horse stand out as bold selections for bravery.

Approximately 300 members vote, grading films on a scale from 7 to 10, and their scores are averaged, meaning if 10 people or 100 see a movie, it’s their average score that counts. There’s no weighting that takes into account that X film got many people to watch it.

The top six point-earners qualify for the shortlist.

The nine-title shortlist includes three additional films chosen by a 20-person Executive Committee led by producer Mark Johnson (The Chronicles of Narnia).

This additional provision was implemented in 2008 after the broader committee failed to select 2007 Cannes Palme d’Or winner 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. The super-committee consists of such prominent figures as director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, cinematographer Janusz Kaminski and writer Michael Tolkin.

Once the nine films are named, they are screened during one weekend for 20 invited voters in Los Angeles and 10 in New York. Those voters comprise a few random Academy members and others specifically named by Johnson, who attempts to find a distinguished range of Academy veterans across all fields. They decide the five nominees, which are unveiled the same day as the other Oscar nominees, Jan. 24.

After the 5 nominees are named the vote is held as such: Any member can vote on the winner but must give proof that he or she has seen all five nominees, voters can only see the movies in a theater, not on DVD because as Johnson asserts “In a perfect world, nobody should be seeing movies on DVD.”

How it Should Be

The National Film Board Level

Some may look at this process (with one submission a nation) and say “Well, what’s wrong with that?” While it is egalitarian, it is exclusionary to some extent. Countries like France, Italy, Spain and India (and others) with large quantities of film production and a lot of good product to offer have to pick one, and only one film and with that one choice the submission could be more political. It can be based on who the filmmaker is, what the subject matter is, how appealing it might be to the American viewer, instead of what it should be based upon – the quality of the film.

Aside from one film knocking out another contender from its own country like Au revoir les enfants being submitted in 1987 and Le grand chemin being overlooked, not that the former shouldn’t have been nominated but both should have, the problem with the current system is that there is not a true representation of what the Best Foreign Language Film is, it is the best from amongst the submitted films.

How does one go about solving this? There are a few ways. The Academy has juries, viewers and voters for all categories. What should happen is that this group should be expanded so that more films can be submitted.

The Expansion Plan: Submission Quotas

The Division of Continents would be Similar to FIFA's for the World Cup

Now should every film in the world be submitted? Of course not. However, to limit every filmmaking nation in the world to one is crazy. Think of this: Canada gets one submission, which basically means the best Quebecois film goes in because with a majority of Canadian films being shot in English they are ineligible, which is not to knock Quebecois filmmaking. Canada absolutely should get its submission but again you are saying a region of a nation and a prolific nation are on equal footing. They have the same number of submissions that France, the birthplace of cinema gets. So there definitely needs to be more allowable submissions when there are a handful of nations that have a strong field annually.

There are a few ways to go about expanding. Regardless of which plan is enacted the jury needs to be divided and watch the submissions of each continent. The cap of submissions should be five per nation at most. Now if the Academy wanted to control submissions for a while they could allocate submissions to nations based on the “strength” of the nation as a film producer. For example France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, etc., who have been nominated for and won several Academy Awards in this category would receive 5 submissions, and whatever nations were considered the next tier would get four and so on.

Therefore, you’d have a team who have to watch the submissions from each continent. This may seem like a ridiculous idea but one must consider that the deadline to submit your foreign language film consideration is approximately 3 months (late September/early October) ahead of the Oscar nominations. With enough dedicated Academy members all films, even with increased submissions, can be whittled down to a reasonable size (a top 10-20) for larger viewership and voting similar to how its constructed now.

Selection Process

Francesc Colomer in Black Bread (Massa d'Or Produccions) Spain's Official Selection not yet distributed in the US.

So that is how they could expand submissions. Now on to the selection process – firstly, it should expand to between five and ten films and be a preferential ballot like Best Picture (can be) lest the Academy be seen as jingoistic but the selection of nominees should be based on the scores of several viewers. The films receiving a score above a certain threshold (on a scale of 1 to 10 rather than 7 to 10) would move on. Then the remaining films would be seen by all members and the films with the ten, or five, highest scores would be the nominees. It could be similar to the Best Original Song in that way in as much as the films need to be of a certain quality to be considered. What shouldn’t happen is that the Academy feels the need to nominate one film from every continent. This system is meant to find the best films not to represent all regions as if it was the World Cup.

Conclusions

Making some countries pick just one film has always been and will always be wrong based on the quality and quantity they churn out and it should be addressed. Expanding submissions will also open up other categories since at current only submitted foreign films are eligible in other categories and ideally giving some nations multiple submissions would subvert the political machinations that might block a particular film or director from being considered for a nomination. Also, to be considered under a new mode of selection would be at a minimum the removal of the DVD restriction. Anyone with an appreciation for film knows that a theatrical viewing with ideal conditions is preferable, however, it is a bit more time-consuming and restrictive for a voter. I think what should matter is getting all the films in a given phase a viewing regardless of how that occurs.

Implementing any of these changes will be a boon to the Best Foreign Language Film category would be most important. Specifically, expanding the number of nominees many of these films are hardly viewed or get their only boost in the US after a nomination so why not expand?

Monochromatic Monday #1

As I mentioned in my manifesto I endeavor to have viewing themes and post short entries on them. Not necessarily a full review of what I watch but just a bit of information to give you the gist.

Up until early March many of my themes will likely be concurrent with TCM’s 31 Days of Oscar. My goal as a side project is to see at least one film from every day of the festival with a little assistance form my DVR. I am currently one behind.

Today’s selections were the first in a while where both films were afforded introductions by TCM hosts which gave some interesting information, more so in the second film. But without much further ado the films.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Columbia Pictures)

Ben Mankiewicz hosted and while he does a fine job, invariably he leaves out a piece of information that puzzles me. The theme for part of the afternoon line-up on this day was good luck charms and it chronicled Bess Flowers, the so-called “Queen of Hollywood Extras,” who was a good luck charm herself. She appeared in over 700 films, yes, 700, this is in the days of the studio system remember, and appeared in 21 Best Picture Nominees and Five winners. Frank Capra employed her often. What I wanted to know, with all this to do being made about someone with a bit part, is where do I look for her, if I can find her that was not mentioned.

This film was a Best Picture nominee and was one of Capra’s three Best Director trophies (amazingly none of them came for his most notable film It’s a Wonderful Life). It certainly does have that Capra touch to it. It’s the story of a simple country man, often mistakenly thought to be a simpleton, who inherits a large sum of money and then has to deal with everyone trying to take advantage of him. It’s a film with a lot of subtle humor and most notably through some Hollywood magic creates some of the most surreal vistas of New York you’re likely to see on film. Capra is often associated with comedy or sentiment but here in this film there is a lot of great cinematography and the visuals really drive the story home. The shot of Longfellow Deeds (Gary Cooper) complacently sitting in a cell with barely a highlight upon his profile is a breathtaking piece of chiaroscuro.

Then, of course, there’s Cooper. This is one hell of a performance and most notably so because he is silent for so much of it. However, there’s a clear subtext and thought-process behind his actions. He’s also incredibly naturalistic, especially for the era, which really allows the story to sink in. More often than not he doesn’t let on but is listening, and absorbing information and planning his next move. Of course, there is misplaced trust in an undercover reporter (Jean Arthur) and that plot goes predictably enough but it’s very well executed but there is one surprise in store which is how it looks like out hero will be vanquished and how he triumphs.

This is a truly wonderful film that has Capra’s stamp all over it, which means that it is timeless this one more than most perhaps because it does talk about cynicism in society which is pervasive and being too cynical might allow you to take a film like this for granted but you shouldn’t.

Viva Villa! (1934)

Wallace Beery in Viva Villa!

*****Warning Spoilers Below*****

There’s much less to say about this title. The intro by Robert Osborne was quite interesting. This film was shown during a block of films that were winners of awards the Academy retired. This one winning a certificate, not a statuette, for Best Assistant Director. There were lots of pieces of information to relay here like Howard Hawks’ firing, the unruly extras who were real soldiers and peasants and the actor who relieved himself off a balcony on members of the Mexican military.

Once the film began the story was compelling but not quite compelling enough. First, it needs to be said that Wallace Beery is incredibly effective and endearing as Villa, when I read the cast I thought it might be a stretch but it worked. The film creates an interesting cinematic mestizo situation in as much as the natives of Mexico are all either Mexican or made to look like they are and the Spaniards are mostly white and don’t speak with accents. The mix of different voice stylings was actually pleasurable rather than rampant stereotypes.

While I love how full screen titles in the Golden Age were poetic and verbose there are far too many of them here and it avoids shooting some scenes which would’ve enhanced the film. It seems they might’ve been an afterthought based on the edit and there are some weird cuts in there, scenes that don’t seem to end in a logical place or stop abruptly. If you count the “Villa Wants You!” title montage as one there are 14 instances of full screen titles in this film. It was like a bad joke at times: “I went to a movie and a book broke out.”

Speaking of bad jokes there ‘s a running gag that an artist/writer friend of Villa’s refuses to draw a bull and is willing to die for this artistic standard. He called it advertising. I call it hard to swallow. Won’t draw a bull? Really?

What this film did have going for it was a beautiful little circle that closed. In a prelude that’s too short we see Villa for a child as a moment don’t really get to know him and he grows but what does get set into motion is the path of his destiny. His family was robbed of its land. His father dies for questioning it and off he goes to eventually lead a long multi-faceted revolution. While knowing that a plot is in the offing does drain some of the tension and drama out of Villa’s last words he does say, not ones the reporter puts in his mouth, are great. The reporter had started his fictionalized obit with the words “Mexico, I apologize.” Villa responded in the end “Johnny, what have I done wrong?”

It was a bit uneven and it was the rare film, in my experience, wherein the conventions that date it hold it back rather than exalt it but it is worth a watch and a decent film. Not sure it should’ve been a Best Picture nominee in this top-heavy era though.

In closing Robert Osborne related the fascinating tale of James Wong Howe the DP who was born in China but grew up in Washington State. He was an Assistant Camera at 19 and had done time at Lasky Studios. As a Director of Photography he garnered 10 Oscar nominations and two wins.