This year's foreign Oscar race reflects a growingly global medium

Certain strong contenders would not have been eligible a few years ago

<p>Rachel Mwanza in &quot;War Witch,&quot; Canada's African-set Oscar submission.</p>

Rachel Mwanza in "War Witch," Canada's African-set Oscar submission.

Credit: Tribeca Film

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Last year, Oscar analyst par excellence Mark Harris, whose insights we'll be missing this awards season, wrote a description of the average Best Foreign Language Film voter that was so specifically accurate that all I can do is quote it: "They like spending a weekend Learning About Other Cultures. They want to see movies that are 'thought-provoking,' but not too disturbing or unsettling. They’re more open-minded about content than they are about style. And more than anything, they like movies that depict the drawbacks, rituals, sociological peculiarities, class inequities, or historical scars of whatever country they’re from."

If that's true, however, such voters are going to be a bit flummoxed by a few of the most prominent contenders in this year's race. Many will admire "Amour," Michael Haneke's study of withered French intelligentsia, set within the spacious confines of a Parisian apartment -- but there will be some who wonder, "Wait, are we in Austria?" Similarly, a lot of voters will likely be into the German-set, German-language Holocaust survival tale "Lore," while others might be twiddling their thumbs, waiting impatiently for the kangaroos to bound onto screen. It's Australia's submission, after all.

Joining the group of culturally muddy submissions is "War Witch," a moving, immersive portrait of the horrors endured by Central African child soldiers that was a critics' favorite back at the Berlin Film Festival, where it won Best Actress for its 13 year-old non-pro lead Rachel Mwanza. (A few months later, it won both the Best Narrative Feature and Best Actress awards at the Tribeca Film Festival -- and duly secured US distribution with Tribeca Films.)

Hard-hitting enough to jolt conscientious voters to attention, yet not too violent or despairing to turn them off entirely -- there's a vein of tradition-rooted magical realism running throughout that lends proceedings more exotic appeal than a faux-gritty docudrama approach -- it's an audience-friendly wild card that's well worth remembering in this race.

So, what lucky African nation submitted it? None, actually: Canada did. Though there's nothing in the film to suggest the connection -- bar a hefty proportion of French dialogue -- "War Witch" is a wholly Canadian production, from Montreal-born filmmaker Kim Nguyen. On the hand, the film is an obvious choice for the country: give or take Xavier Dolan's less acclaimed (and less Academy-friendly) "Laurence Anyways," it's their highest-profile festival success from the 2012 circuit. On the other, well, it's not an obviously Canadian choice at all.   

The submission of these films is healthy proof that the Best Foreign Language Film award is slowly growing out of the Academy's archaic conception of it as a kind of elementary-school cultural fair, where nations were emphasized more than the films themselves. (To this day, the statuette is officially awarded to the winning country rather than the winning filmmaker, who at least gets to keep it as a kind of representative figure.)

That the Academy is allowing such hybrid-identity films to compete acknowledges that the notion of films and filmmakers belonging to single countries is an outdated one in this era of global film production -- an era where even a brand-name Hollywood director like Brian De Palma had to call on France and Germany to finance his latest film. At the same time, their admission shows up the quaintness of the Academy's existing system for the category, whereby the longlisting process is outsourced to competing countries, each required to select a single film to represent their entire national industry.

It's a system that has long discriminated against outstanding foreign-language films whose only crime was to have had more than one country involved in its production -- and one that has long been plagued by inconsistencies and double standards in the Academy's own rulings on eligible national identity. Take 1994, for example, when two films in Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski's landmark pan-European "Three Colors" trilogy were entered into the race. Switzerland claimed "Three Colors: Red," a co-production with France and Poland, as its entry, and won the lion's share of critics' awards going into the nominations -- only for the Geneva-set film to be disqualified by the Academy for not being sufficiently Swiss in its makeup.

In the same year, however, Poland was allowed to compete with the preceding chapter, "Three Colors: White," despite it being no less international a co-production. (The irony, meanwhile, is that France wasn't involved at all -- despite the whole trilogy being themed around the country's own national flag and identity.)

The Academy's reasoning was that since the director was a Polish citizen, that made "White" a more valid submission than "Red" -- which one might accept as a logical, if dispiritingly literal, stand if not for the fact that Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa's "Dersu Uzala" had won an Oscar nearly 20 years before... for the former Soviet Union. And the following year, Frenchman Jean-Jacques Annaud's "Black and White in Color" pulled off an upset... for the Ivory Coast. Had the Academy specifically altered their policy, or were they merely making up the rules as they went along?

Odd kerfuffles like this continued to plague the category until matters came to head in 2005, when the Academy again took it upon themselves to disqualify one of the most acclaimed submissions in the race. France, Austria, Germany and Italy had all contributed to the production of Michael Haneke's wholly Paris-set, French-language "Hidden," but it was Austria who -- as both a co-producing country and as the director's home state -- elected to enter the film. When the Academy ruled that the film had too many French elements to qualify as Austrian, the ensuing uproar was only amplified by the fact that no similar objection had been raised four years previously, when Austria had submitted Haneke's "The Piano Teacher" -- a Vienna-set film, sure, but one also made in French, in collaboration with France and with three French leads. Was it now merely a film's milieu that made the difference?

Realizing that such arcane semantics regarding national identity were only digging an already irrelevant category's grave deeper, the Academy wisely loosened the rules: from 2006 onwards, it was confirmed, films were no longer required to be in an official language of the submitting country, nor was the narrative required to take place there. The change bore fruit in its very first year, as Canada's entry "Water" -- an Indian-set, Hindi-language period drama from Canadian-Indian filmmaker Deepa Mehta -- snagged a nomination. (On a less momentous but not insignificant note, nobody complained that Mexican nominee "Pan's Labyrinth" told an entirely Spanish story with a heavily Spanish cast and crew.)  

So, progress. Not that the fundamentally dated architecture of the category isn't still causing trouble. Last year saw Finland free to submit the French-language co-production "Le Havre" -- but U.S.-born director Joshua Marston found himself disqualified from the race for the second time after his Albanian-made, Albanian-set film "The Forgiveness of Blood" was entered by Albania -- the Academy only acting after rival filmmakers from the country voiced their displeasure. Marston had endured this disappointment seven years previously, when his arthouse hit "Maria Full of Grace" was entered by Colombia, and DQ'd on the same grounds. The keepers of this category may have got the idea of films having heavily-stamped passports, but globe-trotting filmmakers remain a problem for them.

Still, with "Amour," "Lore" and "War Witch" -- and others possibly yet to come -- all raising the profile of melting-pot filmmaking in this year's foreign-language race, it's a happy sign that this beleaguered category is slowly inching its way around its own most restrictive obstacles. (We can only hope that obstinate voters of the variety described by Mark Harris don't hold certain films' mixed blood against them. They didn't with "Water.")

At some point, I'd venture, the Academy will have to scrap the national submissions process entirely, and take responsibility for choosing the best in the field -- the way it does in every other category. For now, however, we're in what will likely be a long, curiosity-riddled interim stage. I was discussing this on Twitter yesterday with another entertainment journalist who felt it was "silly" for "Amour" to be the Austrian submission. Well, yes and no. What silly is for there to be an "Austrian submission" in the first place.   

Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca._article_story_main_primary

Everything: Academy Awards

Latest news, photos, reviews, interviews, videos and more.

Guy-lodge-sm
Guy Lodge
Critic
Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    han

    Mexico's submission: UCR winner AFTER LUCIA.

    September 20, 2012 at 12:54PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Squasher88

    I still like the country submission system, I find it exciting. Also, I feel like voters would skip past the smaller countries who they feel make "insignificant" films, if it weren't for the current method. What could work, is if they had an executive committee (like the current one that is thought to be the savior of critically-acclaimed films) to perhaps choose 2 or 3 titles for the shortlist, regardless of country submission. I think that would be a healthy balance.

    September 20, 2012 at 1:41PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Liz Not a bad idea. The other suggestion I've heard tossed around is keeping the country submissions but also allowing write-in votes for any film that was released theatrically during that year.

      Of course, there's a chance that this would mostly benefit countries like France and Spain, whose films have always had an audience in the U.S., while having less upside for smaller countries. But at least it would hopefully have the effect of encouraging studios to distribute more foreign films in a year, rather than play that annoying game where audiences can only see the nominees six months or even a year after they were nominated.

      September 20, 2012 at 2:30PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Bill_the_Bear

    Guy, I don't understand your sentence concerning "Laurence Anyways." It would indeed have been eligible for this year's race, since it had its theatrical release here in Québec earlier this spring. (TIFF claimed that their showing of the film was a North American première, but it wasn't.)

    September 20, 2012 at 2:40PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge I was misinformed. Thanks for the correction. Glad Canada chose the better (and more Oscar-friendly) film.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:03AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bill_the_Bear I'm glad too!
      For the record, both "War Witch" and "Laaurence Anyways" are getting their theatrical release in Toronto (and perhaps elsewhere in English Canada) today, the 21st. Also, "War Witch" will be re-released in Québec on 28 September, ,to take advantage of the Oscar candidacy publicity.

      September 21, 2012 at 2:20PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    The Dude

    Brazil selected Selton Mello's "The Clown" for submission. AFAIK, the film didn't played in any foreign film festivals, despite having good critical acclaim and BO numbers when released here.
    I haven't seen it yet, but I heard good things about it.

    As for "one nomination for country" thing, I find it ridiculous. Why films should be punished because they were released in a country that made other great films in the same year (or at least, other films that were seen as possible Oscar contenders)?

    They should change it to simply the movies released in the USA in that year, or at least allow write-in votes.

    September 20, 2012 at 2:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Alex DL

    Forgive my ignorance but is the US allowed to participate and submit a foreign language film from an American director/production?

    Not that I think this film would've been nominated by hypothetically, could Angelina Jolie or even Joshua Marston have submitted their films under the US?

    September 20, 2012 at 3:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Alex DL Ugh...."BUT hypothetically" not by.

      September 20, 2012 at 3:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Edwin Nope, American films aren't eligible, I assume because it's really a "foreign film" category rather than a "foreign-language film" category, even though English-language films made in other countries aren't eligible either. It's really just an illogical, confusing system. I suppose another reason for the US not being allowed to compete might also just have to do with how rare it is for an American film to be in a foreign language. Over the past few years, we've had Angelina Jolie's film and "Letters from Iwo Jima." I think that's all.

      Interesting question though: with more and more Hispanic immigrants coming to the US, it's probably only a matter of time before a few American studios start producing Spanish-language films, so will the Academy then switch the rules to make the US eligible for this award, or will they insist that the category is strictly for foreign films? And if that's the case, will they start accepting English-language submissions from other countries? The point I'm trying to make here is that the rules of this category reflect an outdated view of the world and how movies are made.

      September 20, 2012 at 5:01PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Liz Eh, I'm not at all bothered by automatically ruling out all American and English-language movies from this category. They have such an insane advantage in getting into the Best Picture category that there's absolutely no reason to have them in the one category that's specifically meant to honor films from outside the English-speaking world. And if you let foreign English-language films compete, that category will fill up with British, Irish, and Australian films faster than you can say "King's Speech."

      Keep the foreign-language category for movies that wouldn't otherwise get that exposure. Hollywood doesn't need their fingers in every category.

      September 20, 2012 at 6:38PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Edwin I agree that accepting English-language movies would be a bad idea. The Golden Globes used to do that, which led to such Best Foreign Film winners as "Gandhi." I just think if they're going to call the category Best Foreign LANGUAGE Film, it should be the language that counts, not the country, so I don't think American foreign-language films should be disqualified. They, too, have a disadvantage when it comes to getting mainstream exposure. Do you really think most Americans would excuse their aversion to subtitles just because they knew the film was American? All foreign language films need as much exposure as they can get here. In my previous comment, I completely neglected to mention "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (probably because I often forget it's actually an American financed film by an American director that was made in France), but that's another example of a movie that wasn't eligible.

      Also, in regards to the one-film-per-country rule, I agree with others here that getting rid of it would result in a lot of favoritism towards European nations, especially France, Italy, Spain, and possibly Germany. But on the other hand, the rule undeniably causes worthy films to be deemed ineligible year after year. What I would propose is to have it so each country can submit up to 5 films for consideration, and when the votes are counted, each country would only be allowed to have one film be nominated. For example, later this year, voters would be able to vote for either "The Intouchables" or "Rust and Bone" from France, and if they wound up being the two films with the most votes (again, this is hypothetical), the second-place film would be disqualified and only the first-place film would make the final set of nominees. It's kind of like the acting categories where two performances from the same actor can be eligible in one category, but only one can actually be nominated even if both of them get enough votes. That way voters can select from more than just the one film the country chooses, but we're still ensuring that no single country dominates the category.

      September 20, 2012 at 9:20PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      GlennAU It is essentially foreign "language", but the accepted rule of thumb is that an American film merely filmed in another language would have an unfair advantage. "Letters from Iwo Jima" indeed.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:48AM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge Glad this piece has prompted such a good discussion. Edwin and Liz both make very good arguments, and I find it hard to take a hard line myself on the matter -- except to say that Clint Eastwood receiving an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film would have vexed me.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:14AM EST
  • 27362_100000665723265_7001_n_talkback_profile

    Parrill

    Great piece Guy. The exact kind of writing and information I come to the site for. I'll never understand why more people aren't as fascinated by this stuff as the rest of us. Oh well.

    September 20, 2012 at 7:08PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JLPatt

    Wasn't "Three Colors: White" a more valid submission for Poland because the movie was mostly in Polish?

    September 20, 2012 at 10:55PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge And Three Colours: Red is in French, one of the national languages of Switzerland. What's the difference?

      September 21, 2012 at 6:09AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    GlennAU

    Excellent piece, Guy. Hopefully this allows people to wrap their brains around the category once and for all.

    September 21, 2012 at 4:49AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    orr

    "Fill the Void" is Israel choice for Best Foreign language Film. . . .

    September 21, 2012 at 8:58AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    glebe

    Could whatever country War Witch is set in/filmed in have beat Canada to the punch and selected it first? Does the Forgiveness of Blood precedent mean the primary determinant of eligibility is the director's nationality? For instance, could France have chosen Le Havre as well?

    The one film per country rule is awkward but I'm not sure alternatives are any better. Do you let anyone submit any foreign language film? It would be impossible to get through all the submissions.

    Do you restrict it to films released in the US during the year? SPC buys up potential competitors hoping to capitalize on the marketing boost a nomination brings. There are a number of films that would find it hard to get distribution without help from the Foreign Language Oscar. I'd worry we'd end up with fewer foreign films in theaters. And commercial potential would determine the release and therefore Oscar eligibility.

    Plus less-connected or smaller films would get washed away. Your work's cut out for you if you make a great little Bengali movie. It's especially so if you have to get it released in the US to qualify for the Oscar.

    Maybe the answer is some sort of qualifying criteria that involve things like film festival selection and a home country release? I don't know. It's tricky

    September 21, 2012 at 9:55AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge "Could whatever country War Witch is set in/filmed in have beat Canada to the punch and selected it first?"

      No. For one thing, War Witch isn't actually set in a specific country -- though the central African location is clear, any further specifics are kept deliberately vague. Even if that weren't the case, however, a country must actually have been involved in the production and/or funding of a film to lay claim to it -- merely providing the setting isn't enough. (You obviously wouldn't call Midnight in Paris a French film for the same reason.) War Witch is a wholly Canadian production.

      "Does the Forgiveness of Blood precedent mean the primary determinant of eligibility is the director's nationality?"

      That seems to be the general convention, but it doesn't appear to be a hard-and-fast rule -- see the Akira Kurosawa example I mention in the article. Also, the Marston film was only disqualified after local filmmakers complained to the Academy -- if they hadn't, the submission would likely have been allowed to stand. It's a mess.

      I'm sympathetic to concerns that adjusting the rules would increase the likelihood of outstanding low-profile, distributor-less films getting shut out -- but isn't that the case in every other Oscar category? Yes, it's nice for obscurities to get a moment in the sun, but when it comes at the expense of genuine arthouse landmarks, I'm not sure it's really working.

      September 21, 2012 at 11:24AM EST
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
UPDATED: FEB 25, 2013

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention