Gross Behaviour - by Leonard Klady

If It Ain't Fixed, Don't Bust It

Prior to 1956, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' award for a best foreign-language film was honorary and discretionary. Though the rules of the organization did not preclude non-English, non-U.S. movies from competing in the Oscar derby, the instances in which films and individuals outside the Hollywood system infiltrated the ballot were indeed rare. The tacit understanding was that the awards were a celebration of American movie making.

The pervasive attitude started to change following the Second World War. The impact, interest and influence of the Italian neo-realists was palpable and on the heels of that revelation came the Japanese and such nascent auteurs as Bergman, Satyajit Ray and Fellini. A cadre of influential board members that included George Cukor and Gregory Peck pressed hard to recognize international cinema and a formal category was established. The first competition ballot consisted of: The Burmese Harp (Japan), The Captain from Kopenick (Germany), Gervaise (France), Qivitoq (Denmark) and the Oscar went to Fellini's La Strada.

For a half century the Academy has been trying to figure out how best to select and honor international cinema. It has developed and tweaked the rules in the category on an almost annual basis and still hasn't come up with a better mousetrap. However, no matter how much tinkering is done, the intrinsic dilemma is this: the entirety of movies made in other than the English-language is honored with a single statuette. No single film can truly bear such intense scrutiny.

Bashing the foreign-language selections is an annual ritual. This past year tremendous mileage was given to the four nominations received by Brazil's City of God in other than the obvious category. A year earlier - when it was eligible - City of God had not made the short list in foreign-language and the award went to Germany's Nowhere in Africa. There was also considerable ink spilled about this year's nominees with various films including Germany's European Film Award winner Good Bye, Lenin! cited as notable exclusions. Of course, all the finger pointers were making a case without having seen many of the films that were chosen. Nonetheless, there are rumblings within the Academy about an overhaul of the foreign-language rules and regulations.

There are genuine criticisms to be lobbed at the Academy for the manner in which its chosen to honor foreign-language movies but, generally speaking, the press has opted for taking cheap, uninformed shots at the process. Once again, one has to keep in mind the Faustian nature of selecting a single film to represent all films made in a language other than English.

Unlike the other categories, to be eligible a film need not have played in the United States. However, it has to have had a commercial run in the country of submission between November 1 and September 30. Each country, regardless of the size of its film industry, is allowed a single submission. So, the decision on what film to submit from Mongolia is considerably easier than the task facing France or Korea. The Academy doesn't make the selection; the choices are made by some manner of official committee in the country of origin. The Academy can and has disqualified entries because they were deemed as not having a sufficient artistic contribution from the submitting nation. That occurred, for instance, with Kieslowski's White, a co-production between Switzerland and Poland that didn't quite meet the loosely defined criteria to rep either country. Conversely, the rules were waved to allow The Scent of Green Papaya to represent Vietnam though it was filmed, financed and crewed in France.

The Academy probably made a wise choice not to get involved in the selection process but it has to deal nonetheless with the consequences of that decision. Two years ago, Spain opted to send Mondays in the Sun rather than Talk to Her. The former film didn't make the short list and the latter was nominated in other categories and received an Oscar for original screenplay. There's generally no avenue for redress on what can be extremely political decisions in other countries that result in inferior submissions. And even in the absence of personal politics, there are years when a nation such as Japan may have two exceptional nominees and is forced to toss out one of them.

The bottom line is that there is no level playing field in the foreign-language category. By its very rules, it's impossible for the Academy committee to view the very best movies produced outside Hollywood … only some of them. In recent years that's meant roughly 50 titles.

The judging process is also fraught with potential problems. Because of the number of films to be screened and a relatively brief window of opportunity to screen them, the Academy over the years decided to split the committee up into different viewing groups. Presently there are three separate groups and in order to be eligible to vote in the nominating round a member has to see 80% of the films in his/her section or make up the difference from films seen in other sections. Two years ago, roughly 750 members signed up for the committee and this past year (owing to the abbreviated schedule) the number dropped to roughly 600. However, in both instances about 250 people made their quota. There is a committed core that has served on the committee for decades that see as many of the submissions as possible regardless of the section.

Individuals grade the films on an ascending scale of 1 to 5 in essence. The final tabulations are made on the basis of an average so a film seen by 120 people is not at a disadvantage to a film voted upon by 220 members. Part of what makes the process murky is that it is a juried system where the panel does not get to formally deliberate. Members do casually spit ball during breaks but generally speaking there's a paucity of official direction. So, an individual with tough standards might only rate one or two favorites with 4 points while some else could assign 5s to a dozen pictures. There is presently no mechanism to "true" the way people vote. There's also scant opportunity to catch up with missed titles. The Academy screens each movie once and it's up to the distributor or agent to determine whether to arrange outside screenings and even then it's near impossible to find a convenient time for additional showings.

All that said, historically the "discovery" has an advantage over a film that has already been heaped with praise. Back in 1987, it was a foregone conclusion that Louis Malle's Au Revoir, les Enfants would win in the category. The film had already collected a trove of awards and its focus on children and the Holocaust were viewed as impossible to trump. However, for those that attended the Academy screening of the hitherto unknown Danish entry Babette's Feast, the choice was clear. It was an electrifying screening and, without fail, there are a couple of films in any given year that have a potent emotionally connection with the foreign-language committee. Generally, they are unheralded films but not always. This past year there were two such projections - The Barbarian Invasions and Zelary from the Czech Republic.

A similar instance occurred when the favorite was Cyrano de Bergerac. The spoiler was a Swiss film on illegal Turkish immigrants called Journey of Hope. The latter film came out of left field and its potent message moved the membership. It also set off a series of pieces decrying the choice sight unseen including a piece reprinted in the New York Times by Unifrance president Daniel Toscan du Plantier that accused the Academy of slapping the face of the French industry in favor of a film from an inconsequential film nation. Subsequently, and with considerably less fanfare, Toscan du Plantier would see the film and tell the French press that he was surprised at how much he liked it.

Though unquestionably an imperfect system, it's difficult to argue that the eventually winner in the category isn't an apt reflection of the taste of the Academy membership. This is, after all, an organization that honored Roberto Benigni instead of Ian McKellan or Nick Nolte as actor of the year and favored The English Patient rather than Fargo, Shine and Secrets & Lies for best picture. It's also a body that over the years has a pretty good record of winners including Nights of Cabiria, The Virgin Spring, 8 ½, Closely Watched Trains, Z, Day for Night, Amarcord, The Tin Drum, Mephisto, Fanny and Alexander, The Official Story, All About My Mother and Crouch Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Looking in the rear view mirror I can certainly question such choices as A Man and a Woman over The Battle of Algiers, The Assault instead of The Decline of the American Empire and Pelle the Conqueror in favor of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. However, none of that trio was a shameful option and in most instances the filmmaker was subsequently honored by the Academy.

Obviously on the list of Oscar award priorities in need of revision, the foreign-language category is way down on the agenda. It doesn't have the egregious omission history that prompted radical surgery in the feature documentary category nor the sort of quick fix prospects that might effect nominations and winners. The Academy first must decide whether it wants to change its rules to embrace more films of pedigree regardless of nationality or co-nationality. In addition to submissions from individual countries it might also embrace award winners from major festivals or foreign films that have played American theaters. However, the prospect of a qualifying list of 75 or 80 movies is one headache the organization would like to avoid.

It's possible like the doc category that a "blue ribbon" panel might be formed to look at a broader list of movies and winnow the possibilities down to perhaps 25 films for committee consideration. Here the problem is time. Is it feasible for a select panel to screen, evaluate and deliver a short list and set a screening schedule that can be completed by nomination deadline? I suppose it's possible but certainly cumbersome without any indication that the changes would improve the quality or range of selections.

The radical solution might be to add a second foreign-language category. Perhaps it might be divided between established and emerging cinemas or go back to the Academy's very first year and cite a best production (Wings) and an award for artistry (Sunrise). However, in a show that already runs close to four hours, the suggestion of a new award might incite a lynching party. Whether things remain status quo or the forces for change are heard it would be nice to think that a creative solution might be found that was indeed Oscar worthy.