How to fix the Best International Film category?
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:45PM by Cláudio Alves
This year, the Best International Film category celebrated a record-setting number of submissions - 93 in total. 2019 has also been marked by the renaming of the award, which was previously called the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, as well as some new rules that slightly change the voting process. However, one of the unhappiest yearly traditions associated with this honor refuses to go away. Once more, some films are being disqualified.
Nigeria's Lionheart isn't eligible for the Oscar. This is particularly terrible when one considers it's the first submission from one of the few African nations with a thriving film industry. Not surprisingly, the decision has generated quite a bit of controversy, with such renowned filmmakers as Ava DuVernay criticizing it…
To @TheAcademy, You disqualified Nigeria’s first-ever submission for Best International Feature because its in English. But English is the official language of Nigeria. Are you barring this country from ever competing for an Oscar in its official language? https://t.co/X3EGb01tPF
— Ava DuVernay (@ava) November 4, 2019
Indeed, Nigeria's official language is English, making it almost impossible for one of the country's films to be eligible. In that regard, it's in the same boat as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and some other countries. Only when they submit a film in a language other than English do they become eligible for this particular Oscar. This very same year, the UK's in the running with The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, an English-Malawi coproduction spoken mostly in Nyanja.
There are some Nollywood films in Yoruba, Igbo and/or Hausa. So, technically, if Nigeria submits a production with a majority of its spoken dialogue in one of those other languages, it can become eligible. Such isn't the case of Lionheart, a pleasant and inspiring narrative with progressive values and a stellar performance by Genevieve Nnaji, who also directed. While some of its dialogue is in Igbo, most of it is in English. Austria's Joy, about Nigerian immigrants, is in a similar predicament, even though the Academy hasn't disqualified it yet.
With all of this into account, should Lionheart still be eligible? Moreover, should the rules of the category be changed, to open it to any non-American films as opposed to only non-English speaking ones? Regarding both dilemmas, I have many doubts and troubled thoughts.
On one hand, this situation seems deeply unfair to Nigeria, a country whose official language is English as a consequence of colonialism. On the other, opening the category to all non-American productions seems unwise. Perhaps I have too little faith in the Academy, but all I can think about when confronted with that hypothesis is that the UK would be nominated every single year.
With different rules, could Call My By Your Name have won the Best International Film Oscar?
Even if American co-productions like The King's Speech or The Favourite are deemed ineligible, that wouldn't be the case for Brooklyn (Ireland-UK-Canada) or Call Me By Your Name (France-Italy), just to name two examples. If you draw the line and permanently exclude British and Australian productions, that still doesn't disqualify the Guadagnino romantic drama.
As I see it, this category exists to honor international cinema from countries that are otherwise unrepresented in the other Oscar races. I can't fathom a general rule change that would maintain this core principle while also opening the category to English-speaking films. Maybe the solution lies in a case-by-case evaluation, with no rules being uniformly applied to every country. It wouldn't be equal, but it could be a bit more just than the current state of affairs.
Reader Comments (31)
Part of me wondered whether the category name change was actually a move towards opening the gate for English-language films...
The Golden Globes used to have two separate categories, English-language foreign film, and Foreign Film not in English. Maybe that's what needs to be done. The only way I can think of to curb abuse is to make any film in the English-language foreign film ineligible in any other categories. At least that might stop the high-budget super productions from hijacking the category.
That said, I'm not too sympathetic to Lionheart. The rules were there when they made their selection. Either they were unaware or decided to ignore them. The Band's Visit was disqualified under the same rule in 2008. There have been others. Other English-speaking countries have had to work around this rule for years. And dragging in the "legacy of colonialism" crapola is pure nonsense. You want to play the game, you follow the rules.
Case-by-case seems the best bet. That or just outright barring the UK from the category, which somehow seems worse.
This is RIDICULOUS.
Watching a foreign-language film with subtitles is a different sort of cinematic experience than watching a film in a language that you know. While the current rules may not be perfect, things should be kept the way they are.
As you say, nobody wants the "Best International Feature" category to include "King's Speech", "Moulin Rouge", "Call Me By Your Name", "District 9" and "Lord of the Rings". They may wish to change the name of the category again (Best Film not in the English Language is a bit unwieldy but most accurate) but Ava duVernay is being completely reasonable.
I've seen "Lionheart". It's not a bad film, but it is not a great film either, and it's very obviously in English and very obviously ineligible. This was not a surprise to anyone and "Joy" (which has even more English) should be disqualified as well.
Ghana was colonized by the British. India was colonized by the British. Singapore was colonized by the British. All of them produce films in English. But they all followed the rules and sent a film that was eligible.
I actually think the category should stay as is and be used to celebrate films in languages other than English. A good English-language movie will have the accessibility to achieve universal appeal (here in Australia, we have regularly seen movies belonging to us become big beyond our shores), whereas an equally high quality film in a foreign language will have many more barriers to overcome to be successful. Let the category be a champion for the subtitled gems.
And I agree with ken s. - as disappointing as it will be for Nigeria, they need to play by the rules. I don't see it as unfair or discriminatory in any way.
I'm confused by the thesis here. If the film is good enough, why shouldn't it go for the traditional categories? Why would it want to settle for an International/Foreign Film nomination? Of course its chances would be very small; but imagine that the publicity would help it.
This category has lots of problems (submission process; nomination process; insularity of nominated countries; etc). "Not nominating English language films" is not one of them.
I think the category should stay as is too. this whole controversy is ridiculous. Lionheart broke the rules and someone within the academy out to be checking that fimls qualify before announcing the long lists so that they can avoid "disqualifications" which nearly always cause scorched earth feeling.
Duvernay's response to this disqualification is understandable but a bit naïve if you ask me. Ideally, every country should be able to submit a film of their own production regardless of language and should share an equal chance (assuming equal quality of the film) of getting a nomination. But practically, anyone who knows the Academy and their voting patterns knows that this would never be the case for the reasons Cláudio lays out above. Pointing out the shortcomings of the process is pretty easy; finding a workable solution is much harder. Duvernay's tweet certainly hasn't done the latter and without it, seems to just be sewing unnecessary discontent.
I once heard a legal scholar say that the most famous Supreme Court cases here in the U.S. are borne out of conflicts between our value of equality and our value of liberty. This seems like a similar situation, only replace "liberty" with "fairness." What's "equal" and what's "fair" are unfortunately not always compatible. Sometimes you can't have it all.
Why haven't they disqualified "Joy"? It would be strange if they keep an Austrian film about Nigerians but not the actual Nigerian movie.
What is the point of changing the title of the award if the same rules apply? “International” doesn’t automatically mean “foreign language”, so they should go back to the old name if that’s what they mean. A film in English from a different country is still an “international” film.
Why did the Academy even rebrand Best Foreign Language Film as Best International Film if international submissions can't be in English? Doesn't this just reinforce the "foreign language" part? Because clearly that remains codified.
I'm sorry for Nigeria but this rule is necessary because it allows countries to make themselves known internationally. If English-language movies were allowed to compete in this category then the United Kingdom could compete with movies like The King's Speech or Downton Abbey would have been chosen.
I am sure that none of the films that the United Kingdom has chosen over the years would have been chosen if it were allowed to choose movies in English language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submissions_to_the_92nd_Academy_Awards_for_Best_International_Feature_Film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_submissions_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_International_Feature_Film
I am sure that the only reasons why this disqualification generates controversy is because it is an African film directed by a woman. If it were another country in another continent, this would not happen of an anecdote.
This controversy is just stupid as hell. A movie not being eligible for a foreign language film when it's not in a foreign language is just common sense. Frankly, I think it's a publicity stunt to get the movie on people's radars.
Best Film Not in the English Language.
That is one of the stupidest rules ever. It's no wonder some people shit on the Oscars.
are we all just going to pretend that we can't tell the diff between something like The King's Speech aor Call Me By Your Name nd this disqualified Nigerian flm? Come on now.
Wait, Ava DuVernay criticized something? I’m shocked.
@guestguestguest going for all traditional categories means you have to open a theatrical release in USA, which means invest more money.
I'd go with every movie enlisted for best international film must not open in USA in that calendar year or it wouldn't be for that category but for all the traditional ones. Would The Favoutite or Call me by your name seatle just for international film? No. And how do you see all those foreing films? The academy, in their willing to promote different kind of cinemas around the world, release all these films in cultural spaces, cinematographs, so they promote their views. And yes, english language foreing films are foreing films, so Nigeria would be in. But this is just me dreaming and as some other guys said, you need to play by the rules.
As you suggest, if the rules were changed, the UK, Canada, and Australia would all but be guaranteed nominations every year and one or the other would win nine years out of ten. There has to be another way...
@Murtada It's fairly obvious everyone here very clearly sees the difference between The King's Speech and Lionheart, thus the comparisons to prove a point.
Maybe the category should be "Best International Feature Not In The English Language, Or In The English Language But From A Historically Underrepresented Or Marginalized Country, Or One With A History Of Colonialism (But Not Yet With A Thriving International Economy), Or One With A History Of Religious Persecution (Preferably Being Persecuted By Western Religions), Or One Where The Majority Ethnicity Would Be A Minority In Most Western Culture, Or One Where We Decide It Fits A Good Narrative In The Current Cultural Climate..."
Come on now...
Thank you RyGuy! That's exactly right!
Incidentally, several other countries have been disqualified for having too much English dialogue (Hong Kong's "The Touch", Singapore's "Be With Me" come to mind). None of them complained about colonialism and the fact that they hadn't read the rules in advance.
1983's Ettore Scolla's Le Bal was not spoken in any language and it was nominated for Best Foreign Movie in 1984 representing Algeria . The film has no dialogues only background music.
Great article that's making me second guess my stance:
https://africanarguments.org/2019/11/06/on-lionhearts-oscar-ban-is-nigerian-english-a-foreign-language/
I mean it's a slippery slope and I would still lean towards no English language films for this category. But it made me think about it more with a bit more nuance.
Cut the crap. If it's Best Film Not in the English Language then call it that way. Best International Film is a polite way of saying nothing.
What is the purpose of the category? It seems like the primary thing it wants to honor are films not in the English language, so the name change doesn't make any sense. If it's to honor "international films" and individual countries have to pick a representative film for the year, then the language doesn't matter. Yes, it opens up the category for British films, but the idea is to honor the best "International Film" then so be it.
Yes, I feel that really they should have renamed it what BAFTA call it, i.e. Best Film Not in the English Language. That seems to reflect the spirit of this category. I can understand why they wanted to drop the word 'Foreign', but 'Best International Feature Film' seems to miss the mark, and, a bit worryingly, seems to suggest that only American films can qualify for Best Picture (though I know that's not actually the case).
Call the category "Best Film Not In the English Language" No way that including films in English can work out well.
The UK/Canada/Australia would manage to infiltrate both the Oscars and a Best International Feature award; to use 2010 as an example, The King's Speech got a wide release so showed up in all the regular categories, while BAFTA would no doubt submit a film like Submarine or Four Lions, which got an incredibly limited but acclaimed US release. That's a slot that wouldn't go to a country that would value the exposure.
Nigeria's entry should've been rejected as ineligible right from the start.
I actually think this category shouldn’t work that way at alll. The Academy acknowledges Cinéma that’s released in the US on a certain year. So, let’s keep countries’ submissions aside and call the category Best Foreign Language Film. All non-english films released within the US on that certain year should be elegible (regardless of the country).