Tuesday, January 15, 2008 — a date that shall live in Academy Awards infamy. Earlier today, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences unveiled the nine films that have been shortlisted for this year's Foreign Language Oscar, of which five will comprise the final list of nominees to be announced (along with all Oscar nominations in all categories) one week from today. And here's the rub: The year's most acclaimed foreign-language film, Romanian director Cristian Mungiu's 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days isn't among them. This isn't, mind you, one of those periodic cases of a film being disqualified on the basis of the Academy's notoriously serpentine rules and regulations, as happened earlier this year with the Israeli film The Band's Visit and two years ago with Michael Haneke's Caché. No, 4 Months has been in this race from the beginning as Romania's official entry, competing against submissions from some 62 other countries, and its failure to advance to this penultimate round of the nominating process is as embarrassing a blunder as any in the Academy's history: You can put it right up there with the Best Picture win by Crash (2004).
To put things into perspective, 4 Months isn't the only significant foreign film shut out by the Academy this year. Of the 63 eligible titles, also failing to make the shortlist were Marjane Satrapi's animated Persepolis (from France), as well as the film with which it shared the Jury Prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival, Mexican director Carlos Reygadas' transfixingly beautiful Mennonite marital drama Silent Light; Hong Kong director Johnnie To's masterful neo-noir Exiled; another Cannes prize-winner, South Korean director Lee Chang-Dong's Secret Sunshine, which also placed first by a wide margin in the “best undistributed film” category of the recent Village Voice/L.A. Weekly film critics poll; and the effortlessly charming two-hander Belle Toujours, by the 99-year-old Portuguese director Manoel de Oliveira.
Each of those omissions, however, is markedly less surprising than that of 4 Months. Persepolis, for example, is considered a shoo-in for a nomination in the Academy's Animated Feature category, and it could be that voters on the Foreign Language committee felt that the film would be sufficiently recognized that way. Genre films like Exiled are almost never acknowledged by the Academy in any non-technical categories. And hardcore art-house directors like Lee, Reygadas and Oliveira are perennial Oscar bridesmaids: Just consider that in the 51 years since the Academy created the competitive Foreign Language category, Theo Angelopoulos, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, the Dardenne brothers, Jean-Luc Godard, Haneke, Abbas Kiarostami and Wong-Kar Wai have failed to amass a single nomination between them, despite having had one or more of their films submitted by their respective countries. (Even Academy favorite Ingmar Bergman, who thrice won the foreign-language Oscar, failed to earn so much as a nomination for arguably his most famous film, The Seventh Seal, in 1957.)
But 4 Months is something different: It's the sort of movie the Academy has often acknowledged in the past, which is to say a film of high artistic merit that it also easily accessible for the general moviegoing audience. (For other, Oscar-winning examples, see Costa-Gavras' Z, Buñuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Bertrand Blier's Get Out Your Handkerchiefs, Bergman's Fanny & Alexander, and Pedro Almodovar's All About My Mother.) That's one of the reasons why 4 Months has been a sell-out attraction at film festivals around the world, from highbrow affairs like Cannes (where it won the coveted Palme d'Or of the main competition) to less industry-centric regional events like Telluride and L.A.'s own AFI Fest.
Even my own mother — an elementary school administrator and about as plain-folks a moviegoer as one could hope to find — gushed about the film after seeing it at last year's New York Film Festival, and it's not hard to understand why: Mungiu's film isn't an intellectual exercise but rather a visceral one, holding the audience rapt with its breathlessly intense story of two college roommates attempting to negotiate an illegal abortion in Communist-era Romania. Unfolding in something close to real-time, in long hand-held camera set-ups as confidently executed as anything in the Bourne franchise, the movie gets its hooks into you early and deep, and for the next two hours dares you to break its gaze. And beat for beat, Mungiu's brilliant direction is matched by the performances of his two stars, Anamaria Marinca and Laura Vasiliu, and by the terrifying Vlad Ivanov as the backroom abortionist Mr. Bebe.
Since Cannes, the accolades for 4 Months have been piling up faster than one can count — not just from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, but from the famously obscurantist National Society of Film Critics and the unapologetically populist Broadcast Film Critics Association too, plus Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award nominations for foreign-language film, and the European Film and European Director of the year awards at the recent European Film Awards in Berlin. Given all of that, an Oscar nomination might have seemed inevitable, but for several months now there have been rumors (many of them voiced by Hollywood Elsewhere columnist Jeffrey Wells) that Oscar voters had not responded especially strongly to the film at official Academy screenings. Which raises the question: Which Oscar voters exactly are we talking about here?
As explained in the Academy's official press release:
“Foreign Language Film nominations for 2007 are being determined in two phases. The Phase I committee, consisting of several hundred Los Angeles-based members, screened the 63 eligible films and their ballots determined the above shortlist. A Phase II committee, made up of ten randomly selected members from the Phase I group, joined by specially invited ten-member contingents in New York and Los Angeles, will view the shortlisted films and select the five nominees for the category.”
This is the second year now that the Academy has employed this two-phase nominating process for the Foreign Language category — an attempt, Academy president Sid Ganis said in a 2006 press release, “to see if we can permit busy working members to participate in the [nominating] process without them having to commit to several months’ worth of screenings.” In the meantime, those “several months' worth” of Phase I screenings continue to be attended largely by Academy members who have a lot of spare time on their hands, namely retirees. And of those several hundred who serve on the committee, many still fail to see the minimum number of films required in order to nominate — this despite a 1987 Academy rule change that split the nominating committee into three groups, thereby reducing by one-third the number of eligible films any one committee member was required to see. (In a 1989 New York Times interview, Academy spokesman Bruce Davis explained that only 50% of the previous year's 450-member Foreign Language committee had met the minimum nominating requirements.)
"I've had better days," producer and Foreign Language nominating committee chairman Mark Johnson said when reached by phone late Tuesday afternoon, adding that, while he had nothing to say against any of the nine shortlisted titles, he was "stunned" by the omission of "a couple of films" from the roster.
Johnson went on to compare the day's events to the 2003 Foreign Language Oscar nominations, which failed to include the acclaimed Brazilian film City of God, which in turn went on to be nominated in four non-foreign categories (including Director and Adapted Screenplay) at the 2004 Oscars. Alas, such a happy ending will likely elude 4 Months, owing to another arcane Academy rule: While City of God hadn't yet opened commercially in the U.S. at the time of its Foreign Language Oscar veto and could therefore qualify the following year in all other categories, 4 Months played a one-week qualifying engagement in a single Los Angeles theater at the end of 2007, thereby making it eligible for all Oscar categories this year, when relatively few Academy members (outside of those on the Foreign Language committee) are likely to have seen it.
"I thought we had made big strides last year, but apparently not big enough," said Johnson with regard to the two-phase nominating process. Asked if further retooling (including the possible involvement of more active Academy members earlier in the nominating process) may lie in the future, Johnson was unambiguous. "That's what has to be done, because in my mind it can't continue like this," he said. "I don't believe these choices reflect the Academy at large."
That brings us to the nine films that did make this year's Foreign Language shortlist. Of them, I have seen only two — Austrian director Stefan Ruzowitzky's wonderful The Counterfeiters, which has long been considered a likely nominee, and Cinema Paradiso director Giuseppe Tornatore's histrionic and unintentionally hysterical melodrama The Unknown, in which an Eastern European prostitute on the run from her brutal ex-pimp reinvents herself as a cleaning woman in the home of the Italian family she believes has adopted her love child. Check back soon for the Lifetime network remake. Of the remaining seven titles, two (Israel's Beaufort and Kazakhstan's Mongol) come bearing good-to-excellent festival buzz, while two others hail from previous Oscar winners: Canadian director Denys Arcand's Days of Darkness (which closed last year's Cannes Film Festival to scathing reviews) and Nikita Mikhalkov's 12, a Russian remake of Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men.
The final voting for the Foreign Language Oscar (Phase III, if you will) is open to any Academy members who can prove they have attended screenings of all five nominated films — a process that has itself resulted in more than a few upset victories over the years, including the insipid Italian travelogue Mediterraneo over Zhang Yimou's Raise the Red Lantern in 1991, and the frothy Spanish comedy Belle Epoque over Chen Kaige's Farewell My Concubine in 1993. But hey, there's no accounting for taste, right? And at least if a film makes it into the final nominee pool and then loses, it can be said to have been fairly judged by the Academy en masse. But how many Academy members ultimately put the kibosh on 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days? One subset of one committee comprised of — oh, I don't know — the sound guy from Airport '77, the costume designer from Oliver!, and Ernest Borgnine?. If this is the Academy's idea of reform, may I be the first to propose abolition?
Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/47806
Slideshows
-
Nightranger: Street Dreams
Less people but more Germs -
Cobrasnake from 90210 to the Sunset Junction
Beverly Hills princesses and Silver Lake leather daddies looking for parking -
Seeking the Rage: Among the Protesters at the DNC
The group Recreate '68 tries to ignite the passion of another generation
Recent Posts
- The Wrestler wins Venice. Next stop: Toronto
- Passchen-less
- In the Beginning
- Cyd Charisse, Dead at 86
- Ella Taylor reacts to the reactions to her review of Sex and the City
- Scott Foundas on Sydney Pollack's Early TV Work
- Sydney Pollack in LA Weekly
- A Necessarily Incomplete Guide to Godard
- The Todds and I'm Not There
- Pathology Review
Archives
Comments
There are 27 comments posted for this article.
Great piece, Scott. I had a similar reaction when I learned of 4 Months' omission earlier today (I am in NYC). I think you are actually too generous in your condemnation of the Academy, as they have given films of 4 Months' ilk their true due since the American and Academy hey-days of open-minded tolerance, namely the late 60s and 70s (and even then...Oliver! over 2001...Rocky over Network, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men...but I digress). All About My Mother was an anamoly, I seriously doubt they even understood it, but recognized the name Pedro Almodovar, realized they unfairly snubbed him several times before, couldn't find any other legit contenders, and got it right for a change.
The truth is, the Academy of the past decade or so is a neo-conservative organization that regularly sacrifices rewarding great art on account of their visions of long-term commerce and so-called family values. The Academy could not handle REAL African Americans. Do the Right Thing was way too incendiary, so they gave us the kindly subservient chauffer of Driving Miss Daisy instead, and patted themselves on the back for its pseudo-liberalism in so doing. The Academy cannot handle REAL gays. Brokeback's are real; Capote is what they would rather show us, the flamboyant - and, in their eyes, therefore freakish minory. And now, they cannot handle abortion, plain and simple. Bad enough that Imelda Staunton was robbed for her momenumental performance in Vera Drake. We expected that, since that film did no business, the Academy virtually never goes there. You articulated all the reasons why the snub of 4 Months makes no sense, except you left implicit what I will make explicit: they are bigots.
I hope you will indulge me and read a long rant that I wrote shortly after the 2005 Oscars when Crash beat Brokeback in the biggest - and, in many ways, worst - upset in its history. I believe it contains reasoning along similar lines as yours, and shows up the Academy for what it is, an organization without credibility or substance.
"It is fine for people to prefer Brokeback to Crash, or Crash to Brokeback. Roger Ebert preferred Crash; he is not a bigot (but he
is virtually the only major critic in America who did prefer Crash, virtually all others overwhelmingly preferred Brokeback). However, for those of us who call the Academy bigots for selecting Crash, there is a huge amount of evidence. I never previously called the Academy bigots for denying other films with black
or Jewish or gay themes the Oscar, but this was
different. The Crash upset over Brokeback Mountain is considered by many film historians to be the biggest and among the most egregious in film history for the following reasons:
Please try to forget one's own personal opinion of
Brokeback as you read this (believe it or not, I am), and consider Oscar history. In its 78 year history, the "best" film of the year has rarely won the Oscar, 10-20 times at best, a poor history. But last year's Best Picture upset was unprecedented, and it happened for insidious reasons. Brokeback, prior to the Oscars, was the most honored film in movie history for a single year, winning more Best Picture/ Director prizes than any other film ever, including Schindler's
List (though admittedly there are more prizes now, but Brokeback still did slightly better than even that film when you take Director prizes into account). Nothing with its combination of critical AND guild prizes had ever lost. L.A. Confidential swept the critics' prizes in 1997, but then Titanic's onslaught gave it the Globe, major guilds prizes, and the stage was set for the Oscars. But Brokeback won the Producers, Directors and Writers Guild awards. No
film with those 3 had ever lost. Brokeback won the Golden Globe, DGA and had the most nominations. No film with that combination had ever lost. Brokeback had the New York and Los Angeles Film Critics awards, with the most nominations, again, a trio that had never lost.
There are other combos along those lines. And
it even won major prizes in Europe, like BAFTA,
Venice, ultra- prestigious Sight & Sound's #1 film, etc. I can go on.
Just as important, Brokeback was the top box office earner among the nominees and,
rated the number 1 box office story of the year among all 2005 films, per major site Box Office Mojo. And, Brokeback was undeniably a cultural zeitgeist. When you do the math, there is absolutely no way, no how Brokeback should have lost. The only other losing film even in Brokeback's league vis-a-vis pre-Oscar prizes was Saving Private Ryan. But even Ryan didn't have
Brokeback's overwhelming dominance at critics' prizes, plus Ryan fell short at the Writers Guild and other screenplay prizes, whereas Brokeback won many, including the Globe, Guild, etc. So what happened???
Shortly after the nominations, I have read that the Academy received a petition signed by 60,000 right wingers stating that they would never watch the Oscars again if "the gay movie" won, and that their friends felt the same. Then, the late night talk shows stepped up the gay jokes, and the film started to become a bit of a joke. Then, Hollywood relics/legends Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine each publically stated that neither they nor any of their friends would even see Brokeback, because "John Wayne would roll over in his grave". As an aside, can you imagine the (rightful) outcry there would have been had people said they refused to see the black film, the Jewish film, the hispanic film?
Anyhow, that's when the pundits started saying that perhaps another film would win. Nobody believed them because of the overwhelming dominance of Brokeback, and besides, there was nothing to support. That's when Crash become "the great straight hope". Pundits
like Tom O'Neil who predicted Good Night and Good Luck prior to the Globes gave up on that film, while everyone knew that both Munich and Capote were lucky to be nominated (deserving, but still lucky, most thought Walk the Line would take one of their slots). Crash, which had was not a factor in any major critical races except for the Roger Ebert awards - excuse me - the Chicago Film Critics awards, suddenly won the Actor's Guild Ensemble prize, and suddenly, there was a film to rally behind. Never mind that that ensemble award is NOT a Best Picture prize, past
winners include The Birdcage, The Full Monty, Gosford Park, etc., none of which were remotely serious contenders for the Oscar. At the Oscars, however, 3 performances were nominated from Brokeback, only 1 from Crash, further confirming that SAG voters likely appreciated the huge cast of Crash and supported it as such (plus that video onslaught); Brokeback had a number of important rolls, but really it's a 2-4
person movie, at most; Crash had a solid dozen. But still, Crash got a 69 at metacritic,
a terrible score, the lowest of any nominee (I think since metacritic's inception), and Crash wasn't even nominated for the Golden Globe. Since the Globes started in 1943, every single Oscar winner had at least been nominated for the Globe, with only one exception, The Sting, and supposedly that was on account of category confusion - was Sting a drama or comedy. (I had the same problem with Crash, but it wasn't supposed to be funny). But there was nothing
else, and Lion's Gate mounted an extremely aggressive campaign, giving the anti-Brokebackers - the senior males of the Academy - something to rally behind. People like Ebert (one of only two 100 major national critics who took part in a what should win poll who didn't support Brokeback, the other being a conservative from Kansas City) and Oprah Winfrey chimed in, and instead of condemning Curtis and Borgnine for their blatant homophobia, things became
strangely, shockingly silent in Hollywood re:
Brokeback. Everyone suddenly talked Crash - but NOT for Crash's newly discovered merits (it was the earliest release of all nominees and pretty much a non-event), but because the Academy decided to play it safe, go with politically correct Crash, and cower to blant bigotry. This was not a Warren-is-too-arrogant-so-we'll-pick-Chariots-over-Reds backlash. This was not Harvey Weinstein going door to door (literally) for Shakespeare in Love. This was a blatant act of cowardice by the Academy. There is truly no other explanation, I wish there was, but
there is no way that they suddenly deemed it better when almost everyone else disagreed. The Academy had never been mavericks, the Picture favorite almost always wins. [By the way, this is not meant to chide Ebert & Oprah, they both cited Brokeback as a great film, each genuinely preferred Crash, fair enough, but their
influence was used by others to create the illusion of mediocrely-received Crash as a true contender]
I had been an Oscars fanatic since I was 8 years old, saw a list of major winners, and with an odd
photographic memory remembered them all. I still do. And, I had disagreed with the Academy's Best Picture choice all but twice in the prior 20 years. But I realized my opinion wasn't the thing: was the Academy being honest? I thought they were. But now, members were admitting they were voting without even watching all the nominees, the overwhelming slam-dunk front-runner, because "John Wayne would roll over in his grave". Am I the only one incredibly offended by that? Gay/straight, black/white, etc., should not matter, we should all be
offended because that is prejudice at its worst. And besides, where is the Academy's credibility if their members aren't forced to watch all nominees before voting, at least in the categories where they vote? Committees are appointed to nominate foreign films and
documentaries, and I agree with that policy since
obviously Academy members are too busy to see every film, whereas committee members commit to do so. It is it too much to ask the Academy to watch their Best Picture nominees, and if they feel they have a personal conflict with one (to put it kindly), to recuse themselves and not vote? And is it too much to ask the Academy to condemn bigotry, in whatever form, from their members? I still cannot believe Brokeback
Mountain lost, although so did Citizen Kane, The
Grapes of Wrath, Raging Bull, Dr. Strangelove, The
Graduate, Goodfellas, Fargo, The Pianist, non-nominees 2001, Vertigo, The Searchers, Singin' in the Rain, Some Like It Hot, City Lights, Touch of Evil, etc. But despite the greatness of these other movies, Brokeback's is the most egregious loss because it was "supposed to win" more than any other ever (playing by the Academy's own rules), because it so deserved the prize - even Paul Haggis said so in Entertainment Weekly ("EW: can anything stop Brokeback?; PH: No, and
nothing should, it's a wonderful film" - good for
Haggis). And it lost because a very large contingent refused to open their minds and hearts, or to even watch it, the antithesis of what an Academy should do.
As a crazy avid movie buff, it is painful for me to shut off the Academy after 30 years, but I am done. It is the right thing to do. I am aware of the Academy's power, I don't care if my protest is in a vacuum (though am pleased to have discovered so many others who agree). But I hope it's not, because like everyone else, they too are slaves to almighty ratings. If enough people demonstrate they will not tolerate bigotry and cowardice, perhaps in time they might lose
some of their luster. I hope so. Thanks for reading.
Posted on January 15, 2008 9:25 PM by Jay
Stupid americans!!!!!!!!
Posted on January 16, 2008 1:04 AM by romanian
in Romanian is: "Scandal la Oscar", so not such a big scandal with english, but a huge difference with Oscar!:D
Posted on January 16, 2008 1:57 AM by dan
Dear Scott, the Romanian translation is "scandalul Oscar". Thanks for being a passionate advocate for Romanian New Wave. 432 is a masterpiece. An esential movie. What a pitty. I also think your piece on Cristi Puiu is the best ever portrait written about the great director.
Posted on January 16, 2008 3:37 AM by ileana
Hi Scott,
"Scandal la Oscaruri". This is how you say "Oscar Scandal" in Romanian. I would label the ones that thought that 432 would go for an OSCAR from wishfull thinkers to dreamers. After I have seen the film at no moment I expected to get any main stream appreciation in US.
Abortion is a controversial subject even for a simple academic discussion. I am glad that the film connoisseurs got and appreciated it. With the moviegoers ...
Alin
Posted on January 16, 2008 5:07 AM by Alin
I agree completely that the shortlist is a disgrace. After all the Academy's contortions trying to find a way for members to vote on 60+ movies, I think it's time to cut the Gordian knot. Why not just put the foreign film category on the same basis as the other awards, i.e., any movie released in the US during the year is eligible? What they have now is a kind of unofficial film festival that reflects choices made by nebulous national nominating committees and cobbled-together subgroups of Academy voters who can't possibly see all the submitted films. It also limits the choices to one film per country, which obviously bears no relation to the proportion of quality films being produced (and smacks of condescension, giving "little" countries a boost). I know this would drastically limit the choice, but so be it. It's at least an accurate reflection of the foreign film situation in the US.
Posted on January 16, 2008 6:44 AM by princehal
Oscar Scandal in romanian language you could say the same: "Oscar Scandal".
The difference is that we understand you language, but they probebly didn't understand our movie. Shame on you people. What kind of jury are all you? You just aborted a fair decision, Rambo fans...
Posted on January 16, 2008 7:22 AM by ionut murariu organizatori.ro
its a pitty this didnt got nominated..i saw it and i liked it soo much...
Posted on January 16, 2008 7:55 AM by costello
You're right , Scott! But I'm afraid the USA
movie fans cannot to appreciate that kind of cimema.DINU
Posted on January 16, 2008 8:25 AM by dinu patulea
it was a retoric question you morons... the man wasn't asking for a translation. well, it's a shame that the movie didn't make the list, but it won a more important and less policitised award.. the palm d'or!
Posted on January 16, 2008 12:40 PM by bogdan
I took a class a few years ago with a veteran Hollywood actress who was a member of what I deduce from your article was the Phase II selection committee for the foreign film Oscar. She said that the members were required to watch only 30% of any film before they were allowed to vote on it and she was quite proud of her record of walking out on the remaining 70% of many films.
News like this about 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is annoying, but it has been clear for about 51 years that the foreign film Oscar is a joke, rewarding talent even more accidentally than do the rest of the silly awards. As Scott Foundas said recently in reference to Zodiac, history will be on the side of Puiu and the Romanian New Wave and firmly not on the side of dozy old Academy pensioners who have the attention span of a goldfish.
Posted on January 16, 2008 12:55 PM by AG
The word for "scandal" in Romanian -- as per an online dictionary I found -- is bârfa. Then perhaps Foundas' phrase would be "bârfa d'Oscar" or some such. As for the Academy's omission of "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," it was nothing short of "scandalos."
Perhaps the Academy has an anti-Romanian bias. Just a couple of years ago, Cristi Puiu's "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," Romania's submission for the Oscars, also failed to get a nomination.
Posted on January 16, 2008 2:59 PM by andre
I am a Romanian living in US for four years now. I have never dreamed to live in this wonderful country, but now...the military supremacy, extremist religiousness and consumerist culture have exhausted the American spirit. 2008 will only show such thing, unfortunately. Too bad, too bad... This may well be the explanation for what happened to 4,3,2. I lived the times explored by Mungiu as a student in Communist Romania: I was 'neighbour' with Gabitza, so to speak. When I have seen the movie it was like a rerun of my life: it was horrible realism. I do not know if this should have been a movie nominated to Oscar, of course I am dissapointed for not being one. However, my point coincide with that of Mr. Mungiu at the hearing of the Academy's news: the movie is for reaching its public not about awards. You reached me and my wife, Mr. Mungiu - it was devastating. Too bad for some of the American moviegoers who would have probably wanted to be reached. Good luck to Mr. Mungiu and to the creators of 4,3,2 !
Posted on January 16, 2008 3:10 PM by Dumitru
Great article. This is absolutely outrageous. It's amazing we still take the Oscar seriously as a barometer for quality, (or any award of this kind, for that matter).
Tornatore again?! That shamelessly sentimental hack. Guess it's not a surprise from an institution that apparently thinks Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Altman and Lynch. Let's not expect P.T. Anderson to be honored in any way this year. (Maybe it is a good thing that the ceremony might be affected by the strike after all.)
Posted on January 16, 2008 8:08 PM by Gene
Extremely well said. I am disappointed myself, not only because I share the nationality with Mungiu, but also for the high quality of this movie. I'm glad though, that we have found a sustainer in you, who can argue his statements with such strong arguments.. Congrats!
Posted on January 16, 2008 11:08 PM by Irina, Romania
In Romanian, this is how you say Oscar scandal: "Scandal la Oscar". I am really sorry for Mr. Mungiu because he is a great director, who made a wonderful film. But I don't know if the people that have never been in Romania can really understand it.
Posted on January 17, 2008 1:00 AM by Emanuela Lavinia
Oh Scott you are right on with this. By far one of the best movies of this year on any year is 4 months 3 weeks 2 days. I am still reeling from its effects. A thriller in the truest sense of the word.
Posted on January 17, 2008 3:37 AM by Mike Pappas
One possible important reason why the 4 Months... has not made the shortlist is that voting members did not see the film and thus, obviously, would not hsve voted for it. In the UK, for the BAFTA nominations, the film was only screened twice. There were no screeners sent. I was at one of those screenings and it was poorly attended (no more than 30 people). There are numerous screenings of films during the awards season over a short period of time and all compete for the time and attention of awards voting members. Did the distributors of 4 Months miss a trick by not campaigning hard enough? I think so. Personally I believe it's a big mistake that 4 Months... did not make the BAFTA final five.
Posted on January 17, 2008 5:26 AM by Ezra Nathan
Dear Mr. Foundas,
I am an actor who starred in a classic American Motion Picture that dealt with organized religion and an unobtainable abortion. It was recently honored at an Academy screening and I was honored at this event. Certain nameless individuals within the Academy took questionable actions with me that were suspicious in regards to the subject matter contained within my performance as well as with the body of my work that has dealt with equally controversial subject matter in other films that I have appeared in. (They censored my biography without my permission when it mentioned these particular topics.) They have an obvious political agenda, and I am not in any way surprised that "4 Months" was ignored. I could have predicted it months ago through my own experience. They dont seem to have a problem with the pro-life "Juno"....which is self-explanatory.
Posted on January 17, 2008 5:49 AM by anonymous
Posted on January 18, 2008 1:24 AM by anonymous
You know something, Scott? First of all, I want to thank you for supporting and defending true art. Because this is 4,3,2... A work of art. And my oppinion is that it's the best Romanian film ever. No other Romanian long movie won the Palm d'Or. Secondly, not only it took the Palm d'Or, but also it won the American Movie Association European counterparts (the European Movie Association) prizes for Best European Movie and Best European Director... Apparently, Europe is too good for you (not you, Scott... You, the Americans). And finally, this failure to nominating makes me think... The Oscars do really award the best movie, or what?!... Somebody told me (and I'm just repeating the idea) that no non-Jew ever won a Golden Globe or an Oscar. I'm not antisemithic at all... But... Isn't it true? Schnabel Is not a Jewish name?... Because Mungiu surely isn't. It's just an idea...
After this failure to nominalizing, my true and personal oppinion about it is (sorry for the American people... They are good persons, but... My revolt is exceedingly high...) that "AMERICA SUCKS". With all my respect. Congratulations again, Scott, for supporting true art.
By the way... "Speechless" (you know, the series related to the script writers' strike) is art.
Peace!
Posted on January 18, 2008 12:05 PM by Andrew, Bucharest, Romania
You actually say "scandal" but you pronounce it differently. Those noms are a joke!
Posted on January 19, 2008 2:21 PM by Cristina j
i guess my previous comment was redundant (but i hadn't seen the ones before me). i worked for one of the Academy Members a couple of years ago and from what i gathered these people's housemaids get to fill in those forms cause they can't be bothered. go figure!
Posted on January 19, 2008 2:30 PM by Cristina
The AA Foreign film committee is more incompetent than the BCS Bowl committee stiffs...and friends......only the team of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld outstiffs them......
You don't wanna be # 2 on this list of LOSERS....
Posted on January 20, 2008 9:09 AM by unc1dmo
Jidanistan sucks. 432 is good.
Posted on January 24, 2008 12:50 PM by Doareu
I still don't get the Academy' criteria. But indeed, 4-3-2 was robbed of an Oscar nomination. I've seen the film it's impressive. Brilliant acting and directing.
Posted on January 27, 2008 2:48 PM by marmelade
scott, i've just heard your pre-oscar interview on bbc and i want to thank you. your fantastic praise and upholding of 432 blows me away, not because it is a great movie, but because I am Romanian. This movie is fantasctic for foreigners as a historic/thriller and it will touch you some way, like it is your freedom that has obstacles to it, as if it would be you that risked getting caught, jailed beatten or killed. but for many Romanians that is far more real than i can describe. for these "moviegoers" this movie is the best depiction of what they felt when they lived in 1987 and before, and in some cases after. So thank you! Thakn you for slamming the Academy. Personally I feel vindicated, and it is my hope that mr. Mungiu will go on to win every prize possible save the oscar.
But if anyone really wants to talk about a Romanian New Wave please please look at Radu Muntean as well, and see the Romanian cinematographic picture in its fullest. he is french in education and citizenship, but Romanian to the core, and his movies are spectacular. Mind you Cristi Puiu is quite remarkable as well.
getting back though, Mungiu deserves the greates praise and the greatest prize the Cinema World can give - and that is exactly this global recognition which few movies raise. that is why i want to thank you, for being and active and important part of that global prize for what is to millions far more than a movie.
Posted on February 20, 2008 7:25 PM by Anonymous
i'm romanian... and i'm outraged at this film being snubbed... also I feel that three six mafia getting an oscar is way worse than crash getting one (and don't get me started on amy winehouse)
Posted on July 13, 2008 10:32 PM by stress