The nominees for Best Foreign Language Film Oscar are chosen by the Foreign Language Film Committee of the Academy. This committee, on which I have served in past years, is voluntary and usually starts with a large number of members. I say starts because attrition soon sets in. In order to vote in the nominating process, you have to see a certain percentage of the movies and very few can keep up. Also, the quality of the films, picked by the countries themselves, is not always particularly good. In fact, a number are downright awful and painful to watch (Academy rules allow you to leave after seeing only the first third of the stinkers.) It usually comes down to just a handful of flicks from Western European countries with significant film industries (Spain, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Germany, etc.) dominating the competition, although Japan and China often have excellent entries. In recent years, there have been interesting films from Iran, although they seem to have dribbled off with the crackdown against dissidents in that country.
This year another developing nation (or in this case “authority”) has come to the fore with the Palestinian film “Paradise Now.” I have not seen the movie. The clips did not look terrific, but it has been nominated for the Oscar. Some say the film is sympathetic to suicide bombers, although I have also heard it is a criticism of them. In any case, this does not seem like the next “8 1/2″ or “Jules and Jim,” but a movie whose nomination is yet another exercise in Hollywood political self-congratulation. If it is one of the five best foreign films the committee saw, I would be mighty surprised. But, as I said, I haven’t seen it.
Some people who have a right to be upset are organizing a protest. You can find the links here and here.
I thought Paradise Now was a German film.
The making of the film was financed by a variety of German public agencies: the German Federal Cultural Foundation (via the so-called World Cinema Fund), the German “Land” of Nordrhein-Westphalia, the Media Board of the German “Land” of Berlin-Brandenburg and the German-French public television Arte (which readers of the old Trans-Int will remember from posts such as this one and this one). The producers also received a grant from the Council of Europe film fund Eurimages and funding from the MEDIA program of the European Union. For what it is worth, the German co-producer of “Paradise Now”, Bero Beyer, also wrote the screenplay. It is thus that “Paradise Now” could win the award at the 2005 Berlin Film Festival for Best European Film: a fact that, as I noted at the time, is “symptomatic of the increasing symbiosis between the Palestinian ’cause’ and European institutions and personalities”.
I suppose the film is Palestinian in some sense due to the director, actors, and subject matter, but Old Europe definitely had its fingers in it.
Roger:
The argument always starts with “of course suicide bombinbs are wrong but…………… I can understand why they are driven to it.” This makes no sense. If you understand why they do it then you are justifying the action you say is wrong. You can’t logically have it both ways. Do Palestinians suffer under their present condition? Yes. Could some forms of violence be justified, apart from the question of whether they will bring about change? Maybe. But not this form.
The direct targeting of innocent, non combatants is just plain wrong and there should be no effort to understand it. The “of course it is wrong” song and dance is just a conceit of the western sympathizers of this corrupt tactic to give then cover for their sub conscious support of the actions. They should talk with people who promote this vile act. They have built an entire set of principles to make this into an act of courage and bravery. They have sunk to the level that any Israeli, even a baby or an old lady, is a potential IDF soldier so they are not innocent, they are a combatant, so killing them is no different then killing a uniformed soldier. And what is even worse, they have developed a theological rational so even apart from it being a good military tactic, it is also a Godly act, something that their God will reward them with higher placement in their vision of paradise.
By using their sick double standards the indirect supporters of suicide bombers are treating the Palestinian people as simple minded idiots who can’t operate on the same mental level as their Western superiors. Of course we know that it is wrong but the Palestinians must be given a pass for their behavior. Their horrible living conditions do not allow them to see their actions as wrong, we must coddle them because they are not capable of seeing things as we do. The paternalism is so thick that they can’t see they are treating the people they want to “understand” as infants.
The Palestinians are not some sort of pre-civilized tribe who have been living in a pre-literate society that has not examined the same ethical questions that the “of course it is wrong” crowd have been exposed to. They know the moral questions and they have decided it isn’t wrong, no, it is rightous and just. It is not just good, it is holy.
If you think that the treatment of the Palestinians is so bad that they have no choice but to blow up hospitals, buses, and discos,(without any pretense of these targets having any military value), so be it. The Palestinians advance these arguments and as far as the ability to weigh the moral questions that these actions present, they are our equals in the ability to think in these terms. Stop treating them like dogs by saying “it is wrong but…” You are not understanding them, you are placing yourself as their intellectual superiors.
Meanwhile, Stephen Chow’s inventive & original Kung Fu Hustle wasn’t even nominated, even tho it picked up Best Pic from the Hong Kong Film Awards (beating out Wong Kar Wai’s 2046) as well as the Boston Film Critics Assn, & was nominated for a BAFTA & a Golden Globe
I have not read your blog but I am sure is “yet another exercise in Bush Cult political self-congratulation.”
Bathsheba:
No doubt your sarcasm will be appreciated in some quarters. Let me point out to you, however, that neither Bush nor ‘Bush Cults’ are particularly relevant to this discussion — which is why nobody mentioned them, until you did.
Popular belief to the contrary, it is possible to have a polite conversation on a controversial topic without mentioning Bush’s name.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
To be fair, many liberals are affected by a Tourettes-like tic wherein they mutter Bush! Rove! Scooter Libby! at inappropriate moments, & seemingly without conscious control. Show some compassion, dude
Daniel:
How do most cult members behave? They accept the word of their leaders without any critical thinking or investigation. “I have not read blog your but I am sure….. . it must be nice to know things without having to read anything.
Whoa, tough room. Now you’re making me explain the joke, thus ruining it.
See, I’ve been amusing myself lately by catching up on group of witty, urbane Hollywood hanger-outers who like to pass judgment on movies they haven’t actually seen.
Man Whose Fedora Needs Cockier Angle is pretty sure he has nailed down the absolute quality of “a movie whose nomination is yet another exercise in Hollywood political self-congratulation.” Sight unseen.
I laughed. I kidded. I was not accepting Roger’s word without critical thinking. I’m registered Republican.
We’re a little touchy, lol