Kris has already given the philistines on the Academy’s foreign-language film committee a deserved telling-off for sidelining Italy’s astonishing entry “Gomorrah,” but I feel compelled to add my voice to his — not least because, if I had my way, Matteo Garrone’s cinematic gut-punch about the Camorra crime syndicate would be in line for a Best Picture nod, not just a puny ghetto-category citation.
I could be here all day if I decided to go through the innumerable landmark films, from “City of God” to “The Celebration” to “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” that have been similarly mistreated by this ever-disappointing branch of voters, so I shouldn’t have been surprised when they failed us yet again, right?
And yet I was, because the newly formed executive committee, which added an extra three titles to the list of six elected by the main body, was specifically designed to avoid such travesties. I can believe that they may well have used one of their slots to save France’s masterpiece “The Class” from exclusion, and if that’s the case, I’m most grateful. (Though I still wouldn’t put it past the boneheads to omit it from the final five.) Hell, it’s not inconceivable to me that they coud have stepped in on behalf of a popular favourite like “Waltz With Bashir” — the ignorance of the larger committee knows no bounds.
But even given that worst case scenario, and speaking as someone who has seen 8 of the 9 shortlisted titles, I can’t fathom how the executive committee didn’t deem “Gomorrah” worthy of their company. What was the rule change for, if not to protect challenging, relevant, widely acclaimed works like Garrone’s film?
Well, Jeff Wells has done some digging, and seems to have found the explanation. He spoke to a member of the committee, who had this to say:
Voices in the foreign branch’s executive elite committee just didn’t think Gomorrah “delivered in the way it could or should have,” he said. “It’s not a matter of it not being heart-warming. It’s a matter of our respecting the film without believing that it really brought the goods home.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t accept this. Obviously, the film isn’t going to speak to everyone … what film does? But as I see it, the executive committee isn’t in place to offer personal evaluations of the work at hand; it’s there to ensure that significant achievements are acknowledged.
However much they liked or didn’t like “Gomorrah,” to blindly ignore the fact that its achievement, as both a feat of storytelling and social investigation, dwarfs those of most of the films shortlisted — not least the contrived melodrama of “Revanche,” the by-the-numbers epic posturing of “Tear This Heart Out” and the comparatively cardboard characterisation of “The Baader Meinhof Complex” — is blatantly obtuse.
Some of you will inevitably cry that this is just one person’s opinion against another, but the critical and public consensus over “Gomorrah” is tough to argue with. We’re talking, after all, about a picture that won the Grand Prix at Cannes, was voted the third-best film of 2008 by a global critics’ panel for one of the world’s premier film publications, was cited in numerous precursor fields, and enjoyed an unprecedented sweep of the European Film Awards last month — while doing gangbusters business across Europe.
And yet we’re being asked to accept that a long-faltering panel’s perception that the film “doesn’t deliver” somehow overrules all these achievements. I’m sorry, Academy, but no dice. How many more “goods” — both on and off the screen — did you require the film to bring home?
I know it’s not worth getting upset over a category that has all the cultural relevance (and resonance) of a Jonas Brothers album. After all, when was the last time you heard anyone mention such flimsy Oscar victors as “Mediterraneo,” “Belle Epoque” or “Nowhere in Africa?” Last year’s outcome didn’t make everyone magically believe “The Counterfeiters” to be greater than “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.”
In other words: same old, same old, same old. But the question remains for AMPAS: if they can’t do the category right, why have it at all?
Comments
12 responses to “‘Gomorrah’ doesn’t deliver, says AMPAS”
Great rant. The committee just does not get it, it seems.
A lot movies I think are masterpieces are going to go un-nominated too, and I’m not throwing the word philistine around.
Guy,
Are the voting members supposed to try and ascertain the “objective” best of the year? If so, what criteria are they supposed to use? If they are to merely crown the critical and popular achievements of the year, then why even have human choices involved because a computer could tell you the most critically loved achievements.
What good is an award show from an awards body that doesn’t give you their real subjective opinion? I admit that Wall *E is quite the achievement, but if I’m not gonna put it on my top ten list if i didn’t like it.
Kyle,
The general voters can (and do) vote as they please. I’m just saying that I expected the new executive committee to take the scale and complexity of a film’s achievement into consideration, as it’s for that purpose that it was created.
Only twenty people form that committee — too small a number, I think, for personal taste to be the principal criteria in electing the final three entries. I do admit, however, that it’s hard to judge without knowing which three titles they “saved.”
As far as I’m concerned, it’s still a deeply flawed system, but that’s just my opinion.
Obviously, something is fundamentally wrong with their system — how else could ‘4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days’ be overlooked?
I agree with you that it is a flawed system Guy, and its open to criticism as to what is the fairest way to determine a winner. However, I still think that whatever system is set-up, as long as its the opinion of 20 people, or the whole academy for that matter, than snubs for Gomorrah are likely to happen.
Your post raises a lot of interesting questions in regards to the “objective” and “subjective” value of films. I think you are right when you say that the committee must, ” take the scale and complexity of a film’s achievement” into account. You just have to put the “according to the people on the committee” onto that, and I would have no arguments.
Fair enough, Kyle.
I actually am studying Mediterraneo in a film class this semester (an Italian film class).
I’d probably agree with your conclusion but your actual argument is pretty sticky and points to the problems inherent in viewing the Oscars as the standard of excellence. Nominations can’t be given simply on the basis of a film’s “significant accomplishment” because groundbreaking movies are merely interesting failures unless they “deliver the goods.” It’s the movies that fire on all cylinders which should be nominated. The committee obviously felt Gomorrah didn’t do that.
While the fact that a lot of people felt Gomorrah was an artistic success is compelling the Oscars aren’t set up to award films because lots of critics and movie buffs agree on them. For better or for worse, they’re set up to award films because the Acadamy agrees on them. In that way the fact that Gomorrah wasn’t nominated speaks for itself – it’s an accurate reflection only of what it’s supposed to reflect.
I realize that’s frustrating because the Oscars do have real influence, especially on movies that wouldn’t otherwise be seen or valued by very many in this country. But in fairness, at the end of the day I think you still have to keep in perspective that the Oscars aren’t a popularity contest, or an objective measure of art. They’re just survey results from a single group, whose opinion is commonly mistaken for being more than it is.
Excellent points, Henry. I guess I’m just frustrated that the group’s taste is so unadventurous that they think a thoroughly formulaic film like the Mexican entry “delivers” more than “Gomorrah.” I simply don’t get it. But you’re right — that’s a whole different issue.
[…] Best Foreign Language Film category. But we all know that this is a category frequently given to ignoring the obvious, so I’m relieved that voters responded to its gritty, authetic textures and improvisational […]
[…] The Academy may believe that this masterpiece doesn’t ‘deliver’ as effectively as, say, the thoroughly average “The Baader Meinhof Complex,” but he […]