Why is Parasite nominated for best picture, when it's a foreign film?

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
If there was ever a Foreign film to snag Best Picture at the Oscars....I'm hoping it's Parasite.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Me too. I might even put Parasite in my top ten movies of all time now, after it soaked in more.

The Oscars favour predictable conservatism (hence the term Oscar-bait, which everyone understands what that refers to). You can never prove the charge of racism because the selection of actors is so tiny compared to all the performances out there. What people find distasteful is black actors/actresses being nominated for roles relating to slavery (a topic deemed ‘worthy’) rather than recognising their good performances in other work.

#OscarsSoWhite isn’t simply a headcount of how many people of colour there are- it’s arguing against a narrow conservative idea of what makes a good film or good performance. And of course there’s the obsession the Oscar committee have about showbiz films- even better, films about Hollywood. Impersonating a worthy celebrity is another shoo-in, and if you’re playing the supportive wife of a male genius. Able bodied straight actors are lavished with praise for playing gay characters yet gay actors rarely get acclaim for playing a straight character. Patriotism is another- war films and monarchs.
I didn't think that black actors being nominated because of slavery roles was because of racism. The Oscars like historical films, and those ones seem to be the biggest Oscar bait, if I am correct on that. So because they are the biggest Oscar bait, that is why black actors are nominated for those roles, not because it's a slavery role, but because it's a historical film.

Unless I am wrong on that?

It's also the same with the white actor nominees, as a lot of them are picked if they play historical roles as well. For example if a movie is set during a war, you can bet that actor is going to get nominated.



I just finished a nominations. It's a straight up dogfight between Parasite and 1917. Anyone of them win is a good winner. But I guess they will share the spoils.
__________________
My Favorite Films



If there was ever a Foreign film to snag Best Picture at the Oscars....I'm hoping it's Parasite.
This but with another Korean film: Oldboy. That movie's brutally perfect. In my eyes, the movie's got more going for it, has more great twists, and more technique. Paradise is still wonderful.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oldboy was good, but I don't know if I would call it a masterpiece. The story was entertaining but found it to go maybe too far over the top, to reach masterpiece status. But still a solid thriller. But I'll have to watch it again.



Oldboy was good, but I don't know if I would call it a masterpiece. The story was entertaining but found it to go maybe too far over the top, to reach masterpiece status. But still a solid thriller. But I'll have to watch it again.

I love over the top, if it's done right.



Me too. I might even put Parasite in my top ten movies of all time now, after it soaked in more.



I didn't think that black actors being nominated because of slavery roles was because of racism. The Oscars like historical films, and those ones seem to be the biggest Oscar bait, if I am correct on that. So because they are the biggest Oscar bait, that is why black actors are nominated for those roles, not because it's a slavery role, but because it's a historical film.

Unless I am wrong on that?

It's also the same with the white actor nominees, as a lot of them are picked if they play historical roles as well. For example if a movie is set during a war, you can bet that actor is going to get nominated.
See I don't even think Parasite is Bong Joon Ho's best film. It's certainly not the best South Korean movie ever made. It's way off.



Me too. I might even put Parasite in my top ten movies of all time now, after it soaked in more.



I didn't think that black actors being nominated because of slavery roles was because of racism. The Oscars like historical films, and those ones seem to be the biggest Oscar bait, if I am correct on that. So because they are the biggest Oscar bait, that is why black actors are nominated for those roles, not because it's a slavery role, but because it's a historical film.

Unless I am wrong on that?

It's also the same with the white actor nominees, as a lot of them are picked if they play historical roles as well. For example if a movie is set during a war, you can bet that actor is going to get nominated.
Black history is much broader than slavery- that’s why people find it offensive. Rather than getting to play a range of historical characters, it’s pigeonholing. Again, the obsession with historical films means that women also get sidelined (unless you’re playing a monarch of course).

To some extent it’s obvious that historical films would regularly get nominated, because you have something real you can compare to, like Meryl Streep winning the Oscar for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher. However, do we want films that are always looking back rather than forwards?
__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)



Well I disagree. I guess it's all objective as to what we think they are supposed to be.
I'm not really sure what there is to disagree with. Regional film awards, by definition, are not attempting to represent cultural and geographic diversity. Whether or not that's a problem is another question, of course.

I think when combined with the gravitas that the oscars hold, it then becomes important.
I think the issue with this is that you're holding the Oscars responsible for the importance other people place on them, rather than through anything they themselves are actively doing.

I don't really understand this. I don't think I have used a principle universally.
Correct, and that's precisely my point: that the logic used to condemn the Oscars here is being applied somewhat selectively, and if applied more broadly leads to odd or counterintuitive results, like condemning regional awards for merely being regional.

Anyway, this is a bit off the main point, which I think is still this:

Anyway, the long and short of all this is that calling the Academy narrow-minded or culturally biased is probably reasonable (though I think there are a lot of innocuous factors about the nature of being a dominant market force that have to be considered), but calling them racist or xenophobic is much more serious claim that is, while not really disprovable, certainly not demonstrated by the frequency or foreign-language winners or nominees alone.



#OscarsSoWhite isn’t simply a headcount of how many people of colour there are
But that's exactly what it was, and it wouldn't have existed except for that simple head count.

There's a bait-and-switch quality to a lot of race relation arguments in which something very superficial and simplistic (like a head count) is used to launch a complaint, but can't be refuted by the same.

You can never prove the charge of racism because the selection of actors is so tiny compared to all the performances out there.
Correct. Part of the issue is that people have a very poor sense of sample sizes and statistics. Or at least, that would be a problem if people had bothered to see what the statistics even were before using the hashtag or perpetuating the grievances (most did not).

What people find distasteful is black actors/actresses being nominated for roles relating to slavery (a topic deemed ‘worthy’) rather than recognising their good performances in other work.
This feels like a lose-lose proposition. If this doesn't happen, I feel fairly confident there would be accusations about "hiding" the shameful history of slavery, instead.

I also strongly suspect that there's some confirmation bias at work, too. There's a similar joke about how you can get nominated by playing someone with a mental handicap, but it seems to only take a few high-profile examples for this to stick in people's minds and become something Everyone Knows but nobody actually measures.



I'm not really sure what there is to disagree with. Regional film awards, by definition, are not attempting to represent cultural and geographic diversity. Whether or not that's a problem is another question, of course.
Yes exactly. So they are not attempting to be diverse. The oscars are, and are failing at it.


I think the issue with this is that you're holding the Oscars responsible for the importance other people place on them, rather than through anything they themselves are actively doing.
Maybe, But the oscars attempted to change after a diversity row a few years ago. So they are responsible in a way.


Correct, and that's precisely my point: that the logic used to condemn the Oscars here is being applied somewhat selectively, and if applied more broadly leads to odd or counterintuitive results, like condemning regional awards for merely being regional.

Anyway, this is a bit off the main point, which I think is still this:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.



See I don't even think Parasite is Bong Joon Ho's best film. It's certainly not the best South Korean movie ever made. It's way off.

I'm curious as to what it is for you. My personal favorite, as I mentioned recently on another thread, is Oldboy, and I would also say it's the best foreign movie I've ever seen (but my favorites to watch are La Dolce Vita and The Mirror).



Black history is much broader than slavery- that’s why people find it offensive. Rather than getting to play a range of historical characters, it’s pigeonholing. Again, the obsession with historical films means that women also get sidelined (unless you’re playing a monarch of course).
Most of the stories we have, because of historical oppression, are not about black people. By all means, be upset about this. I am. Be upset about all the stories lost. There must be thousands upon thousands of tragic and inspiring tales that were simply never written down or preserved. It's awful to contemplate. It's an invisible Library of Alexandria, like so much of human experience.

As tragic as it is, it means that, to filmmakers, these stories simply do not exist. As reality changes and more diverse stories enter recorded history, art will reflect this more. It makes very little sense to condemn modern filmmakers for the fact that almost all the true stories they may want to tell have this limitation.

This critique falls into the same trap that a lot of modern policy ideas do: they condemn the symptom and not the disease. They attack natural and unoffensive things downstream of the actual offensive thing. It's not reasonable to task filmmakers with counterweighting history with their art.

To some extent it’s obvious that historical films would regularly get nominated, because you have something real you can compare to, like Meryl Streep winning the Oscar for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher. However, do we want films that are always looking back rather than forwards?
That last sentence sounds nice, but I'm not sure what it actually means, in practice. More science fiction?

Anyway, I reject the premise (if this is indeed what you're saying) that there's a mutual exclusivity to the two. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, and it's only with time that broader lessons become clear. There is nothing bad or retrograde about telling stories from history. Progress is not a race down a straight line, it's a marathon without a map that requires constant reevaluation and course correction.



Making a top 10 of Korean movies is hard, but if I stick my neck out it would be Ho's other film, Memories of Murder. But parasite would be close second, coz the story is much more nuanced and and characters are much more vivid. Rich people are not always douchebags. It tackles class, money, struggle to make it rich all packed into one.

And if it's just plain action, I saw the devil, hands down! Then probably a toss up between Oldboy, a Bittersweet Life and A man from nowhere depending on the mood.



Yes exactly. So they are not attempting to be diverse. The oscars are, and are failing at it.
I'm not sure why one award can be racist for merely being culturally biased or ignorant of different films, but another cannot be for willfully ignoring them entirely.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with either, but I'm not sure how this standard can be used to critique one and not the other.

Maybe, But the oscars attempted to change after a diversity row a few years ago. So they are responsible in a way.
This almost makes the whole thing sound like a trap. "They acknowledged the complaint and ostensibly tried to address it, so now they're responsible." It seems awfully counterintuitive to place more blame on the organizations that engage with these problems at all than the ones that simply ignore them, and laying into the ones that respond doesn't seem to incentivize them to do so.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm usually happy to if there's a genuine impasse, but I'm not sure we've reached that point. You used the term "racist" to describe the nominations. I noted racism involves fear or hatred. I don't see how we've come anywhere close to establishing either is present here, and I don't think the discussion has progressed beyond that point.



I'm curious as to what it is for you. My personal favorite, as I mentioned recently on another thread, is Oldboy, and I would also say it's the best foreign movie I've ever seen (but my favorites to watch are La Dolce Vita and The Mirror).
I've barely seen any Korean movies older than the 1990s. But these lot would be high on my Korean list.


My Sassy Girl 2001

The Handmaiden 2016

Oasis 2002

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring

Failan 2001

Memories of Murder 2003

A Tale of Two Sisters 2003

Christmas in August 1998



From what I recall , that hashtag came about when Straight out of Compton didn't get a nomination. Which in isolation was really really hard. Then picked up again when Elba didn't get a nomination for Beasts of no nation. Which again in isolation is very bad. But to be fair, there haven't been any Oscar worthy stuff featuring black actors. Now you don't expect Madea to win it now, do you? Now it's getting better and they are getting nominations and wins too.



I'm not sure why one award can be racist for merely being culturally biased or ignorant of different films, but another cannot be for willfully ignoring them entirely.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with either, but I'm not sure how this standard can be used to critique one and not the other.
In the same way a non-American can't be president of the USA. It's a question of eligibility. Nobody would determine that the constitution is prejudice in this way.


This almost makes the whole thing sound like a trap. "They acknowledged the complaint and ostensibly tried to address it, so now they're responsible." It seems awfully counterintuitive to place more blame on the organizations that engage with these problems at all than the ones that simply ignore them, and laying into the ones that respond doesn't seem to incentivize them to do so.

I'm usually happy to if there's a genuine impasse, but I'm not sure we've reached that point. You used the term "racist" to describe the nominations. I noted racism involves fear or hatred. I don't see how we've come anywhere close to establishing either is present here, and I don't think the discussion has progressed beyond that point.
That's fine but I'm not sure we'll do anything other than go round in circles.. I firmly believe that the branch nominators have huge subconscious bias when choosing nominations. I believe that that subconscious bias stems from xenophobic and ignorant reasons. I believe that the voters ARE in fear of their own standing, and this stems from Hollywood in general being fearful of ITS' own standing. The collective in Hollywood is so narcissistic that it would rather vote it's own films for awards over international films, no matter of the quality. That's the xenophobic bit there. The fear of international films being better than their own.

I'd prefer that no foreign language film could be eligible for the best picture award. 12 out of 563 is just insulting. Let's face it - 'Parasite' is only up there because of the recent campaign by NEON to push for i (as is the case with all films for best picture, which is a nonsense in itself - awards should be on merit, not who has the most money available for a marketing campaign, but that's a separate point)...... So the academy would have possibly faced a backlash and Parasite not been nominated after all this huge praise and the director being on American talk shows etc. As for other foreign language films - they haven't got a chance of being nominated. They're not anywhere near the radar of the voters. Some may call all this "narrow minded" not "xenophobia", but ask yourself why they are narrow minded. It's not a question of intellect. These people are highly intelligent.

On 'racism' - I'll concede that that was to heavy handed a term , apologies.



Appreciate you saying that, thanks. I think we're within a reasonable range of disagreement on the rest, at least.

The suggestion that they should exclude foreign films from Best Picture is an interesting one. At first I didn't like it, but the more I think about it, I think it might make sense. The idea of choosing a best picture from the entire world is a nice one, but it might not even be plausible. For one, cultural bias will always exist in all people to some degree, and for another, it just might not be realistic to expect the Academy as a whole to take in enough cinema from around the world to give them all proper consideration. I'm not sure it's feasible to have any award for art that purports to cover the entire world. There's just too much out there.



Initially I was also amazed but after some research I found this also has happened before 7,8 times