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

Tools    





Foreign language films don't deserve to be in the Oscars. Last time I checked, this was America. The Oscars are in America. Land of the english speakers.
Indeed.

I actually think it would be better if they blocked any non-English movie from nomination to any Oscars except foreign language oscar. Why? Because Academy Award is a ceremony for the American film industry so nothing more natural to block everything else from being nominated. The Japanese Academy Prize (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Academy_Film_Prize) for instance only nominate Japanese films. It is not xenophobia to do what they do with the Japanese Academy Prize: it is only recognition of what it actually IS. They should do just like the Japanese awards and make the award to be officially about the US film industry, also they should include "American" in the name, so it is "American Academy Award".

I really don't like this thing they have where they pretend it is not a ceremony for the American film industry so instead of just officially blocking non-English films they nominate 99% of the time English language movies and from time to time a non-English language movie shows up (yes, it is that degree of biased proportion). Why do that? It is hypocritical.



The trick is not minding
This certainly took a xenophobic turn.
Nowhere does it say “American” in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
It’s about the best films (supposedly) released pure and simple. This is far reaching.



This is well worth watching.

One interesting thing is that Parasyte was very similar to Joker (unlike all other movies nominated): both are movies about people down in the social hierarchy being looked down by the people up in the hierarchy.

I think that Joker is actually the most realistic film of the two in the sense that it talks about the social hierarchy from the perspective of the people down in the hierarchy while Parasyte talks about poor people from the perspective of the elite. Also, Joker associates the conditions of being down the social hierarchy with suffering from mental illness and other kinds of issues while Parasyte just assumes that the people up and down in the hierarchy are just "there" without any reason.

Parasyte also assumes that poor people down in the hierarchy have a strong class identity and consciousness so they can feel insulted to the point of killing a rich person if that rich person insults another poor person by being disgusted by that poor person's corpse. Which is obviously nonsense. Joker is also fantasy but its fantastical elements are part of an organized mythology and it describes social conflict in a more realistic multidimensional manner. In that sense, Joker functions better both as a realistic film about social problems as well as a piece of entertainment.

Also, the youtuber was mad because Parasyte was not very popular in the US. Guess what? Pretty much any movie that is not a Marvel superhero movie was seen by less than 3% of the US population in theaters.



The trick is not minding
Let’s also remember that the Oscars aren’t the be all end all in awards just because it’s in ‘Merica.
Several countries have their own “Oscars” such as The Cesar (France), Blue Dragon, Grand Bell, Baeksang arts awards (South Korea), Aacta (Australia), BAFTA (England), Goya (Spain), Ariel (Mexico), Guldbagge (Sweden), Golden Horse (Taiwan), Donatello(Italy), Canadian Screen Awards (guess), and the Robert Awards (Denmark). And many more in China and Japan and Honk Kong and European Film Awards.
Oscars are just ours.
Do they nominate American films often? Don’t know, would have to check, but probably not. But why would that matter? We’ve always been a country that has recognized the influences of the others in our films for so long, why not include them in our own awards ceremonies? They don’t have to do the same at all, this isn’t quid pro quo afterall.
Did anyone ever object to the myriad of British films that have won the Oscar? (Nooooooo.....but but but....they speak English!). Ok, has anyone ever complained about Milos Forman, a Director from Czechoslovakia, winning best director and best picture twice? (TWICE!). If your response is “But they speak English!” just stop. Because ifs that’s your argument, it isn’t about the film itself.
It’s about your narrow view on other countries.



Indeed.

I actually think it would be better if they blocked any non-English movie from nomination to any Oscars except foreign language oscar. Why? Because Academy Award is a ceremony for the American film industry so nothing more natural to block everything else from being nominated. The Japanese Academy Prize (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Academy_Film_Prize) for instance only nominate Japanese films. It is not xenophobia to do what they do with the Japanese Academy Prize: it is only recognition of what it actually IS. They should do just like the Japanese awards and make the award to be officially about the US film industry, also they should include "American" in the name, so it is "American Academy Award".
In a way I agree. Keep it all American. Then there can be no accusations of bias or wokeness or whatever.

But they need to change the name of the award and maybe the ceremony. Best picture implies best film from anywhere.

I really don't like this thing they have where they pretend it is not a ceremony for the American film industry
They have to, if they want films like 1917, The English Patient, The Piano, The King's Speech amongst the nominees though. I'd be fine with excluding them all though and just having films from the USA involved. Because, you're right in a way, they are pretending - I'd love to see the % of films nominated for all awards in Oscar history that are made in L.A.



Welcome to the human race...
One interesting thing is that Parasyte was very similar to Joker (unlike all other movies nominated): both are movies about people down in the social hierarchy being looked down by the people up in the hierarchy.

I think that Joker is actually the most realistic film of the two in the sense that it talks about the social hierarchy from the perspective of the people down in the hierarchy while Parasyte talks about poor people from the perspective of the elite. Also, Joker associates the conditions of being down the social hierarchy with suffering from mental illness and other kinds of issues while Parasyte just assumes that the people up and down in the hierarchy are just "there" without any reason.
Parasite is shown almost entirely from the perspective of its poor characters, though - very few scenes actually centre on the rich characters. The whole first half is basically a heist film starring the poor family and even its big reveal is really just the introduction of more poor people who present a new conflict that plays out without the rich characters even noticing until the end of the film. The arbitrariness of each group's place on the social hierarchy is also kind of the point, though the pizza box scene would also indicate that there are greater economic problems at play (just like in Joker, really) - if the best job any of the Kims can get is folding pizza boxes, then how are they supposed to improve their station in life?

Parasyte also assumes that poor people down in the hierarchy have a strong class identity and consciousness so they can feel insulted to the point of killing a rich person if that rich person insults another poor person by being disgusted by that poor person's corpse. Which is obviously nonsense. Joker is also fantasy but its fantastical elements are part of an organized mythology and it describes social conflict in a more realistic multidimensional manner. In that sense, Joker functions better both as a realistic film about social problems as well as a piece of entertainment.
Which is why Parasite takes the time to repeatedly reference the smell and turn it into a microaggression against the poor characters that only gets worse and worse as the film progresses, ultimately leading to one of them snapping under already-stressful circumstances (remember that Mr. Kim is trying to keep his daughter from bleeding to death while an unconcerned Mr. Park is not only demanding his car keys from Mr. Kim but also takes the time to react to the other guy's smell). The problem with Joker is that the character's mythology means that the conclusion is foregone and you spend the whole movie waiting for this obviously-unstable guy to snap, to say nothing of how he's an unreliable narrator or the various contrivances or how any attempt to address social problems is skimmed over in order to focus far too closely on his individual drama (psychiatrist got budget cuts? sorry can't hear it over him complaining that his psychiatrist doesn't listen to him anyway) so I can't buy the claim that it's better at being realistic.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



"Realistic" isn't the word I'd use, but as previously indicated I do find the distinct reaction to the two pretty telling. While there are plenty of perfectly good cinematic reasons to make distinctions between the two (duh), it's hard to imagine cultural/political sympathies aren't factoring in somewhat. Not in terms of liking one or not the other (or liking Parasite more), but specifically in floating ideas about one being trenchant and the other being dangerous.



Welcome to the human race...
Perhaps, though I'm mostly just criticising the idea that Parasite is the less realistic film simply because it's not as outright didactic as Joker.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well as far as realism goes, I would say Parasite and Joker are both about the same as realism goes. The only part of Parasite I found perhaps not realistic is an underground area to a house as in the movie. However, it was said in the movie that rich places in that city have bomb shelters, so maybe it's more common in South Korea?

But other than that, I would say realism is about the same. I found Parasite to be a lot more entertaining, probably because it was an original story, with surprises, where as Joker, you pretty much know what's going to happen, since it's based off other material.



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.


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.
Sorry to dig this up again but this is blowing up.



It has an American Director, an American lead actor an American production companies and is about the American dream.

Why are Asian Americans treated like this? I realise this is the GG not the Oscars but I need to understand why this is happening.



I think it's happening because the category is "Foreign Language." The error isn't so much in slotting this film into that category, but more in the lack of foresight involved in having a category like that in the first place.

My best guess is that "Foreign Language" made a lot of sense as a category initially and captured most of the otherwise overlooked foreign films they were trying to capture, but then simple inertia has left it that way even as the industry has globalized and integrated and created more of what used to be edge cases.

Here's my big question: can this sort of category be reworked in a way that doesn't harm otherwise overlooked films? A very logical case can be made, taxonomy-wise, for erasing the language and country-of-origin distinctions entirely, but I fear the net effect will be that films like this don't get much attention at all. And I'm not sure how to craft this kind of category in a way that will still point a spotlight on these films, without sometimes (maybe often, these days) leading to really counterintuitive or outright unfair results.

Let's say Minari qualified in the "normal" categories...would it receive a nomination at all? If not, is it better or worse for this film to be nominated, albeit in Foreign Language?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
They don't know what the hell they're doing. Nothing really new but still stupid.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I think it's happening because the category is "Foreign Language." The error isn't so much in slotting this film into that category, but more in the lack of foresight involved in having a category like that in the first place.

My best guess is that "Foreign Language" made a lot of sense as a category initially and captured most of the otherwise overlooked foreign films they were trying to capture, but then simple inertia has left it that way even as the industry has globalized and integrated and created more of what used to be edge cases.

Here's my big question: can this sort of category be reworked in a way that doesn't harm otherwise overlooked films? A very logical case can be made, taxonomy-wise, for erasing the language and country-of-origin distinctions entirely, but I fear the net effect will be that films like this don't get much attention at all. And I'm not sure how to craft this kind of category in a way that will still point a spotlight on these films, without sometimes (maybe often, these days) leading to really counterintuitive or outright unfair results.

Let's say Minari qualified in the "normal" categories...would it receive a nomination at all? If not, is it better or worse for this film to be nominated, albeit in Foreign Language?

I think whatever harm caused by the general stupidity of there being a 'foreign language' category, is less than the harm of the complete oversight of these films. I don't personally think there is any better way to mitigate this outside of undoing Anglocentricism in America, which has about a zero percent chance of happening.



I think it's happening because the category is "Foreign Language." The error isn't so much in slotting this film into that category, but more in the lack of foresight involved in having a category like that in the first place.

My best guess is that "Foreign Language" made a lot of sense as a category initially and captured most of the otherwise overlooked foreign films they were trying to capture, but then simple inertia has left it that way even as the industry has globalized and integrated and created more of what used to be edge cases.

Here's my big question: can this sort of category be reworked in a way that doesn't harm otherwise overlooked films? A very logical case can be made, taxonomy-wise, for erasing the language and country-of-origin distinctions entirely, but I fear the net effect will be that films like this don't get much attention at all. And I'm not sure how to craft this kind of category in a way that will still point a spotlight on these films, without sometimes (maybe often, these days) leading to really counterintuitive or outright unfair results.

Let's say Minari qualified in the "normal" categories...would it receive a nomination at all? If not, is it better or worse for this film to be nominated, albeit in Foreign Language?
Well I'm sure the director will want it nominated in as much as possible. Personally I am hugely looking forward to it either way so I'm not affected.

I can understand that Nigerian film not being eligible of the foreign language film categories because it was in English. But to actively put out a release saying a film is not going to be eligible for best film is just incredible to me. And then to state the reason is because it's in another category? Maddenning.

They wouldn't do that if a film was also in best Director. Therefore it HAS to be because they don't want another 'Parasite winning both best pic and foreign language pic scenario'. Which I'm afraid is just disgraceful.



Oh, that's what this is about? I didn't realize it was either-or for the Golden Globes. Off the top of my head I can't think of a good reason why being eligible as Foreign Language would preclude you from being eligible in any other category. I assumed the whole idea was to give foreign language films a way of being recognized even if they would not otherwise be.



The country the awards ceremony is held in and the language spoken in said country have a big say on the movies succeeding. This is not racist in the slightest it’s common sense that these will be the most watched movies as quite simply subtitled movies take more effort. The academy changed this last year, and people are still complaining, this is definitely the wrong time to do so and unwarranted.



I'll agree it's not racist, but I think it's fair to say that awards like this at least ostensibly exist to view the art form through a wider lens, which means trying to minimize the degree to which things like that play a role. Being human they can't eliminate those sorts of natural biases or affinities, but I think the existence of the awards implies that they're at least sort of trying too.

So, the most charitable interpretation would be that, when they fail to do this, when they clearly and consistently show a preference like this, at minimum it means the award doesn't really represent the more serious artistic assessment it's pretending to. Which is also fine, except for the pretending part.



The country the awards ceremony is held in and the language spoken in said country have a big say on the movies succeeding.
Right, but there's some blurring that seems to happen.

For example, The King's Speech was made in the UK, starring British actors, and directed by a British director. So from an American stance it is a foreign film. But the language is English. Best Picture is arguably the most major category of the Academy Awards, so why does being in a certain language mean that one "foreign" film should be eligible for it and another can't?

Saying that a film being in English is what makes it eligible for best picture and not the country of origin seems pretty wrong-headed to me. If a movie is made in the country where the awards ceremony takes place, then it seems weird to separate it out just because the language used is not English.

I'd love to see a restructuring of the Oscars so that films from many countries could be recognized and celebrated. I'm not sure what that would look like, but a single category for "non-American/non-English" films doesn't feel like enough.



Right, but there's some blurring that seems to happen.

For example, The King's Speech was made in the UK, starring British actors, and directed by a British director. So from an American stance it is a foreign film. But the language is English. Best Picture is arguably the most major category of the Academy Awards, so why does being in a certain language mean that one "foreign" film should be eligible for it and another can't?

Saying that a film being in English is what makes it eligible for best picture and not the country of origin seems pretty wrong-headed to me. If a movie is made in the country where the awards ceremony takes place, then it seems weird to separate it out just because the language used is not English.

I'd love to see a restructuring of the Oscars so that films from many countries could be recognized and celebrated. I'm not sure what that would look like, but a single category for "non-American/non-English" films doesn't feel like enough.
Let’s face it Britain is not really foreign to the majority of Americans and vice versa, the links with language, heritage, customs, political leaders and of course the massive partnership in World War II are all catalysts for this. When you actually mentioned Britain being foreign I was like oh yeah, and you’re absolutely right geographically.

Many many movies are co-productions and many many movies involve both British and American actors, we may as well be the same nation. The reality is that foreign language movies are less accessible for English speakers and always will be. I’m mixed race and do my family back in their nation of non English speakers watch English speaking movies yes but that’s unavoidable when non English speaking movies have no way near the same budgets and advertising power. Still my family will always lean towards the side of the movies spoken in their language, racist, if so then I guess every nation in the world is.
__________________
"If you're good at something never do it for free".



Let’s face it Britain is not really foreign to the majority of Americans and vice versa, the links with language, heritage, customs, political leaders and of course the massive partnership in World War II are all catalysts for this. When you actually mentioned Britain being foreign I was like oh yeah, and you’re absolutely right geographically.

Many many movies are co-productions and many many movies involve both British and American actors, we may as well be the same nation. The reality is that foreign language movies are less accessible for English speakers and always will be. I’m mixed race and do my family back in their nation of non English speakers watch English speaking movies yes but that’s unavoidable when non English speaking movies have no way near the same budgets and advertising power. Still my family will always lean towards the side of the movies spoken in their language, racist, if so then I guess every nation in the world is.
But is a film made in Britain by British people somehow less "foreign" (again, from the American POV) than a film made in Oklahoma, set in Arkansas, directed by someone born in Colorado, and starring someone who grew up in Michigan? Just because much (but not all) of the film is not in English?

The accusation of racism does not come from the idea that Americans like English language films more than non-English language films. That makes sense for a lot of reasons. The accusation of racism is that an American film, made by Americans, is being taken out of contention for Best Picture at an American awards ceremony because it is not English-language enough.

I mean, also, the Oscars/Golden Globes are not the People's Choice Awards. In theory they are awarding the best things, not the most popular things. A distaste for subtitles doesn't seem like it should be a factor if you genuinely are trying to find the best films.