Sorry, I just have to rant about that. There are some rules that I don't like about the Academy like the one about actors and actresses not being able to be nominated in one category more than once and the whole foreign films eligibility issues (which were the worst this time around, I think, with A Very Long Engagement, The Motorcycle Diaries and Maria Full of Grace all not qualified), but this one tops them all.

I really hate it that if a foreign movie was nominated for Best Foreign Picture in one year, it's not eligible for anything the next years. The thing is that a movie has to be out for at least a week in the USA to be eligible in any categories. However, this apparently doesn't go for foreign movies as Hero and Downfall were both nominated without a run in the States. Now both were nominated for Best Foreign Picture, making them not eligible for any nominations at the next year's Academy Awards. Hero was hurt by it a lot since I am sure, it'd have been a shoe-in for many technical nominations among others if it was eligible and Downfall will be a victim of that rule as well. There was no chance for the distributor to release these movies in the USA on time apparently, so it couldn't have been nominated for anything, but Best Foreign Picture (and even if it could have been, not too many would have seen it if it had a one-week qualification run).

Dumb rule if you ask me ](*,)

The two that I hate the most are the foreign film eligibility and that one actor or actress can't be nominated twice in the same category. What if they give two great lead performances? Jaime this year is a perfect example. If he would have been able to be nominated twice in lead, he would've been campaigned there for Collateral. Chances are he wouldn't have made it, but it would have freed up a slot in the supporting cateogry for someone who gave a deserving supporting performance.

Next to Jamie Foxx, the best example for that in my opinion is also Nicole Kidman back in 2001 (Moulin Rouge & The Others)

The foreign film qualifications rules are both idiotic and outright unpragmatic from a business point of view. because they need to have come out that year in the host country and still turnover in the u.s. before that time, plus each country can only have one submission, that usually means that the final entries are unheard of in the U.S. That is a joke for the film business aspect and the energy aspect. Its hard to "rush" and see the selections when they aren't in release yet, so the industry loses money, and then no one remembers the winners when they come out half a year later since they had marginal resonance even during the show. I was just speaking with someone last week who had never even heard of nowhere in africa, and that won. How many people know No Man's Land and that won too. I've been pretty up to snuff on my foreign flicks and unfortunately still haven't seen a single one of the films that actually got nominated yet. That's retarded, no offense, everyone knows how many of these I see.

I dislike the one film per country rule as some year there's more than one good film out of a country (believe it or not). I also think being traced to one country works against collaboration, and so films like Motorcycle diaries really suffered. I guess you must not be a south american film if you're not from one particular country *snicker.* I think tv vs. theatre needs to be changed as well since other countries have different distribution methods. As long as it was released in theatres here, who cares how they saw it back in China (or wherever). The only one I agree with is the 50% law that the film must be at least half in another language. Maria Full of Grace may have been disqualified on that premesis, but as far as I'm concerned it should have been nominated in best film vs. best foreign film had that been the case.

If the movie got shown here, and here this year, and is over 50% foriegn language, it should qualify for submission regardless of host country of host country release date. period.




*I'm still so bruised about Bad Education, Moolaade, and Motorcycle Diaries, excuse me while I go cry*

I think all the rules are fair.


Like all Academy Award nominations, a select group of people choose the submissions, the films are made available to them... once the nominees are chosen, the five nominees are made available to the general Academy audience who vote on who to give the award to.


Do you think it's fair that most people see Annette Benning nominated for Being Julia. Or Phantom of the Opera nominated for a Golden Globe before it's premiere.


Yet we all still choose one Best Picture. AMPAS is making the other countries do the same thing. The Academy Awards are focused on the US and general English speaking industry (UK has a pretty noticable impact at the Academy Awards).

It's like the Olympics... in the spirit of world competition, we do not send 6 teams of Basketball players every four years, we send one team. It doesn't mean that every single "best of" athelete is going to compete in the games, only the 3 or 4 people who won pre-qualifiers and were selected as representatives, that's what the Oscar is.

The one film per country rule allows films from other cultures to compete. If there were multiple films allowed in "foreign" in recent years it would become the "Best Award for Hong Kong/Spanish film".

Would that be fair?

Don't be mad at the Academy for Hero bungling, be mad at Miramax, the public, and everyone else for botching up foreign film releases.


The release date rule (like in many other categories) exist so that a film can be screened and chosen in time for the awards. Saying there should basically be no rules to the competition is absurd.