Oscar Process for Foreign Films--in Plain English

In his post-Oscar nomination analysis (“Academy Sips From Fountain of Youth,” Calendar, Feb. 20), film critic Kenneth Turan joins a long list of people who annually attack the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences committee members who select the five foreign-language nominees. Every member is a volunteer and not , as some have implied over the years, because we have nothing else to do, but because we have an abiding love for a treasure that is going the way of the ozone layer and rain forests: the foreign-language film.

Industry charts tell us that the number of foreign-language films shown in this country is dropping at an even steeper rate than the Bush economy.

Turan bemoans the fact that Belgium’s “Toto the Hero” was not nominated. He reasons that “Toto” was a major hit on the festival circuit and perhaps the liveliest and most exciting foreign film of the year.

Is the fact that a film was a major hit on the festival circuit supposed to enter into our judgment of a film, or are we there to judge the film itself? I would certainly choose to believe than when Turan critiques a film, he does it on the basis of what he sees on the screen and not the hype that has preceded it. Why won’t he grant us the same privilege?

We have an added function, one shared by Turan when he must compare one film against another to vote as a member of the L.A. Film Critics Society for its annual awards. We, too, must play the competitive game, and no one can logically comment on our choices unless they’ve seen all the films submitted.

This year, 35 films were submitted from 35 countries. Just how many did Turan see prior to condemning us for not naming his choice? Well, three had already opened in the United States: Poland’s “The Double Life of Veronique,” Spain’s “High Heels” and Japan’s “Rhapsody in August.”

We know he saw “Toto” at the New York Film Festival. Hong Kong’s “Raise the Red Lantern” is opening soon, so he may well have seen that. Both France’s “Van Gogh,” which just received 11 nominations for the Cesar, Oscar’s Gallic equivalent, and Italy’s “Meditteraneo,” which won Italy’s version of the Oscar, have opened in their country of origin, so it’s possible that if he travels, he saw them there.

And “Lost in Siberia,” the British entry, offered cassettes to academy members via trade paper advertising. He might have responded to that. But that still leaves more than 20 that he did not see.

Turan in his infinite cinematic wisdom assumes that “Toto” was passed over “probably because its clever and challenging structure was too much for the timid group.” That’s his opinion, and he’s paid to give it, but I think he’s tainted some very talented people, for among the committee members are well-known directors, actors, producers and composers, all of whom are known for their talent, not their timidity.

Turan tars the documentary committee with the same brush as well, criticizing its members who “studiously avoided nominating the two most justifiably popular films of the year, ‘Paris Is Burning’ and ‘Hearts of Darkness.’ ” These beleaguered documentary lovers devote even more time than the foreign-language committee to their self-appointed task, this year having viewed some 60 full-length documentaries, compared to “only” 35 foreign entries.

No one is arguing the popularity of either film, but if they were going to vote on the basis of popularity, wouldn’t they have to vote for “Truth or Dare,” which grossed more than the other two combined? Happily, neither committee sees its task as being a popularity contest. That awesome function is left to the “People’s Choice” event.

Last year, we were attacked by French director Jean-Paul Rappeneau. When his “Cyrano de Bergerac” did not win, he stated to the French press that “the foreign-language Oscar is a kind of ghetto occupied by old people.”

This year, Turan calls us “tired” and “timid.” If all these assessments are true, maybe next year we should switch the venue of our screenings from the academy to Forest Lawn.