1. This ain't censorship. Sorry. The overuse of that word drives me up a tree. When a private organization decides to hand out film awards, you don't have an inalienable right to be considered for them. If the film's distribution was being repressed by the government, then we can talk. 2. The rule being used to exclude the film is arbitrary and unfair, but this is not the first nor is it the worst example of that kind of arbitrariness and unfairness in Academy history. (Krzysztof Kieslowski had waaay more of a legitimate beef than the makers of this film ever will.) The fact is that the foriegn-language Oscars are (arguably; documentaries are close) the most messed up element in a messed-up awards process. 3. I haven't seen the movie, but it seems that the simplest solution would be to allow its consideration. Given the bumper crop of excellent foriegn-language films, it probably wouldn't get nominated anyway, considering the frankly mixed reviews I'm reading.
censor: To examine and expurgate. the film has been censored. your tree be damned. as for the rest...the academy could have avoided the whole mess had they not used such a pathetic and transparent excuse. unfortunately they erased any pretense of objectivity...and decided to eliminate the picture on grounds having nothing to do with the film itself. they just dont care for the palestinian view point. its unfortunate but true.
Yeah, but anything short of this movie not only being nominated, but winning the "best foreign film" category, and then being named as the best foreign movie of all time by whatever group makes up that list, would be a clear example of Zionism and Jewish influence at the highest levels of US government. Alex
who said anything about censoring from the general public? but now that you mention it, youre wrong anyway. any private industry/organization that controls entirely the means of distribution of any product, CAN censor said item from the public. thats not the case here, but its certainly possible. the issue here, is that a good film containing "objectionable" material, was disqualified on extremely dubious grounds.
That's a very narrow definistion of censor, but let's use it: expurgate - to edit by omitting or modifying parts considered indelicate. Nobody has edited this film, so by your own definition, nobody has censored it. However, the Academy IS refusing to consider it because of its political sensibilities. There you go.
Who cares, City of God will win anyways. Seriously though, Godot is spot on on all three of his comments, so quit whinging.
...Divine Intervention is seen as a potentially "indelicate" part of the academy awards process. and so it has been omitted. There YOU go.
The Academny controls no rights to this film being shown here in the US, only their right to not nominate it for an award. There are damn fine films every year that are not nominated and it does not mean that they are censored. The grounds on which it appears the film was removed from consideration do appear to be shakey at best and incredibly stupid at worst. In the words of Robin Williams, "You're telling me the Oscars are also political, Oh f*** off."
i never said the academy controlled anything other than film nominations. i was simply making an observation that private organizations do actually have the power to censor and withhold products if they completely control the means of distribution. i was just refuting dfb547490's argument...not making a statement as regards to this issue. as for good films not always getting nominated...youre right of course, but the academy has dug themselves a hole by failing to offer a legitimate explanation for Divine Intervention's exclusion. worse yet, the reason they do give is completely bogus. the oscars arent political until the academy itself makes it that way.
correct, and they always have made it political, whether subversive or not, it has been known for a long time...
But no truly private organization can completely control the means of distribution. Of course it might be too expensive or impractical for the people who made the product to distribute it, but it's not illegal. The Oscars were doomed the minute "Demolition Man" didn't win Best Picture. Alex
The MPAA is a private organization and set whatever eligibility rules it wants. People like ONE who believe that the exclusion of a Palestinian film is unfair can write to the MPAA expressing their disgust, start their own awards show, boycott the Oscars, protest at the Oscars, or any other peaceful legal expression that they want.
Just a little note.. The Academy says the film was never submitted which makes the whole argument a lot different.
The academy told the American distributor of Divine Intervention that it's ineligible for Oscar considerations because ''Palestine'' is not a country recognized by its rules. If this is true it is a laughable excuse. It has nothing to do with cinema as art. Anyway go to the cinema and watch that movie. It's better to see all the points of view to have a more precise opinion on whatever issue.
Well, yes and no. The problem is that every national academy can submit one and only one picture for consideration. The hang up is that the Palestinian academy couldn't submit it because the AMPAS doesn't recognize a Palestinian motion picture academy. So it didn't get considered because it couldn't get considered.