The Film Experience

The Oscar Volleys are back for some post-nomination talks. Today, Eric Blume and Nathaniel Rogers discuss Best International Film...

EMILIA PÉREZ | © Netflix

ERIC: Nathaniel, what fun to have you all to myself to discuss the nominees for Best International Film (which I sometimes still call Best Foreign Film, because that's been in my brain too long). I think we have five pretty terrific nominees this year. Before we get into their Oscar-ability, what is your personal take across the five films? I wouldn't be mad at a ranking!

NATHANIEL: I share the same nomenclature waffling but we both were Oscar watching since the 1980s so who can blame us?...

Anyway, I prefer Best International even if it's misleading --aren't most movie international now? It's increasingly common to see two to three to five or more countries credited on a film. I don't know much about the business side of cinema but this suggests that every movie financed is a miracle of international diplomacy and/or multilingual schmoozing.

I agree that the list overall is fairly strong but I can't say it's the five I would have chosen. I was pissed (though not surprised) to see Vermiglio (Italy) missing since I would have loved to see it win the category. I would have also been happy to see Armand (Norway), How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (Thailand), or Universal Language (Canada) nominated. Of the contenders still standing I'd rank them like so...

FLOW | © Janus Films

01) FLOW (Latvia)
The number one placement isn't because I'm a crazy cat lady, though I am, but because my eyes were wide the entire film. It delighted me on a visual and sonic level, held me dramatically, and moved me not just emotionally but spiritually (a rare feat).

02) I'M STILL HERE (Brazil)
I kept flip-flopping between Germany's entry and this one for second position but in the end I'm a sucker for great actressings, happy screen families that feel authentic (rare!), and emotional stickiness. So, this wins (if just by a small margin).

03) THE SEED OF THE SACRED FIG (Germany)
Sacred Fig is more cinematically impressive than the Brazilian drama but I'm far less likely to watch it again which is what breaks the tie. Plus, I have one major issue: the final act. After a masterful slow burn, the boil comes just as you need it to. But then it just keeps boiling for another hour. It's a bit like that moment in a thriller when the tea kettle goes off (it's so satisfying viscerally because you're waiting for it and dreading it simultaneously) indicating scary climax! Only this tea kettle keeps shrieking for another hour, so it's not so much "CLIMAX!" but "you've entered the final act" and guess which is the more exciting statements.

04) THE GIRL WITH THE NEEDLE (Denmark)
i can't argue against Trine Dyrholm (one of my favorite actresses) or the astounding cinematography. It's quite disappointing that this would be the year the Cinematography branch chose to not be swayed by black and white, which they usually go for even if it’s merely okay. But in the end, this is Misery Porn... which, well, not my favorite genre.

05) EMILIA PÉREZ (France)
So much has been said. I admire a big swing but if you don't actually hit the ball, it's still a strike. I HATE rooting against a musical or against France (they haven't won in so long!) but here we are.

Your turn!

ERIC: Always love hearing your perspective. I agree that Vermiglio would have been an amazing entrant and winner (it's sublime), even if we're aligned slightly differently on our specific order. I think my order would go The Seed of the Sacred Fig, Emilia Pérez, I'm Still Here, Flow, and The Girl with the Needle...but I think all five films are really interesting and compelling, and, more importantly, interesting and compelling in different ways.

THE SEED OF THE SACRED FIG | © NEON Rated

Personally, I don't know how The Seed of the Sacred Fig hasn't been winning everything. It's dense, morally complex, perfectly paced to its weirdly powerful final stretch where it almost becomes an action film(!). Plus, it has the unbelievable "narrative" of how it was shot, how it was released, how the actors cannot leave the country because of it, etc. There certainly is no more dangerous or scathing film in the mix, a movie where people quite literally put their lives on the line to make it. And more importantly, it delivers and reveals itself slowly and cumulatively...the story and the ideas keep growing richer and bigger.

I feel Audiard does hit the ball in what is not just a big swing but a COLOSSAL one, but that argument is for another time. Flow is such a ravishing movie and I had a similar viewing experience to yours, but I just wanted a couple more interesting ideas in it, personally. It just felt like there wasn't a lot of there there. At the same time, I appreciated that the film didn't strain for larger meaning. It's a wonderful film and I don't feel the need to say anything negative about it (although I do think "cat people" like it a *little* more than everyone else). I'm with you 100% on The Girl with the Needle, misery porn indeed, which is far far and away my least favorite kind of porn. But stark and stirring, so much expert craftsmanship there.

And I'm going to do a bit of a hot take on I'm Still Here. It's technically superb...I loved it. It's involving, we have Torres' superb central performance, and the dynamics they capture with the family are astounding (those young actors are insanely good). BUT, I also found the movie curiously unexciting. I haven't thought about it for one second since seeing it, and I was legit bored for two or three stretches of the movie. The pacing seemed sluggish and the movie felt overlong and flabby to me? Again, I don't want to argue against it...it's in my top 20, and I'm thrilled that it's a hit, but I am a bit perplexed at the rapturous reception it's gotten?

NATHANIEL: Your explanation as to why Seed of the Sacred Fig tops your list is solid. You're absolutely right that the story and the idea keep growing richer and bigger (as the chasm widens between family members, too) and I should give it more credit for that. I just got impatient though in that final hour -- it's the only time in the movie where Mohammad Rasoulof and his editor fumble a bit with their incredibly tight grasp on pacing. But, otherwise as with The Brutalist, I didn't mind the length at all since the ideas and characters and plot elements were all so involving.

Pacing really is an art a skill and a discipline that too few filmmakers have. It's like it's been trained out of them in the past couple of decades now that theatrical moviegoing has declined. Remember in the 80s how they used to talk about how much more money you could earn per day at the box office if you were slightly shorter? The decline of single screen theaters and of highly anticipated eventual TV airings paired with the rise of the multiplex where the same movie is on a third of the screens and, later, the rise of streaming all killed the 'need' to keep it tight so now directors don't even try! If you rest you rust so the economy of storytelling was lost.

I'M STILL HERE | © Sony Pictures Classics

TANGENT! Sort of. But you did say that I'm Still Here was overlong and flabby and I agree (even though I really liked it).

Speaking of movies with pacing problems... Emilia Pérez! Since you liked it a lot I wonder if you could conjecture about why it initially captivated Hollywood so much? It's gotten so much praise for being wildly original but honestly there are a LOT of movies in the world --and at least a handful each year -- which could make that claim and Oscar rarely notices or cares about them; originality isn't very "Oscar bait" to be frank. I didn't really understand how it took hold to such an extent. Is Cannes really that influential now that the Academy's membership has expanded? I would think 13 nominations insane even if I had loved the movie... it's scary to think how close it probably got to breaking the all-time record. Just throw Selena Gomez in there and Best Costume Design for Zoë's red suit and it would have!

I had two huge issues with it that it couldn't recover from even as I liked its audacity and was captivated by a few key scenes. First, I think it's a terrible musical (the songs aren't memorable and the titular character can't sing) and I found a lot of the character motivations and arcs highly suspect and implausible and even distasteful at times. Still it's been so very dominant that for a time I was super curious as to what might actually win the category in a year where it mysteriously vanished.

But then on Oscar nomination morning, I'm Still Here answered the question rather definitively. I am almost always bored by the internet's obsession with Oscar-scandals (I LOVE talking movies but have never cared that much about any of the offscreen antics of the people that make them) but I do wonder why --if people suddenly want to distance themselves from Emilia Pérez-- that it's maintained such a strong grip on Supporting Actress, Best International Feature, and Best Original Song ?

ERIC: One more thing to add to your thoughts on the last hour of Sacred Fig. Watching it, I thought the film *was* losing its way in that last set piece at the father's home. I kept thinking, has this guy lost his mind? where can he possibly imagine this ending? It took me a beat to see that that was exactly the point: these men who are losing power, who are having other people and systems (in this case, the women in his life) challenge his power and THE system, they literally lose their fucking minds. This is obviously the case politically in the USA right now. Something goes off in these people, and they lose all reason, going against even the people they love the most. That final fast/slow/fast set piece is Rasoulof’s coup de theatre: a man literally buried by the ruins of the past. The movie kind of uncorked me in a way I can't quite explain, so I was held, even in a confused way that I needed to work out later.

EMILIA PÉREZ | © Netflix

Sweet Nathaniel, I could truly go on for pages about the things I think are fantastic about Emilia Pérez, but I really would prefer to demur, because the haters are not going to listen to anything positive about the film, and I love when the comments here are about discourse, not about insults. But I will say that the legion of online film voices who scream the loudest about their hatred of it are truly only a small portion of people who have seen this film. There is another legion of people who *love* Emilia Pérez, who aren't voicing their every thought on the internet every five minutes.

There are a lot of famous, deeply respected directors who have voiced their love for the film, as well as many revered actors. In short, there is a divide of opinion here from people in the industry who make films, and online “critics” who watch it. I’ll take heat for this, but you asked me to explain why the movie has caught on in the industry…and I think the industry folks who regularly make movies know what a colossal swing it is across the board. It’s the movie they all wished they had worked on because it’s just so out there and so blatantly uncommercial and unique.

I don't really think of the film as a "musical" because it doesn't do what musicals do (use song to develop character or advance plot). To me, it's a film with music that uses that musical theater/film "take off point" of when characters can't contain themselves with words and need to express in song. And I think it also sometimes uses the language of moving people through time and space in the way musicals do. The songs aren't great, but then several songs in Wicked aren't great, either, and that is really a musical in the traditional sense.

To your point, I think the passion for the film comes from the passion Audiard has for the material. The movie has its heart in its throat in the way French New Wave movies did. If you go back and watch all of those classics (Breathless, Masculin/Féminin, etc.), they too are messy in some of the same ways Emilia Pérez messy. But the immediacy of the filmmaking, the "unsafe" nature of it, the sheer thrill of it, the surprise of it, the balls of it...I think that's what the industry is responding to. It's sort of "pure cinema" in the way that term was coined in the 60s.

Let me know your thoughts on all this, and then we can get to who will win...

NATHANIEL: Hmmm. To me that argument about why you don't think of it as a musical is exactly why I kept asking myself 'why is this a musical?'. I think musicals are very hard to make so it's not a particular surprise that Audiard isn't great at it but I always wish people would respect the genre enough to think 'should I actually make a musical? Do I have the chops for it? What muscles do I need to discover to pull it off?'. I'm also just fine with messiness if the messiness comes from passion and experimentation. I see the latter in the picture but not the former. Why this story? Why a musical? Why these characters?

I was never convinced by the movie, never understood why Audiard wanted to make it. I felt all this before it became a "cause" to hate on the movie. I was a fan of Audiard early on (Read My Lips, The Beat That My Heart Skipped) and it's tough for me to connect the dots between what's come before and this.

As to the 'pure cinema' ...I hear you and thanks for putting all that into words. I do believe that's what the industry is responding to. My question is really just 'why is it this movie that got them excited about bold risks when there are movies every year that offer immediacy and experimentation and routinely get ignored beyond some appreciative reviews. But anyway, there was already a SPLIT DECISION so let's move on to punditry.

I think Emilia Pérez will win. Even though it's my least favorite of the nominees I have an easy way to be happy about its win: I have always been a fan of French cinema and this will finally end their long very atypical drought. Indochine (1992) was a long time ago, now!

ERIC: There aren't many people whose analysis I respect more than yours, so I enjoy this debate with you and share your frustration with it not being a "good musical"...I just thought it was a weird smash-up of not only genre, but hybrids of genre, and it all clicked for me.

I think Emilia Pérez will win as well. The industry clearly loves the film to the tune of 13 nominations, and I think they will want to reward it here. It seems irrefutable that Karla Sofía Gascón is an asshole in the grand Caitlin Jenner manner, but I think passion for the movie itself will manifest itself in one (or three) big wins.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if I'm Still Here takes it. This category like most others are about getting eyeballs on the film...and they are on that film for sure. It'd make a worthy winner as well, of course. But yes, the Francophile and French cinephile in me has wanted a win for the country for a long time as well.

Any final thoughts?

NATHANIEL: That's it for me on the race. But my final thought is that I hope more people see the film that is surely coming in last place: The Girl With the Needle. It's not because I wholeheartedly recommend it (again, I don't: misery porn) but that it is so potently crafted that I'm very excited to see the follow up picture from practically everyone involved from the set decorator to the cinematographer to the actors to the title credits designer and on and on...

Previous Oscar Volleys: