Oscar Submission Curio: "The Silent House"

Chalk this one up in the Most Curious Foreign Film Oscar Submission News column, should you have such a thing. Uruguay has submitted The Silent House for Oscar consideration. "Why that's just boring only regular news!" you say? Oh, but it's not skim-reader, it's not! 

The Silent House is a horror movie, based on a famous "true" story from Uruguay in the 40s. A father and daughter settle into a cottage for the night where horrible murders once took place and... well, you know how things go down in haunted houses. Here's the teaser.

I've followed this category closely for ten years (this was the first website to make it a total cause/habit... now everyone notes each submission) and horror films are a total rarity, not just in terms of nominations but in terms of the annual 60+ film list, too. But the "my how unusual" feeling doesn't end there. The movie is also filmed in one continuous shot (always good for novelty factor) and there's already an American remake! The American remake starring Elizabeth Olsen (currently Oscar buzzing for Martha Marcy May Marlene) debuted at Sundance. So between May 2010 (when the original debuted at Cannes) and January 2011 (Sundance) it was remade.

Elizabeth Olsen in Silent House (2011)

Is the rapidity of cultural appropriation the true horror tale here?

THE OSCAR FOREIGN FILM CHARTS

Complete the Sentence

The last movie I saw was  ___________________ and I admit that during it my mind wandered to __________________ because _________________.

NYFF: "Tahrir" You Are There

Michael C reporting from the New York Film Festival. 

In years to come there will no doubt be countless documentaries made attempting to make sense of the world changing events in the Middle East in the first half of 2011. Yet for all the context and analysis they bring to bear on the complexities of the Arab Spring I doubt any will have the immediacy of Stefano Savona’s Tahrir.

When the people of Egypy took to the streets, filling Tahrir Square, Savona grabbed his camera and marched out with them. When assembling his film he afforded himself no additional perspective. No talking heads. No title cards. No voiceover narration. If the protesters don’t have the information neither does the audience.

Without those crutches to lean on Savona goes in the opposite direction, building a picture of those days through collage - the musical repetition of chanting, the urgent, unsure spread of information, the confrontations with government enforcers. One such battle devolves horrifyingly into endless hours of rock throwing as protesters fashion makeshift helmets out of cardboard, scarves or whatever they can tie to their heads. The Egyptians we meet are a great antidote to the mainstream media’s usual representation of a sea of indistinguishable screaming foreigners. They debate the next course of action, speculate about events outside their control, and worry if it will all be worth it if in the end one tyrant is traded for another. 

Those unfamiliar with the events in Egypt last February will be more than a bit lost, even a news junkie like myself longed for a little added perspective, but with Tahrir that is beside the point. When historians set about to reconstruct what it was like to be in that square at that time, Savona's film will be essential viewing. 

✩

Previously... A Dangerous Method, The Loneliest Planet, Melancholia

Secret Messages: 'Things Remember'

secret messages from the movies

THINGS TO REMEMBER

Bob's A[illegible]
1 -Ho
2 -Family
3 - Career
4 - Freedom 

Can you guess the movie?

Do Oscar Predictions Hurt or Help Films?

Sasha Stone has begun her Oscar Roundtables again this year at Awards Daily. It's kind of like The Film Experience's annual Oscar Symposium only more regular, more crowded, and less a back-n-forth discussion than a collection of statements.  I'm always happy to be invited.

One of the questions she asked was whether we thought it was insane to predict as early as we do and if that helped or hurt films to be assumed for nominations before anyone had even seen a frame of film. To which I responded:

Being seen as a Future Nominee ahead of time 100% helps you if the achievement is somewhere in the wide fuzzy area between “sure thing” and “for your consideration” because you can take on a sheen of “nominatable” or “worthy” that you might not have earned on your own. It’s really not that much different from the advantage of being a proven brand like a Streep or a Scorsese or whomever. You don’t have to earn a place on the board with your new work. You’re already a game piece. You just have to worry about winning. It’s taken as gospel that we as viewers are supposed to assume that some filmmakers and some actors are just brilliant every time and our only job is to decide “very brilliant” “somewhat brilliant” or “not one of their best but still brilliant”. I’m only half joking. This is a very real problem I think in honest discussions of merit.

I love Mark Harris's response

I’m not sure I’d chart it on the sanity/insanity spectrum. But it does seem a little like the equivalent of the comment-board guy who posts “First!” and then has nothing else to say. Obviously, it’s naïve to think that quality is the only thing that figures into an Oscar win. But it’s just as naïve to assume that quality matters so little that you can make a judgment without even seeing the movie. Isn’t half the fun of writing about the Oscars the chance to write about the movies themselves? Why deprive ourselves of that?

Anyway, other questions and answers are over there so read up.

I'd love to hear your take. Do you think it hurts or helps films to be predicted as Oscar threats? Does it affect your enjoyment at all when you're watching a film with months of buzz chatter already absorbed in your system?