I haven't seen any of the 9 films on this list (up at http://www.indiewire.com/buzz/080113.html#011002), so I'm not passing
judgment on their quality. The films they overlooked are quite
surprising, though. They seem gung ho about Eastern Europe, but the much-hyped Romanian cinema gets brushed aside. Given its subject matter and style, I wasn't honestly expecting 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS to make the cut, but what happened with PERSEPOLIS? It's a
solid crowd-pleaser that's just edgy enough to look hip and depicts
Iranian life in a way that's not going to piss off anyone except the
country's present government. Were it in English, it would be almost
as accessible a female coming-of-age story as JUNO. In short, it seems like the kind of film
the Academy usually eats up. Maybe France should've nominated the much
weaker but far more middlebrow LA VIE EN ROSE instead. Iron Maiden wuz
robbed.

The foreign language film category has always been the worst of the Academy's frequently bad choices. They're filtered twice: first the country chooses a film for consideration which is likely to remove most of the edgier or more political fare and then these go through the nominating process.

The feature length documentary category isn't far behind.

The documentary shortlist this year is also quite problematic. The Academy seems to think that only docs on Important, Serious Subject Matter should get nominated. Some of these are worthwhile, like FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO and NO END IN SIGHT, but eqaually strong films like HELVETICA and THE KING OF KONG don't stand a chance.

The Foreign Language category has always been problematic, but this is one of the worst ever. The exclusion of 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS and PERSEPOLIS is unforgivable, especially when they included marginal movies like the Mikhalkov and the Tornatore. THE COUNTERFEITERS and BEAUFORT are decent flicks but nowhere near the best of the year. This is really pathetic.

I'd stand up for THE COUNTERFEITERS as I thought it was excellent, but it's kind of hard to give any kind of an informed opinion on that list when it's the only one I've seen. I've never quite understood the whole system when it comes to this award (I don't mean that I don't understand how it works, just that I really don't see the sense in it) and as Michael said the documentary award isn't much better.

From a personal point of view it's also because I make a bit of an event of the Oscars each year (given the time difference I don't have much choice) and always try to see as many nominated films as possible - but the foreign language category certainly makes that rather difficult.

Although it's just opened here, I've yet to see 4 MONTHS so can't really comment except to say that given the press so far I'm surprised it's not there. Of the list of films that were originally shortlisted, I'd like to have seen KINGS on the list, and I'm glad to see the back of SILENT LIGHT.

I just saw 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS earlier tonight. While it's excellent, it's one of the most disturbing flilms I've seen in years, and I can see why the Academy wimped out on it. After all, they've never nominated Michael Haneke. PERSEPOLIS puzzles me far more.

You'd think someone was actually listening to you all?
Foreign Film List Causes Uproar