奧斯卡一直以來都是好萊塢的重頭戲，亦是電影行業(yè)的年度剪影，它將所有的反思、投票和裁決都融入了一場光鮮靚麗、歌舞升平、觥籌交錯的盛會。

這場盛會為那些娛樂圈人士提供了一次評估行業(yè)健康度、分析流行文化整體趨勢的機會。同時，對于那些圈外人士來說，它也為衡量電影行業(yè)取得了哪些表征性的進步以及存在哪些令人痛苦的短板，提供了一把實用的標尺。

我們也必須通過這個視角，來審視有關“最佳外語片”不斷升級的口水戰(zhàn)。長期以來，“最佳外語片”一直是電影藝術與科學學院（奧斯卡主辦方，以下簡稱“學院”）最具爭議的獎項之一。

該獎項的名稱將在2020年頒獎典禮舉辦之前發(fā)生變化，從“最佳外語影片”調整為“最佳國際影片”。這個變化等于承認了將所有非英語電影稱之為“外語”的語言偏見，同時也顯得十分隨意，因為它對于送選電影的資質沒有約束力。跟以前一樣，那些之前不符合參選條件（因影片中50%的對白為非英語語言）的電影依然無法參選如今的“最佳國際影片”奧斯卡獎。

奧斯卡在11月11日宣布，由奧地利送選、蘇達貝?摩特扎伊執(zhí)導的影片《歡樂》（Joy）被取消參選資格，原因在于其對話主要為英語，不符合參選要求。該電影主要講述了居住在維也納的尼日利亞籍性工作者，這部時長達101分鐘的電影夾雜著皮欽語、英語和德語；但盡管如此，《歡樂》的非英語對話（奧斯卡稱，僅有33%的非英語）部分依然不夠長。

《歡樂》是今年第二部因為這類原因而被取消參選資格的電影。然而異常尷尬和湊巧的是，第一部遭到除名的是尼日利亞送選的電影《獅心女孩》（Lionheart），它的對白主要是英語，夾雜了一些伊格柏語。這部電影于11月初被取消參選資格的消息在社交媒體上引發(fā)了軒然大波。奧斯卡取消《獅心女孩》資格的決定源于尼日利亞的官方語言是英語。電影制作人阿瓦·都弗內問道：“這是否在禁止尼日利亞今后以其官方語言角逐奧斯卡獎？”

“我們無法選擇我們的殖民者”

《獅心女孩》的導演基尼威孚·納吉反對學院做出的這個決定，也就是她的電影不符合參選最佳國際電影的要求。納吉在推特上指出，她的電影“代表著我們作為尼日利亞人說話的方式”，并將英語描述為其祖國“500多種語言之間的溝通橋梁”。她還說：“這一點與法語在法國各個殖民地所扮演的角色沒有區(qū)別。我們無法選擇我們的殖民者?！?/p>

《Deadline》刊登了一則聲明，看似意在對這一爭議進行澄清，其中，學院的最佳國際影片執(zhí)行委員會聯(lián)席主席拉里·卡拉澤斯基稱，這一局面“并非是爭議，而是誤解?！?/p>

卡拉澤斯基強調，人們之所以對《獅心女孩》以及如今《歡樂》遭除名的決定表達強烈的不滿，原因可能源于一種“誤解”，但該類目的要求一直以來都沒有變過。他說：“如果你的參選對象是像奧斯卡這樣的重量級獎項，我覺得你就應該了解一下規(guī)則?！?/p>

The Oscars have long been Hollywood’s main event, the film industry’s annual snapshot of itself: reflection, referendum, and reckoning all in one glitzy, over-indulgent, champagne-soaked package.

The ceremony is an opportunity for those working in entertainment to both evaluate the health of the industry and parse the state of popular culture as a whole. And simultaneously, it’s a useful metric for those outside the biz to gauge where the film industry is both making representational strides and coming up painfully short.

It’s through that lens that the ever-raging debate about Best Foreign Language Film, long one of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ most controversial categories, must be considered.

The category will undergo a name change ahead of the 2020 ceremony, becoming “Best International Feature Film” instead of “Best Foreign-Language Film.” That shift, while acknowledging the linguistic bias of declaring all non-English films to be “foreign,” is arbitrary in that it has no impact on the requirements for submitted films. As before, movies that previously wouldn’t have qualified—due to less than 50% of their dialogue being in a language other than English—remain ineligible for what’s now the Best International Feature Film Oscar.

On November 11, the Academy announced that Sudabeh Mortezai’s Joy, Austria’s submission to the category, had been disqualified for not meeting eligibility requirements related to its dialogue being predominantly in English. The film, which centers on Nigerian sex workers living in Vienna, mixes Pidgin, English, and German throughout its 101-minute runtime; but despite this, not enough of Joy (only 33% of it, by the Academy’s measurement) uses non-English dialogue.

Joy’s the second international title to be deemed ineligible on such grounds this year; the first, in a mightly cringeworthy coincidence, was Nigeria’s submission, Lionheart, which is primarily in English with some dialogue in Igbo. When the title was deemed ineligible at early November, dashing Nigeria’s first-ever bid to compete at the Oscars, it set off a fierce debate on social media. Complicating the Academy’s decision to disqualify Lionheart is that Nigeria’s official language is English. “Are you barring this country from ever competing for an Oscar in its official language?” asked filmmaker Ava DuVernay on Twitter.

“We did not choose who colonized us”

Lionheart’s director, Geneviveve Nnaji, protested the Academy’s conclusion that her film cannot qualify for Best International Feature Film. Nnaji opined (via Twitter) that her film “represents the way we speak as Nigerians,” depicting English as “a bridge between the 500+ languages spoken” in her country. “It’s not different to how French connects communities in former French colonies,” she added. “We did not choose who colonized us.”

In a statement to Deadline ostensibly aimed at clearing up the controversy, the Academy’s International Feature Film executive committee co-chair Larry Karaszewski said that the situation was “l(fā)ess of a controversy, and more of a misunderstanding.”

Karaszewski stressed that there may have been a “misconception” that led to outcry around the decision to bar Lionheart and now Joy, but that the requirements for the category are the same as they were. “If you’re submitting for something as important as an Academy Award,” he said, “I would think you should look at the rules.”

但正是在研究規(guī)則之后，人們會發(fā)現(xiàn)納吉和都弗內的觀點非常有說服力。按照《獅心女孩》失去參選資格的邏輯來看，其他的英屬殖民地，例如加納、圭亞那、贊比亞和肯尼亞等普遍說英語的國家同樣也無法入圍該獎項的評選。奧斯卡當前的準則并未考慮殖民主義對這些國家持續(xù)影響的復雜性，也沒有充分反映出對這些多語言國家日常生活的認知。它違反了當前語言要求的隨意性特征，也就是如果某個國家被法國或西班牙殖民過，那么這個國家拍攝的電影就會使用法語或西班牙語，而這類電影會被當作一部國際電影；如果拍攝電影的國家曾經是英國的殖民地，熒幕上出現(xiàn)的自然就會是英語，但卻不會被視為國際影片。

更為糟糕的是，奧斯卡適用的語言要求規(guī)定，如果像尼日利亞這樣的國家希望獲得最佳國際影片的參選資格，那么其制作人上必須在表述行為上“外國化”，也就是以一種不反映這些國家生活、對于好萊塢大咖們來說可能看起來更真實的方式，夸大非洲語言的日常重要性。

盡管這個教訓引發(fā)了廣泛的疑問，但其潛臺詞確實如卡拉澤斯基所說的那樣，是一個基礎性的誤解，只不過被誤解的是學院，而不是電影制造商。

在學院當前遇到的語言規(guī)則窘境中，其焦點指向了一個過時的主張：英語是美國影業(yè)的專屬語言，所有其他語言實際上被看作在美國海外使用的“其他”語言。按照這個還原性的解讀，其他國家拍攝的電影從歷史上便不同于美國本土電影，并組成一個“外國”語言團體。但它們并非是時代的主流，因為挑戰(zhàn)最佳外語影片參選資質要求的電影的數(shù)量便證明了這一點。此外，獎項名稱的變化（從“外語”變?yōu)椤皣H”）意味著奧斯卡意識到了該類目由來已久的問題。

但對于這個獎項存在的結構性問題來說，名稱的改變只不過是治標不治本的做法，而且必然會帶來更多的問題，因為它變相地在說其他類目的電影均源自美國，但實際上并非這樣。

影業(yè)的日益全球化

以《別告訴她》（The Farewell）為例。這部備受推崇的獨立電影講述了一位由美國人撫養(yǎng)長大的女士（演員奧卡菲娜扮演）來到了中國，為的是向其病危的祖母道別。這部電影基于作者-導演、美籍華人王子逸的真實故事，它使用的是中文對白英文字幕，不過影片主角也說英語。由于它是一部美國電影，因此無法參選奧斯卡最佳國際影片，但它亦無法角逐金球獎的最佳音樂劇/喜劇獎。原因何在？它是一部外語影片。

如今，《別告訴她》、《歡樂》和《獅心女孩》可能有機會角逐最佳影片獎。然而，鑒于好萊塢以美國和英語為重心的歷史體制，小制作國際影片在提名大戰(zhàn)中勝出的可能性很小。最佳外語片/國際影片類目于20世紀50年代設立，其初衷是凸顯全球影業(yè)未被充分代表的聲音，從而讓國際電影制作人在奧斯卡獲得一席之地，并了解學院成員對于美國本土電影的期許，從而加以效仿。

但該獎項一直都是一個怪異、笨拙的野獸，僅依靠每個國家選送一部電影進行評選。正因為如此，這個類目最終變成了國際影業(yè)的奧運會。盡管這個構架可能曾經還算合理，但即便只是粗略地看一下奧斯卡當前的電影格局，人們也會發(fā)現(xiàn)它已經變得不食人間煙火。每年有數(shù)百部國際電影在美國上映，而且其中很多都來自于影業(yè)大國，例如法國和中國。

限制這些國家每年僅提交一部電影參選奧斯卡也讓社會政治問題成為了電影送選的考量因素。例如最近法國決定送選導演拉德·利的《悲慘世界》（Les Misérables），而不是瑟琳·席安瑪備受贊譽的同志戀情電影《燃燒女子的肖像》（Portrait of a Lady on Fire）。不過，擁有大量美國本土背景的國際影片并非沒有角逐最佳影片的機會。去年，阿方索·卡隆的《羅馬》（Roma）被譽為Netflix的首要拿獎利器，并成為了最佳影片的有利角逐者，共計拿到了10項提名（與2000年的《臥虎藏龍》打成平手，成為了奧斯卡史上獲提名次數(shù)最多的非英語電影）。這部黑白畫面電影使用的是西班牙語和米斯特克語對白，為它的導演贏得了屬于導演自己的獎項，并借此成為了首部獲奧斯卡最佳導演獎的非英語電影。

就在過去的一個月，由奉俊昊執(zhí)導、Neon發(fā)布的韓國電影《寄生蟲》（Parasite）在美國取得了不俗的票房（正在向《摩托車日記》龐大的票房邁進，預測其本土票房將達到2500萬美元）；同期，佩德羅·阿莫多瓦的西班牙語電影《痛苦與榮耀》（Pain and Glory）的小范圍上映亦取得了不錯的成績，這些都意味著國際電影的競爭舞臺發(fā)生了變化。這兩部電影是近幾周小眾電影票房取得的最大成功，但依然不敵《燃燒女子的肖像》。得益于Neon老練的營銷策略，這部電影已經深入各大電影節(jié)和社交媒體。上述影片也展示了美國觀眾對非英語電影的接受度和支持度。不久之前，電影《別告訴她》和中國熱門影片《江湖兒女》亦享受了類似的待遇。

電影界的國際化程度已然大幅提升，其實需要與時俱進的是學院。盡管最佳外語片類目聲稱僅評選非英語影片，但長期以來卻因為不怎么明顯但麻煩不斷的歧視傾向而備受詬病。該類目大部分贏家都來自于歐洲國家（共計68個，其中57個來自于歐洲），這一事實指向了一個根深蒂固的問題：歐洲中心主義傾向，也就是對全球大量的參選作品視而不見。像《獅心女孩》這樣的非洲電影基本上沒有拿過奧斯卡獎，僅有三部在奧斯卡史上獲得了最佳外語片獎。

變革的先驅

對學院最常見的一種批評是：這個機構已經落伍了。在過去，該學院一直在努力改變人們的這種看法，甚至還提出了設立“最受歡迎影片”獎項，但這個短命的創(chuàng)意泄露了學院愚笨的意愿：想接地氣，卻又不愿意對現(xiàn)行做法進行深層次的結構性改革。

然而，如何系統(tǒng)性地解決最佳外語片這個問題不能僅靠更改獎項名稱。學院拋棄以往“外國”影片異國化策略的做法有其既得利益，而且以何種方式來確保電影能夠合理地反映出某個國家的特定文化和語言傳統(tǒng)應該交由電影拍攝國來決定，而不是遠在千里之外的學院成員。

我們不妨看一下，#OscarsSoWhite（奧斯卡太白——譯者注）運動促使學院開始了遲來已久的成員多元化進程。還記得嗎，奧斯卡頒獎儀式的多次發(fā)言都提到了反性騷擾運動#MeToo和反性侵運動#TimesUp，而且這些發(fā)言的其分量不亞于獲提名的表演；還記得嗎，弗蘭西斯·麥克多蒙德讓人們開始關注“inclusion riders”合同條款，并借此機會鼓勵電影行業(yè)女性為公平薪酬而斗爭。

學院十分重視自身作為全行業(yè)變革先驅的聲譽，而且作為好萊塢在全球其他地區(qū)最公開的外延形式，它有權以此自居。然而，除非好萊塢可以否認“英語屬于美國的專屬電影語言”以及“定義國家文化的是其語言而不是歷史”這些理念，那么學院則面臨著與全球電影制作人和觀眾疏遠的風險。與此同時，隨著電影界的政治（和經濟）逐漸遠離西方理念獨大的現(xiàn)象，似乎最有可能掉隊的并非是大眾，而是學院本身。（財富中文網）

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

But it’s precisely by looking at the rules that Nnaji and DuVernay have made their compelling point. The same logic that excludes Lionheart from contention this year would seem to similarly disqualify entries from other British colonies like Ghana, Guyana, Zambia, and Kenya, among other countries where English is widely spoken. Under the Academy’s current guidelines, the complexity of colonialism’s lasting legacy in these countries is not taken into account, nor is any recognition of everyday life in such multilingual countries adequately reflected. It betrays the arbitrary nature of the current linguistic requirements that, if a country were colonized by France or Spain and thus a film from it used French or Spanish, it would be considered an international title; not so if the country of the film in question was colonized by the English, leading English language to be depicted on screen.

Even worse, the Academy’s standing language requirement suggests that, for a country like Nigeria to qualify in Best International Feature Film, its filmmakers must performatively “play foreign,” exaggerating the everyday prominence of African languages in a way that’s not reflective of life in those countries but might appear more authentic to Hollywood elite.

As wildly problematic as that takeaway would be, its implications do, as Karaszewski points out, betray a fundamental misunderstanding—but on the Academy’s part rather than that of the filmmakers.

At the heart of the Academy’s current predicament over language requirements is an outdated assertion that English belongs exclusively to American cinema, with all other languages essentially coded as an “other” spoken beyond U.S. borders. From that reductive point of view, films hailing from other countries could historically be considered as distinct from domestic entries, grouped in their reliance on a “foreign” language. But that’s just not the tenor of the times, and the number of movies challenging the Academy’s eligibility requirements for this category proves as much. Furthermore, the name-change, from “foreign” to “international,” suggests that the Academy’s aware of this category’s long-standing issues.

But it’s a superficial fix to a structural problem with the category, and one that promises to further create issues with its insinuation that the other categories involve films specifically rooted in the United States, which is not the case.

A more globalized cinema

Take The Farewell for instance. The acclaimed indie drama follows an American-raised woman (Awkwafina) who travels to China in order to say goodbye to her terminally ill grandmother. Based on the real-life experiences of writer-director Lulu Wang, who is Chinese-American, The Farewell is told primarily in Mandarin with English subtitles, though its protagonist also speaks English. Though ineligible for Best International Feature Film at the Oscars because it’s an American production, the title’s also barred from competing for Best Musical/Comedy at the Golden Globes. Their rationale? It’s a foreign-language film.

While The Farewell, Joy, and Lionheart could conceivably now qualify for Best Picture, the uphill battles small international films face to land a nomination there are rarely won, given Hollywood’s history as an American-English-centric institution. The very existence of the Best Foreign Film/International Feature Film category, created in the 1950s, was intended to highlight under-represented voices in world cinema, giving international filmmakers a seat at the table with the understanding Academy members typically gravitates toward movies that are made in their own backyard and sound like it.

But it’s always been a strange, unwieldy beast, relying on countries to submit only one title apiece for consideration and essentially turning the category in an Olympics of international cinema. While that structure may have once made sense, even a cursory glance around at the movie landscape indicates that it’s out of touch. Hundreds of international films premiere in the United States each year, many from the same powerhouse countries, like France and China.

Limiting those countries to one pick a year at the Oscars has opened up cans of sociopolitical worms, most recently with France’s decision to submit Ladj Ly’s Les Misérables over Celine Sciamma’s acclaimed queer romance Portrait of a Lady on Fire. And it’s not like international films with sufficient stateside backing don’t have a shot at Best Picture contention. Last year, Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma, touted as Netflix’s major awards vehicle, was a frontrunner for Best Picture and received 10 overall nominations (tied with 2000’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as the most ever for a non-English film). Told in Spanish and Mixtec, the black-and-white period piece won its director a trophy his own, becoming the first non-English film to win in the Best Director category.

And just in the past month, the stateside box-office success of Bong Joon-ho’s South Korean-made, Neon-released Parasite (on track for huge Motorcycle Diaries numbers in the realm of a projected $25 million haul domestically), coupled with solid results for Pedro Almodovar’s Spanish-language Pain and Glory in a smaller release, indicate the changed state of play for international titles. Those two are the biggest success stories at the specialty box office in recent weeks, but still ahead is Portrait of a Lady on Fire, a film already embraced on the festival circuit and via social media, thanks to a savvy marketing campaign by Neon. These films demonstrate how U.S. audiences can embrace and champion non-English films; looking slightly further back, the same can be said of The Farewell and Chinese hit Ash is Purest White.

It’s this radically more globalized cinema that the Academy must catch up to. While professing to consider only films not in the English language, its Best Foreign Film category has long fallen prey to slightly less obvious but nevertheless problematic biases. That the vast majority of winners in the category have hailed from European countries (57 out of a total 68 winners) points to one ingrained problem: a tendency toward Eurocentrism, overlooking contenders from huge swaths of the world. African films like Lionheart barely ever win at the Oscars; only three have triumphed in Best Foreign Film in the awards ceremony’s history.

A harbinger of change

One of the criticisms most frequently levied at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is that it is behind the times. In the past, the Academy’s struggled to overcome that perception. It even went so far as to propose a “Popular Film” category, a short-lived idea that betrayed the Academy’s clumsy desire to reach the masses without making deeper, structural changes to its modus operandi.

But questions of how it can address the issues systemic to Best International Feature Film cannot be cleared up with a mere title change. The Academy has a vested interest in dispensing with its past exoticization of “foreign” titles and finding ways to ensure the notion of whether a film properly reflects its country’s specific cultural and linguistic traditions is decided by that country, not Academy members thousands of miles away.

Consider how #OscarsSoWhite galvanized the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to begin the long-overdue work of diversifying its membership. Remember how the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have continually spilled out onto the awards-ceremony stage in a number of speeches as powerful as some of the nominated performances, how Frances McDormand brought attention to “inclusion riders” and in the same breath championed women fighting for pay equity in the industry.

The Academy values its reputation as a harbinger for industry-wide change. And as Hollywood’s most public extension to the rest of the world, it’s right to. But until it can disavow itself of the notion that the English language alone belongs to Americans, and that language is a definition of a country’s culture rather than a condition of its history, the Academy risks alienating filmmakers and audiences around the world. And as the politics (and economics) of cinema shift increasingly away from an exclusively Western point of view, it is not those masses but rather the Academy itself that seems most likely to be left behind.