Now this is really weird!
First time a song in Spanish is nominated for the Oscars
First time a Uruguayan is involved in anything related to the Oscars
And he wins!!! He's name is Jorge Drexler and won the best song award for "Al otro lado del rÃo", the song he made for the movie "Diarios de motocicleta" about the life of Ernesto Che Guevara. For a country as small as this one which doesn't appear anywhere but in a funny quote in the simpsons this is a great honor.
You probably haven't heard a word about him, I really hate how he sings but some people seem to like it.
These last days there has been a lot of discussion here in the media because of the decission of the awards organizers not to let Drexler sing the song but instead make Carlos Santana play the guitar (nice) and Enrique Iglesias sing (PLEASE DON'T!!!! HAVE A LITTLE MERCY WITH THE SONG!!!), fortunately they decided to make Antonio Banderas (not that bad at least) do the singing. I definately prefer how Antonio Banderas sings even if he's not a singer :P but I like the fact that a Uruguayan could win something!!! YAY!!!
Let me cry a little... :'( :'( :'(
Ok, thanks, I'm fine now.
EDIT: I don't know why it says 'aerÃo', it should say 'rÃo' but when I modify it, it just keeps saying aerÃo. I think it must be a problem with the ' (tilde).
Personally I don't understand how a song not in English, from a movie not in English, gets nominated for Best Song in the Oscars.
Why do they have the foreign language categories?
Now I know, of course, that as an American I'm not allowed to stand up for Americans because that would just be so close minded of me, but it bothers me just the same.
Oh well ... congrats Whore-Hay.
Um... because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science is about ALL forms of film art, not just ones created in the States?
I thought it was a nice song- it just didn't really fit with Santana playing solos between every line.
What I don't understand is why Beyonce sang most of the songs. They got Counting Crows to come in for their own song. And I can understand having Andtonio sing for "Al otro lado del areÃo," because getting the original singer to come from Uruguay to do rehersals and soundchecks might be a tad awkward. But why did she sing the song from Les Choristes? Isn't it supposed to be performed by a boys choir?
Quote from: DragonRose on Mon 28/02/2005 07:29:31
Um... because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science is about ALL forms of film art, not just ones created in the States?
I can understand that. But it doesn't make sense then to have categories for foreign languages. At least to me. If they want to make it 'worldly' then throw them all in together.
That would ruin the Oscars for me though. Don't get me wrong, there are some great foreign films, but I watch the Oscars to see the movies I can watch, not read. Bah ... it's a lost cause anyway. The Oscars have seriously gone down hill for me in recent years.
Quote from: DragonRose on Mon 28/02/2005 07:29:31What I don't understand is why Beyonce sang most of the songs.
I don't know why they had Bay-Once sing all those songs either. I think she's got a good voice, but in my opinion she butchered 'Believe' with Josh Groban. He's 10 times the singer she is and should have done the song solo, as it was recorded.
Quote from: DragonRose on Mon 28/02/2005 07:29:31
And I can understand having Andtonio sing for "Al otro lado del areÃo," because getting the original singer to come from Uruguay to do rehersals and soundchecks might be a tad awkward.
But Jorge Drexler was there, not in Uruguay. He even sang a little part of the song when he was supposed to do his speech. I also think Santana's performance wasn't too good, but Banderas singing was good.
I haven't watched those dreaded awards myself, so please correct me if i'm horribly mistaken.
It sounds to me like there is a nicely oiled money-making-machine at work here..
Why not let the original artist perform his song:
1. None of the (american) viewers care, they want to see people they know and love. Strange is scary
2. The 'management' probably decided the original artist wasn't confident in such a 'high profile' gig and thus wasn't found competent to do a flawless performance.
3. Making viewers listen to a song performed by an artist they don't know and in a language they don't understand is bound to make it a zap-away moment.
Dragonrose, although you are somewhat correct in your statement about the Academies being about forms of film art, i find it painfully obvious that this original intention of the awards has been overshadowed by commerce. Not allowing the original artist to perform, to me, is just one of many examples that confirm this.
I was going to add that Carlos Sanatana's brilliance is only surpassed by his ego, but unintentionally my reply has become somewhat bitter, so i'll leave it behind.
Oh wait, i still said it.. damn!
Kairus, congratulations with the Academy award. I'm glad you have found something to be proud of. But if it were me i'd be much happier with a little credit on a Simpons episode :)
Quote from: Oneway on Tue 01/03/2005 01:39:13
3. Making viewers listen to a song performed by an artist they don't know and in a language they don't understand is bound to make it a zap-away moment.
Since you didn't watch it you are in some way excused, but from what I remember one song was performed in french and another one in spanish... it was still pretty awful though.
Quote from: Oneway on Tue 01/03/2005 01:39:13
Dragonrose, although you are somewhat correct in your statement about the Academies being about forms of film art, i find it painfully obvious that this original intention of the awards has been overshadowed by commerce.
Actually, the Academy was originally formed as a completely commercial venture. The idea was that if the producers gave good actors shiny statues and a nice dinner, maybe they wouldn't strike or ask for pay increases.
Kairus: Oops. I didn't realize that Drexler sang the original cut. So, yeah. Now it makes no sense at all.
Darth:
QuoteI can understand that. But it doesn't make sense then to have categories for foreign languages. At least to me. If they want to make it 'worldly' then throw them all in together.
I'm not too sure what you're trying to say, Darth.
Are you trying to say the Academy shouldn't recognise foreign films with their own category, or are you saying they should recognise them but keep them limited to their own category?
The Foreign Film category is for foreign films as a whole production and were first established to promote foreign films, especially since the Academy Awards are an American institution and dominated by English-speaking films. It's basically the reason why Animated Features got their own category -- because several fine animated films were being ignored by the Academy (Chicken Run, for example)
Meanwhile, the song category is for individual songs, despite their language. Now, it seems kind of ridiculous to discount Non-English songs, right? And I don't see what's wrong with non-English songs being nominated. After all, music isn't just about lyrics. I watched the ceremony and was happy to hear the song from The Motorcycle Diaries as well as the song from Les Choristes.
And if you discard films not in English lanuage, you miss out on some very fine films. Kurosawa, Miyazaki, Godard, Fellini, and Bergman are some of the finest filmmakers. Apart from Godard, the Oscars have honored them all, and rightfully so. In fact, one of my favourite films is Cinema Paradiso, an Italian film that won Best Foreign film for 1989. The film sums up why people go to the movies in the first place. And I think the Foreign category gave it the kudos it deserved.
So, what's wrong with that?
Quote from: DGMacphee link=topespecially since the Academy Awards are an American institution and dominated by English-speaking films.
That was basically my point.
I
definitely think foreign films should be recognized, just in their own categories.
The Oscars feel like they're getting away from what they used to be (to me).
They're less magical. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical.
I know it's unpopular 'round these boards to express 'pro American' sentiment ... but what's wrong with the Oscars belonging to America? It's how it used to be. There are other award ceremonies and film festivals which hi-light films from accross the globe.
Darth, do you think that if an animated movie was good enough, it should be allowed to enter into the Best Picture category?
Also, the Foreign Langauge movies are judged very differently from the other movies, I beleive: its a small commitee not the whole academy who votes on them. I might be wrong on this, maybe thats just nominations. This is to stop a high profile FL movie from getting unfair "ignorant" votes from members who couldn't be bothered watching the other ones.
Also, why are you so scared: its not as if they've had a huge success rate in any of the main categories. Let's face it, its a novelty when a British or Australian film gets nominated, let alone a Uruguayan one.
But,I see your point: bring back those heady days when awards were won by Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Attenborough, Richard Burton, Donald Sutherland, Lawrence Olivier, oh hang on, none of them are american!
QuoteBut,I see your point: bring back those heady days when awards were won by Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Attenborough, Richard Burton, Donald Sutherland, Lawrence Olivier, oh hang on, none of them are american!
I don't mean that the actors, actresses, directors, etc.
are Americans ... but that the Oscars are for movies that are American made. From Hollywood.
I mean, if that were the case I'd be excluding some of my favorite people. Gary Oldman, Russel Crowe, Peter Jackson ... I could go on and on.
Quote from: SSH on Tue 01/03/2005 16:37:47
Darth, do you think that if an animated movie was good enough, it should be allowed to enter into the Best Picture category?
If it was American made, and in English, sure.
QuoteAlso, why are you so scared: its not as if they've had a huge success rate in any of the main categories. Let's face it, its a novelty when a British or Australian film gets nominated, let alone a Uruguayan one.
I'm not scared, it's more like annoyed. Call me uncultured if you want, but I don't enjoy 'reading' a movie. For me personally, I like
watching a movie. If I have to pay attention to the subtitles I miss what's happening on-screen ... movies, to me, are to be watched, not read. I enjoy reading books.
So, an American movie means that the money comes from the United States of America?
What if it's American made and not in English?
Also, I don't think it's unpopular to be pro-america on these boards. What do we not make fun of on these forums? It's unpopular to be pro-weird arguement, hehe. I mean, at the end of the day what does it matter what some people do at an awards ceremony? Maybe it's because I just never cared at all but what is magical about people giving statues to people?
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 01/03/2005 17:16:23
I'm not scared, it's more like annoyed. Call me uncultured if you want, but I don't enjoy 'reading' a movie. For me personally, I like watching a movie. If I have to pay attention to the subtitles I miss what's happening on-screen ... movies, to me, are to be watched, not read. I enjoy reading books.
If you had given it a chance you would have realised that after you get used to it you don't really read the subtitles at all. As an added benefit you get really good at speed reading.
As long as a movie went up on the cinemas in america, it's legitimate in the ordinary categories.
The foreign categories are for movies never shown in american cinemas.
And if there's something making the oscars worse than back in the days, I'm pretty certain it has little to do with foreign movies.
Also, saying that you can't accept the sub-titles is a bit narrow-minded. We don't dub movies in sweden, which means 95% of all movies have sub-titles.
I can assure you that my average movie experience is no less than yours. It sure makes me better in English, though.
Now, for people who don't care much for a second langauge, well....
Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 01/03/2005 17:57:23
What if it's American made and not in English?
I.E. Passion of the Christ? We'll ignore that Aramaic and Latin are pretty much dead languages, but there isn't any English in the film at all, other than in subtitles.
Edit: I quoted the wrong part of the post. This is why sleep is good and not-sleep is bad.
Quote from: Andail on Tue 01/03/2005 22:24:58Also, saying that you can't accept the sub-titles is a bit narrow-minded. We don't dub movies in sweden, which means 95% of all movies have sub-titles.
I can assure you that my average movie experience is no less than yours. It sure makes me better in English, though.
I didn't say I couldn't accept them, just that I don't enjoy 'reading' a movie (being dyslexic doesn't help much either). I don't see how that's 'narrow-minded'?
Darth, will you decline the opportunity to enjoy a good story or learn about a different culture just because it's in another language and you have to read the subtitles?
Maybe you would like it if it was dubbed, but you know, dubbed movies are always bad, and it's true that they lose a lot of its magic.
If everyone thought like you Hollywood would lose millions of dollars because they could sell their movies to just a few countries and it wouldn't be 'global' as they want.
What really happens with subtitled movies is that they are annoying at the beginning, but later on you get used to them and they are fine. You don't even need to read all the subtitles and you can get most of the information from the image itself and not the text (except for those movies that are heavily based on dialogues). Dyslexia won't be a problem in the end, there are many dyslexic people outside the US and I'm pretty sure most of them get used to the subtitles as well.
Give it a try if you want, you won't regret it. :) Go and watch 'Whiskey' which is a Uruguayan film that won a lot of awards (but not the Oscar) and will probably be subtitled if it's ever going to be shown there.
Good lord ...
I never said I didn't like foreign films!!
Darth makes a good point here, no matter what you personally think about foreign films.
Because I'm not American, and I just don't watch these award thingies that much, someone clear this up for me.
IS the Academy Awards (is that what this is?) about American made films, or is it ALL films regardless of country?
Since Dragonrose has commented that it's the latter, I'll assume that for now. So, assuming that, why is there a foreign film catagory? Also, why is it that American films by FAR dominate the rest of the catagories? If the Academy Awards is in fact for films from all over the world, why is it that you never see one or two non foreign films in the Best Film or Best Sound or Best this or that catagory? Foreign actors are never in the Best Actor/Actress awards.
It just seems to me that if it is for films globally, then they would judge films from all over the world before nominating, people other than Americans would nominate, and despite America's clear advantage in the film industry financially and by sheer number (excusing India, I think), we would see a hell of a lot more foreign films in the nominations. They may still not dominate, because America, well, has Hollywood. Even so, there would be a lot more of them.
Seeing as this is not the case at all, I agree with Darth that the Awards should be for American films. Films made in America with American money. I can't stand the tokenism of having one or two foreign films that Americans find 'charming' shoved in there amongst the rest. It's clearly run as an Amarican ceremony, it should be for American products. Otherwise it's just unfair.
Pisses me off also the way we ship American actors/singers over here for our (lame) Australian award ceremonies.
QuoteSince Dragonrose has commented that it's the latter, I'll assume that for now. So, assuming that, why is there a foreign film catagory? Also, why is it that American films by FAR dominate the rest of the catagories? If the Academy Awards is in fact for films from all over the world, why is it that you never see one or two non foreign films in the Best Film or Best Sound or Best this or that catagory? Foreign actors are never in the Best Actor/Actress awards..
Not true. Catalina Sandino Moreno, a Columbian actress, was nominated for Best Actress. Kate Winslett are Imelda Staunton, both British, were nominated in the same category. Clive Owen, another Brit, was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. And Cate Blanchett, an Aussie, won for Best Supporting Actress. And nominated along with her was Sophie Okonedo, another Brit.
Now all these actors are technically foreign in the sense that they're non-American. If we are going to get really nit-picky about whether the Oscars are for American films or not, then you discount other English-speaking countries too.
I'm all for diversity in film because I believe in seeing the world differently. And I think the Oscars would support my belief (although it's a little much for me to assume, but I do so humbly :) ). Which is why I say go for it when it comes to nominating foreign language films in other categories.
Okay, they're foreign actors but they're nominated for the American films they were in, no? That was my point.
I'm totally all for foreign films too, that's not in dispute. I'd like to see the Oscars become more global, but it's one or the other for me, not this wishy-washy in-between state.
I simply believe that if it's a global award ceremony, it should be so properly so. Otherwise, stick to American made.
sorry to bring this up again, but what does it matter what the Oscars do? I'm just curious.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/03/2005 05:32:52
Okay, they're foreign actors but they're nominated for the American films they were in, no? That was my point.
No, you're wrong. Three of them were in films not American made: Vera Drake (Staunton), Maria Full of Grace (Moreno), and Hotel Rwanda (Okonedo). And you could go one further and say Annette Being's nomination was for a British film (Being Julia), even though she's American.
QuoteI'd like to see the Oscars become more global, but it's one or the other for me, not this wishy-washy in-between state.
But it's not wishy-washy. It is global. It's an American institution, but nowhere does it say that it has to be strictly for American films. Doing so is stupid. It's like relegating the Nobel Prizes to Norwegians. Sure, Norwegians are a fine bunch, but there are geniuses and peacemakers in other countries too.
As eric asks above, does it matter what the Oscars do? In this discussion, yes, but here's the thing: The Oscars is comprised of Academy members who's purpose is to decide what films they liked. Now, I ask you this: Why should we tell them "Hey guys, you can tell the world what films you liked, but only if they're American films!" That's nonsense! People in the Academy can like films, and songs from films, from other countries. It's just like me liking films from Australia as well as America, Britian, Japan, India, Europe, etc. If you say, "Hey, they should only vote for American films." Then you might as well just relegate Americans to watching American films, Australians to Australian films, Britians to British films, etc, etc, which is equally as much nonsense. I like seeing films from other countries as much as my own.
The Oscar are just a group of people who tell us what movies, local or foreign, they liked. And I don't think anyone here can say what movies they, or anyone else, are allowed to watch. That's the real narrow-mindedness.
So then do I have to stop telling people not to watch White Chicks?
You can try and tell them not to, but the way movies are these days, I doubt many will listen.
Sad, innit?
DG, it's like you misinteprete everything I say.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 02/03/2005 05:58:30
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/03/2005 05:32:52
Okay, they're foreign actors but they're nominated for the American films they were in, no? That was my point.
No, you're wrong. Three of them were in films not American made: Vera Drake (Staunton), Maria Full of Grace (Moreno), and Hotel Rwanda (Okonedo). And you could go one further and say Annette Being's nomination was for a British film (Being Julia), even though she's American.
Fair enough, my mistake.
QuoteQuoteI'd like to see the Oscars become more global, but it's one or the other for me, not this wishy-washy in-between state.
But it's not wishy-washy. It is global. It's an American institution, but nowhere does it say that it has to be strictly for American films. Doing so is stupid. It's like relegating the Nobel Prizes to Norwegians. Sure, Norwegians are a fine bunch, but there are geniuses and peacemakers in other countries too.
Okay, here. Firstly, I never said it didn't -say- officially it was for any film, I didn't know what it said. Secondly, it's not like relegating the Nobel Prize to Norwegians at all because the Oscars is a show created by the Americans, isn't it? It's held in America, hosted by Americans and run by Americans... isn't it? If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.
Quote
As eric asks above, does it matter what the Oscars do? In this discussion, yes, but here's the thing: The Oscars is comprised of Academy members who's purpose is to decide what films they liked. Now, I ask you this: Why should we tell them "Hey guys, you can tell the world what films you liked, but only if they're American films!" That's nonsense! People in the Academy can like films, and songs from films, from other countries. It's just like me liking films from Australia as well as America, Britian, Japan, India, Europe, etc. If you say, "Hey, they should only vote for American films." Then you might as well just relegate Americans to watching American films, Australians to Australian films, Britians to British films, etc, etc, which is equally as much nonsense. I like seeing films from other countries as much as my own.
Geez, look. It's NOT like telling you to only like Australian films because you're from Australia. I was saying that they should only vote for American films if the award ceremony IS in fact to be an American award show. It's like only judging pies in a pie contest. Now, since it's NOT just an American film award show, then I think that of course, they can vote for whoever they like.
QuoteThe Oscar are just a group of people who tell us what movies, local or foreign, they liked. And I don't think anyone here can say what movies they, or anyone else, are allowed to watch. That's the real narrow-mindedness.
Seriously... NOONE said that ANYONE should ONLY watch ANY movies. I don't even know where that comment came from. My point was simply, once again, that if the award ceremony is for American films, it should be just that, for American films. Since it is -not-, then it should -not- be just for American films.
Perhaps such an overly global event should be hosted in other countries, though.
Kinoko, I don't think I've misintepreted anything.
Here's what you're basically saying: The Oscars should vote for just American films.
Okay, now here's what I'm saying: The people in the Academy might feel their favourite picture of the year comes from another country.
I think my point is valid especially since the Academy is made of of people from other countries. For example, Geoffrey Rush, Roberto Benigni, and Pedro Almodovar are all in the Academy. Ultimately, it's the Academy's decision. Which is why...
QuoteSecondly, it's not like relegating the Nobel Prize to Norwegians at all because the Oscars is a show created by the Americans, isn't it? It's held in America, hosted by Americans and run by Americans... isn't it? If I'm wrong, I'm sorry.
... you're partially wrong. What counts is who votes. And from what I understand, the voters are past winners, many of them from other countries (such is the case with the foreign film award).
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 02/03/2005 07:01:31
Here's what you're basically saying: The Oscars should vote for just American films.
No, no. I've said if case A, then A. If case B, then B.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 02/03/2005 01:03:39
Quote from: Andail on Tue 01/03/2005 22:24:58Also, saying that you can't accept the sub-titles is a bit narrow-minded. We don't dub movies in sweden, which means 95% of all movies have sub-titles.
I can assure you that my average movie experience is no less than yours. It sure makes me better in English, though.
I didn't say I couldn't accept them, just that I don't enjoy 'reading' a movie (being dyslexic doesn't help much either). I don't see how that's 'narrow-minded'?
Now you tell us.
Since most of the major film studios have shareholders from every country under the sun, then ho wdo you define a filom as being American anyway? For example, Fox films are disqualified becuase Rupert Murdoch's major shareholding? The world is globalised, whether people like it or not: trying to close your eyes and say "I'm not listening" wont change that.
Also, since there are plenty of American citizens whose first langauge is Spanish, why shoul dthey be discriminated against?
Interestingly, in Spain, they do dubbing of voices much better than dubbing to English has ever been done: which show that it can be done properly, unlike the Godzilla movies. So why companies dont do this to foreign films, I don't know. I gues sthat subtitles give them a kind of gravitas. Personally I watch lots of English movies with the subtitles on, becuase our houses's soundproofing is rubbish and I don't want to wake the kids....
And Darth, have you ever ewatched the Eurovision song contest. It's perfectly possible to enjot a song even if you don't understand the words. For example: Smells like Teen Spirit!
Oh , and disqulaifying non-english lanaguges means that Lord of the Rings Sindardin songs are out, and Hakuna Matata, and ....
Kinoko, I offered an explanation regarding foreign movies (last page) but I don't think you acknowledged it....
Foreign movies can be nominated for oscars in any category as long as they have been shown in cinemas (or theaters or what you prefer) in america. Like the swedish movie "My life as a dog", which was very succesfull in USA back in the eighties.
The foreign language category also accepts movies which weren't shown on american cinemas at all.
Darth: Well, to me it sounded a bit ridiculing using the phrase "I wanna watch the movie, not read it!" because it implies that people like me (who watch mostly foreign movies, which are all subtitled) can't really "watch" movies.
It just sounded like a thing a narrow-minded person would say, who can't imagine that there are other ways of perceiving information than the ones he's used to.
Of course, in your last post you offered some personal fact which makes it much easier to understand why you don't enjoy reading. I'm sorry for that!
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/03/2005 07:15:13
Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 02/03/2005 07:01:31
Here's what you're basically saying: The Oscars should vote for just American films.
No, no. I've said if case A, then A. If case B, then B.
But it's already case B, so I don't see what the problem is.
It wasn't a problem, but I didn't KNOW the way things were when I first posted, so that was my standpoint.
Andail: Sorry, I must have missed that.
My mum actually doesn't like seeing subtitled movies. It's got nothing to do with her reading ability but she just doesn't like them. She hasn't really seen enough to be used to the reading, and the ones she's seen might have been those awful subtitling jobs with white, no-border text. Even so, it really frustrates me sometimes because I'll have a great movie I want to recommend to her and she just won't see it. I let it go though, it's the way she is. I can't really judge because I've been watching subtitled movies all my life and they're nothing out of the ordinary for me.
Given Andail's comments though, I'd just like to add that seeing as foreign films can only be nominated in a normal catagory after showing in US cinemas, I think this just adds to my point that the Oscars are still very much an American ceremony, for American audiences.
Of course, that's ignoring the fact that it gets broadcast in most of the world. Unlike, say, the Hong Kong Film Awards, which is a mostly local affair.
I think of it like this: Oscars are for US movies, local film awards are for local movies (plus the obligatory best foreign movie award, which may go to a US movie). Considering the huge amount of US movies versus local productions that get shown in many countries, it seems a much better state of affairs than for both the Oscars and the various local film awards to recognise movies from all over the world in all categories.
According to what I've seen, it seems that foreign films (including their actors, songs, directors, etc) can be nominated for any category except for best film, US films can be nominated for any category except for best foreign film. That's how I see it.
Quote from: Kairus on Thu 03/03/2005 02:50:30
According to what I've seen, it seems that foreign films (including their actors, songs, directors, etc) can be nominated for any category except for best film, US films can be nominated for any category except for best foreign film. That's how I see it.
Again, not true. For 2002, The Pianist was a non-US foreign film and was nominated for Best Picture. Plus, it won for it's director (Roman Polanski) and writer (Ronald Harwood), who were both non-American.
Go back to 2000, and you'll see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was nominated for Best Picture and Best Director (Ang Lee). Plus, it was nominated and won for Foreign Language film.
Go back to 1998, and you have two non-American nominees for Best Picture: Elizabeth and Life is Beautiful. Life is Beautiful was also nominated and won for Best Foreign Language film.
These are only just recent examples. There are plenty more accounts of non-US films and foreign language films being nominated for best picture films being nominated for Best Picture.
Okay, enough of this. I decided to look up the offical rules. Here they are:
http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule02.html
All that has to happen is for a film to be shown and registered in Los Angles County. Note in particular Paragraph 8.
Now, look at the rules for the Foreign Language Award:
http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule14.html
Note section V.
So, why the foreign nominees? Where did it all begin? Well, I found this article which talks a little bit about it:
http://www.equinoxnews.com/news/2001/03/29/Features/Foreign.Films.In.The.Oscars-61735.shtml (requires free registration)
So, basically what happened was post-World War II the AMPAS decided to open it awards to a more global scale in order to encourage people to see more foreign films.
I think it's a noble thing to do. But I have a feeling some of you might be thinking, "That's full of crap! USA all the way!" But keep in mind this: Some of the greatest American directors were influenced by all these great foreign films. Scorsese, for example, was heavily influenced by Godard, and it shows in Taxi Driver. Likewise for Woody Allen, who is a Bergman nut.
Not only that, some of the greatest American Films were directored by foreign directors. Midnight Cowboy was directed by John Schlesinger, who was British. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest was directed by Milos Forman, who was from the Czech Republic. That Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Guess what? The director was from new Zealand!!!
So, let's get this straight: If you segregate the Oscars for just American films and American actors, you're suddenly left with this haphazard mix of certain people and films allowed in certain categories. With such segregation, Peter Jackson wouldn't have won last year. And the year before that, Roman Polanski wouldn't have won (and for a film that is one of my favourite World War II films). That's why this whole "The Oscars should be for just Americans" line of thinking is ridiculous. I mean, if you're going to go that far, you might as well segregate all of the US critics awards to their particular state/city. e.g the Chicago Film Critics Awards can only awarded to people and films from Chicago, the New York Critics Awards can only be awarded to people and films from New York, the Las Vegas Film Awards... etc... etc... etc...