vox--2020-02-03--Trump’s closing impeachment argument involved misrepresenting a tweet from the whistleblower’s lawye

Trump’s closing impeachment argument involved misrepresenting a tweet from the whistleblower’s lawyer

Jay Sekulow ’ s closing argument against convicting President Donald Trump on Monday centered on how Democrats purportedly had it out for Trump since the beginning .
But as has been the case with much of Trump ’ s impeachment trial defense , a key part of Sekulow ’ s argument involved misleading people .
Sekulow tried to make a big deal out of a January 30 , 2017 tweet posted by Mark Zaid , an attorney representing the whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about Trump ’ s Ukraine dealings , in which he wrote that a “ # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ # impeachment will follow ultimately.
” The point Sekulow was trying to make is that Trump ’ s opponents were planning to topple him ever since he took office , and that the Ukraine scandal was just a pretext for trying to make it happen .
“ And here we are , ” Sekulow said , after reading Zaid ’ s tweet .
“ What this body , what this nation , what this president have just endured , what the House managers have forced upon this great body , is unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Democrats did want to impeach Trump before reports broke that he had attempted to coerce Ukraine into opening an investigation into his domestic political opponent .
But with regard to Zaid ’ s tweet specifically , what Sekulow didn ’ t tell people is that it was actually in response to another tweet from CNN ’ s Jake Tapper about Trump firing then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates .
Trump , you might recall , fired Yates after she announced she wouldn ’ t defend court legal challenges to Trump ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from traveling to the United States , citing concerns about the order ’ s legality .
Read in that context , Zaid ’ s tweet is clearly meant as commentary on Trump ’ s early moves to purge government of any and all officials who wouldn ’ t carry out his policy directives , not as an announcement of Zaid ’ s intentions .
And , as CNN ’ s Daniel Dale notes , any lingering doubts should ’ ve been cleared up by another tweet Zaid posted days later about “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetrated to take over the country.
” Zaid ’ s law partner , Bradley Moss , responded to Sekulow ’ s comments with a Twitter thread in which he wrote that Zaid ’ s 2017 tweet “ has nothing to do with the representation two years later of the [ whistleblower ] .
” “ The tweet , which was edited by the President ’ s lawyers and taken completely out of context , was actually about how the rule of law , supported by lawyers , judges , whistleblowers and advocates would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s legally questionable and borderline bigoted travel ban.
” Moss wrote , who went on to describe ’ s Sekulow ’ s interpretation as “ patently ridiculous.
” Sekulow ’ s closing argument wasn ’ t the first time during the impeachment process that Republicans have sought to capitalize on Zaid ’ s tweet in a bad faith manner — they did the same thing during the House hearings in November .
At that time , Zaid told Law & Crime that Republicans were trying to make a fuss over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing partisan deflection to desperately avoid discussing the substance of my client ’ s whistleblower complaint.
” Indeed , even though the White House itself corroborated the whistleblower complaint and what it says about Trump ’ s efforts to strongarm Kyiv into doing political favors for him , Trump continues to insist that the whistleblower is part of a nefarious conspiracy to take him down .
Sekulow leaned into this theory of the case during his closing argument .
In addition to twisting Zaid ’ s tweet , he played a video montage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s possible impeachment over the years — the implication being that it ’ s their general animus toward Trump , and not the wrongness of his Ukraine dealings , that culminated in his impeachment .
The montage was even accompanied by scary-sounding music : But there ’ s another way of looking at this .
The context surrounding Zaid ’ s tweet serves as a reminder that Trump was doing legally dubious stuff since the very first days of his administration .
Can Democrats really be blamed for talking about possibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him taking unilateral action to fulfill a racist campaign promise that caused chaos at airports and tore families apart ?
Trump ’ s legal team ’ s argument is that they can .
Then again , other arguments they presented during the trial would let presidents get away with almost anything short of the most egregious and clear-cut of crimes .
And yet with closing arguments now in the books following a trial that didn ’ t include witness testimony , it appears the arguments presented by Sekulow and company were sufficient to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republican majority .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

Jay Sekulow’s closing argument against convicting President Donald Trump on Monday centered on how Democrats purportedly had it out for Trump since the beginning. But as has been the case with much of Trump’s impeachment trial defense, a key part of Sekulow’s argument involved misleading people.
Sekulow tried to make a big deal out of a January 30, 2017 tweet posted by Mark Zaid, an attorney representing the whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about Trump’s Ukraine dealings, in which he wrote that a “#coup has started” and added, “#impeachment will follow ultimately.” The point Sekulow was trying to make is that Trump’s opponents were planning to topple him ever since he took office, and that the Ukraine scandal was just a pretext for trying to make it happen.
“And here we are,” Sekulow said, after reading Zaid’s tweet. “What this body, what this nation, what this president have just endured, what the House managers have forced upon this great body, is unprecedented and unacceptable.”
Here's Jay Sekulow omitting context & misleadingly suggesting @MarkSZaidEsq's "coup" tweet was meant to signal his intention to overthrow Trump, when in fact Zaid was responding to another tweet about Sally Yates being fired for refusing to enforce Trump's travel ban pic.twitter.com/rPvjc9rrUB — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 3, 2020
To be fair, some Democrats did want to impeach Trump before reports broke that he had attempted to coerce Ukraine into opening an investigation into his domestic political opponent.
But with regard to Zaid’s tweet specifically, what Sekulow didn’t tell people is that it was actually in response to another tweet from CNN’s Jake Tapper about Trump firing then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Trump, you might recall, fired Yates after she announced she wouldn’t defend court legal challenges to Trump’s executive order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the United States, citing concerns about the order’s legality.
Read in that context, Zaid’s tweet is clearly meant as commentary on Trump’s early moves to purge government of any and all officials who wouldn’t carry out his policy directives, not as an announcement of Zaid’s intentions. And, as CNN’s Daniel Dale notes, any lingering doubts should’ve been cleared up by another tweet Zaid posted days later about “the coup [the Trump administration] just perpetrated to take over the country.”
Zaid then used the word "coup" again three days later -- this time very clearly accusing Trump and company of having perpetrated a coup, not saying he, Zaid, would be perpetrating a coup. pic.twitter.com/otUcOzNxqM — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) February 3, 2020
Zaid’s law partner, Bradley Moss, responded to Sekulow’s comments with a Twitter thread in which he wrote that Zaid’s 2017 tweet “has nothing to do with the representation two years later of the [whistleblower].”
“The tweet, which was edited by the President’s lawyers and taken completely out of context, was actually about how the rule of law, supported by lawyers, judges, whistleblowers and advocates would ultimately rule the day, rather than the president’s legally questionable and borderline bigoted travel ban.” Moss wrote, who went on to describe’s Sekulow’s interpretation as “patently ridiculous.”
To imply some larger scheme is patently ridiculous and defies even a semblance of rationality or logic. /end — Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) February 3, 2020
Sekulow’s closing argument wasn’t the first time during the impeachment process that Republicans have sought to capitalize on Zaid’s tweet in a bad faith manner — they did the same thing during the House hearings in November.
They airbrushed out the embedded Jake Tapper tweet about Sally Yates’ firing that Zaid was commenting on. Just members of Congress presenting a private citizen in a false light to pillory him at some of the most closely watched hearings in recent history. https://t.co/9IgphZQ2eH — southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 13, 2019
At that time, Zaid told Law&Crime that Republicans were trying to make a fuss over his tweet as part of “the continuing partisan deflection to desperately avoid discussing the substance of my client’s whistleblower complaint.”
Indeed, even though the White House itself corroborated the whistleblower complaint and what it says about Trump’s efforts to strongarm Kyiv into doing political favors for him, Trump continues to insist that the whistleblower is part of a nefarious conspiracy to take him down.
Where’s the Whistleblower? Where’s the second Whistleblower? Where’s the Informer? Why did Corrupt politician Schiff MAKE UP my conversation with the Ukrainian President??? Why didn’t the House do its job? And sooo much more! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2020
Sekulow leaned into this theory of the case during his closing argument. In addition to twisting Zaid’s tweet, he played a video montage of a number of Democrats talking about Trump’s possible impeachment over the years — the implication being that it’s their general animus toward Trump, and not the wrongness of his Ukraine dealings, that culminated in his impeachment.
The montage was even accompanied by scary-sounding music:
Nice touch by Trump's lawyers to add scary-sounding music to this video montage pic.twitter.com/qPzdRf2ODo — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 3, 2020
But there’s another way of looking at this. The context surrounding Zaid’s tweet serves as a reminder that Trump was doing legally dubious stuff since the very first days of his administration. Can Democrats really be blamed for talking about possibly impeaching the president in the wake of him taking unilateral action to fulfill a racist campaign promise that caused chaos at airports and tore families apart?
Trump’s legal team’s argument is that they can. Then again, other arguments they presented during the trial would let presidents get away with almost anything short of the most egregious and clear-cut of crimes. And yet with closing arguments now in the books following a trial that didn’t include witness testimony, it appears the arguments presented by Sekulow and company were sufficient to carry the day with the Senate’s Republican majority.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-03--Biden, Sanders, and Warren vow to reverse Trump’s new landmine policy

Last week , President Donald Trump loosened restrictions on the use of landmines by the US military in conflict areas , reversing an Obama-era policy .
Top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates , though , are vowing to reverse the reversal .
In two statements to Vox and a tweet , former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) all say they will scrap Trump ’ s policy and revert to the Obama administration one , which prohibited the procurement of landmines and their use outside of the Korean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue their deployment in the Koreas to thwart a potential invasion from Pyongyang .
The first statement came from Warren , who on Saturday responded to my story on Twitter announcing her position on the landmine issue .
Two days later , Sanders ’ s campaign sent me a statement on his landmine stance .
“ Trump ’ s landmine policy reversal is barbaric , weakens America ’ s moral leadership , and is quite simply a giveaway to the military industrial complex , ” the statement reads .
It continues : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden weighed in as well .
“ The Trump administration ’ s reversal of years of considered decisions by Democratic and Republican presidents to curtail the use of landmines is another reckless act by a president ill-suited to serve as commander-in-chief , ” he said in an email from his campaign .
“ It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines , and is unnecessary from a military perspective .
As president , I will promptly roll back this deeply misguided decision.
” Former South Bend , Indiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg haven ’ t responded to my requests for comment .
A spokesperson for billionaire Tom Steyer promised to respond in the future but said the campaign couldn ’ t on Monday due to the hectic nature of the Iowa caucuses .
But it seems pretty clear that if a Democrat defeats Trump in November , his landmine policy is as good as dead .
Without needing Congress , the next president can go back to the Obama administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still a question , though , whether a Democratic administration would go further than any president before and actually ban the use of landmines entirely .
The US hasn ’ t signed on to a landmark mine treaty yet .
Will a Democrat sign on ?
Landmines are a particularly gruesome weapon .
If a person triggers a landmine by stepping on it and survives , the severe injuries typically require the amputation of limbs or multiple operations .
The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that “ war surgeons consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to treat.
” The Landmine Monitor , a watchdog group , says that there have been roughly 130,000 casualties due to landmines between 1999 and 2018 , the majority of which have been civilians .
That ’ s partly why more than 160 countries have signed on to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty , which prohibits the use , stockpiling , production , and transfer of anti-personnel landmines .
The US , however , has never signed it .
So far , no Democrat has committed to trying to get the US to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do with the need to get Congress to ratify it , which would be a tough order in today ’ s Washington .
“ I don ’ t think that anyone is under any illusions that Democrats could get 67 votes in today ’ s Senate , ” Rob Berschinski , who worked in the human rights office of Obama ’ s National Security Council , told me .
However , “ the president could always declare that US government policy is to comply with Ottawa , even without ratification , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name for the treaty based on where it was signed .
In other words , the next president could basically have the US follow the treaty ’ s directions completely with a flick of the pen .
But that hasn ’ t stopped advocates , like Human Rights Watch ’ s Mary Wareham , from requesting the US still accede to the treaty .
“ Future US leaders should reverse this retrograde US policy on landmines and take steps to ensure that the United States finally accedes to the Mine Ban Treaty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the US to ban landmines will never go away until it actually does so.
” It ’ s possible , though , that no Democratic candidate wants to commit to an almost certain legislative failure in a future administration ( though they don ’ t seem to mind when promising the moon on health care ) .
But failing to commit to accede to the treaty still sends a signal that the US may never promise to stop using landmines in war .

Last week, President Donald Trump loosened restrictions on the use of landmines by the US military in conflict areas, reversing an Obama-era policy. Top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, though, are vowing to reverse the reversal.
In four statements to Vox and a tweet, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), billionaire Tom Steyer, ,Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg all say they will scrap Trump’s policy and revert to the Obama administration one, which prohibited the procurement of landmines and their use outside of the Korean Peninsula. Obama’s team chose to continue their deployment in the Koreas to thwart a potential invasion from Pyongyang.
The first statement came from Warren, who on Saturday responded to my story on Twitter announcing her position on the landmine issue.
Innocent civilians are the main casualties of landmines. This is an abhorrent decision that won’t make America any safer, and could cause untold damage. As president, I will reverse this decision and work with our allies to eliminate landmines. https://t.co/eeGtthsNfE — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 1, 2020
Two days later, Sanders’s campaign sent me a statement on his landmine stance.
“Trump’s landmine policy reversal is barbaric, weakens America’s moral leadership, and is quite simply a giveaway to the military industrial complex,” the statement reads. It continues:
Our own armed forces believe these weapons are useless on the modern battlefield, and know that the main victims of landmines are innocent civilians. A Sanders administration will reinstate the ban on their production and use outside of the Korean peninsula, and also work to achieve a North-South Korean peace agreement that would ultimately result in their being withdrawn from the Korean peninsula as well.
Roughly four hours later, Biden weighed in as well. “The Trump administration’s reversal of years of considered decisions by Democratic and Republican presidents to curtail the use of landmines is another reckless act by a president ill-suited to serve as commander-in-chief,” he said in an email from his campaign. “It will put more civilians at risk of being injured by unexploded mines, and is unnecessary from a military perspective. As president, I will promptly roll back this deeply misguided decision.”
On Tuesday afternoon, Steyer’s senior press secretary Benjamin Gerdes sent me a statement.
“Trump’s cruel and reckless decision to reverse the landmine policy is further proof that he’s unfit to serve as commander-in-chief,” Gerdes said. “Every day, someone around the world loses a limb or a life by stepping on one of over 100 million landmines. As president, Tom will immediately reinstate the Obama administration’s policy of banning landmine production and will work toward lasting peace in the Korean Peninsula.”
Then on Wednesday, Klobuchar’s campaign clarified her stance. “Senator Klobuchar believes anti-personnel landmines pose an unnecessary danger to civilians and do not advance US strategic interests,” a campaign spokesperson said. “As president, she will immediately reinstate the Obama administration’s policy on the use of landmines and continue to support humanitarian efforts around the world to clear landmines and help those who have been injured by them.”
And on Thursday night, Bloomberg’s campaign gave me a simple response: “we would reverse back to Obama-era policy.”
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and entrepreneur Andrew Yang haven’t yet responded to my requests for comment.
But it seems pretty clear that if a Democrat defeats Trump in November, his landmine policy is as good as dead. Without needing Congress, the next president can go back to the Obama administration’s stance on the issue.
There’s still a question, though, whether a Democratic administration would go further than any president before and actually ban the use of landmines entirely.
The US hasn’t signed on to a landmark mine treaty yet. Will a Democrat sign on?
Landmines are a particularly gruesome weapon. If a person triggers a landmine by stepping on it and survives, the severe injuries typically require the amputation of limbs or multiple operations. The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that “war surgeons consider them among the worst injuries they have to treat.”
The Landmine Monitor, a watchdog group, says that there have been roughly 130,000 casualties due to landmines between 1999 and 2018, the majority of which have been civilians.
That’s partly why more than 160 countries have signed on to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. The US, however, has never signed it.
So far, no Democrat has committed to trying to get the US to accede to the treaty. That may have to do with the need to get Congress to ratify it, which would be a tough order in today’s Washington.
“I don’t think that anyone is under any illusions that Democrats could get 67 votes in today’s Senate,” Rob Berschinski, who worked in the human rights office of Obama’s National Security Council, told me. However, “the president could always declare that US government policy is to comply with Ottawa, even without ratification,” he continued, using the informal name for the treaty based on where it was signed.
In other words, the next president could basically have the US follow the treaty’s directions completely with a flick of the pen. But that hasn’t stopped advocates, like Human Rights Watch’s Mary Wareham, from requesting the US still accede to the treaty.
“Future US leaders should reverse this retrograde US policy on landmines and take steps to ensure that the United States finally accedes to the Mine Ban Treaty,” she told me. “Demands for the US to ban landmines will never go away until it actually does so.”
It’s possible, though, that no Democratic candidate wants to commit to an almost certain legislative failure in a future administration (though they don’t seem to mind when promising the moon on health care). But failing to commit to accede to the treaty still sends a signal that the US may never promise to stop using landmines in war.


vox--2020-02-03--What to expect from the final week of the impeachment trial

Now that the Senate has blocked the consideration of witnesses , President Donald Trump ’ s acquittal is all but guaranteed .
He ’ ll still need to wait a few days , though .
A Senate vote on the two articles of impeachment won ’ t take place until 4 pm Wednesday afternoon , after Trump has already given the State of the Union address on Tuesday .
That ’ s according to a resolution the Senate passed Friday night , which lays out the schedule for the next few days : • Monday : Trump ’ s defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final closing arguments to the Senate .
• Monday and Tuesday : Senators will have ten minutes each to explain their stance on the articles of impeachment .
• Wednesday , 4pm : The Senate will vote on the two articles of impeachment , which charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
This timeline is the byproduct of pressure from both Democrats , and some Republicans .
Although a fraction of the Senate Republican conference had eyed a speedy vote on acquittal or conviction Friday evening , other members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators to lay out their rationale for voting one way or the other .
Between now and Wednesday afternoon , senators will finally have an opportunity to break their silence on the trial .
In lieu of a closed deliberation process like the one that took place during former President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment , each senator will have 10 minutes to offer their arguments for conviction or acquittal as part of speeches on the Senate floor .
Much like the witness vote , these statements are widely expected to fall along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting to see if more Republicans follow Sen. Lamar Alexander ’ s lead in acknowledging Trump ’ s wrongdoing when it comes to his handling of aid to Ukraine .
In a statement he shared on Twitter , Alexander concluded that Trump did , in fact , condition the military aid on the announcement of political investigations into the Bidens .
Still , he noted , this act fell short of an impeachable offense .
Other Republicans , broadly , have shied away from even acknowledging that Trump has done anything improper .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sens .
Mitt Romney and Susan Collins , the only two Republicans to defect from the Republican conference and vote in favor of witnesses .
Democratic Sens .
Kyrsten Sinema , Joe Manchin and Doug Jones , three closely-watched Democratic moderates , could also offer some insight into how they plan to vote on the articles , as part of their speeches .
The trio of lawmakers are seen as the likeliest Democrats who could possibly vote to acquit , in part because of constituent pressure .
Jones , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a special election after the longtime Alabama senator was named Attorney General , and is viewed as one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the 2020 cycle .
Trump ’ s acquittal has been widely expected since the start of this trial , since it would take 67 senators ( and therefore 20 Republicans to defect ) , in order to convict him .
And because Republicans have broadly stayed united , and refrained from breaking with the president on the subject of including more evidence , his trial has also become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t include witnesses .
Senate Republicans will have a few more days to attempt to explain their reasoning .

Now that the Senate has blocked the consideration of witnesses, President Donald Trump’s acquittal is all but guaranteed. He’ll still need to wait a few days, though.
A Senate vote on the two articles of impeachment won’t take place until 4 pm Wednesday afternoon, after Trump has already given the State of the Union address on Tuesday. That’s according to a resolution the Senate passed Friday night, which lays out the schedule for the next few days:
Monday: Trump’s defense counsel and House impeachment managers make their final closing arguments to the Senate.
Trump’s defense counsel and House impeachment managers make their final closing arguments to the Senate. Monday and Tuesday: Senators will have 10 minutes each to explain their stance on the articles of impeachment.
Senators will have 10 minutes each to explain their stance on the articles of impeachment. Wednesday, 4 pm: The Senate will vote on the two articles of impeachment, which charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
This timeline is the byproduct of pressure from both Democrats, and some Republicans. Although a fraction of the Senate Republican conference had eyed a speedy vote on acquittal or conviction Friday evening, other members had urged lawmakers to provide time for senators to lay out their rationale for voting one way or the other.
Between now and Wednesday afternoon, senators will finally have an opportunity to break their silence on the trial. In lieu of a closed deliberation process like the one that took place during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, each senator will have 10 minutes to offer their arguments for conviction or acquittal as part of speeches on the Senate floor.
Much like the witness vote, these statements are widely expected to fall along party lines, though it will be interesting to see if more Republicans follow Sen. Lamar Alexander’s lead in acknowledging Trump’s wrongdoing in handling of aid to Ukraine.
In a statement he shared on Twitter, Alexander concluded that Trump did, in fact, condition the military aid on the announcement of political investigations into the Bidens. Still, he noted, this act fell short of an impeachable offense. Other Republicans, broadly, have shied away from even acknowledging that Trump has done anything improper.
Remarks to look out for include those of Sens. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, the only two Republicans to defect from the Republican conference and vote in favor of witnesses. Democratic Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, and Doug Jones, three closely watched Democratic moderates, could also offer some insight into how they plan to vote on the articles, as part of their speeches.
The trio of lawmakers are seen as the likeliest Democrats who could possibly vote to acquit, in part because of constituent pressure. Jones, for example, won Jeff Sessions’s seat in a special election after the longtime Alabama senator was named attorney general, and is viewed as one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the 2020 cycle.
Trump’s acquittal has been widely expected since the start of this impeachment trial, since it would take 67 senators (and therefore 20 Republicans to defect) to convict him. And because Republicans have broadly stayed united, and refrained from breaking with the president on the subject of including more evidence, his trial has also become the first in US history that won’t include witnesses.
Senate Republicans will have a few more days to attempt to explain their reasoning.


vox--2020-02-03--Iowa Democratic caucuses 2020: Live results

The Iowa caucuses kick off the 2020 presidential nomination contest in earnest Monday evening , with gatherings around the state beginning at 7 pm Central time and results coming in after that .
It ’ s the first electoral test for Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , and the rest of the 2020 Democratic field , many of whom have spent months campaigning feverishly in Iowa and are essentially betting their campaigns on the results of the caucuses .
The state of play in the Democratic contest nationally is as follows .
Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all along ) .
Sanders recently seems to be his strongest challenger .
And everyone else is desperately hoping for a strong performance in an early state to get back in contention .
( Except for Mike Bloomberg , who is skipping the early states and pursuing a different strategy . )
Yet the power of the caucuses is that they can change that state of play .
Based on Iowa ’ s results , candidates believed to be in the top tier can either solidify that status or stumble , and underdogs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Iowa has this effect because it greatly influences the perceptions of the political world — the media , activists , party insiders , donors , the candidates themselves , and voters — about who can win .
But determining who actually wins Iowa this year could be a bit tricky .
That ’ s because , for the first time , the Iowa Democratic Party will report three sets of results — an estimate of how many state delegates each candidate would get , the initial total of actual votes for each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( taken after each caucus gathering eliminates lower-performing candidates ) .
We ’ ll display the final vote total here as it comes in : But in a close contest , different candidates could win in those different categories .
And Iowa sure looks close , according to polls .
The FiveThirtyEight average shows Sanders and Biden nearly tied for the lead , Buttigieg and Warren just a few points behind them , and then Amy Klobuchar a few points further back .
So it may well be a long and confusing night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — all three of them — as they come in on this page .
The three different results of the Iowa caucuses , explained Rather than an ordinary election where votes are cast and counted statewide , the Iowa caucuses are many different contests that unfold locally — at 1,678 precinct caucus sites and more than 90 “ satellite caucus sites ” ( alternatives for Iowans who can ’ t make it to their precinct gatherings ) .
At each caucus site , attendees divide into groups according to which candidate they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus result that will come in : Added up statewide , it ’ s the pre-realignment vote total , or Round 1 .
Then , at each gathering , supporters of candidates who are viable — above a certain threshold of support ( 15 percent , for most precincts ) — are locked in .
But supporters of nonviable candidates then get to switch their votes ( to somebody else , or no one , if they prefer ) .
This is realignment .
After this , we get the final vote total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top and also here ) .
However , the traditional metric for success in the Iowa Democratic caucuses is a different one : state delegate equivalents .
Basically , the final vote total at each caucus site determines how many county convention delegates each candidate gets — and then that result is weighted to estimate how many state convention delegates each candidate would get .
( If you ’ re interested in understanding the math in further detail , I have a longer explainer at this link . )
For previous Iowa Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only metric for determining who won .
In fact , neither vote total was even recorded or reported in any way .
But various controversies in the close 2016 contest spotlighted the fact that there was no paper trail at the caucuses .
So for 2020 , Iowa Democrats changed the process , so they will in fact record and report votes .
That change , though , raises the question of how to truly determine who “ wins ” Iowa .
For instance , what if one candidate gets the most statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triumphs in the more complex and difficult-to-explain state delegate equivalents metric ?
Some say delegates matter most , because the nomination contest is about winning delegates at the end .
But Iowa has a paltry number of national delegates at stake — just 1 percent of the total — which will likely be split pretty evenly among candidates , because they ’ re allotted proportionally .
And Iowa ’ s influence has never actually been about delegates ; it ’ s instead about setting the narrative for the media and the larger political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading into Iowa Since Iowa is mainly important because people believe it ’ s important , its results often require some decoding .
Candidates are often measured against expectations — for instance , a surprising second place can get a candidate a lot of attention , as can a disappointing one from a candidate previously believed to be formidable .
And different expectations are at play for all the candidates .
Joe Biden : Biden has led in national polls and been the frontrunner all through this race , but now he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it could be a tough one for the former vice president .
He ’ s never dominated in polling of Iowa .
The format of the caucuses can advantage candidates with many hardcore supporters and a strong ground organization , and it ’ s unclear whether Biden has either of those .
Still , from the Iowa polls , Biden certainly appears to be in contention to win .
And depending on how realignment plays out , Biden could be advantaged ( if , say , Klobuchar often doesn ’ t meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick Biden as their second choice ) .
If Biden does pull off a victory , it would quiet at least some of Democrats ’ doubts about his campaign .
He would , however , then face another tough test ahead in New Hampshire , where he is currently trailing Sanders .
And if Biden disappoints in Iowa , it wouldn ’ t necessarily knock him out of the race — it really depends whether the results shake his strong support in South Carolina and nationally .
Bernie Sanders : Sanders is clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the pack to rise to a clear second place in national polls , and to the top in Iowa ( though polls differ about whether he or Biden is in first ) .
A win in Iowa would set up Sanders for a powerful one-two punch when combined with New Hampshire ( a state neighboring Vermont where he leads polls significantly , and where he won 60 percent of the vote in the 2016 primary ) — and if he gets a bounce in national polls as well , he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar reasons , a mild disappointment in Iowa wouldn ’ t be the end for Sanders , since he has New Hampshire coming right up .
But a serious underperformance would raise questions about what went wrong and risk the elevation of one of the other candidates as Biden ’ s main challenger .
Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar : The Iowa results matter a great deal for all of these candidates , because they ’ re all polling behind Biden and Sanders nationally .
They need to shake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the race still looks quite close , seems to be the best chance all three of them have to do so .
All are intensely competing in Iowa and hoping to emerge as an alternative to Sanders or Biden .
Even if one of these candidates gets a strong second place , it could be a major boost to their campaign .
But if they all finish behind Sanders and Biden , that will make it increasingly likely that the race is viewed as one between those two .
The rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one of the contests where a surprising underdog candidate has the best chance of breaking through .
Andrew Yang is competing in Iowa , and though he hasn ’ t been polling well , his supporters are very committed and could conceivably help him perform well in certain precincts .
Tom Steyer is also contesting the caucuses — but his polling is strongest in Nevada and South Carolina ( because he ’ s funded a ton of ads there ) , so a poor Iowa showing wouldn ’ t necessarily eliminate him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , several of the lower-polling candidates in the race are essentially skipping the caucuses .
Michael Bennet , Tulsi Gabbard , and Deval Patrick are focusing on New Hampshire instead , while Mike Bloomberg is skipping all four of the early states in favor of running a hugely expensive advertising campaign focused on the March 3 Super Tuesday states .
So don ’ t expect any of them to drop out due to a disappointing finish in the caucuses .

At long last, the Iowa Democratic Party is reporting its 2020 caucus results.
By late Wednesday evening — and after an initial delay of nearly a day after the caucuses took place — the state party had posted nearly all of the results.
The delay in the count has been highly unusual and was driven by a combination of technical difficulties and human error. A poorly performing app for reporting results, a poorly staffed backup phone line for reporting results, and complicated new rules all seem to have played a role in the delay.
So far, the Iowa Democratic Party has not given a timetable for when it will release the results from the remaining precincts.
There are three separate metrics to watch in these results.
The traditional way Iowa Democrats have determined who wins the Iowa caucuses is by state delegate equivalents. This is essentially taking the final results of the 1,600-plus precinct caucuses — which conclude in allotting county convention delegates to candidates — and weighting them to estimate how many state delegates that would correspond to. We’re displaying that number here as it comes in, and if you’re interested in understanding the math behind this in further detail, I have a longer explainer at this link.
So in this current count of state delegate equivalents, Pete Buttigieg has a narrow lead, with Bernie Sanders close behind. Elizabeth Warren is a bit further back for third place, followed by Joe Biden in fourth and Amy Klobuchar in fifth. (Remember, there are still a number of precincts remaining to be counted and these results could certainly change.)
Now also, this year for the first time, Iowa Democrats are releasing actual vote totals from the caucuses. First, they will release the initial vote totals each candidate got at each precinct — added up for a statewide total. This is the pre-realignment vote total, or Round 1.
So it turns out that Sanders is in first place with a plurality of first-round votes. Buttigieg and Warren are in second and third, with Biden and Klobuchar in fourth and fifth. (And once again, these are not final vote totals and there are many remaining votes to be counted.)
After that, at each caucus gathering, supporters of candidates who are viable — above a particular threshold (15 percent in most precincts) — are locked in. However, supporters of nonviable candidates then have the opportunity to realign and change their votes. After this, we get the final vote total, displayed below.
As you can see, things changed a bit from the first tally. Sanders is still in first place, but Buttigieg has gotten a lot closer — he gained about 4 percentage points after the realignment, while Sanders gained a little more than 1 percentage point. Warren gained slightly more than 2 percentage points, but Biden and Klobuchar both lost support. (And, for the final time, these results are only partial and they will change as more precincts come in.)
So far, it’s too early to call a winner for any of these metrics. What we are seeing is really that the caucuses were quite close. So far, there are only a few thousand results separating the top three candidates. Still, the results so far are obviously most encouraging for Sanders and Buttigieg (the latter of whom already declared victory before any results were in), while they’re mediocre for Warren and certainly disappointing for Biden. But all of this is, of course, subject to change as more results come in.


vox--2020-02-03--The Iowa Republican caucuses you didn’t know were happening, explained

Share All sharing options for : The Iowa Republican caucuses you didn ’ t know were happening , explained There are GOP primary caucuses taking place on Monday in Iowa , too .
Even after a host of other primary states canceled their Republican primaries to help President Trump with his reelection campaign ( as some states did in 2004 for George W. Bush ) , the Iowa Republican Party announced in September that it would go ahead with caucuses .
Republicans will vote at 7 pm Iowa time at caucus locations .
Trump will face former Massachusetts Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walsh .
Current polling has Trump leading Weld by 86 points nationally ( though by a mere 76 points in New Hampshire ) , and Weld and Walsh have just over $ 2 million in fundraising combined , while Trump raised $ 46 million in the last quarter .
But while Trump ’ s Republican opposition is fairly minimal and the president remains deeply popular with Iowa Republicans , the White House is taking the caucuses seriously .
The campaign is sending 80 surrogates — including Donald Trump Jr. and White House acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , part of a show of strength meant to indicate how ready the Trump campaign is for 2020 .
Sarah Matthews , deputy press secretary for the Trump campaign , told me , “ The Iowa caucuses are a good workout for our ground game and an opportunity to flex the organizational muscles of President Trump ’ s operation.
” We ’ ll be covering the results live , in partnership with Decision Desk : Suffice it to say , neither Walsh nor Weld has much chance against Trump .
Walsh has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot in his home state of Illinois , citing a lack of resources and the need to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire .
I ’ ve contacted Weld and Walsh for comment and will update if and when I hear back .
“ Part of it is that we have to convince a lot of the Republican donors that there is a viable option and they ’ re going to want to see results before they put money into our organization , ” a spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , his numbers are far outmatched by Trump ’ s .
But victory isn ’ t necessarily the point of either man ’ s long-shot bid for the White House .
Rather , their campaigns are intended as signals to Trump-skeptical Republicans that they ’ re not alone in their opposition to the president .
For Weld , his focus is on restoring “ normalcy ” to the Republican Party as a “ real Republican.
” When I spoke with the former governor back in August and asked him about Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he told me , “ I ’ m not willing to concede your premise .
I will concede that I ’ m a normal Republican , and the implication of that is that Mr. Trump is a Republican in name only.
” He believes Republican voters are looking for fiscal conservatism and a small-government ethos from a presidential candidate willing to “ stand up for the taxpayer.
” Weld has a lengthy political history , as I detailed last year : He served as the Republican governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate Republican in a blue state , though with some controversy among conservatives who decried the expansion of government that took place under his watch .
He helped George W. Bush prepare to debate John Kerry in 2004 , but endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 after Mitt Romney , himself a former Massachusetts governor , dropped out of the race ( Weld was a co-chair of Romney ’ s campaign efforts in New York ) .
In 2016 , Weld ran for the vice presidency as Gary Johnson ’ s running mate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Walsh , on the other hand , is running as a chastened former Trump ally who said that while “ I helped create Trump , there ’ s no doubt about that , ” Trump “ represents the absolute worst of us.
” But that message hasn ’ t found traction , perhaps in part because of Walsh ’ s conspiratorial past .
In an interview with ABC News ’ s George Stephanopoulos last August , Walsh said of his past remarks , “ The beauty of what President Trump has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on some of the things I ’ ve said in the past .
I had strong policy disagreements with Barack Obama , and too often I ’ ve let those policy disagreements get personal .
”

Share All sharing options for: The Iowa Republican caucuses you didn’t know were happening, explained
Update: President Donald Trump has won the 2020 Iowa Republican caucuses.
There are GOP primary caucuses taking place on Monday in Iowa, too.
Even after a host of other primary states canceled their Republican primaries to help President Trump with his reelection campaign (as some states did in 2004 for George W. Bush), the Iowa Republican Party announced in September that it would go ahead with caucuses. Republicans will vote at 7 pm Iowa time at caucus locations.
Trump will face former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Republican Rep. Joe Walsh. Current polling has Trump leading Weld by 86 points nationally (though by a mere 76 points in New Hampshire), and Weld and Walsh have just over $2 million in fundraising combined, while Trump raised $46 million in the last quarter.
But while Trump’s Republican opposition is fairly minimal and the president remains deeply popular with Iowa Republicans, the White House is taking the caucuses seriously. The campaign is sending 80 surrogates — including Donald Trump Jr. and White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney — to Iowa, part of a show of strength meant to indicate how ready the Trump campaign is for 2020.
Sarah Matthews, deputy press secretary for the Trump campaign, told me, “The Iowa caucuses are a good workout for our ground game and an opportunity to flex the organizational muscles of President Trump’s operation.”
We’ll be covering the results live, in partnership with Decision Desk:
Meet Trump’s GOP opposition
Suffice it to say, neither Walsh nor Weld has much chance against Trump. Walsh has already announced that he will not be on the ballot in his home state of Illinois, citing a lack of resources and the need to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire. I’ve contacted Weld and Walsh for comment and will update if and when I hear back.
“Part of it is that we have to convince a lot of the Republican donors that there is a viable option and they’re going to want to see results before they put money into our organization,” a spokesperson told the Chicago Sun-Times. And while Weld has polled well in New Hampshire, his numbers are far outmatched by Trump’s.
But victory isn’t necessarily the point of either man’s long-shot bid for the White House. Rather, their campaigns are intended as signals to Trump-skeptical Republicans that they’re not alone in their opposition to the president.
For Weld, his focus is on restoring “normalcy” to the Republican Party as a “real Republican.” When I spoke with the former governor back in August and asked him about Trump’s considerable popularity with the GOP, he told me, “I’m not willing to concede your premise. I will concede that I’m a normal Republican, and the implication of that is that Mr. Trump is a Republican in name only.”
He believes Republican voters are looking for fiscal conservatism and a small-government ethos from a presidential candidate willing to “stand up for the taxpayer.”
Weld has a lengthy political history, as I detailed last year:
He served as the Republican governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997 — a popular tenure for a moderate Republican in a blue state, though with some controversy among conservatives who decried the expansion of government that took place under his watch. He helped George W. Bush prepare to debate John Kerry in 2004, but endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 after Mitt Romney, himself a former Massachusetts governor, dropped out of the race (Weld was a co-chair of Romney’s campaign efforts in New York). In 2016, Weld ran for the vice presidency as Gary Johnson’s running mate on the Libertarian Party ticket.
Former Illinois Rep. Walsh, on the other hand, is running as a chastened former Trump ally who said that while “I helped create Trump, there’s no doubt about that,” Trump “represents the absolute worst of us.” But that message hasn’t found traction, perhaps in part because of Walsh’s conspiratorial past.
As I wrote last year:
... it wasn’t actually all that long ago that Walsh was saying things that now seem markedly Trumpian — and far worse. As others have noted, the period of Walsh’s political life during which he contemplated extraconstitutional violence if Hillary Clinton won the presidency corresponded with the time when Walsh engaged in rank racism and bigotry, particularly on Twitter. As recently as February 2018 — which was, for the record, just 18 months ago — Walsh was promoting conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s religious persuasion, saying repeatedly and without evidence that Obama was a Muslim.
In an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos last August, Walsh said of his past remarks, “The beauty of what President Trump has done is he’s made me reflect on some of the things I’ve said in the past. I had strong policy disagreements with Barack Obama, and too often I’ve let those policy disagreements get personal.”


vox--2020-02-04--The Oscars’ international film category is broken

The Oscars make few ripples in geopolitical waters .
Hollywood ’ s most prestigious awards can exert some pressure on American politics , by virtue of the topics the movies tackle , the conversations they provoke , or the speeches the winners make .
But in the grander scheme of global politics , the Oscars don ’ t matter much , with one exception : Best International Feature Film .
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ( the group of elite industry professionals who vote on the Oscars ) hasn ’ t quite figured out what to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than six decades of existence was renamed in April 2019 from “ Best Foreign Language Feature.
” The title change marked a step forward and signaled a willingness to reorient the way the Academy thinks about world cinema — not as being “ foreign ” or “ other , ” but part of the broader movie landscape .
But the eligibility rules remained the same , and they underline a major problem with how the category functions .
It still embodies an outmoded way of thinking about “ foreign ” films — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as well as decades-old presumptions about what might qualify a movie made abroad for recognition in Hollywood .
And worse , the rules also allow authoritarian regimes and politically troublesome governments to exert pressure on how Americans , who frequently use the Oscar nominations as a starting point for what to watch , will view those countries .
But with these challenges come opportunities .
With some changes , the Academy could both promote exciting voices in world cinema and exercise more control over which films get nominated , using the category @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best movies from around the world but also help Americans see them .
( An Oscar nomination can be the force that propels an international film toward securing US distribution — an important step for any filmmaker who wants to be able to make movies in the future . )
The Best International Feature Oscar category could become a force for expanding Americans ’ view of the world as well as their taste for truly great international cinema .
But for that to happen , two big changes are necessary : one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees , and one to the way the Academy defines what counts as an “ international ” film .
Each country picks its own Oscar entry .
That ’ s a problem .
The Best International Feature Film award serves as the Academy ’ s “ acknowledgment that beyond their immediate industry in Hollywood , what they do is global , ” Shawn Shimpach , an associate professor in the department of communication at UMass Amherst and director of the Massachusetts Multicultural Film Festival , told me by phone .
Shimpach noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still serves an important purpose : It acknowledges that movies made beyond US borders and outside the Hollywood system matter , and should be considered by the Academy and recognized for their achievements .
Non-English films were occasionally given special awards beginning with the 19th Oscars in 1947 , but an official category wasn ’ t created until 1956 , named “ Best Foreign Language Feature.
” That name stuck until the Academy decided to change it following the 2019 ceremony .
“ We have noted that the reference to ‘ Foreign ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” wrote Larry Karaszewski and Diane Weyermann , co-chairs of the Academy subcommittee that facilitates the category , in a statement explaining the new name .
“ We believe that International Feature Film better represents this category , and promotes a positive and inclusive view of filmmaking , and the art of film as a universal experience.
” ( Through an Academy representative , Karaszewski and Weyermann declined to comment for this story . )
Yet while the category ’ s name changed , its rules didn ’ t .
To qualify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , films must meet a number of standards .
A film doesn ’ t have to have been distributed in the US , but it must have played in a commercial theater for at least a week in its home country .
The dialogue must be predominantly non-English .
The “ creative control ” of the film must have been “ largely ” in the hands of citizens or residents of the nominating country .
And each country gets to select only one movie per year to be considered for nomination , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s designation .
Once countries have submitted their selections to the Academy , a “ Phase I ” committee of Academy members watch them and vote by secret ballot .
A shortlist of 10 films is then announced , consisting of the committee ’ s top seven movies plus three more added by the Academy ’ s International Feature Film Award Executive Committee .
( All 10 must have been submitted by their countries for consideration . )
Then a “ Phase II ” committee watches and votes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field to five nominees .
Finally , only Academy members who have seen all five nominated films vote on the winner .
It ’ s worth pausing on the “ country selection ” rule .
The Academy specifies that each country ’ s selection must be made by “ one approved organization , jury or committee that should include artists and/or craftspeople from the field of motion pictures , ” and that the country must submit a list of the selection committee members to the Academy months before the selections are made .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the control the Academy exerts over who decides which film a country submits .
And while countries like France make that information publicly available , there ’ s evidence that others , like China , try to keep it more under wraps .
While many critiques of the category have fixed on the language requirement as the biggest problem — and I ’ ll get into that more below — it ’ s this self-submission rule , which grants individual countries power to determine which of their films will be under consideration for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me .
Richard Brody , the longtime New Yorker film critic and columnist , agrees .
“ I don ’ t understand why the Academy outsources its nominations , ” Brody told me .
Certainly , many countries do nominate the film they consider to have been the best of the year , and Brody acknowledged that many excellent films have been nominated that way .
But he also explained the bigger political and even ideological problem with the system : “ There are countries where movies are explicitly politicized — where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place , where filmmakers are literally imprisoned or under house arrest , or literally banned from filmmaking because of their political positions.
” He ’ s right .
It ’ s no secret that some governments deal with politically inconvenient filmmakers by attempting to silence their voices on the world stage .
For instance , the Cannes Film Festival is arguably the most prestigious global film festival in the world , but at the 2018 festival , the directors of two films in the main competitions were conspicuously absent , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kirill Serebrennikov , director of the Russian rock musical Leto ( titled Summer in English ) , was under house arrest .
Serebrennikov , an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin , had been charged with masterminding an embezzlement plot that caused harm to the state .
But many of his contemporaries believe the allegations were retaliation for his candid views on Putin , LGBTQ rights , and Russia ’ s annexation of Crimea .
( Serebrennikov was released in April 2019 . )
The celebrated Iranian director Jafar Panahi was absent from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was reserved for him at the premiere of his film 3 Faces , which criticizes the patriarchy of his home country .
But the seat remained empty : Panahi , his wife , his daughter , and 15 of his friends had been arrested in 2010 and charged with creating propaganda against the Iranian government .
Panahi was sentenced to a six-year jail sentence and barred for 20 years from making films , writing screenplays , giving interviews to any media , or leaving the country ; even in 2018 , he still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that 2010 sentence didn ’ t stop him from making films .
In 2011 , his documentary This Is Not a Film , which chronicled his life under house arrest , was smuggled out of the country in a birthday cake so that it could premiere at Cannes .
And two more of his movies premiered at the Berlin Film Festival in 2013 and 2015 , winning major awards .
Panahi ’ s film The White Balloon was Iran ’ s official entry in 1995 , though it wasn ’ t nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submit a film from a director like Panahi for Oscars consideration ?
Unless it was deemed sufficiently apolitical , such a selection seems unlikely .
Other countries , including China , have been known to place filmmakers and artists under house arrest ( such as Ai Weiwei and Deng Chuanbin ) when they or their works are perceived as a threat to the state .
China exercises exacting control over its filmmakers ; recently , the country ’ s only remaining independent film festival shut down , with organizers saying the political climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially since their programming often included films that touched on controversial topics ( like homosexuality or political history ) , or lacked the government ’ s official seal of censorship approval , which is required in China for public screenings .
And in recent years , China ’ s official Oscar entries have trended noticeably more nationalistic .
So even though filmmakers from these countries often make movies celebrated by major festivals and critics around the globe , many of their films will never stand a chance of being selected by their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entry .
“ Films that get nominated by such countries are ones that inevitably will do the bidding of the government , ” Brody says .
“ They will completely exclude politically dissident filmmakers , who are often really excellent filmmakers , from ever being considered for an Oscar .
And that ’ s just unseemly .
That ’ s just indecent , morally.
” In some cases , with enough work and resources behind their campaigns , filmmakers working in restrictive countries may be able to eke out a nomination .
Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin-critical documentary Leviathan , managed to win his country ’ s 2015 Oscar bid by personally ensuring that every single member of the 29-person selection committee , including many members loyal to the Kremlin , saw the film .
Rodnyansky had to play detective to figure out who was part of the committee , as that information wasn ’ t publicly available .
But his efforts paid off ; Leviathan won the committee ’ s endorsement with 14 votes and ultimately became one of the five Oscar nominees .
Yet that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In China , you ’ re not going to make it past that bar unless you please a body of people who are unnamed and unknown , but who we can assume would like filmmakers to toe a line , ” Laura Isabel Serna told me .
Serna is a film historian and an associate professor of cinematic arts at the University of Southern California .
“ The whole way that [ global film ] festivals are organized , which reverberates in this process of nomination for the Academy Awards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I nationalism , in which nations take film as a form of soft power.
” Brody agrees .
“ There are great films — not merely dissident films , but also aesthetically really accomplished films — that will never be nominated , ” he notes , arguing that by not being more involved in the selection process , “ The Oscars are barring themselves from considering some of the best filmmakers in the world , simply because they are putting their decisions in the hands of causes like governmental organizations.
” The exclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world cinema for political reasons is a big reason the Academy needs to change its approach to recognizing world cinema .
But there ’ s a second reason , too : The eligibility rules are based on outmoded , decades-old ideas about what it means for a film to be “ international.
” The Academy sometimes deems official selections to be not “ international ” enough Curiously , though the Academy relegates the process of submitting films for consideration to sometimes-shadowy groups selected by individual countries , the organization sometimes overrules the resulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons a movie is rejected after being submitted as a country ’ s official selection .
The first is that the Academy rules a film is not primarily told in a language other than English .
According to the official Oscar rules as they stand , a movie that contains too much English can be deemed insufficiently “ international.
” This rule seems to exist , at least in part , to ensure that movies from the United Kingdom don ’ t dominate the field .
( Countries like Canada , the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — submitted films that aren ’ t in English ; only US-produced films are officially barred from competing in the international category . )
But English is the official language in other countries , due to England ’ s past as a colonizer .
This became an issue most recently with Lionheart , which Nigeria submitted as its official entry for the 2020 Oscars .
The movie was disqualified by the Academy because it is mostly in English , which is Nigeria ’ s official language .
American director Ava DuVernay sharply questioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , movies like Lionheart are technically eligible to compete in all the other Oscar categories .
And any film that qualifies for Best International Feature can also compete in other categories ; in 2020 , the North Macedonian documentary Honeyland is a contender both for Best International Feature and Best Documentary Feature .
But given how heavily a successful Oscar campaign depends on a wealth of resources and ability to court potential voters , films with small budgets from countries where English is either the official language or the lingua franca ( like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Liberia ) are at a serious disadvantage .
A film made in a language that most of the country ’ s citizens speak and understand would have only the tiniest of shots at earning Oscar recognition .
And without Oscar recognition , that film would then struggle to gain distribution in the US , making it more difficult for American viewers ( and many others around the world ) to see it .
Essentially , the rule sometimes hamstrings the reach of talented filmmakers who wish to make movies about their home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could easily understand .
And sometimes it results in strange disqualifications — for instance , The Band ’ s Visit , a film about an Egyptian band that gets lost when visiting Israel , was disqualified in 2008 for containing too much English , even though the reason the English is included in the film is that it ’ s the only language the characters could communicate in .
( The film went on to become the basis for the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical of the same name . )
This year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice of equating “ non-English ” with “ foreign ” or “ international ” status stems from an archaic understanding of what makes something or someone “ international.
” By my lights , the Academy ’ s shift from “ foreign , ” which carries connotations of being “ other , ” to “ international , ” which suggests a more inclusive view of the world , was an attempt to acknowledge that while language is an important part of culture , in today ’ s globalized filmmaking landscape , movies that bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world deserve to be highlighted no matter what language they ’ re told in .
Yet excluding movies told in English suggests that if you speak English , you ’ re part of “ our ” culture — American culture — and if you don ’ t , then you ’ re “ the other.
” That seems dangerously close to the same mindset that drives some American nationalists to demand that their fellow Americans “ speak English ” because they ’ re in America .
The truth is that in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the factors that make up a person ’ s culture .
It should only be one of the factors used to determine whether a movie is “ international.
” Furthermore , restricting the “ international ” category to non-English-language films perpetuates Americans ’ already myopic focus on movies in English , and a reticence to watch films with subtitles .
Successful filmmakers whose non-English films have garnered Oscar notice beyond the category in recent years , such as Alfonso Cuarón ( Roma ) and Bong Joon-ho ( Parasite ) , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Foreign-Language Feature Oscar in 2019 , Cuarón joked that he “ grew up watching foreign-language films and learning so much from them and being inspired — films like Citizen Kane , Jaws , Rashomon , The Godfather , and Breathless.
” ( Three of those five movies are in English , and none of them are in Cuarón ’ s native Spanish . )
And at the Golden Globes in January 2020 , while accepting the award for Best Foreign Language Film , Bong gently ribbed the audience about overcoming the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the communications professor , also thinks that Hollywood ’ s focus on language as a signifier of international is outdated .
“ The Academy seems to have inherited a sort of a 19th-century colonial mindset , in that there is a center in which they imagine themselves — Hollywood — and then there ’ s a periphery , where they imagine other industries and other kinds of filmmaking that goes on , ” he said .
“ They have inherited these 19th-century categories of how you identify these differences .
The one they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signified through linguistic difference .
But now they ’ re in a 21st-century period of globalization , where if you inspect any of these things too much , they fall apart .
The idea of language as a marker of difference certainly doesn ’ t work after you realize that English has spread around the world.
” Sometimes , the Academy disqualifies a film from the international category not because of the language it ’ s told in but because the Academy determines a film hasn ’ t vested “ sufficient ” creative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s reasonable that the Academy would care about this ; after all , a country shouldn ’ t be able to hire outside filmmakers to make a movie , then submit a ringer and win an Oscar for it .
But the guidelines for what does or doesn ’ t count aren ’ t sufficiently explained in the Academy rules , and the results can be uneven .
Ang Lee ’ s celebrated Lust , Caution was disqualified from consideration when Taiwan submitted it in 2008 , even though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Taiwan , because some key crew members for the film ( which was filmed in Japan ) were not Taiwanese .
The Academy said the filmmakers did not prove that “ creative talent of that country exercised artistic control of the film.
” In another case , the 2011 film The Forgiveness of Blood was disqualified as Albania ’ s official entry , even though the film was largely crewed by Albanians , about Albania , and told in the Albanian language .
The Academy said that because several key crew members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not eligible .
But that same year , Finland successfully entered Aki Kaurismäki ’ s film Le Havre — shot in France , with French dialogue and a French cast .
The Forgiveness of Blood ’ s director , Joshua Marston , who is American , told Variety at the time , “ I think there ’ s a problem with the system when Hollywood claims to know better than the submitting country whether a film belongs to them .
It is incredibly disempowering and disenchanting for a country with a young film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Academy ’ s rules seem at times to be superficial .
“ They don ’ t step back and say , ‘ We need to really look at why these roles exist , and whether the film actually reflects the kinds of stories people are telling , how they might be telling them , and where those stories are coming from.
’ It makes them look a little philistine , in a way.
” Fixing the category probably means rule changes .
The effort will be worth it .
Can the International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impossible for the Academy ’ s rules to capture every possible permutation of film that might be submitted for consideration — especially in a rapidly changing and globalizing world , where funding for movies and the languages they ’ re told in may vary wildly from case to case .
But there are a few changes the Academy could make to bring the category into the 21st century and truly recognize the best films in world cinema at the Oscars each year .
The New Yorker ’ s Brody suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country selection process altogether , instead following a procedure more like that of the Best Documentary Feature category .
That means a committee within the Academy , rather than individual countries , would determine which films are eligible to contend for the nomination .
“ There are people who pay attention to documentaries , and they help make the selection .
There ’ s no reason in the world why there couldn ’ t be people in the Academy who have a similar interest in international film , and who would treat it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documentaries — to make the choices themselves , ” Brody says .
“ That ’ s my main concern , ” he concluded .
“ Let the Academy make its own decisions.
” Additionally , the Academy currently limits submissions to the International Feature Film category to one per country .
But even if submissions are left up to individual countries , the rules could be modified to leave several slots open on the shortlist for films that an Academy committee deems worthy but that weren ’ t submitted by their countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ movies made by subversive or politically troublesome filmmakers that won ’ t be submitted by their own country .
Or it might make room for worthy films that weren ’ t selected by their home country simply because of the one-movie restriction .
( For instance , the French selection for 2020 was the police drama Les Misérables , leaving the critically lauded Portrait of a Lady on Fire , slated for US release on February 14 , out in the cold . )
“ There are certainly years in which individual countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that really ought to be in contention , ” Brody noted .
Shimpach also believes the question of how best to accomplish the Academy ’ s goal — to recognize films from beyond Hollywood ’ s borders — deserves more careful thought .
“ It does seem to me that rather than too strictly codifying how that ’ s achieved , it may be more about carefully curating a selection committee that understands the sort of spirit of those awards , ” he says .
Serna notes that part of the problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Film category is that Hollywood is constantly trying to expand into foreign markets and partner with foreign producers and distributors — particularly in the enormous Chinese market .
That means the Academy has vested interest in giving those countries ’ governments ( which can censor or block movies from abroad from playing in their country ) some control over their Oscar submissions .
“ China is a huge market , and producers are very aware that certain things aren ’ t going to fly in China , ” she says .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve got to conform.
” But the Academy isn ’ t just the movie business ; it recognizes the creativity , artistry , and responsibility the filmmaking community bears , especially the powerful American movie industry .
“ The Academy is separate from the business end , per se , of the industry , and has the opportunity to request transparency in nominating bodies , ” Serna says .
“ They could make it a norm for there to be an established protocol , or at least to insist that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s doing the nominating.
” Real progress almost certainly involves the Academy changing some of its rules , perhaps radically .
But rules , after all , are only useful when they serve the purpose they were created for — something industry insiders and observers know well .
“ You know , ” Brody remarked to me , “ rules are both useful and stupid.
” Really , Serna says , it comes down to Hollywood accepting its position as a leader in the worldwide film industry .
“ The question is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in articulating its vision of how they are going to support the best filmmaking.
” Read the Vox staff ’ s thoughts on all nine of the 2020 Oscars Best Picture nominees : 1917 | Ford v Ferrari | The Irishman | Jojo Rabbit | Joker | Little Women | Marriage Story | Once Upon a Time in Hollywood | Parasite

The Oscars make few ripples in geopolitical waters. Hollywood’s most prestigious awards can exert some pressure on American politics, by virtue of the topics the movies tackle, the conversations they provoke, or the speeches the winners make. But in the grander scheme of global politics, the Oscars don’t matter much, with one exception: Best International Feature Film.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the group of elite industry professionals who vote on the Oscars) hasn’t quite figured out what to do with the category, which after more than six decades of existence was renamed in April 2019 from “Best Foreign Language Feature.” The title change marked a step forward and signaled a willingness to reorient the way the Academy thinks about world cinema — not as being “foreign” or “other,” but part of the broader movie landscape.
But the eligibility rules remained the same, and they underline a major problem with how the category functions. It still embodies an outmoded way of thinking about “foreign” films — and the notion of “foreignness” itself — as well as decades-old presumptions about what might qualify a movie made abroad for recognition in Hollywood.
And worse, the rules also allow authoritarian regimes and politically troublesome governments to exert pressure on how Americans, who frequently use the Oscar nominations as a starting point for what to watch, will view those countries.
But with these challenges come opportunities. With some changes, the Academy could both promote exciting voices in world cinema and exercise more control over which films get nominated, using the category as a way to not just recognize the best movies from around the world but also help Americans see them. (An Oscar nomination can be the force that propels an international film toward securing US distribution — an important step for any filmmaker who wants to be able to make movies in the future.)
The Best International Feature Oscar category could become a force for expanding Americans’ view of the world as well as their taste for truly great international cinema. But for that to happen, two big changes are necessary: one to the way the Oscars select the nominees, and one to the way the Academy defines what counts as an “international” film.
Each country picks its own Oscar entry. That’s a problem.
The Best International Feature Film award serves as the Academy’s “acknowledgment that beyond their immediate industry in Hollywood, what they do is global,” Shawn Shimpach, an associate professor in the department of communication at UMass Amherst and director of the Massachusetts Multicultural Film Festival, told me by phone. Shimpach noted that while the category has limitations, it still serves an important purpose: It acknowledges that movies made beyond US borders and outside the Hollywood system matter, and should be considered by the Academy and recognized for their achievements.
Non-English films were occasionally given special awards beginning with the 19th Oscars in 1947, but an official category wasn’t created until 1956, named “Best Foreign Language Feature.” That name stuck until the Academy decided to change it following the 2019 ceremony.
“We have noted that the reference to ‘Foreign’ is outdated within the global filmmaking community,” wrote Larry Karaszewski and Diane Weyermann, co-chairs of the Academy subcommittee that facilitates the category, in a statement explaining the new name. “We believe that International Feature Film better represents this category, and promotes a positive and inclusive view of filmmaking, and the art of film as a universal experience.” (Through an Academy representative, Karaszewski and Weyermann declined to comment for this story.)
Yet while the category’s name changed, its rules didn’t. To qualify for the Best International Feature Film race, films must meet a number of standards. A film doesn’t have to have been distributed in the US, but it must have played in a commercial theater for at least a week in its home country. The dialogue must be predominantly non-English. The “creative control” of the film must have been “largely” in the hands of citizens or residents of the nominating country. And each country gets to select only one movie per year to be considered for nomination, with the process overseen by a committee of the country’s designation.
Once countries have submitted their selections to the Academy, a “Phase I” committee of Academy members watch them and vote by secret ballot. A shortlist of 10 films is then announced, consisting of the committee’s top seven movies plus three more added by the Academy’s International Feature Film Award Executive Committee. (All 10 must have been submitted by their countries for consideration.) Then a “Phase II” committee watches and votes on the 10 shortlisted films, to winnow the field to five nominees. Finally, only Academy members who have seen all five nominated films vote on the winner.
It’s worth pausing on the “country selection” rule. The Academy specifies that each country’s selection must be made by “one approved organization, jury or committee that should include artists and/or craftspeople from the field of motion pictures,” and that the country must submit a list of the selection committee members to the Academy months before the selections are made. But that’s the extent of the control the Academy exerts over who decides which film a country submits. And while countries like France make that information publicly available, there’s evidence that others, like China, try to keep it more under wraps.
While many critiques of the category have fixed on the language requirement as the biggest problem — and I’ll get into that more below — it’s this self-submission rule, which grants individual countries power to determine which of their films will be under consideration for a nomination, that is most troubling to me.
Richard Brody, the longtime New Yorker film critic and columnist, agrees.
“I don’t understand why the Academy outsources its nominations,” Brody told me. Certainly, many countries do nominate the film they consider to have been the best of the year, and Brody acknowledged that many excellent films have been nominated that way. But he also explained the bigger political and even ideological problem with the system: “There are countries where movies are explicitly politicized — where there’s a politics of censorship in place, where filmmakers are literally imprisoned or under house arrest, or literally banned from filmmaking because of their political positions.”
He’s right. It’s no secret that some governments deal with politically inconvenient filmmakers by attempting to silence their voices on the world stage.
For instance, the Cannes Film Festival is arguably the most prestigious global film festival in the world, but at the 2018 festival, the directors of two films in the main competitions were conspicuously absent, even though their movies played were debuting there.
Kirill Serebrennikov, director of the Russian rock musical Leto (titled Summer in English), was under house arrest. Serebrennikov, an outspoken critic of Vladimir Putin, had been charged with masterminding an embezzlement plot that caused harm to the state. But many of his contemporaries believe the allegations were retaliation for his candid views on Putin, LGBTQ rights, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. (Serebrennikov was released in April 2019.)
The celebrated Iranian director Jafar Panahi was absent from the 2018 festival as well. A seat was reserved for him at the premiere of his film 3 Faces, which criticizes the patriarchy of his home country. But the seat remained empty: Panahi, his wife, his daughter, and 15 of his friends had been arrested in 2010 and charged with creating propaganda against the Iranian government.
Panahi was sentenced to a six-year jail sentence and barred for 20 years from making films, writing screenplays, giving interviews to any media, or leaving the country; even in 2018, he still couldn’t travel to Cannes. But that 2010 sentence didn’t stop him from making films. In 2011, his documentary This Is Not a Film, which chronicled his life under house arrest, was smuggled out of the country in a birthday cake so that it could premiere at Cannes. And two more of his movies premiered at the Berlin Film Festival in 2013 and 2015, winning major awards. Panahi’s film The White Balloon was Iran’s official entry in 1995, though it wasn’t nominated. But today, would Iran ever submit a film from a director like Panahi for Oscars consideration? Unless it was deemed sufficiently apolitical, such a selection seems unlikely.
Other countries, including China, have been known to place filmmakers and artists under house arrest (such as Ai Weiwei and Deng Chuanbin) when they or their works are perceived as a threat to the state. China exercises exacting control over its filmmakers; recently, the country’s only remaining independent film festival shut down, with organizers saying the political climate made it impossible for them to operate, especially since their programming often included films that touched on controversial topics (like homosexuality or political history), or lacked the government’s official seal of censorship approval, which is required in China for public screenings. And in recent years, China’s official Oscar entries have trended noticeably more nationalistic.
So even though filmmakers from these countries often make movies celebrated by major festivals and critics around the globe, many of their films will never stand a chance of being selected by their countries to serve as the official Oscar entry.
“Films that get nominated by such countries are ones that inevitably will do the bidding of the government,” Brody says. “They will completely exclude politically dissident filmmakers, who are often really excellent filmmakers, from ever being considered for an Oscar. And that’s just unseemly. That’s just indecent, morally.”
In some cases, with enough work and resources behind their campaigns, filmmakers working in restrictive countries may be able to eke out a nomination. Alexander Rodnyansky, the Russian producer of the Putin-critical film Leviathan, managed to win his country’s 2015 Oscar bid by personally ensuring that every single member of the 29-person selection committee, including many members loyal to the Kremlin, saw the film.
Rodnyansky had to play detective to figure out who was part of the committee, as that information wasn’t publicly available. But his efforts paid off; Leviathan won the committee’s endorsement with 14 votes and ultimately became one of the five Oscar nominees.
Yet that’s more of an exception than a rule. “In China, you’re not going to make it past that bar unless you please a body of people who are unnamed and unknown, but who we can assume would like filmmakers to toe a line,” Laura Isabel Serna told me. Serna is a film historian and an associate professor of cinematic arts at the University of Southern California. “The whole way that [global film] festivals are organized, which reverberates in this process of nomination for the Academy Awards, is they emerge out of post-World War I nationalism, in which nations take film as a form of soft power.”
Brody agrees. “There are great films — not merely dissident films, but also aesthetically really accomplished films — that will never be nominated,” he notes, arguing that by not being more involved in the selection process, “The Oscars are barring themselves from considering some of the best filmmakers in the world, simply because they are putting their decisions in the hands of causes like governmental organizations.”
The exclusion of some of the major works of world cinema for political reasons is a big reason the Academy needs to change its approach to recognizing world cinema. But there’s a second reason, too: The eligibility rules are based on outmoded, decades-old ideas about what it means for a film to be “international.”
The Academy sometimes deems official selections to be not “international” enough
Curiously, though the Academy relegates the process of submitting films for consideration to sometimes-shadowy groups selected by individual countries, the organization sometimes overrules the resulting submissions anyway. There are two main reasons a movie is rejected after being submitted as a country’s official selection.
The first is that the Academy rules a film is not primarily told in a language other than English. According to the official Oscar rules as they stand, a movie that contains too much English can be deemed insufficiently “international.”
This rule seems to exist, at least in part, to ensure that movies from the United Kingdom don’t dominate the field. (Countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia can — and have — submitted films that aren’t in English; only US-produced films are officially barred from competing in the international category.)
But English is the official language in other countries, due to England’s past as a colonizer. This became an issue most recently with Lionheart, which Nigeria submitted as its official entry for the 2020 Oscars. The movie was disqualified by the Academy because it is mostly in English, which is Nigeria’s official language.
American director Ava DuVernay sharply questioned the decision on Twitter:
To @TheAcademy, You disqualified Nigeria’s first-ever submission for Best International Feature because its in English. But English is the official language of Nigeria. Are you barring this country from ever competing for an Oscar in its official language? https://t.co/X3EGb01tPF — Ava DuVernay (@ava) November 4, 2019
Of course, movies like Lionheart are technically eligible to compete in all the other Oscar categories. And any film that qualifies for Best International Feature can also compete in other categories; in 2020, the North Macedonian documentary Honeyland is a contender both for Best International Feature and Best Documentary Feature.
But given how heavily a successful Oscar campaign depends on a wealth of resources and ability to court potential voters, films with small budgets from countries where English is either the official language or the lingua franca (like Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia) are at a serious disadvantage. A film made in a language that most of the country’s citizens speak and understand would have only the tiniest of shots at earning Oscar recognition. And without Oscar recognition, that film would then struggle to gain distribution in the US, making it more difficult for American viewers (and many others around the world) to see it.
Essentially, the rule sometimes hamstrings the reach of talented filmmakers who wish to make movies about their home country that most people in that country could easily understand. And sometimes it results in strange disqualifications — for instance, The Band’s Visit, a film about an Egyptian band that gets lost when visiting Israel, was disqualified in 2008 for containing too much English, even though the reason the English is included in the film is that it’s the only language the characters could communicate in. (The film went on to become the basis for the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical of the same name.)
This year’s Lionheart situation underscores how much the practice of equating “non-English” with “foreign” or “international” status stems from an archaic understanding of what makes something or someone “international.” By my lights, the Academy’s shift from “foreign,” which carries connotations of being “other,” to “international,” which suggests a more inclusive view of the world, was an attempt to acknowledge that while language is an important part of culture, in today’s globalized filmmaking landscape, movies that bring a new perspective to stories from around the world deserve to be highlighted no matter what language they’re told in.
Yet excluding movies told in English suggests that if you speak English, you’re part of “our” culture — American culture — and if you don’t, then you’re “the other.” That seems dangerously close to the same mindset that drives some American nationalists to demand that their fellow Americans “speak English” because they’re in America. The truth is that in the 21st century, language is often just one of the factors that make up a person’s culture. It should only be one of the factors used to determine whether a movie is “international.”
Furthermore, restricting the “international” category to non-English-language films perpetuates Americans’ already myopic focus on movies in English, and a reticence to watch films with subtitles. Successful filmmakers whose non-English films have garnered Oscar notice beyond the category in recent years, such as Alfonso Cuarón (Roma) and Bong Joon-ho (Parasite), have quipped about this provincialism.
Accepting the Best Foreign-Language Feature Oscar in 2019, Cuarón joked that he “grew up watching foreign-language films and learning so much from them and being inspired — films like Citizen Kane, Jaws, Rashomon, The Godfather, and Breathless.” (Three of those five movies are in English, and none of them are in Cuarón’s native Spanish.) And at the Golden Globes in January 2020, while accepting the award for Best Foreign Language Film, Bong gently ribbed the audience about overcoming the “one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles.”
Shimpach, the communications professor, also thinks that Hollywood’s focus on language as a signifier of international is outdated. “The Academy seems to have inherited a sort of a 19th-century colonial mindset, in that there is a center in which they imagine themselves — Hollywood — and then there’s a periphery, where they imagine other industries and other kinds of filmmaking that goes on,” he said. “They have inherited these 19th-century categories of how you identify these differences. The one they have chosen is language — cultural difference signified through linguistic difference. But now they’re in a 21st-century period of globalization, where if you inspect any of these things too much, they fall apart. The idea of language as a marker of difference certainly doesn’t work after you realize that English has spread around the world.”
Sometimes, the Academy disqualifies a film from the international category not because of the language it’s told in but because the Academy determines a film hasn’t vested “sufficient” creative control in the hands of local talent. It’s reasonable that the Academy would care about this; after all, a country shouldn’t be able to hire outside filmmakers to make a movie, then submit a ringer and win an Oscar for it.
But the guidelines for what does or doesn’t count aren’t sufficiently explained in the Academy rules, and the results can be uneven. Ang Lee’s celebrated Lust, Caution was disqualified from consideration when Taiwan submitted it in 2008, even though the filmmaker and much of the crew were from Taiwan, because some key crew members for the film (which was filmed in Japan) were not Taiwanese. The Academy said the filmmakers did not prove that “creative talent of that country exercised artistic control of the film.”
In another case, the 2011 film The Forgiveness of Blood was disqualified as Albania’s official entry, even though the film was largely crewed by Albanians, about Albania, and told in the Albanian language. The Academy said that because several key crew members were not Albanian, the film was not eligible. But that same year, Finland successfully entered Aki Kaurismäki’s film Le Havre — shot in France, with French dialogue and a French cast.
The Forgiveness of Blood’s director, Joshua Marston, who is American, told Variety at the time, “I think there’s a problem with the system when Hollywood claims to know better than the submitting country whether a film belongs to them. It is incredibly disempowering and disenchanting for a country with a young film industry.”
Film historian Serna notes that the Academy’s rules seem at times to be superficial. “They don’t step back and say, ‘We need to really look at why these roles exist, and whether the film actually reflects the kinds of stories people are telling, how they might be telling them, and where those stories are coming from.’ It makes them look a little philistine, in a way.”
Fixing the category probably means rule changes. The effort will be worth it.
Can the International Feature Film category be fixed?
It’s impossible for the Academy’s rules to capture every possible permutation of film that might be submitted for consideration — especially in a rapidly changing and globalizing world, where funding for movies and the languages they’re told in may vary wildly from case to case.
But there are a few changes the Academy could make to bring the category into the 21st century and truly recognize the best films in world cinema at the Oscars each year.
The New Yorker’s Brody suggests that the Academy should do away with the country selection process altogether, instead following a procedure more like that of the Best Documentary Feature category. That means a committee within the Academy, rather than individual countries, would determine which films are eligible to contend for the nomination. “There are people who pay attention to documentaries, and they help make the selection. There’s no reason in the world why there couldn’t be people in the Academy who have a similar interest in international film, and who would treat it the same way as an Academy treats documentaries — to make the choices themselves,” Brody says.
“That’s my main concern,” he concluded. “Let the Academy make its own decisions.”
Additionally, the Academy currently limits submissions to the International Feature Film category to one per country. But even if submissions are left up to individual countries, the rules could be modified to leave several slots open on the shortlist for films that an Academy committee deems worthy but that weren’t submitted by their countries. That approach might allow for recognition of movies made by subversive or politically troublesome filmmakers that won’t be submitted by their own country. Or it might make room for worthy films that weren’t selected by their home country simply because of the one-movie restriction. (For instance, the French selection for 2020 was the police drama Les Misérables, leaving the critically lauded Portrait of a Lady on Fire, slated for US release on February 14, out in the cold.)
“There are certainly years in which individual countries may have two or three wonderful movies that really ought to be in contention,” Brody noted.
Shimpach also believes the question of how best to accomplish the Academy’s goal — to recognize films from beyond Hollywood’s borders — deserves more careful thought. “It does seem to me that rather than too strictly codifying how that’s achieved, it may be more about carefully curating a selection committee that understands the sort of spirit of those awards,” he says.
Serna notes that part of the problem with how the Academy administers the International Feature Film category is that Hollywood is constantly trying to expand into foreign markets and partner with foreign producers and distributors — particularly in the enormous Chinese market. That means the Academy has vested interest in giving those countries’ governments (which can censor or block movies from abroad from playing in their country) some control over their Oscar submissions. “China is a huge market, and producers are very aware that certain things aren’t going to fly in China,” she says. “If you want access to that market, you’ve got to conform.”
But the Academy isn’t just the movie business; it recognizes the creativity, artistry, and responsibility the filmmaking community bears, especially the powerful American movie industry. “The Academy is separate from the business end, per se, of the industry, and has the opportunity to request transparency in nominating bodies,” Serna says. “They could make it a norm for there to be an established protocol, or at least to insist that it’s clear from the outside who’s doing the nominating.”
Real progress almost certainly involves the Academy changing some of its rules, perhaps radically. But rules, after all, are only useful when they serve the purpose they were created for — something industry insiders and observers know well. “You know,” Brody remarked to me, “rules are both useful and stupid.”
Really, Serna says, it comes down to Hollywood accepting its position as a leader in the worldwide film industry. “The question is whether the Academy will be more proactive in articulating its vision of how they are going to support the best filmmaking.”
Read the Vox staff’s thoughts on all nine of the 2020 Oscars Best Picture nominees:
1917 | Ford v Ferrari | The Irishman | Jojo Rabbit | Joker | Little Women | Marriage Story | Once Upon a Time in Hollywood | Parasite