20 years of ‘City of God’ at the Oscars: Behind the scenes of the only time Brazil received four nominations for the award

[ad_1]

Fernando Meirelles, Bráulio Mantovani and Guilherme de Almeida Prado talk about the time the production was not nominated for best film in a foreign language — and how good that was. 20 years ago, ‘City of God’ competed for 4 Oscars after not being nominated in 2003. 20 years after the 2004 Oscar, when “City of God” received four unprecedented nominations for Brazil, many people misremember what happened. Respected around the world, the Brazilian film still appears on countless lists of the best of all time – including those from the Hollywood press. Perhaps for this reason, to this day there are those who justify the production’s absence in the category of best international film – film in a foreign language, at the time – in 2003 with an alleged snub from Brazil itself, which would have selected another representative. And that is absolutely not true. The film was chosen, yes, by the country – the one who did not nominate it was the Hollywood Academy. To everyone’s surprise, things changed the following year. In 2004, the production competed for direction (Fernando Meirelles), adapted script (Bráulio Mantovani), editing (Daniel Rezende) and photography (César Charlone). Therefore, g1 spoke with Meirelles, Mantovani and filmmaker Guilherme de Almeida Prado, member of the committee that chose the film for 2003, to tell the behind-the-scenes of the turnaround. Watch the video above. What happened, anyway? To be nominated for an Oscar, a film must be selected by an organization in its country of origin. Currently, in Brazil, this is the task of the Brazilian Cinema Academy. In 2002, when “City of God” premiered, the National Cinema Agency (Ancine) was still responsible. Contrary to what many remember, the committee – formed by Almeida Prado, Walter Lima Júnior, Zita Carvalhosa and Maria do Rosario Caetano – did choose the film directed by Meirelles. Director of films such as “A dama do cine Shanghai” and “Perfume de Gardênia”, Almeida Prado says the decision was unanimous. “There were about five or six people, at most. I remember that Walter Lima Júnior didn’t even go to the meeting, because he said that the film was so obvious, that he wrote: ‘I vote for ‘City of God’ and I don’t need to go to the meeting because I’m sure it’s the film. I’m not going to waste time discussing it'”, says the filmmaker. The problem, in the end, was the members of the Hollywood Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For Meirelles, the problem was that the film did not please the Americans who selected the category’s nominees. “What they said was that those who voted for foreign films were only retirees. Only very old audiences, who were willing to go to the cinema in the afternoon and watch two films a day”, says the director. As it was necessary to watch a minimum number of films representing other countries, more active members of the Academy did not have as much free time to dedicate to the activity. “The age group of voters was 50, 60 (years old). And the film did not please this older audience.” The American snub was not well received around the world. To this day, the absence among the 2003 nominees appears on lists of the Oscar’s biggest injustices. For the filmmaker, his film had a great chance of winning the award. “The film had done very well at Cannes. It had received very good reviews all over the world. I think ‘City of God’ won 48 international awards for best film, so it had a pedigree, like that.” ‘Douglas Silva in a scene from City of God’, by Fernando Meirelles Disclosure The return of those who weren’t In the end, the snub wasn’t the worst thing in the world. To be eligible for most of its categories, the Academy requires that a production be shown for a period of time in the United States in the year before the awards. One of the few exceptions is the international film category. However, a film nominated in the category cannot be nominated again in the following edition in other categories. In other words, if “City of God” had joined the list in 2003, it wouldn’t have been able to win its four nominations in 2004. “I ended up doing very well, because I ended up getting a personal nomination for best director and that certainly helped my career” , says Meirelles. For him, having younger voting members in the other categories helped. But it’s not possible to justify it with just that. Miramax, the film’s international distributor and founded by brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein, invested in the campaign to have “City of God” considered for the Oscar. Currently serving sentences of 23 and 16 years in prison for different rape cases, at the time Harvey was considered one of the most powerful men in Hollywood – and one of the most influential in awards shows. “Why did ‘City of God’ get those four nominations? Because Harvey Weinstein invested. He’s under fire today. I’m not speaking well of him, no. I felt like I was meeting a mobster when I met the guy there in Los Angeles”, says Mantovani. “But he had called Fernando and said: ‘Look, Fernando. I’ll tell you something. People are seeing the film and they’re liking it. I think it’s going to be nominated for best editing, best cinematography and best adapted screenplay. You There’s no chance.’ It was the only thing he got wrong.” Scene from ‘City of God’ . Since then, few have had the prestige to, or even the chance to, try for a position. For Meirelles, it is not a problem with national production. “Brazil has systematically chosen the wrong films. People on the committees choose films that they like, that they think deserves an award, but not the film that would have a chance at the Oscar”, says the director. He proposes that Brazilian members of the Hollywood Academy should choose the country’s representatives. “Those who should nominate films for the Oscar should be the guys from the Academy, but they (the Brazilian Cinema Academy) invite friends, people who have no connection with the Academy. I’m not taking away anyone’s quality. They just lack knowledge to which is used for the award.” Almeida Prado has a different opinion. For him, the category has already suffered a lot at the hands of older and conservative voting members, but has nominated more daring productions in recent years. “I think (it’s because) we haven’t made any film as impactful as ‘City of God'”, he says. “Now why is that? Because, in my opinion, there is a system that we created first with Ancine, then with the Sector Fund, which basically believes that we shouldn’t take risks. When Fernando Meirelles made ‘City of God ‘, he risked his own money to do something that probably wouldn’t be done today in the Sector Fund.” Created in 2006, the Audiovisual Sector Fund supports production, distribution, exhibition and infrastructure improvement. Actions are carried out through investments; financing; reduction of financial charges on loans; and non-refundable amounts. “I think we created a film selection system that tries to eliminate risk. They want to be sure. And that doesn’t exist in cinema. All cinemas in the world only succeed when they take risks.”

[ad_2]

Source link