‘Lionheart’ and voices of cinema
Courtesy of Hollywood Reporter
This past week, “Lionheart,” the first Nigerian film ever reviewed for an Academy Award for “Best International Feature” was disqualified from consideration on the basis of excessive English language dialogue. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has long maintained a regulation on the amount of English spoken in films submitted to this award category, citing that there is a gray area with regard to which films are international enough to qualify.
Such thinking, though, is inherently flawed; geopolitical and ethnocultural borders are never clear-cut, and the West influences other nations just as much as they influence the West. The Academy’s decision illuminates a deep dichotomy between the United States' view of domestic films and their view of international ones. African countries are often viewed by North Americans and Europeans through a lens of cultural and linguistic entitlement. Discrepancies are considered criteria of African nations’ individualities, and societal realities that do not align with commonly held stereotypes or conceptions are dismissed, for they do not satisfy Westerners’ hunger for exoticism.
Essentially, the Academy prescribes expectations of certain identities instead of accepting their reality. It has refused to accept an unapologetically Nigerian film, for the Academy’s definition of foreignness does not align with actuality. The same group of white elites that supported the colonization of Nigeria into the twentieth century and the imposition of English onto its people now refuse to accept the permeation of English into Nigerian culture.
The move is ironic for a number of reasons, a main one being the fact that it came just a few months following the Academy's alteration of the award category's name, from "Best Foreign-Language Film" to "Best International Feature Film." This, in theory, would allow filmmakers from other English-speaking countries to aspire for the prestigious honor. This, however, is not the case. In countries like Nigeria or India, where English serves as an official “lingua franca” between speakers of several hundreds of languages, ethnolinguistic homogenization is not just impractical, but also insensitive.
An analysis into the disqualification by the Los Angeles Times also brought up an older rule by the Academy, which was in effect until just 13 years ago, that mandated that films submitted to the category be in the official language of their country of origin. The problematic precept disbarred films in minority languages from consideration, thereby tacitly encouraging global majoritarianism.
Cinematography is a field that is still dominated by wealthy, white males – and this isn’t just in the United States. As many passionate about arts and entertainment know well, film plays a paramount role in spurring meaningful discussion, raising awareness about societal issues and even catalyzing change. The spirit of film is experimental; although general regulations govern how cinema is practically produced, there are no rules to the emotions behind each scene or dialogue exchange.
The disqualification of “Lionheart” speaks to the work that still remains to be done with respect to ensuring that the varied colors of thought each culture has to offer are reflected in what has arguably come to be one of the most powerful mediums of our time.
