Why ZONE OF INTEREST Is the Oscar's MOST Important Nomination 

And it just won.

​@@AngelofMusic04deserved.

Should win best sound at the Oscars

It should win best sound, imho.

What does that even mean? Did the US government make this movie? An American citizen didn’t even make this movie.

@@jeremiahr7861 Okay I'll elaborate. The Oscars are an awards show that primarily features US movies, and some European films are also featured. For example, you correctly point out that Zone of Interest was directed by the English filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, and stars several German actors. The US, English, and German governments have been the most vocal in support for a military assault that one of their geopolitical allies is currently conducting on a defenceless population. At the same time, these governments have smeared and silenced dissenting voices, and supporting the oppressed population can put your career and professional reputation at risk. I'm drawing particular attention to the film industry as one where those who support the aggressor nation are able to loudly proclaim their allegiances with little professional repercussions, whereas those who support the oppressed nation are intimidated into silence. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tjtb4rz53zA.html www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/dec/02/hollywood-divide-israel-gaza-conflict-susan-sarandon-cynthia-nixon I think it's therefore particularly offensive that the most prestigious film awards show has nominated 3 movies (Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Zone of Interest) that all depict G-sidal actions or G-sides, and yet the industry at large continues to smear, silence, or intimidate those who speak out against a G-cide that is currently being conducted with their complicity. I think it raises questions like why even make movies like Zone of Interest about historical atrocities and then remain silent when similar events are occurring in the present? To his credit, the producer of Zone of Interest has spoken up about the "selective empathy" that we apply to different populations, so he obviously does feel that the film is relevant in that regard. www.irishnews.com/entertainment/the-zone-of-interest-producer-gaza-conflict-reminds-us-of-selective-empathy-5OJWPYRALNJMDB7PESNFOJWVIY/ www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/2/19/bafta-winner-uses-speech-to-addresses-war-in-gaza The director Jonathan Glazer has been much more reserved in his response, saying in relation to the assault that "The sickening thing about this film is it’s timely and it’s always going to be timely until we can somehow evolve out of this cycle of violence that we perpetuate as human beings." www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/10/jonathan-glazer-the-zone-of-interest-auschwitz-under-the-skin-interview So again, why even make movies like Zone of Interest about historical atrocities and then say so little about current atrocities? Why nominate movies about G-sides and then support the current one? Imagine making a movie about the Armenian G-side in the 1930s or 40s and then saying nothing about what was happening in Germany at the time.

​@@jeremiahr7861 Okay I'll try elaborating and explaining in a way that doesn't get my comment to automatically be deleted. The Oscars are an awards show that primarily features US movies, and some European films are also featured. For example, you correctly point out that Zone of Interest was directed by the English filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, and stars several German actors. The US, English, and German governments have been the most vocal in support for certain evil actions that one of their geopolitical allies is currently conducting on a defenceless population. At the same time, these governments have smeared and silenced dissenting voices, and supporting the oppressed population can put your career and professional reputation at risk. I'm drawing particular attention to the film industry as one where those who support the aggressor nation are able to loudly proclaim their allegiances with little professional repercussions, whereas those who support the oppressed nation are intimidated into silence. See the difference in support for the respective countries at the Golden Globes. I think it's therefore particularly offensive that the most prestigious film awards show has nominated 3 movies (Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Zone of Interest) that all depict similar acts of evil, and yet the industry at large continues to smear, silence, or intimidate those who speak out against current events that are being conducted with their complicity. I think it raises questions like why even make movies like Zone of Interest about historical evils and then remain silent when similar events are occurring in the present? To his credit, when accepting a BAFTA the producer of Zone of Interest has spoken up about the "selective empathy" that we apply to different populations, so he obviously does feel that the film is relevant in that regard. The director Jonathan Glazer has been much more reserved in his response, saying in an interview with The Guardian in relation to the events that "The sickening thing about this film is it’s timely and it’s always going to be timely until we can somehow evolve out of this cycle of violence that we perpetuate as human beings." So again, I think there's something profoundly hypocritical about nominating a movie about historical evils without loudly denouncing similar current evils.

@@St_Fish Bro came back with another essay just to get aired again 😭😭😭