Whoever decided that it was a good idea to make a competition out of filmmaking probably did so with honest and pure intentions, even if the whole idea of it now seems like a farce. What better way to foster creativity and incentivize those working in the film industry than by handing out little trophies? And who better to decide who gets these prizes than a small group of old, white men who don't want to have their identities revealed? Does anyone still think these are rhetorical questions? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a track record that is far from perfect, but deciding which movie is better than all the rest of the movies in a given year is an insanely subjective task, one that is bound to have unfavorable results for somebody. When you vote on art, you must automatically attach an asterisk to the definition of "best." Still, that doesn't mean there aren't instances where the members of the Academy clearly took a year-long sabbatical from the cinema and cast their votes based entirely on foreign adaptations of the nominees' movie posters. It's the only way you can explain some of these decisions.
