What happened to Bong Joon-ho is, as has been widely emphasized, exceptional. "Exceptional" means not only new, but also unlikely to reproduce. This phenomenon is due to the combination of an unusual number of factors. Some concern Hollywood and the Academy's vote, some concern Bong Joon-ho and his film, some concern South Korean cinema.
Hollywood and the Oscars, it is clear that such a result would never have happened until a few years ago: the designation rules were changed, the college of voters was enlarged from 2016, including understood by non-American artistic personalities in 2017, the manipulations of lobbyists were if not eliminated at least better controlled.
The result was the rise in quality of the selection, making more room, including within Hollywood cinema, for more ambitious films, or at least displaying signs of authorism – more or less artificial in cases of number other recent winners like Birdman, Gravity, Moonlight, The Shape of Water or Roma. A side effect of this development is a drop in popularity of the ceremony and the smallest commercial effects of the awards, the Oscars having started to diverge (a little) from the heart of Hollywood marketing, centered on superhero franchises and romcoms with stars.
READ ALSO Hollywood struggles to reinvent its Oscars
<p class = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "The right film at the right time"data-reactid =" 27 ">The right film at the right time
To this general development, one can perhaps add in a cyclical way a lassitude of the profession to have to appear under the influence of debates which distort the relation to films – essentially around the presence of Netflix, and more generally platforms of online broadcast.
<p class = "canvas-atom canvas-text Mb (1.0em) Mb (0) – sm Mt (0.8em) – sm" type = "text" content = "We would like to believe that this is also healthy (…) Read more on Slate.fr
"data-reactid =" 29 "> We would like to believe that this is also a healthy (…) Read more on Slate.fr