Written By: Nathan Liu
When Bong Joon Ho’s “Parasite,” a Korean thriller about a poor family lying their way into a rich family’s employ, was nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and Bong himself was nominated for Best Director, I had two thoughts. The first one was “Excellent!” And the second, and far more important thought, was “Only now.”
In the Oscars’ 92-year history, only 12 non-English language films have been nominated for Best Picture. And until “Parasite,” no single Korean language film had ever been nominated. So the fact that it is receiving such honors feels incredible. And yet, for my part, it also felt inevitable, given the world that we live in now; a world dominated by the Internet.
The Internet has thoroughly changed both the way movies are made and how they are discussed. We live in a time where, thanks to social media, fans can demand things from a filmmaker or studio, and they will listen. They can see just how many potential customers they might lose if they don’t. How many likes did the trailer get? How many views did it receive? How many comments were positive? All of these things are measurable and can be used to sway filmmakers. Look no further than the live action “Sonic The Hedgehog” movie. When Paramount released the first trailer, fans took to the Internet to scream about how they didn’t like the character’s new design. The backlash became so intense that Paramount actually went back and completely redid Sonic’s look, just to appease the public. That shows you how powerful social media is when it comes to filmmaking. And that’s to say nothing of its impact on film evaluation.
Online film criticism, in the form of YouTube videos, podcasts and blogs, has become the primary means through which many people consume film analysis and discussion. I know far more people who are familiar with online critics like Chris Stuckman and Jeremy Jahns than Justin Chang, A.O. Scott, Peter Debruge or any person who writes reviews in a newspaper or magazine. So people tend to listen more to these online critics whenever they talk about films. In general, I don’t think that this is ideal, since many of these YouTube personalities don’t have degrees in cinema studies or personal experience in the film industry, and very often are just fan boys making videos in their basements. At the same time, though, these online critics can also uplift voices that may not be heard otherwise.
In previous decades, if you wanted to learn about foreign cinema, you’d have to join a particular film club, or subscribe to a particular magazine, to find out which art house theater might be showing a non-English picture. Now, you can find out about foreign films on Google, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. You can view them on a streaming service. And because it’s so easy to share things like YouTube videos on social media, word of these foreign films can spread super far, super fast. And like I said, social media engagement is measurable. The number of mentions a particular topic gets, the number of views and likes; all these things are quantifiable. The Academy likely saw how much attention “Parasite” was getting and decided that they couldn’t simply ignore it. The Internet had spoken. They had to recognize it.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say that “Parasite” is mediocre, or that it only got in because of the Internet. It’s a universally praised film that has received numerous accolades. It won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, becoming the first Korean feature to earn that honor. This certainly helped put it on Academy voters’ radars, as they’ve nominated several past Palme d’Or winners — “Taxi Driver,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Tree of Life” — for Best Picture. Bong is even on record saying that as soon as “Parasite” won the award, NEON, the company distributing the movie in the US, decided to advertise it harder and put it in more theaters across the country. But beyond the accolades, what I really think helped boost “Parasite’s visibility in the West is the fact that it’s fun to watch. I truly believe that a large part of why Bong Joon Ho’s movies have been able to cross over is because they’re enjoyable genre flicks — sci-fi action films, murder mysteries, monster romps — told in such a way that understanding the dialogue isn’t necessary. I don’t speak Korean, and yet, when I saw “The Host” without subtitles, I knew exactly what was happening the whole time. Bong used costumes, actors’ performances, and production design to elucidate key aspects of his characters’ personalities and plights. “Parasite” does so as well, with him using visual storytelling to emphasize the difference between the poorer Kims, and the richer Parks. For instance, to show that the Kims are at the bottom rungs of society, he not only has them live at the bottom of a hill, but also in a partially sunken apartment as well. He actually has the movie open with them using their neighbor’s fumigation to kill the cockroaches crawling over everything. That’s good, clear directing, which should be recognized.
At the same time, though, I think it would be disingenuous to claim that “Parasite,” or any non-English language film, could get such recognition by the Academy without a massive, easily accessible source of information like the Internet. Winning awards at international film festivals certainly increases your visibility, but only so much. Just look at the Japanese film “Shoplifters.” In 2018, it won the Palme d’Or, but was not nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Why? In my opinion, it’s because the film lacked the vocal online fanbase that “Parasite” has. I guarantee you that if there weren’t YouTube videos singing Bong’s praises, or online petitions, like the #BongHive movement on Twitter, demanding that “Parasite” get nominated, Academy voters might not have even known who he was. Time and time again, the Academy has proven itself to be a conservative organization that favors “safe,” “respectable” pictures that make them feel nostalgic for a time when they were young. Why do you think “La La Land,” “The Artist,” and “American Hustle” received so many nominations? Films like “Parasite,” which are not in English, and directly skewer the kind of people who are members of the Academy, just wouldn’t be on Oscar voters’ radars without the Internet. But thanks to it, “Parasite” was able to gain the international recognition it deserves.
Will “Parasite” win Best Picture? I don’t know. Considering the Academy’s track record, probably not. But if there’s one thing we can take away from its nomination, it’s the fact that the world is changing. Thanks to the internet, linguistic and national barriers in cinema are getting torn down. Talented filmmakers from smaller countries no longer have to feel limited by their borders. Thanks to social media, subtitled films that in the past would’ve been lucky to be shown at a few art house theaters in the West, can now get screened in multiplexes, win big awards and make tons of money overseas. Actors, directors, composers and cinematographers who don’t speak English can now work in Hollywood. Look at Chung Chung-Hoon. He started off shooting Korean language films like “Oldboy,” and now he’s shooting movies like “It,” “Zombieland: Double Tap,” and Edgar Wright’s upcoming horror flick, “Last Night in Soho.”
Maybe a foreign language film won’t win Best Picture this year. Maybe it won’t win next year, or the year after. The racial, ethnic, gender and age makeup of the Academy would have to change in order for that to happen. But with the help of the Internet, the American media landscape will change. The films we consume will become more diverse, in terms of subject matter, the people making them, the techniques used, and the languages being spoken. And that, in my opinion, can only be a good thing.
The 92nd Academy Awards will air on Sunday, February 9th at 8pm EST on ABC.