International
‘Hugo’, ‘The Artist’ top Oscar nominations
MUMBAI: Martin Scorcese‘ 3D family film ‘Hugo‘ has got 11 Oscar nominations while the silent black and white film ‘The Artist‘ got 10 nominations for the 84th annual Oscar Awards, making it a clear two- horse race.
The show will air on Star Movies on 27 February.
‘The Artist‘ is the first black and white film to get a best picture nomination since ‘Good Night and Good Luck‘ in 2005. ‘Hugo is the fourth film released in 3D to score a best picture nomination, after ‘Avatar‘, ‘Up‘ and ‘Toy Story 3‘. If it is able to stop ‘The Artist‘s momentum, then it would be the first 3D film to win best picture.
This year nine films have been nominated for best picture the most surprising being ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close‘. Another surprise was ‘The Tree Of Life‘ which among other things got nominated for picture and director Terrance Mallick despite having been previously ignored during the Oscar season.
‘War Horse‘ from Dreamworks and Reliance Entertainment got six nominations including best picture.Spielberg has been left off the director‘s list. However Kathleen Kennedy and Steven Spielberg now have the record for most best picture nominations for a producer with seven, passing Stanley Kramer.
‘The Descendants‘, which was earlier considered one of the front runners, only got five nominations making it virtually impossible for it to win Best Picture. However George Clooney is the favourite to win best actor for his role as a father trying to cope with grief over the fact that his wife is in a coma.
Clooney‘s competition includes Gary Oldman who finally scored his first Oscar nomination for ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy‘, Surprisingly Leonardo DiCaprio has been left in the cold for his turn as former FBI director J Edgar Hoover in Clint Eastwood‘s ‘J. Edgar‘.
In best actress, it is a two-way fight between Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher in ‘The Iron Lady‘ and Viola Davis for ‘The Help‘. ‘The Help‘ is another best picture nominee and means that Dreamworks is the only studio to have two films competing for best film.
Like ‘War Horse‘, ‘Moneyball‘ has also got six nominations including for best picture and for its stars Brad Pitt and Jonah hill. It is a serious threat for adapted screenplay.
Woody Allen‘s ‘Midnight In Paris‘ scored four nominations including two for Allen for directing and writing. It has been over two decades since Allen last won an Oscar. He could win for original screenplay unless ‘The Artist‘ does a sweep.
John Williams got two nominations for his scores for the two Spielberg films ‘War Horse‘ and ‘The Adventures of Tintin‘. He has now been nominated 47 times. Allen has now been nominated 23 times. Interestingly while ‘Hugo‘, ‘Midnight in Paris‘, ‘The Tree of Life‘ and ‘War Horse‘ got best picture nominations they did not get any acting nominations. Apart from Dicaprio other surprising omissions include ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo‘, ‘Drive‘, which are not on the best picture list.
LOS ANGELES: Acting has never been an easy profession, but in recent years, it has acquired a new existential anxiety. Artificial intelligence can now mimic faces, clone voices and, in theory at least, speak any language it is fed. The fear that actors may soon be replaced by algorithms no longer belongs exclusively to science fiction. And yet, despite the rise of digital inauthenticity, some performers remain stubbornly resistant to replacement. The reason is not celebrity, nor even talent. It is language.
On paper, this should not be a problem. AI can translate. It can imitate accents. It can string together grammatically correct sentences in dozens of languages. But acting, inconveniently, is not about grammatical correctness. It is about meaning, and meaning is where AI still falters.
Machine translation offers a cautionary tale. Google Translate, now powered by neural AI, has improved markedly since its debut in 2006. It can manage menus, emails and airport signage with impressive efficiency. What it struggles with, however, are the moments that matter most: idioms, metaphors, irony, and cultural shorthand. Ask it to translate a joke, a threat disguised as politeness, or a line heavy with emotional subtext, and it begins to unravel. Acting lives precisely in those gaps.
This matters because film language is rarely literal. Scripts, particularly in independent cinema, rely on figurative speech and symbolism to convey what characters cannot say outright. Pedro Almodóvar’s Volver is a useful example. The film’s recurring use of red operates on multiple levels: grief, desire, repression, liberation, and memory. These meanings are inseparable from the Spanish cultural context and emotional cadence. A translation may convey the words, but not the weight they carry. An AI-generated performance might replicate the sound, but not the sense.
This is where multilingual actors gain their edge. Performers such as Penélope Cruz and Sofía Vergara do not simply switch between languages; they move between cultural logics. Their fluency allows them to inhabit characters without flattening them for international consumption. Language, for them, is not an accessory but a structuring force.
Beyond European cinema, this becomes even more pronounced. Languages such as Hindi, Arabic and Mandarin are spoken by hundreds of millions of people and underpin vast cinematic traditions. As global audiences grow more interconnected, the demand for authenticity increases rather than diminishes. Viewers can tell when a performance has been filtered through approximation. Subtle errors, misplaced emphasis, and an unnatural rhythm break the illusion.
There is also a practical dimension. Multilingualism expands opportunity. Sofía Vergara has spoken openly about how learning English enabled her to work beyond Colombia and access Hollywood roles. But this movement is not a one-way export of talent into English-speaking cinema. Multilingual actors carry stories, styles and sensibilities back with them, enriching multiple industries at once.
Cinema has always thrived on such hybridity. Denzel Washington’s performances, for instance, draw on the cultural realities of growing up African American in the United States, while also reflecting stylistic influences from classic Hollywood and Westerns. His work demonstrates how identity and influence intersect on screen. Multilingual actors extend this intersection further, embodying multiple cultural frameworks simultaneously.
At times, linguistic authenticity is not merely artistic but ethical. Films that confront historical trauma, such as Schindler’s List, rely on language to anchor their moral seriousness. When Jewish actors perform in German, the choice is not incidental. Language becomes a site of memory and confrontation. It is difficult to imagine an automated voice carrying that responsibility without hollowing it out.
This is why claims that AI heralds the death of language miss the point. Language is not just a delivery system for information. It is a repository of history, humour, power and pain. Fluency is not only about knowing what to say, but when to hesitate, when to understate, and when to let silence do the work. These are not technical problems waiting to be solved; they are human instincts shaped by lived experience.
AI may one day improve its grasp of metaphor and nuance. It may even learn to sound convincing. But acting is not about sounding convincing; it is about being convincing. Until algorithms can acquire memory, cultural inheritance and emotional intuition, multilingual actors will remain irreplaceable. AI may learn to speak. But it cannot yet learn to mean.
In an industry increasingly tempted by shortcuts, language remains stubbornly resistant to automation. And for actors who can move between worlds, linguistic, cultural, and emotional, that resistance is not a weakness, but a quiet, enduring advantage.
