Since the Oscars are just a few days away, I thought it would be fun to provide an entertaining, easy-to-digest, and obviously correct analysis of all the Oscar nominations. Since the Academy always chooses the wrong movies to win, I figured I'd outline what should win and why, and what (probably) will win and why. Lucky for you I watched all of the films that are nominated (for the big awards) so you don't have to. I'll also include the films and people who were unrightfully snubbed; the films and people who everyone thinks should have been nominated but rightfully weren't; and anything else I deem noteworthy, as I am the supreme overlord of all that is Worthy.
With that, let's dive in.
Makeup and Hairstyling
What will win: Bombshell. The movie itself is a clunky mess, but the hair and makeup are very impressive. Charlize Theron is nearly indistinguishable from Megyn Kelly, and they did a number on John Lithgow. Additionally, their portraying real people is the kind of schtick the Academy swoons over.
What should win: Who cares? You've already skipped past this award anyway.
Costume Design
What should win: Little Women. Every costume and piece of wardrobe throughout every scene of Little Women is perfect. The timeline isn't linear, but the wardrobe is one of the many things that make the timeline-jumping seamless. Everyone in this movie is gorgeous, and they all have the correct wardrobe for the part. It's one of those little details in period pieces that take them to the next level.
What will win: My bet is on Little Women, but I wouldn't be surprised (nor upset) if Once Upon a Time in Hollywood won. However, its costumes, while excellent, weren't as intricate as Little Women's. I mean, Brad Pitt wore a Hawaiian shirt and jeans the whole movie. But the costumes for the hippies and the shows within the movie? *chef's kiss
Music (Original Song)
What should win: Either "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" or "Into the Uknown." I'm not a music guy by any means, but I loved both songs. I'm also a sucker for both Elton John and Idina Menzel, so my input probably doesn't mean much. I also don't remember any of the other songs that are nominated (the songs themselves, not what else is nominated), so there's that.
What will win: My bet is on "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again." It was written by Elton John for his biopic, it's a great song, and they'll give it to him as a tribute if nothing else. "Into the Uknown" is also viewed as "Discount Let it Go" (even though it SLAPS), so I don't see it winning.
Music (Original Score)
What should win: Either Joker or Little Women. Sometimes a film's score is used as a cheap trick to essentially coerce emotional reactions, but both of those scores were extraordinarily impactful without feeling manipulative. Interestingly, they were impactful for dramatically different reasons, so it will be interesting to see which score the Academy prefers.
What will win: Joker. A score that allows the audience to feel as dark, secluded, and uneasy as its titular character is a force to be reckoned with. Additionally, the Academy tends to lead toward the dark and disturbing films. That goes for most things, not just score. Marriage Story has a stellar score as well, and shouldn't be forgotten. 1917's didn't impact me very much, and I'm pretty sure they gave John Williams a nomination because doing so is part of the bylaws at this point.
Sound
For the life of me, I cannot tell you the difference between sound mixing and sound editing. But 1917 will win one of them if not both, and Ford v Ferrari might win the other. But I couldn't care less, and I know you couldn't either. Much like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Visual Effects
What should win: Ad Astra SHOULD win, but for some ungodly reason it isn't nominated. Back in September, I said it would win, but what do I know. Anyway, out of what is nominated, my pick is 1917. Most of its effects are practical (as opposed to CGI), and they're encapsulating. It has problems as a film, but visuals are not one of them.
What will win: 1917, for the reasons I mentioned above. Avengers: Endgame's visuals are no better than any Marvel movie, The Irishman's de-aging technology is frequently distracting, Star Wars's visuals were...fine, I guess, and don't you dare mention The Lion King in front of me.
Production Design
What should win: This category is stacked this year. I'm happy with all the nominees. Nevertheless, Parasite still had the best production design. The ascension and descension of the city and the layout of the main house is fantastic. It's done so well that you notice how good it is without even noticing it. Out of every nominee, it's the only one that would be significantly worse if the production design weren't as good as it is.
What will win: I'm confident in saying Parasite will win. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Once Upon a Time in Hollywood won. The set work on Spahn Ranch, the sets within the set, Rick Dalton's house, and the layout of the '60s Hollywood neighborhoods are superb. I'd argue that its production design is probably as good as Parasite's, but it isn't as thematically important.
Animated Feature
Full disclosure: I've seen only Toy Story 4 and Klaus. I liked Toy Story 4 more, and I'm confident in saying it will probably win. Although keep an eye on Missing Link, because it won the Globe and the claymation is supposed to be off the charts. I might amend this post if I watch it before Sunday.
But I'm bummed Frozen II wasn't nominated. Sure, it has problems, but the animation is GORGEOUS, it is WAY better than the original, and I find I think it's underappreciated.
International Feature
Parasite will win as it should, full stop. No contest. I haven't seen the other nominees--and frankly, I don't need to. Initially, I was upset that Portrait of a Lady on Fire wasn't nominated, but now I'm not sure if it was released in time to be considered. Regardless, it's fantastic and I love it.
Cinematography
What will win: 1917 will win easily, as it should. The entire film is meant to look like one shot (well, technically two, I suppose), and the camerawork is mind-boggling. With Roger Deakins behind the camera, I'm not surprised. I'm thrilled he'll win his second Oscar this year.
Additionally, I'm very pleased The Lighthouse was recognized with a nomination because it was overlooked everywhere else. It uses a very different and more subtle cinematographic style than the types of films that are usually nominated (it's shot mostly with a tripod), so I'm glad it is being appreciated in this way.
Film Editing
What should win: I'd argue Once Upon a Time in Hollywood could have the best film editing of the year, but it isn't nominated. Those putzes. With that, I'll say that--of the nominees--Parasite has the best film editing. The pacing alone is probably enough to warrant the win, but it adds some impressive and entertaining cross-cutting for good measure.
What will win: This is one of the few nominees that is a complete toss-up for me. I'm truly unsure what the Academy looks for and what they like. And considering Bohemian Rhapsody of all things won last year, I have no way of knowing. Nevertheless, I'd bet on either Joker or Parasite; followed by The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, and Ford v Ferrari.
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
What should win: Little Women. Every aspect of Little Women's writing is awe-inspiring. Greta Gerwig demonstrated immense love and care for a well-known and popular novel. Combine that with her ability to breathe new life into it while maintaining its integrity and you have something all screen-adapters should strive for. She handled it perfectly; she told a fresh, yet familiar story that is timeless. She even wrote dialogue that made a heartless bastard like me cry on multiple occasions during multiple viewings. A national treasure indeed.
What will win: Most likely Jojo Rabbit. Taika Waititi wrote a dramatic comedy about Hitler and the Nazis during World War II that was heartwarming and heartbreaking. Frankly, it sounds a lot better than it is. All of those elements are there, it just didn't hit home for me. I'll talk more about it later, but the gist is that it attempts to be funny and dramatic but ends up being mostly neither.
Writing (Original Screenplay)
What should win: It shouldn't surprise you that my pick is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. The dialogue is unlike anything Quentin Tarantino has accomplished, and nearly every line is memorable. He was aided by superb actors, but the originality and creativity of his screenplay are unmatched (by anyone but him). I believe this film will become even more popular with time.
And the best news is that I think it will win as well! The Academy usually gets this category right (at least more so than the other awards), and my confidence is high. That said, all the nominees' screenplays are outstanding (except 1917's which is meh). I've already written about Marriage Story; Knives Out is a fan-favorite, and understandably so. Its character-writing and dialogue created arguably the most purely entertaining film I've seen in a long time. Anyone who thinks Rian Johnson isn't a good writer is fooling themselves.
Supporting Actress
Who will win: Laura Dern for Marriage Story. She's been sweeping the awards season, and she did a splendid job with a very difficult role. Surprisingly, I liked Kathy Bates in Richard Jewell, and I could see her pulling off the upset--though I doubt it. Scarlett Johansson did a great job in Jojo Rabbit, but her accent--albeit difficult--went in and out, so I don't see her winning. I'm also pleased Florence Pugh is nominated because her performance was subtle and lovely. I know a lot of people who were upset that Jennifer Lopez wasn't nominated for Hustlers, but here's the thing: just because it's the best performance she's ever given does not mean it's Oscar-worthy. It just means that she's not a very good actress! Ergo, anything performance she gives that's actually good is just way better by comparison.
Who should win: None other than the LOML, Margot Robbie. She's the best part of Bombshell by a mile, and her role is proof that she can do anything. She laughed; she cried; she was charismatic; she was dramatic; she demonstrated excellent physical acting; she has it all. She's also objectively the most beautiful person on the planet, but that's beside the point. Do you know how excited I am for Birds of Prey this weekend? I don't think you do.
Leading Actress
Who will win: Everyone knows Renee Zellweger will win for Judy. Renee was excellent--Judy just isn't a good movie. "Sad!"
Who should win: I'm torn between Saoirse Ronan and Scarlett Johansson. I'd probably give a slight edge to Saoirse, but it's a close one. They both exhibited such immense depth, grace, ability, and range. I probably liked Saoirse more because I liked her character more, but that's just my preference.
Supporting Actor
If Brad Pitt doesn't win for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood then I'll riot. He deserves to win by a landslide, and I think he will. Everyone else can pound sand.
Although I would have liked to see Christian Bale nominated. Just sayin'.
Leading Actor
This is a really tough one for me. Adam Driver and Joaquin Phoenix both gave incredible performances that are equally impressive, yet so different. I LOVED Adam Driver in Marriage Story. His role was so heart-wrenching, real, relatable, and powerful. He had me damn near crying in several scenes, and he was so versatile.
Contrastly, Joaquin Phoenix was equally impressive in a very different way. He lost almost 50 pounds for the role and gave the most chilling portrayal of insanity that I've likely ever seen. After he transformed himself for the role, he portrayed a character transformation that would send chills down anyone's spine. That's why, for better or worse, I think he'll win. I don't think he necessarily deserves it more than Adam Driver, but that's what I anticipate.
But you're telling me neither Willem Dafoe nor Robert Pattinson was nominated? What a trash decision. Additionally, I love Leonardo DiCaprio in everything he's in, but he won't win. A lot of people think Adam Sandler should have been nominated for Uncut Gems, but he was so derivative of his comedic style. He just yelled and was over-the-top dramatically instead of repeating his usual yelling and being over-the-top comedically. He was fine--just nothing special.
Director
Who will win: It looks like Sam Mendes is on track to take this one. He crafted 1917 by compiling various stories his grandfather hold him. He laid the groundwork for the all-one-shot element, and the fact that he was able to compile so many unique features in a familiar environment all-but secures his Best Director win.
Who should win: For reasons above (and what I'll discuss later), my (narrow) pick is Quentin Tarantino. He balanced the stories, characters, elements, and themes in such a spectacular manner that he won me over. However, Bong Joon-Ho crafted something so daring, so unique, and so intensely astounding that I think it would be terrific if he won. My conflict alone while he's competing against my main man should say a lot.
And, yes, Greta Gerwig was undoubtedly, unequivocally, shamefully snubbed. She crafted Little Women in such a lovely and unmatched way, and I'm so upset that she wasn't even nominated--even though I doubt she would have won even if she were.
My problem with everyone's outrage, however, is not that they're upset she was snubbed; but that they're upset her snub means that there are no women nominees. I can't say I saw a female-directed movie worthy of a best-director nomination other than Little Women. People argue Hustlers, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, and/or The Farwell should have been nominated, but I think they're misguided. Hustlers is a strong "pretty good," I fell asleep during The Farewell, and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is an ultimately forgettable feel-good flick. None of them come CLOSE to Little Women's quality, which brings me to my main point.
I find it anything but productive to be upset about Greta's snub simply because her snub means that there are no women nominees. It's fine to be upset that there are simply no women nominees--that's just a different discussion. The problem is that when we complain about the fact that there are simply no female nominees, the immediate response is, "Well then women should just make Oscar-worthy movies." (Ironically said only by people who didn't see Little Women, but I digress.)
But a woman did! And I know we all know that. But they don't know that. In their eyes, we think Greta should have been nominated because she's a woman, not because she deserved it. And I know that isn't what we're saying. But because of the, "no Greta means no women" outrage, it's being interpreted that way, and the discourse becomes ruined. I'm just worried that, because of this, the next time a woman is nominated, she'll be seen as the "token woman nominee" by the haters, or--worse yet--by the nominee herself.
Best Picture
Let's take this nominee by nominee.
Ford v Ferrari: A fun, entertaining, creatively crafted underdog story. It's also a fair, nuanced portrayal of capitalism and its inherent value and problems. Christian Bale was great, and the film was suspenseful, fun, and exciting. It also has no chance of winning. Frankly, I was surprised when it was nominated, and it's lucky to be there. I like it, though.
The Irishman: It's a film that I really like and is full of problems. I have no problem with a film being long if it can justify it. The Irishman, however, feels like it's 3.5 hours just...because. The de-aging is frequently distracting, many scenes are unnecessarily long, and it takes way too long to make its point. I don't know if I can recommend it confidently. That said, being a Scorsese fanatic, I loved how it acts as a culmination of his filmography. The complex anti-hero of Taxi Driver and Raging Bull meet the double-crossing and intensity of The Departed; capping with the rise-and-fall gangster-style of Goodfellas, Casino, and The Wolf of Wall Street. A farewell to a dying genre indeed. But it won't win. For a while, I thought it might, but it won't.
Jojo Rabbit: I enjoyed the screenplay and a lot of the acting, but as an entire film, it just fell flat for me. The thematic elements culminated at the end with the line, "Fuck you, Hitler." I thought the point of great art was to tell a story that's nuanced, profound, technically masterful, or boundary-pushing; but Jojo Rabbit exists to proclaim something any halfway-intelligent person already thinks. Not exactly groundbreaking, is it? I don't think it should win, and I'd be quite disappointed if it
did--even though I liked it overall.
Joker: Ah, the ever-controversial Joker. Here's the thing: it's neither as good nor as bad as you've heard (or think) it is. Overall, I liked it. It's full of very impressive filmmaking--acting, production design, score, editing, cinematography, and so forth. However, it is derivative of better films, it uses cinematic techniques that are shocking but ultimately hollow, and it doesn't handle certain heavy themes with adequate care. So, in short, is it 11-Oscar-nominations good? No. But does it warrant the outrage and controversy surrounding it? Absolutely not. Regardless, put your worries (or hopes) to bed, because it won't win.
Marriage Story: I spoke about it at length in my previous piece, and I feel the same about it as a film. It won't win, but I think it's one of the best of the year. However, I've recently developed a bone to pick with Noah Baumbach. The man wrote The Squid and the Whale, which he based on his childhood. The movie is a brilliantly written, hard-to-watch drama about a child's world being shattered by his parents' divorce. You can tell how hard this experience was on him--he wrote a movie about it, after all. So what does he do with this knowledge? He marries Jennifer Jason Leigh, has a son, and gets divorced. He learned nothing. And he not only destroyed his child's world, but he profited from it. You knew better, Noah Baumbach. And you should have been better.
Little Women: I've probably written about it enough already, and I'm not sure how many different ways I can phrase it. All I can say is that I saw it twice and I cried both times. At first, I was crying because of the movie; but after I while my tears continued because of my realization that I likely won't see anything this beautiful again for a very long time. Anyway, go watch Little Women. If you have, watch it again. I'd love it if it won--but I don't think it will.
Parasite: What can I say about Parasite? It's a brilliant allegory for lower-class struggles and the tolls economic and social gaps take on everyone involved. It encapsulates elements from nearly every genre and brings them together to form something extraordinary. It's a piece of art that will be analyzed, dissected, and appreciated for years to come. It's a true masterpiece that expertly utilizes every aspect of filmmaking. But will it win? You can say it should; I say it won't. I just don't see the Academy awarding a foreign-language film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Despite my glowing review of Parasite, I prefer this. I love it so much. It's uniquely wonderful, especially from someone like Quentin Tarantino. All of his recent films fix history, and this is no exception. He focuses on writing events he thinks should have happened but didn't. Jews rise and kill the Nazis, slaves take revenge on the slaveholders, and Sharon Tate's neighbors brutally kill her would-be Manson murderers. Yet there's something unique about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. In addition to an event that should have happened but didn't, he explores a deeper theme about wanting to preserve something that was lost.
He feels that the 1960s marked the decline of true masculinity in Hollywood. But what does this mean? Just ask Cliff Booth. He's a man who doesn't like to cry in front of others. He's there for a friend with no strings attached. When challenged, he puts phony pseudo-men in their place. Upon being offered oral sex (while driving) from someone he knows is a minor, he declines. He ensures an old friend isn't being taken advantage of. When the innocent are threatened, he shows no mercy. He even has a kick-ass big dog to boot. And in his time of incapacitation and near-death, he tells his friend, "Go. Be with your wife--I'll be fine. Come visit me tomorrow. Bring bagels." The story's hero is not lost on us.
Maybe it's OK that some elements of masculinity have been lost; maybe, in some ways, they're still here; and maybe some never should have been there in the first place. Quentin's point is simply that, within all the progress we've made, we've lost some things. And in many ways, we're worse off for it. He's saying this as a man who worked closely with Harvey Weinstein for many years, and I'm inclined to believe him. But the bigger question is: will it win? It's a strong maybe, bordering on dubious. Unfortunately, I doubt it, but I remain hopeful.
1917: When it comes to 1917, I'm torn between how impressed I am with how technically masterful it is and how ultimately empty it feels. It demonstrates masterclass filmmaking through excellent production design, off-the-charts cinematography, crisp sound, and a dramatic score. And yet I've routinely forgotten about it. Why?
The short answer is that technical brilliance cannot redeem a lack of depth. The only thing resembling a theme in 1917 is "War is hell", which...OK, sure, but what war film hasn't said that? You're telling me that after Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, Dunkirk, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, Hacksaw Ridge, and The Hurt Locker, (and others) we need another film to say the same thing? My gripe with 1917 isn't that it's bad, but that it's empty. It has the essence of a great film without having the substance of one. It's cinematic veggie bacon.
And that is why the Academy is going to award it Best Picture.
Comments
Post a Comment