So, overall, this was a year of "good but not great" movies. I pretty much enjoyed all the nominees but nothing was amazing. All of these nominees would have lost if they had been released in any other year.
Keep in mind that my picks are not predictions, they are my opinions.
Best Actress
Nominees:- Isabelle Huppert – Elle
- Ruth Negga – Loving
- Natalie Portman – Jackie
- Emma Stone – La La Land
- Meryl Streep – Florence Foster Jenkins
I'm starting with Best Actress because I couldn't care less about this category. All nominees were good enough that it may as well be a 5-way tie. And there's a certain variety where Ruth Negga for instance is such a pleasant character and so naturalistic in her acting but she doesn't have very much to do in the film and then on the other hand is Natalie Portman who's basically in every frame of her movie and has a huge range of emotions but who also phases in and out of believability.
And then Emma Stone is excellent in "La La Land"... but again, she's doing a very good job of playing a character that isn't that different from herself.
My Pick: Meryl Streep in "Florence Foster Jenkins". Yes, it's a huge cliche that whenever any awards are held, you have to give awards to Meryl Streep. But, I'm stuck. I had a "coin flip" situation on my hands and I think Streep's performance was maybe a hair more worthy than the others. But it really is close. Whoever wins this category, I won't be surprised.
A quick note about Viola Davis. Had she been nominated for her role in "Fences", she would easily been my easy choice for Best Actress and I wouldn't be complaining about how close it is. She's marvelous in that movie. But she chose to be nominated for "Supporting Actress" even though she's the lead. Too bad.
Best Actor
Nominees:
- Casey Affleck – Manchester by the Sea
- Andrew Garfield – Hacksaw Ridge
- Ryan Gosling – La La Land
- Viggo Mortensen – Captain Fantastic
- Denzel Washington – Fences
Unlike the Actress category, these are all men... Wait, I mean, unlike the Actress category, there is some variety here and there is also a clear winner.
If you watch "Manchester by the Sea", it's pretty good but watch Affleck's acting. He plays a mannequin. But he doesn't play one of those really expressive mannequins, he plays a piece of wood. Now, this is not a knock (on wood) against him - he's playing the character exactly as it should be played. The character has become emotionally numb and repressive. But when someone plays an emotionless character, how are you going to say he's acting? I mean, this is the only nominated role where I think I could have played the part just as well. And this is notable because he's evidently the front-runner to win!
Ryan Gosling... I don't know why he's nominated other than that people really loved La La Land. I would lobby the same "I could do just as well" argument against his performance except he danced and played piano. Still, the award isn't for piano playing.
My Pick: Denzel Washington in "Fences". This one's easy. He's phenomenal in his role and head-and-shoulders above everyone else. I know it seems "too safe" to pick Streep and Denzel in the two acting categories, but what can I do, I legitimately thought they were better and in this case, it's not even close. Had they both been nominated, my two acting picks would both have come from "Fences".
Best Picture
Nominees:
- Arrival
- Fences
- Hacksaw Ridge
- Hell or High Water
- Hidden Figures
- La La Land
- Lion
- Manchester by the Sea
- Moonlight
Again, the over-arching theme: good movies, not great movies.
Special commendation to "La La Land" and "Lion". I really enjoyed both and they're the "second place" here.
"Hell or High Water" is a fun heist movie that's very much trying to be "No Country for Old Men". It's not nearly as good as that movie and I don't think it deserves to be nominated for Best Picture but still, a pretty good movie if you're in the mood for anything in that vein.
A note about "Fences". Both leads would be my top choices for the acting categories yet it's not my Best Picture. "Fences" is clearly, obviously, undeniably and painfully a filmed play. There are real locations and close-up camera angles but it is a play to the point of being painful. The scenes saturated in dialogue upon dialogue and that allows the acting performances to shine while also making for a sometimes great, sometimes painful viewing experience. And the ending is sooo pretentious and stupid. I'd still recommend it for the acting alone.
My Pick: "Hacksaw Ridge". A controversial pick, in fact, I fully believe it has 0 chance to win the actual award. I will be the first to admit that "Hacksaw Ridge" has its flaws. It's too simplistic, replete with war movie cliches and has a love story that's so idealized that it seems like a parody of other love stories... It has its flaws and I don't deny that. But this is a case of having to pick a tie-breaker among a group of movies that are all flawed and all have their own weaknesses. So how to break the tie?
I judge movies by the emotions they make me feel, that's the bottom line for me. I can judge a comedy against a drama - two very different styles - by simply looking at the size of the reaction (whatever the reaction was). And I think the battle scenes in "Hacksaw Ridge" were so intense and so harrowing that it was a "higher spike" of emotion than any of the other films, even if other parts of the movie were admittedly weak. So that is criteria by which it slightly rises a hair above the other movies. That, and the fact that it's a mostly true story does a lot to redeem the negatives.
So that's the Oscars.
