Super Oscars Bowl

In Sight & Sounds poll of film critics, "Citizen Kane" was voted the top film every decade from 1962 to 2012. It has a 100% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger Ebert called it the greatest film ever made. Seeing as how "Citizen Kane" is widely regarded as the greatest movie ever made, you might be surprised to hear that the Oscars did not even regard it to be the best movie of 1942. It was nominated for Best Picture and did not win. The movie that beat it was "How Green Was My Valley", which as far as I know, has never been #1 in any poll ever since.

Last Sunday I decided to watch "How Green Was My Valley". 

"How Green Was My Valley" is about a small boy growing up in a small mining town in Wales. It's not just a movie about the boy but the trials and travails of his family and the town as well. It simply follows the lives of ordinary people and how their lives unfold over time. I'm not going to do a giant "takedown" of how the movie that robbed "Citizen Kane" is terrible - it isn't terrible. It's pleasant and interesting enough, but it's fairly dated and clearly the wrong choice for Best Picture 1942 (eh, in hindsight, of course).

So I've watched all of the Best Picture nominees again this year. It seemed to me that after a few years of dreadful decline, this year's nominees were a marked improvement overall. My favorite continues to be "Parasite". But if "Little Women" or "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" win, I'll be ok with that.

2019 Oscars

In years past, I had the tradition of watching all the relevant Oscar-nominated movies, forming my own winners and posting the results in long, boring blog posts before the actual ceremony takes place. As fun as that was (for me, and me alone), I found an inescapable trend: the nominees were getting worse every year and my passion to pick a winner waned accordingly.

This year, once again, I've watched all the movies and have reached a breaking point. I simply don't care anymore. And I take no pleasure in making increasingly hostile diatribes about how the Academy has lost its mind. So I'm not going to subject anyone to that anymore.

If you're curious what my favorite movie of 2018 is, it's "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot". DWHWGFoF was not nominated for anything, as far as I know, and it didn't get incredible reviews. As far as I can tell, the big criticism of it is that it's "Oscar bait". I find that term problematic most of the time and I completely disagree with it in this case. If you're looking for a good drama, I highly recommend it.

Oscars 2018

It doesn't feel like it, but it's that time of year again. If you're like me, you spend 364 days a year wondering what Hollywood's political opinions are and now, on Sunday we'll finally find out. It's so exciting. Where would we be without their leadership?

I thought the movies this year were generally better than last year but it still feels like another "down" year. I have to wonder though, with so many "down" years in a row, maybe it's just me. In the words of Mike Stoklasa, "movies make me want to be dead."

ON WITH THE SHOW!

Best Actress

Nominees:

• Sally Hawkins in “The Shape of Water”
• Frances McDormand in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• Margot Robbie in “I, Tonya”
• Saoirse Ronan in “Lady Bird”
• Meryl Streep in “The Post”

This is the only category this year where I have a real clear winner.

First off, I'm a sucker for Meryl Streep. I know people complain about how she always wins awards but I'm one of the people that finds her great in everything. I think the difference this year is that her part in "The Post" doesn't really require any particularly extraordinary talent. It's a very pedestrian role in a very pedestrian movie.

A special note on "I, Tonya" - it's the worst movie of any nominated this year. It's a movie that portrays its characters as idiotic, psychotic, stereotypical morons and then has the audacity to expect you to care about what happens to them. What garbage.

Saoirse Ronan is great in her role as is Frances McDormand.

My Pick: Sally Hawkins in "The Shape of Water". So much of acting (most of acting) is in the voice and so it's so interesting that someone playing a mute woman could be so effective. Such is Sally Hawkins. I'm a fan of Frances McDormand so I won't be too disappointed if she wins but Sally Hawkins was by far the most moving.

Best Actor

Nominees:

• Timothée Chalamet in “Call Me by Your Name”
• Daniel Day-Lewis in “Phantom Thread”
• Daniel Kaluuya in “Get Out”
• Gary Oldman in “Darkest Hour”
• Denzel Washington in “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

Lots of parity here. Aside from Chalamet, it's all great acting and fine performances from everyone. It's a coin flip race... I've arrived at a winner but perhaps through bias...

My Pick: Denzel Washington in "Roman J. Israel, Esq." I mentioned how I'm a sucker for Meryl Streep, well I'm a sucker for Denzel Washington too. I can't say I've seen all of his movies but I'm always impressed by his performance. This movie is no exception. 

My pick, among all the performances, may even come down to a single scene - it may be that close. I won't spoil it but there is a scene where Denzel's character is interviewing for a job and during a dry monologue about his experience he breaks down. The speech is delivered so naturally, so subtly but so powerfully that I feel I can't pick anyone else. Make no mistake, the movie itself is very mediocre... but Washington shines anyway.

Best Picture

Nominees:

• “Lady Bird”
• “Dunkirk”
• “The Shape of Water”
• “Get Out”
• “Darkest Hour”
• “Phantom Thread”
• “The Post”
• “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• “Call Me by Your Name”

This category is a tough one. All I needed was one movie to rise slightly above the rest but it didn't happen. That's not to say they're bad, it's more that there are a handful that are pretty equally good.

First, a note about "Call Me by Your Name". In the year of #MeToo, in the year of sexual scandals in Hollywood, that same Hollywood has seen fit to nominate a movie for Best Picture which involves a sexual relationship between a 30-something man and a 17 year old boy. This is brilliant. Aside from the fact that it's not a great movie, I almost hope it wins for the amazing irony. I'm told that within the logic of the story, the older man is supposed to be 24 but the actor portraying him is in his thirties for sure.

So with that out of the way, "The Shape of Water" is a beautifully made movie but I was not on board with the premise. "Get Out" is an extremely well made movie but it's a horror movie and I've never seen the point of horror movies. "The Post" is unremarkable. I'm a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson but "Phantom Thread" is ultimately pointless. "Three Billboards..." has all the makings of a Best Picture but it goes out of its way to make sure that every character is unlikable. I can get into a movie where all the characters are flawed but you can't make them so flawed that I hate them all and the only difference between them is the reason to hate them.

My Pick:

This year it was between "Lady Bird" and "Dunkirk" and I basically couldn't decide.

"Dunkirk" is a movie that does only one thing but does it extremely well. It builds incredible tension and maintains that tension for 100 minutes. It's an absolutely astounding action movie that literally does nothing other than that.

"Lady Bird" is a very simple slice-of-life story about a young girl going through high school and preparing for college. She fights with her mom a lot, she aspires to be great but hates school, she has trouble with boys. It's extremely narrow in its scope but it has good heart and there is a certain universality to it - everyone remembers that age, etc.

And so the problem is deciding which one is better. On the one hand, I'd want my Best Picture to have more light and shade than "Dunkirk", on the other hand, I'd want my Best Picture to be about something more than "Lady Bird". One is too big, one is too small. One has only action and no characters and the other has only characters and almost no action. It's so close and I've flip-flopped a few times but my pick, since I have to pick, is "Lady Bird".

Oscars 2017

Gee, I wonder if there'll be any political statements at the Academy Awards this year? Do ya think?

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.

Oscars 2016

Every year, ahead of the Oscars, I like to watch all the nominated films and pick my own winners. This year is no exception. I've watched all the Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Actor nominees and know (more or less) who I want to win.

I've done this for a couple years and the years in which I have correspond exactly to the years I'm not interested in watching the actual ceremony itself. You would think that having a "rooting interest" would make me more interested in watching but it's actually the opposite. I guess that knowing who you want to win takes away some of the "mystique" and a little bit of the "power" of the question "who will win?'

That's handy because the Oscar ceremony is exactly the same stuff every year. Every year people watch it and then complain about how long it was and how late it went. Every year the Academy agrees and takes steps to make sure it's shorter next year. And then the next year is always too long, and so on. It would make a great case study in cultural amnesia.

Best Actress

Nominees:

• Cate Blanchett in “Carol”
• Brie Larson in “Room”
• Jennifer Lawrence in “Joy”
• Charlotte Rampling in “45 Years”
• Saoirse Ronan in “Brooklyn”

I'm starting with this category because it's the least interesting. No, not because of sexism (though all women do look the same to me) but because I wasn't blown over by anyone. Mind you, there were good performances by good actresses this year, but there is no performance that stands out as particularly amazing.

In particular would be Cate Blanchett and Charlotte Rampling. It really seems that they were nominated solely because they've been nominated in the past and seem to be safe choices. I don't see anything in the movies themselves that would usually warrant a nomination.

My Pick: Brie Larson in "Room". This is my best choice in a weak year. She's very good.

Best Actor

Nominees:

• Bryan Cranston in “Trumbo”
• Matt Damon in “The Martian”
• Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Revenant”
• Michael Fassbender in “Steve Jobs”
• Eddie Redmayne in “The Danish Girl”

It appears that Leonardo DiCaprio is the front-runner in this category and I have no idea why. Not only did he not give the best performance of the year, he didn't give the best performance in the movie that he's in (Tom Hardy makes him look like an amateur). People seem to be under the illusion that Leo is a great actor. He isn't. He's actually a pretty bad actor but he's nonetheless a popular one. One thing's for sure, if it turns out that all you need to do as an actor to win an Academy award is make a "crawling and grunting in the woods" movie, next year's nominees are going to be interminable.

My Pick: Matt Damon in "The Martian". From what I've heard, this seems to be an unpopular pick and he has no chance of winning. But I have to be honest with myself - and I don't even like Matt Damon usually - and say that, for me, his was the strongest performance. The perception is out there that he just played Matt Damon, Super Scientist Man but that isn't what I saw. From happy to confident to shattered to weak to depressed, there is more range in this performance than any other and Damon does it flawlessly. That's what I thought.

Best Picture

Nominees:

• “Mad Max: Fury Road”
• “The Martian”
• “Spotlight”
• “Bridge of Spies”
• “Brooklyn”
• “The Revenant”
• “Room”
• “The Big Short”

This felt like an average-to-below-average year. The movies, as a group, are good but not great. One exception: I don't see how "The Big Short" was nominated; it belongs nowhere near this category and I have no idea why it was. Good for Adam McKay though. 

I was rooting for "Brooklyn" - it's the small, indie romance picture that would usually be my pick. But about three quarters into the movie, the plot takes a left turn which completely left me cold. Similarly, I went into "Bridge of Spies" with optimism because I like Spielberg and Hanks but it was just "okay". The story doesn't live up to the standard of the talent. 

"The Revenant" is pure hype and no substance. It's probably the favorite to win but only because people are blinded by how difficult it was to film. Yes, they filmed it in freezing temperatures using only natural light but judge the movie not the process of film-making. There is no underlying message, there is nothing learned and there's hardly any invested emotion. Sure, when Leo is injured and crawling through the snow you hope he makes it to safety but that's literally all there is to the experience.

My Pick: "Mad Max: Fury Road". It was a toss up between Mad Max and "The Martian". Both are action/sci-fi adventures, which would normally be a handicap, but both are executed so well that they're my top two picks.

In the end, I give the edge to Mad Max. The world it creates is so original, the tension and pace it maintains is so rare, the spectacle of the visuals and stunts is amazing. Love it or hate it, you have to admit that it's completely original and unlike anything else you've seen. And that's definitely the deciding factor for me. I normally wouldn't consider a goofy action movie for Best Picture but in an era of endless sequels, reboots and comic book movies, it's incredibly rare to be able to say "I've never seen anything like that before". Any time a movie makes me say that, I can feel pretty secure in calling it the best picture of the year.