Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscars, Day 8: Original Song and Makeup/Hairstyling

What do *these* two categories have to do with each other? you might be asking yourself. I think a better question would be, how intertwined is success in these categories with the greatness of the film? And my answer to that question is.... not at all.

Both Original Song and Makeup/Hairstyling (which was pretty much just "Makeup" until, like, five minutes ago, in the scheme of things) are these weird categories that can totally 100% merit an Oscar nomination while just being part of abjectly ridiculous, terrible films. And even if you're not hating on the films, subjectively, you can acknowledge, objectively, that they are not relevant to any part of the Oscar discussion other than these two categories. Seriously. This is a thing that happens. That is totally a thing that can, and does, happen. Let's check out the nominees:

Makeup/Hairstyling: Victoria and Abdul, Darkest Hour, Wonder
(and by the way, see, only three nominees? it's totes one of those weird categories that just does whatever the eff it wants)

Original Song:
"Mighty River" - Mudbound
"Mystery of Love" - Call Me By Your Name
"Remember Me" - Coco
"Stand Up For Something" - Marshall
"
This Is Me" - The Greatest Showman

Seriously - these movies. The songs can exist separately from them, or they can be an important part of the movie, but they're never really, truly related to the greatness of the flicks like other categories are. OK, for a second I forgot that I even saw The Greatest Showman, by the way, which I absolutely did. It was weirdly entertaining and fun to watch, despite being objectively kind of not great, the exact opposite of The Florida Project, which was MISERABLE to watch but acknowledged by me to be "good" - or, well done, anyway. So, that song from The Greatest Showman was all right, I guess, but I didn't love it. Confession time: I haven't seen Marshall yet, so I'm not 100% equipped to judge. But. Is this category Coco's to lose? Or does "Mighty River" have a chance? I loved Mudbound. I'm cool with it winning here.What about the song from Call Me By Your Name, though? I don't know that that film, which I like lots, is going to win anything...

Clearly, another hard-to-pick category. Seriously, this is a category, though, in which I legit don't care if I don't check off seeing all the films; for example, when some Fifty Shades of  nonsense was nominated for Original Song a couple of years ago I was like, "NO thanks! Goodbye! Not completing the checklist this year!" Yeah. Don't care.

As for Makeup, do we all remember that Suicide Squad  won this category last year?

I haven't seen Wonder yet, but it could be triumphant here. So could Darkest Hour, I suppose, more so than Victoria and Abdul.. Since I haven't seen what they did in Wonder, I'm not really equipped to judge this small category.

So we'll leave Day 8 at that: two categories that include one-off nominees pretty much every single year and linger at the bottom of my priority checklist.

Will we get good performances of the nominated songs this year? What do you think?

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscars, Day 7: Lead Actor and Supporting Actress

The Academy Awards are nigh, my Twelve Days of Oscars are passing quickly, and it's time to face facts: I might not get to every single flick before Sunday. I'm still trying my best, as any true awards-season-obsessive-with-a-checklist would do, but in one of the categories we'll examine today, I have not seen all five of the nominees. Shocking, I know! 

Supporting Actress: 
Mary J. Blige, Mudbound
Allison Janney, I, Tonya
Lesley Manville, Phantom Thread
Laurie Metcalf, Lady Bird
Octavia Spencer, The Shape of Water
Lead Actor: 
Timothee Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name
Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom ThreadDaniel Kaluuya, Get Out
Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour
Denzel Washington, Roman J. Israel, Esq.
The movie I have not yet seen is Roman J. Israel, Esq. I'm going to, seriously. Netflix is going to help me out here. This week, I hope, before the ceremony. But I haven't yet. And with sincere apologies to Denzel, who gave an absolute master class in acting with his nominated performance in Flight a few years ago, when he lost to Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, really the only contenders this year are Day-Lewis and Gary Oldman. Everyone wants Gary Oldman to win his Oscar and he totally Churchill jowl and bark and sputter and leadershipped it up to do so. But Daniel Day-Lewis is "quitting acting" and people might want to give him one last Oscar. SO. 

Who deserves it? Hmmm. I mean, the performance by Gary Oldman is a tour-de-force. You are drawn into Darkest Hour and along you go, totally buying in to the drama, even though you know what's going to happen. On the other hand, Phantom Thread and specifically Daniel Day-Lewis' character in it are all kinds of weird. I don't know that it's his best work nor the best of the nominees this year. Timothee Chalamet and Daniel Kaluuya both did great, but I think their movies and roles were so well written and made that they didn't have as hard of a job, not that that strictly makes sense, but just as a tiny factor. Without having seen Denzel, I hate to pick in this category -- I like to know all the competition even when one is widely agreed to just have been honored to be nominated. 

I've seen all the Supporting Actress performances, though. Loved everything about Mudbound, including Mary J. Blige's performance. Enjoyed Allison Janney and Laurie Metcalf, who are the two that everyone has agreed are the actual competitors here. I love Allison Janney - love her - if I could see into my future to make the movie of my entire life right now I'd want her to play the future older version of me. And I thought Laurie Metcalf was great, but, once again, I don't understand Lady Bird to be revelatory in the way that everyone else understands it to be. Does that mean I'm pulling for Janney here? Maybe... I'm not pulling for Octavia Spencer in the weird weird weird The Shape of Water although I will say I liked her better in this than in many other roles I've seen her in (don't even get me started on how god awful The Help was). You know who was totally awesome? Who did what everyone says Laurie Metcalf did, subtly and powerfully pulling off her role? Lesley Manville, that's who. I really didn't care for Phantom Thread - like, at all - but if I'm rooting for one aspect of it, and that's Lesley Manville. Most of her role was performed sitting at dinner/breakfast tables, and yet she delivered this incredible and absolutely fully realized character. It was phenomenal. 

Supporting Actress: My pick is Lesley Manville, but I think it will be Allison Janney. 
Lead Actor: My pick is -- don't know -- maybe Oldman -- and I think it will be Oldman. 

**when I see Roman J. Israel, Esq. I will come update this blog entry as necessary **

Monday, February 26, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscar, Day 6: Cinematography and Directing

For a lot of people, such as, you know, the people who maybe AREN'T obsessed with making a checklist of Academy Award nominees each year and being sure to watch them all (except when the song from Fifty Shades of What-the-hell-ever gets nominated because just no), there are categories that are variously called technical, minor, obscure, other... and then are the "big" ones. Setting aside the obsessive ones among us (ahem) for a moment, it does sadden me to divide things up that way, number one, because the creative, proficient, talented human being who did the work in a "lesser" category is just as valuable as the one who did the work in a "major" category, and number two because sometimes the winner in a "lesser" category delivers the coolest or most heartfelt speech of the night while the actors just rattle off a list of names which is SO ANNOYING but not quite as annoying as playing people off in the first place and have I mentioned that shut the fuck up please about how "long" and "boring" the annual ceremony is because no one is forcing you to watch please thanks?

My point (and yes, I do!) is that today we are looking at what is routinely considered a "major" category, Directing, along with Cinematography, which would never be considered lesser by anyone who likes film but is maybe a bit less paid attention to among the plebes.

Cinematography: Blade Runner 2049, Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, Mudbound, The Shape of Water

Directing:  Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan; Get Out - Jordan Peele; Lady Bird - Greta Gerwig; Phantom Thread - Paul Thomas Anderson; The Shape of Water - Guillermo del Toro

Well, we have two overlappers, Dunkirk and The Shape of Water. And as much as I have been reiterating everywhere and to anyone who will listen (and some who won't) that The Shape of Water is goddamn weird and so not my thing, I actually will have zero problem if Guillermo wins here for Directing, because I think he actually perfectly realized his (weird!) vision, with both finesse and technical competence and creativity. Even though it's just not necessarily for me.  That said, I would not award Cinematography to The Shape of Water. I think Directing is pretty much the only category I'd want it to win. As for Dunkirk, it could get Cinematography, which was definitely an achievement and a half, involving as it did big battle scenes, airplanes, cramped boat quarters, vast waterscapes, and just all kinds of skill.

But. There were other fantastic Cinematography nominees, specifically Blade Runner 2049 and Mudbound. I am pulling for Blade Runner 2049 in other technical categories but I think I'm totally behind Mudbound here. I thought that movie was just wonderful.Well done, and really visually engaging - there were some simply gorgeous shots of farm vistas and, well, mud... which looked a lot cooler than you might think!  The more I think about that film, the more I want it to win stuff.

Also, I would be letting you down as an Oscar trivia aficionado and feminist if I didn't mention here the fun fact that Mudbound cinematographer Rachel Morrison is the first woman ever nominated in this category and WHAT THE HECK TOOK SO LONG?!

Additionally, a new CNN story reports that she at first didn't even want to win because she wanted her competition, Roger Deakins, who is nominated for Blade Runner 2049, to win; this is his 14th nomination and he still has never won. Basically, I guess we can all be happy if either of those films wins for Cinematography, eh?

Darkest Hour is a weird nom here and I think it's a non-factor...I guess all the filming in underground spaces was skilled work and all, but...I don't think it will win.

Now, if Guillermo del Toro does not win for directing The Shape of Water, another distinct possibility is Get Out's Jordan Peele. There is a lot of love for this film and for the somewhat out-of-nowhere-ness of it, and for the fun-fact-ness of  Peele being the first African-American to be nominated at once for Best Picture (as a producer), Directing, and Screenplay. I don't personally think Get Out is the best film of the year, but I am not opposed to a Directing win here... I just think I'm a tiny bit more behind Guillermo's (weird!) visionary directing achievement. This category is very interesting because it also has Greta Gerwig, and we all know (don't we, though) how damn rare Directing nominations for women are, sheesh. I feel the same about her Lady Bird achievement as I do about Peele's, I think - it was great. I won't be mad and throw things if it wins, but I just don't think it was necessarily the best. While this category did have diversity this year, and thanks for that Hollywood amiright?!, there are still a couple of white guys - the aforementioned Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson. Here's what I think about PTA winning for Phantom Thread: no. Just no, please. That movie is also weird, but more annoying weird than bizarre-o visionary fable weird. I am well aware that there are people, including a person I live with, who vehemently disagree with me on this point. Don't care. I'm 100% not about Phantom Thread.

And so....
Cinematography: My pick is Mudbound.  I think it might go to her or to Blade Runner 2049...but, hard to call. It's not out of the question that The Shape of Water sweeps a ton of categories, so...
Directing: I'm good with Guillermo for The Shape of Water. I think it will be him or possibly Nolan or Peele.

My Previous Days of Oscar:
Day 5: Adapted Screenplay and Original Screenplay
Day 4: Supporting Actor and Lead Actress
Day 3: Production Design and Costume Design

Day 2: Editing and Original Score
Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing


Twelve Days of Oscar, Day 5 Redux:
Adapted Screenplay and Original Screenplay

Well, I failed at delivering a Day 5 post on Day 5, so here we go, a dollar short, with a couple of my absolute favorite categories, the screenplays.

Adapted Screenplay:
Call Me By Your Name, James Ivory
The Disaster Artist, Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber
Logan, Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green
Molly's Game, Aaron Sorkin
Mudbound, Virgil Williams and Dee Rees

Original Screenplay:
The Big Sick, Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani
Get Out, Jordan Peele
Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig
The Shape of Water, Guillermo Del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Martin McDonagh

Oh, I do love me some writers and writing. Let's think, shall we, about which of these writerly persons will take the stage on Oscars night for a moment of glory, and, it is hoped, a clever word or two in their brief allotted speech time (broadcast director: stop playing off the winners! folks at home: stop whining that the ceremony is too long! ain't no one forcing you to watch!)

Regrettably I have not read ANY of the source material for the adapted screenplay nominees, although I have touched the four real books and contemplated reading them (as opposed to the graphic novel, which, yes, I did just judge as "not a real book" in case you're wondering). It's fun to know the source material, but it's also kind of fun this way, being in the dark, and noting which movies make me want to go read the original book, which in this case is all of them (except Logan, because I don't ever want to read graphic novels, which is not I repeat NOT a content thing but just my inability to enjoy reading books of pictures. Give me prose or give me a drawing, but not both together. I physically cannot stand reading graphic novels and comic books. It makes me uncomfortable. Do not enjoy.)

People love to praise Aaron Sorkin and Diablo Cody and other screenwriters who fill actors' mouth with long, winding phrases of snappy discourse, which is fine with me because my own writing of dialogue is decidedly in that direction sometimes, so praise away, people! Although I personally think they go a little overboard about just how complex Sorkin's writing is at times, I thought the Molly's Game screenplay was quite good. There was quite a bit of back and forth between voiceover narration and on-screen action that was well handled. Mudbbound also had to decided when to weave in and out of voiceover, and I take it from how the film was done that the book, too, had multiple first person narrators? That story had a lot going on and everything was clear. (Clear as Mudbound! There's a fun new phrase for a screenwriting standard to aspire to. Don't say I never gave ya nothin'.) Having absolutely been down the path of The Room hate/lovewatching cult madness, I was eminently curious how The Disaster Artist would be, and I thought it was remarkable. Call Me By Your Name, as I've mentioned in previous posts, is one of my favorites of this year's nominees but so much of that is from the emotions of the book itself; in fact, in recent days I've read many articles about how faithful James Ivory was to the book, with, for example, Michael Stuhlbarg's stunning monologue being evidently lifted right from the novel. Which is great - I'm just not sure that means Ivory merits an Oscar, for leaving well enough alone? Always a tough call in this category. As for Logan, sorry y'all, and it's NOT because it was a comic book that I don't want it to win but for reasons of cliche and gee-didn't-see-that-coming-except-we-all-totally-did with which the screenplay was riddled.

I really think the two best efforts here were Mudbound and The Disaster Artist. And I think either one has a chance of winning, and, to complicate matters, they both have outside factors that might influence people to vote not just on the merits. James Franco was an early favorite as a sure-nomination-thing in the Lead Actor category for playing nutso Tommy Wiseau, the not-genius behind The Room, in The Disaster Artist, and there is much speculation that late revelations about his inappropriate sexist and awful behavior are what made the #TIMESUP Academy not nominate him. So, will people be more inclined to reward what they can from the film, the writing, here, since it's the only nomination it got? Or less inclined, because it's still associated with James Franco? As for Mudbound, Dee Rees' nomination is the first for a black woman for an adapted screenplay, and it's always fun to make history. So who knows where voters minds will go?

On to Originals... well, we all know by now that Greta Gerwig wrote Lady Bird and people's minds are blown by this. I have found Lady Bird to be great and overrated. Sometimes people misunderstand me and say we shouldn't call things "overrated" because one person loves something and another person doesn't and that's just differing opinions. True that -- but that's also not what "overrated" means. I'm not saying it "wasn't that good" - then I'd say adequate or mediocre or whatever. I'm saying the frenzied reaction to it is weirdly outsized and kind of off-kilter. That can be true of reaction to something fabulous, something terrible, or something in between. In the case of Lady Bird, I've been mystified by all the people including critics who get paid to watch hundreds of movies a year saying that they've never seen anything like it because, um, what the heck have they all been watching, I wonder? But it was good. I don't think Gerwig is going to win in the Directing category, but she might win here for Writing. It was well written. Speaking of directors realizing their vision and writing it too, we've got Guillermo del Toro and the (SO WEIRD!) The Shape of Water. As I have been saying, this (weird!) movie doesn't do it for me the way it does for many, but I recognize that del Toro is creative and realizes his visions and renders them as art for many to enjoy... this doesn't necessarily make me advocate for him to win the screenplay Oscar, though. He was nominated for writing another weird fable, Pan's Labyrinth, a decade or so ago, losing then to Michael Arndt for Little Miss Sunshine. I don't think writing was The Shape of Water's main strength, and don't want it to win this. (Do I think it had strengths? Weeelll..even though it was damn weird, honestly, the directing was all right. We'll talk about that tomorrow, maybe.)

Yet ANOTHER nominee who both wrote and directed this year, Martin McDonagh, is the current recipient of backlash right now for his Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri white privilege racism. It's hard to discuss without spoilering the movie, so I won't, but I will say that he leaves some things very much up for debate and in my interpretation does not come down on the side of ever saying this or that majorly flawed character is redeemed, despite indications that maybe he's holding out hope everyone is redeemable. I think some people just generally also have an issue with Irish Guy writing about small-town, racially divided USA, which is fair on one hand, but on another hand, Irish people have in our very lifetimes lived in a place of extremely divided violence and ethno-religous strife so it's not like he's all smiles and flowers and bunnies and roses and then trying to make some commentary from a place of utter b.s.  Man, I was SUCH a huge fan of his previous movie, In Bruges, which may be affecting my understanding of what he was trying to do here ("Save the next little boy!" <--one of my all-time favorite movie moments. just go watch In Bruges, please, thanks)

And then there are the movies that are definitely written funny. Now, I know there was some consternation about Get Out  being in the Musical/Comedy category at the Golden Globes because it is addressing pretty much the most serious topic but first of all, that's just a big misunderstanding of the Globes, where part of the fun is mocking their weird Drama and Musical/Comedy categories and predicting what will inappropriately be relegated to the latter, and secondly, seriously, though, Get Out was funny. While also being serious. But it was written funny. Like VEEP. Ya know? OK, maybe not exactly like VEEP. But serious while being funny. And Jordan Peele is another person whose previous film I liked very much indeed (yay, Keanu!) I also think Kumail Nanjiani is hilarious, and while I love everything about watching Silicon Valley, he is definitely one huge part of the hilarity of that show, and I relished watching him in The Big Sick, which he co-wrote with his wife Emily V. Gordon, with whom I was unfamiliar before this. It was really good! I blew it off when it came out in theaters, despite all the good things I heard about it, and just got around to watching it recently, after the nominations came out. I really, really liked it and stayed up to watch the whole thing even though I started it at 11:30 p.m., which in itself is some kind of testament to the writing.

And so, my picks? This is hard. Way too hard. Help.

Adapted Screenplay: I want The Disaster Artist or Mudbound to win. I think Call Me By Your Name might, though.
Original Screenplay: I guess I want The Big Sick or Lady Bird, and I think it's going to be either Lady Bird or Get Out.

I really wouldn't have a problem with most of the possible outcomes here. But it's so hard to pick. I want to reward all the writers! Shower the writers with prizes and accolades!

Which screenplays are you rooting for?

My Previous Days of Oscar:
Day 4: Supporting Actor and Lead Actress
Day 3: Production Design and Costume Design

Day 2: Editing and Original Score
Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscar, Day 5: Screenplays!

**I straight up fell asleep Sunday night instead of keeping up with my awards season tasks and Oscar bloggage, so this discussion will have to wait until Monday.**

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscar, Day 4: Supporting Actor and Lead Actress

All right, here are a couple of categories that some of you might actually be into. Yeah? Ye whose eyes glaze over at my Sound Mixing/Original Score/Production Design jabber? Here, we're talking about actors today, OK?  Ahhh, actors - gorgeous, famous, Hollywood-groomed stars. Gotta love 'em. Specifically, let's check out the nominees for Actor in a Supporting Role and Actress in a Leading Role.

Supporting Actor:
Willem Dafoe, The Florida Project
Woody Harrelson, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Richard Jenkins, The Shape of Water
Christopher Plummer, All the Money in the World
Sam Rockwell, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

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

Now, you may be asking yourself, why am I talking about the supporting actor nominees and the lead actress nominees, instead of lead and lead, or supporting and supporting, or supporting actress and lead actor?  Is it some kind of statement? A feminist commentary? An existential note...?
Uh, no. Those happen to be the two categories I can write about tonight because I've seen all of the nominees (which is how I'm trying to do this thing). Just how it all shook out, it seems.

Right so. Supporting Actor: a lot of people have said that Michael Stuhlbarg and Armie Hammer from Call Me By Your Name  were snubbed in this category. Maybe so. You'll hear more from me about that flick in coming days - oh, but yes - but for now let's stick to what we've got. Yes, I agree, it is very likely that Christopher Plummer's last-minute filling in for the disgraced Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World was kind of a "hey, check out what we can do here, Academy! TIMESUP!" nomination. All the Money in the World was, frankly, forgettable - just blah. But that's only one spot. Anyway, I definitely don't think anyone's really thinking Plummer'll win. It was a statement nomination.

We also have, as it turns out, this always interesting phenomenon of two nominees from the same movie, but from a different movie - instead of Call Me By Your Name's actors it's Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri's Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson. I could see Sam Rockwell taking this, not Woody. But. There's a total backlash happening against the (racist? racially clueless? not sufficiently woke? cinematically flawed? all charges have been lodged) Three Billboards...  and that might dash Sam Rockwell's dreams. Then again, Sam Rockwell the person is widely well-liked, and may be sufficiently separated in voters' minds from screenwriter/director Martin McDonagh's Irish not-woke-about-U.S.-race-relations-ness. (Which is itself up for debate, but we'll save that for the posts that deal with him in his categories.)  I personally thought Sam Rockwell gave a great performance, as he ever does, and I also think that Woody Harrelson gave a great performance, as he ever does, and they were two very different performances in a very weird movie doing battle with Frances McDormand's indomitable performance at the same time. Either one, in my opinion, was better than Christopher Plummer's, but Plummer did pull it off at the last minute, so, degree of difficulty?

As for the other actors: Richard Jenkins was a little creepy along with his weird in The Shape of Water, which, as I have said and will continue to say is one weird-ass film. I don't know why I can't be bothered to say anything else about it; I'm all kinds of willing to talk about the major philosophical, animal rights, human rights, existential, societal, world peace questions presented in it that are so up my alley, but no one wants to talk about those with me so we just keep thinking about the weird fishman and how weird the movie is. Richard Jenkins managed to make me not hate him even as he delivered bad news about a cat, which is in itself an achievement in my book, so I'll say he has a chance in this category, especially if there's a (weird!) The Shape of Water sweep of everything-but-the-biggies, which I'm kind of half-predicting. Lastly, which is one of the first Oscar contenders I saw this season, we have Willem Dafoe in The Florida Project. He was definitely great, but I also think he was kind of not really a supporting role. That movie did not have one star, so naturally the agents/producers/ Hollywood awards season machine leapt at their chance to position him as a supporting actor for awards season and THIS IS ONE OF MY TOP TWO AWARDS SEASON PET PEEVES as anyone who has known me for even one awards season knows. It usually happens in the Supporting Actress category (Viola Davis, Alicia Vikander, Renee Zellweger, et. al.) but this year we're doing it in the Supporting Actor category instead. Great. Equality in the nonsense.  So anyway, Dafoe's not-supporting performance was quite good but have I mentioned how much I hated watching The Florida Project? I hesitate to say it wasn't good, but it sure was a miserable experience watching it and nothing I would want to repeat any time soon.

So, who do I want to win? I'll get to that. Let's talk about the Lead Actress noms first.

In short, I think this is a contest between Frances McDormand in Three Billboards... and Saoirse Ronan in Lady Bird, with Sally Hawkins as the possible but probably not upset for the (weird!) The Shape of Water. I think Margot Robbie was great in I, Tonya but definitely being honored just to be nominated, and Meryl Streep who is in fact great in The Post is probably not going to win because the movie was formulaic - I don't even think it was bad, just that Steven Spielberg directed it in tried-and-true Hollywood formula with a few cliches style - and with her billions of nominations, voters are more likely to give Meryl another Oscar when she's in something unique, or when it's been a few more years since her most recent formulaic (The Iron Lady) win.

Do I think Meryl or Margot should have more of a chance than they do? Perhaps. I think Meryl Streep's performance had fantastic subtle moments where we watched changes taking place in Katharine Graham's mind and behavior. And Margot Robbie really inhabited her character, too. I was particularly struck by how she flinched when being abused, both by her mother and her husband/ex-husband. But I don't think she'll win. Also worth considering: she did some ice skating (not all of it - of course there were stunt doubles), and the Academy LOVES to reward actors who learn to skate/run/box/dance/play baseball/do karate/whatever for a film, even when the actor still has a stunt double. See, e. fucking g., Natalie Portman's travesty of a win for Black Swan over the incredibly deserving Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right, which was perhaps the greatest Oscars injustice in my lifetime this side of the not-Supporting Actress category, and which was propelled through the awards season juggernaut with a LOT of talk about how much Natalie Portman danced when she in fact ALSO HAD A BALLET DANCER DOUBLE who was apparently strong-armed into hushing up while the Academy was voting and that all just pisses me right off. But. I digress. Margot and Meryl are likely not going to win.

Sally Hawkins is great, and she was quite good in the (sooo weird!) The Shape of Water, and I would be fascinated if she swept in here somehow to steal this from Frances/Saoirse. But let's talk about Frances vs. Saoirse. Frances is beloved because she's fucking awesome and hard core, and that's what her Three Billboards... character is, in a film by an Irish guy examining small town USA, while Saoirse, who was born in the U.S. but is kind of Irish is in a film by a quirky (by reputation if not in reality) U.S. gal about growing up in a small U.S. city. Everyone loves Saoirse and the Academy does LOVE to give Oscars for Actress in a Leading Role to twentysomethings. I mean, they really dig that. But Frances is also uniquely awesome in their eyes. In my opinion, Frances McDormand had a harder job. I loved Saoirse Ronan's performance and think it was superb and I could watch it again. But I am going to have to say I think Frances McDormand had more to do, and did it.

I really have no idea what's going to happen on the big night, though. Really. But what the hell....

My picks: Supporting Actor: I really don't know who I want. Harrelson or Jenkins.  Lead Actress: Frances McDormand
Who I think will win: Supporting Actor: Sam Rockwell, Lead Actress: um...ugh...argh...Frances McDormand

Previous Days of Oscar:
Day 3: Production Design and Costume Design

Day 2: Editing and Original Score
Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing 




Friday, February 23, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscars, Day 3: Production Design and Costume

The Oscars are getting closer, I've seen all of the Best Picture nominees and the majority of the multiple nominees, and you all know what that means: I start checking off the boxes in those "other" categories - the one-off, the randoms, the make-up nominations, things like that.  Tonight, I watched Beauty and the Beast (2017, Emma Watson, you know...), which means I have now completed the Production Design and Costume categories. Time to unleash judgment!

Production Design: Beauty and the Beast, Blade Runner 2049, Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, The Shape of Water

Costume Design: Beauty and the Beast, Darkest Hour, Phantom Thread, The Shape of Water, Victoria and Abdul

Once again, as with yesterday's look at Editing and Score, I have chosen to look at  overlapping categories: three Production Design and Costume nominees are the same, two in each are different. I suppose this isn't altogether surprising, what with sumptuous visuals being a common feature in both, right?

We might as well get my freshly watched Beauty and the Beast out of the way here: I don't want it to win in either category. Not because this movie is, with all due respect to Emma Watson (seriously, I like her), a snooze-fest that really has no need to exist. Although it definitely is that. But because:
Production Design? Really? More like CGI design. Half of this "live action" remake was STILL dancing, prattling on clocks and teacups and whatnot, so obviously digitally rendered. Who even knew how much castle/village backdrop was a set? And Costume? Weeellll... I get it, why it was nominated and all, but I am so NOT a fan of the color yellow that the iconic Belle dress turns me right off these costumes. Sorry, B and the B!

Moving on, then. Also nominated in both categories, we have Darkest Hour and The Shape of Water. To be honest, I'm a little surprised at Darkest Hour being nominated here. I guess there were a LOT of costumes, but were they really THAT hard? And the production design... well, the maze of undergroundy offices and things was cool, I guess. I doubt it'll win, though. The Shape of Water, on the other hand, is definitely a contender to just kind of sweep a bunch of awards. It's nominated all over the place and people really dig it. Will these be two of them? I think it would be a waste to give The Shape of Water a Costume prize, but Production Design is definitely something it might get, especially if it's on its way to winning the "big" prizes when the big night comes.

But I personally think I'm leaning toward Blade Runner 2049 for Production Design (sorry, Dunkirk - nice ocean, though). It was such a cool, realized world with many, many, many different settings and moving parts, and so imagined and non-traditional.

And for Costumes? Really, it could be Victoria and Abdul, and I'd be totally OK with that. What about Phantom Thread?  Such a strange nominee here. I mean, there are some cool clothes in that movie, mostly appearing as plot points of the movie, and it's kind of weird to think of an Academy Award for something that's part of the spoken plot. Then again, they did have to be designed - even if we were to believe Daniel Day Lewis' character did all that work.

We'll get to acting categories soon, in the next couple days. For now, I've completed only about a half dozen categories, and have now shared with you my inability to decide them. What do you think?

Previous Days of Oscar:
Day 2: Editing and Original Score
Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing 


Thursday, February 22, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscars, Day 2: Editing and Original Score

Welcome back to my Twelve Days of Oscars! For Day 2, let's examine two categories that are very much post-production, and very much what give us the movies we actually watch, as opposed to the footage that was filmed for weeks/months.

Unlike yesterday's analysis, which featured two categories with the same five nominees, today we explore categories with overlapping but not identical nominees.

Editing: Baby Driver, Dunkirk, I, Tonya, The Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Original Score: Dunkirk, Phantom Thread, The Shape of Water, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

We'll talk about the overlappers first. The Shape of Water, you may know, received the most nominations  this year; during the announcement that early morning, it was a while before we got to a category in which it wasn't announced! As I've said elsewhere, that movie is not really for me. While I get the successful realization of artistry that it was, and can't point out any flaw or failure -- that is to say, if I were a teacher (unarmed, naturally) assigning "Make a movie realizing your individual vision" as homework and my student handed in that trippy thing, I'd have to give an A -- it's just weird and not-for-me weird, as opposed to so-up-my-alley weird. Now, what bearing does that have on whether I think it should win for Original Score? Well, mainly that I can't really remember the score. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I don't know. Editing, though, you could make a strong case for. Lots of water, weird fish-man stuff, back and forth between the home and workplace scenes, a climactic chase sequence, all that good stuff. A solid job, editing wise.

The other overlappers are Dunkirk and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (I predict getting real tired of typing that last title soon). I don't particularly remember the score of Dunkirk moving me, but I remember it kind of doing its job well. As for Three Billboards.... (yup, definitely abbreviation time), as I recall it was good as background and not bad when it came to the foreground at certain dramatic times. But did I love it? Was it the best? I don't know.

I guess I should confess that this isn't a really new or strange feeling. There are lots of years when I'm not wowed by any particular score -- unlike the There Will Be Blood sorts of absolutely stunning scores which make me sad when they are ineligible to be nominated -- and that lack of being wowed might surprise some people who know that I like music and even have known a couple of peeps who do scoring work, but there you have it. I will say that I don't see it as a crucial part of the success nor of the what-the-hell-ness of Phantom Thread.

That's right; you heard it here first. Not a big fan of the Phantom Thread, despite it being the aforementioned There...Blood scorer Jonny Greenwood reteaming with those peeps. We'll talk more about my lack of Phantom Thread love in coming days. Today, I guess I'll say I'm not going to be surprised if it wins this category, although I'm thinking it's more likely The Shape of Water will sweep a bunch of categories, including this one. Star Wars: The Last Jedi might not really have a chance just because John Williams might get the been-there-done-that eye roll of voters.  I think of all the categories I've thought about or seen at least three of the contenders in, Original Score this year inspires the least passion in me. I can't pick.

How about Film Editing, then? Now, I think the degree of difficulty in editing I, Tonya should not be understated. It might seem simple, cutting back and forth between faux-interviews and action, but it was pieced together really well to move us through the story, hold our interest, present questions about contradictions at the right pace, and so forth. Three Billboards...  was actually much more linear of a story (the occasional crucial flashback notwithstanding). I already mentioned that the weird-ass The Shape of Water's editing was good work, and Dunkirk  was well put together, too - multiple settings/characters to manage converging to one storied meeting point. But we also have to think about our good friend Baby Driver, which I did give Sound Mixing props to yesterday. This was a matter of a lot of fast and furious editing in the action sequences, but also it was such a weird and moody film that it's pretty well crafted when it pulls itself off.

In short, there's no bad apple in this bunch, but I think I'm pulling for either I, Tonya  or Baby Driver to win Film Editing.

It's been a rough 24 hours, and I'm tired. Day 2 of the Twelve Days of Oscar is hard. What do you all think? The Shape of Water?  A different overlapper? Or one of my outlier picks? Who should win? Which of those films did you enjoy as a finished, scored, well put together final product?

Previous Days of Oscar:
Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Twelve Days of Oscars, Day 1: Sound Mixing and Sound Editing

Welcome to the Twelve Days of Oscars! That's right, we're just twelve days away from my favorite special occasion of the year, the Academy Awards. Let's spend these last twelve days of Awards Season having a look each day at some of the nominees! This is not even close to a judgment-free space. Laissez les opinions rouler!

First, a brief check-in: how am I doing this year with my progression through the checklist of nominees? Well, as of the day the nominations were announced (another special occasion - I always take that morning off work) I had seen 9 of the feature-length films with 33 still to go, plus I had seen none of the shorts (five each for Animated, Documentary, and Live Action shorts). As of this writing today, I have now seen 25 of the feature-length films with 17 more to go. Progress! I also still have to see all the shorts, but the Live Action and Animated have only just arrived at Landmark Century Centre this week, while the Documentary Shorts come to Music Box starting this weekend, so those will be attended to over the next week or so. (Those are Chicago-specific references, and obviously peeps elsewhere will find them unhelpful. But you know. Check your local listings, eh.)

Right then. Let's begin with two categories that are related to the point of being indistinguishable for many an Oscar pool ballot-filler-outer, and which this year are EXTREMELY closely related in that they have the exact same five nominees. I refer, of course to Sound Mixing and Sound Editing.

Sound Mixing: Baby Driver, Blade Runner 2049, Dunkirk, The Shape of Water, Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Sound Editing: Baby Driver, Blade Runner 2049, Dunkirk, The Shape of Water, Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Most years, those categories have three or four of the same nominees and we can try to use the one or two different noms to help our friends understand the difference between the two categories. Not this time! But this does make it exciting to maybe place a side bet on whether the same one will win both awards with the exact same competition... 

To review, sound mixing is basically the soundscape of the film - the final mix that you hear, the levels of everything, a kind of overall masterpiece of finessing the sounds. Sound editing can be thought of kind of as sound effects - what sounds did they make and create to put into this movie? Yes, both categories do post-production work, but they're different jobs. Even though this year they are the exact same nominees.

I don't feel particularly passionate about these categories in general, even though I have done my share of audio work in the past, both in live theater and in radio jobs, but I appreciate them, plus I've seen all of the (same!) movies nominated in them, which is why I began with them today, this first of the Twelve Days of Oscars. So, let's consider.

I'm immediately eliminating Dunkirk from contention for Sound Mixing because I spent a great deal of my time watching that flick asking, "What did he say? What? Huh? I couldn't hear. I couldn't understand."  (Note: duh, I was watching it at home on DVD and would never dare to utter those or any other words out loud in a theater and neither should you, obviously.) On the other hand, Dunkirk had a lot of Sound Editing and effects that might deserve an award.

The Shape of Water has a really good chance of winning these, especially if it's going to win a bunch of other stuff, too, like Directing and Screenplay and - who knows? - maybe Best Picture. I personally find the film to be visionary and well done but so not my thang at all, but that's nothing against the Sound Mixing chances of it. Sound Editing, though? I don't think it was that special.

Blade Runner 2049 and Star Wars: The Last Jedi are interesting to consider here. They're such big, bold action flicks that are very much made of their cool effects, not just in sound and visuals but in building alternative worlds to immerse us in for two hours. Are viewers jaded because however many Star Wars films later we just expect it to be well done at this point, dismissing the Sound Editing skill in making sounds for all those spaceships, fake planets, lightsaber fights, and the like? What about the many different life forms/A.I./technology bits of Blade Runner 2049 that were rendered so realistically as they spoke to us?

Baby Driver, which is a bit of a different ride, does what I thought were stellar, emotionally magical things with the music and remixes woven throughout it both as sound effects and plot points. It definitely has an intriguing and I thought fantastically successful soundscape, and that is why I'm hoping it wins here.

So, I think  Baby Driver is my pick for Sound Mixing, and what the heck, Blade Runner 2049 for Sound Editing. If nothing else, I will defiantly keep reminding everyone these are two different awards and do my part by picking two different movies!  No, seriously though - I'm not saying it's wrong to want the same movie to win both of these. But I do have two different picks.

What do you think? What struck your ear when you watched the five films nominated in these two categories?