Completed Category: Sound

 Another category I completed by watching The Zone of Interest was Sound, the category it has an excellent chance to win! 

]

We have definitely reached the point in Oscar season where I am tired, and having a busy work week. So let's get on through this, shall we? 

THE CREATOR:  On Nominations Day, I was one of the ones who said, "What's that?"  That's me, just over here being ignorant of sci-fi, fantasy, action, and other spectacles at the movies! Ha. I didn't not like this movie, but I also didn't really ever get super-into the whole "We are A.I. and we were wronged!" thing. It was all kinds of creepy. A.I. is like time travel -- people never quite know what to do with it in movies, because there is always some gaping logic hole if you think too much about what's going on. Anyway, Allison Janney showed up, which I was into. But we're here to talk about Sound. There was a lot of it! 

This probably won't win. 

MAESTRO: This has a lot of nominations. In addition to the so-called big ones, here we are in Sound. While there was of course music in this flick, there surprisingly wasn't that much. Honestly this was so much more about an interpersonal relationship than anything else.  This probably won't win. 

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - DEAD RECKONING PART ONE: One of my hobbies during Oscar season has been typing out and/or speaking the full title of this movie, every time I mention it, just 'cause. There's so much of it! There was also so much Sound. But, there were even more visual shenanigans. Still, there was a lot going on, and so supremely executed, and you know, let's dream big for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One, shall we? This has a small chance to win. 

OPPENHEIMER: What does it sound like to detonate murderous nuclear bomb tests in the desert, terrifying, torturing, and killing thousands and thousands of animals?  Goddamn humans. This movie has a chance to win, because there is a chance for Oppenheimer  to sweep everything, kinda like a bomb blasts away everything in its path, except the latter is much more painful for the living things on the ground than an Oscar ceremony. Humans are legitimately the worst and I hope every Oppenheimer acceptance speech mentions that. 

THE ZONE OF INTEREST: But see, to win this category a film would have to beat this. And this was a uniquely powerful use of Sound. As you have probably heard by now, this film conceptual art project depicts a shiny happy evil Nazi family living their best life in a house next to Auschwitz, which you hear but never see.  It's really well done and certainly remarkable. I didn't care for this movie, which I thought failed on lots of levels, but not on this Sound level!  This has an excellent chance to win. 

And so. Remember the good ol' days when Sound Mixing and Sound Editing were two separate awards?  If that were still true the Academy could give Sound Mixing to The Zone of Interest and Sound Editing to Oppenheimer. Alas, they'll have to make a choice. 

Order I want them to win: 

I'm fine with The Zone of Interest here
Mission:Impossible -Dead Reckoning Part One
Oppenheimer

Maestro (I feel bad for Bradley and I do want his movie to win some stuff) 

The Creator (Don't forget it's an honor to be nominated.) 

Order I think they will win: 
The Zone of Interest
Oppenheimer
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
Maestro 
The Creator

How does that Sound to you? 

Completed Category: Adapted Screenplay

 Well, I finally saw The Zone of Interest.  And it was a giant disappointment. But I completed four more categories, so there's that.  Guess we'll start here. 

I will be perfectly content if any of three of these films win, and if either of the other two win, I will throw Things at the Zone of the television. 

AMERICAN FICTION: I read that Cord Jefferson is from Arizona! Bonus points to him. Also, he wrote a pretty good screenplay here. The ending is - an interesting choice. I know there are layers upon meta layers, but it still might put off a few people. And of course, some of the fresh wit of this comes from the Percival Everett book it adapted, which I also liked, while the major departures from the book (Boston, the manner of one character's death) I think served the film well, but were those his changes or changes by committee? Also a lot of what I loved about this film was the performances. In general I think this is a good, more-than-solid, A-minus, not quite my first choice. But lots of people will vote for it. 

BARBIE: And a lot of people will vote for this. Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach wrote a fun and thoughtful screenplay - yes, based on something that already exists, for one more reminder for those who don't believe the Academy knows how its Original vs Adapted rules work - and Greta also famously directed it to a billion dollars at the box office but wasn't nominated for Directing. I think Barbie has a more than great shot at winning because of both of those things, the not being able to award Greta otherwise AND the fact that it was a good screenplay that saved moviegoing, at least for a little while. So, what's stopping it? 

OPPENHEIMER: Oh. That. Yeah. Oppenheimer was great, it is going to win some Oscars, and this might be one of them. But - Christopher Nolan adapted it from a book (and an actual real life), unlike, say, some of the other brilliant things that have emerged from his mind as Original over the years, which is not to say he didn't do wholly original and brilliant things with it, just that there's a different starting point. Also, more importantly, he will almost surely win Directing, and the film might win a whole lot of stuff, so this category could be where people back off from him and give Gerwig the prize since they're handsomely rewarding Nolan elsewhere. 

See? All three of those have a chance, and make for a super-interesting race.  Unlike...

POOR THINGS: Ugh.  Ugh times one million. Screenwriter Tony McNamara said, and I quote, that he hates "sex scenes for no reason."  Well, Tony, self-aware you are not. Perhaps even worse, he said that he was always failing English class in high school and could never get his head around grammar but wouldja look here, now he's a writer. Ugh. Every single thing about this movie is another check in the Ugh column for me. I know some people are going to vote for him because he wrote words for Bella the franken-baby-mind (discovering sex) and words for Bella the grown-up-mind (roaming around the world getting naked with more people), but my godz do I hope it's just a few people and that I don't have to throw (Poor) Things at the TV when this award is announced. 

THE ZONE OF INTEREST: Now this one is (Zone of) interesting here only because it's utterly baffling to think about how it could possibly garner votes for this category. First of all, it's honestly less of an adapted screenplay than Barbie. It didn't even keep the characters from Martin Amis' book! It took the title and premise and part of the setting and then created an entirely different (lack of) story. The book was a mess in many ways, but this didn't bother trying to improve on it, just said OK literary estate of Martin Amis, thanks for the premise, bye!  Secondly, though, what screenplay we have here is - not much. So it's not as if Jonathan Glazer went and wrote a different story; he wrote instead a kind of art project.  Now, we all know that I do not care for fever dream projects masquerading as cinematic narratives, so this did not work for me in the slightest. But I also think there are objectively major flaws, such as: what's happening here?! in the infrared sequences that come out of nowhere? if Grandma is going to make a stand can you at least tell us about it? can you in fact depict anything that happens at any point?  and what on earth are you trying to say with the ending - that we shouldn't have a museum?  Everything is so unclear but on top of that it's also boring. Was his take on the banality of evil that he could one-up everybody by making the most horrific shocking acts of humanity unfathomably dull?  Seriously, we know this is going to win International (Foreign) film and maybe Sound, but really don't think it's going to win here. 

I'm reluctant to even try to predict but ... who cares, this is all just my personal fever dream blog rantings anyway!  HA.

Order I want them to win: 
Barbie

Oppenheimer

American Fiction
<huge gap>
<chasm>
<the Grand Canyon>
<all of the fabric of space time>
tie for last: Poor Things and The Zone of Interest

Order I think they will win (MAYBE): 
Barbie
American Fiction
Oppenheimer
who cares

Completed Category: Supporting Actress

 Yesterday I finally saw the new The Color Purple, thus completing a category!

In fact, I didn't just watch the new The Color Purple but instead made a day of it and watched the 1985 movie and then in the evening, this Awards Season's flick, which is an adaptation of an adaptation of an adaptation. You know, some Awards Season jabberers are really throwing around the nonsense that this new movie is "an adaptation of the book."  That is such a lie. For one thing it is based on the musical straight up. Like, your screenplay includes book and songs from the musical. Pretty sure those songs weren't in Alice Walker's book!  (I read it!)  And then, I suppose someone COULD skip over the 1985 film adaptation - but you didn't. It is absolutely referenced and incorporated in many ways.  Multiple cast members are on the record saying this. Let's be real. Anyway, none of that is the point of this post! 

EMILY BLUNT, Oppenheimer: She was fantastic in this. I know, I know, when is she not? But my goodness does she elevate her part to the very very most it can possibly be. You know Christopher Nolan wasn't going to write a killer female part in this manly male man-fest of maleness but Emily Blunt took what was written and made it the absolute most because she's one of the greatest actresses working today, period. I want her to win an Oscar! 

DANIELLE BROOKS, The Color Purple: She was definitely great. The whole talented cast of this was great, but I suppose we had to focus on someone and she sure was strong and confident and funny and heartbreaking and amazing in each of her scenes, so I am very OK with this nomination.  She also mentioned that in at least one scene she consciously paid homage to Oprah (who played the role in the 1985 film this is an adaptation of an adaptation of). Does that help her chances here? I say it couldn't hurt. 

AMERICA FERRERA, Barbie:  I almost forgot about this for a second! (or rather, a month, since the nominations came out)  Of course her monologue went viral last summer as everybody discovered Feminism 101 through Barbie, and listen: I am OK with Feminism 101 - y'all have to start somewhere! -  but she also had a little bit more going on in this film than just that.  Still, even if you score straight up zero picks on your ballot and lose your entire Oscar pool, if you take a side bet about which clip from Barbie will be shown for her clip for this category, you can still win something for the evening.  As for the actual award, here, I think she is in honor-to-be-nominated territory. 

JODIE FOSTER, Nyad:  Oh godz do I want her to win. However! I also have to point out that this was really pushing it on the Supporting vs. Lead thing, which you know is my pet peeve, and on which this year otherwise is doing very well overall.  Jodie really is a co-star of this movie. But she of course gets marketed as Supporting - and not because the role is in fact Character Who Supports The Other Star in her life and quests, but because this charade is the very favorite nonsense Awards Season charade we have to endure every year.  And because that is annoying, I won't be 100% mad when she doesn't win. But I also will be fine if she shocks the hell out of everyone and wins  - which could juuuuuuuust possibly happen because she is so well-liked and connected to SO.MANY. Academy voters, and because her performance was absolutely off-the-charts.  Pitch perfect every single second. 

DA'VINE JOY RANDOLPH, The Holdovers:  You know, as I was just typing her name, I wondered: what did kids with apostrophes in their names do for that bubble back when we filled in the bubbles on the standardized test and scantron answer sheets?  Huh. Have I really never talked about this?  Two of my close friends in high school had punctuation marks in their names. Anyway, Da'Vine (or is it Da'Vine Joy?) has been winning a few statues these past few months and it's looking likely that this will be another for her. It was the scene in the kitchen that did it, I think - but also she does throw a fair amount of sass to Paul Giamatti's character, which he richly deserves I might add.  Everyone loves a misfit friends story (at least I do) and she's a strong, kind, but also fun part of this one. 

Order I want them to win: 
Jodie Foster
Emily Blunt
Da'Vine Joy Randolph
Danielle Brooks
America Ferrera 

Order I think they will win: 
Da'Vine Joy Randolph

maaaaaaaybe Jodie Foster
Emily Blunt

America Ferrera 

Danielle Brooks

They were all so great!  What a cool-ass group of actresses. 

Seriously take that Barbie monologue side bet though, if you can get anyone foolish enough to go against you on it. 

Completed Category: Short Film (Animated)

 And now I'm done with all the Shorts!  Saw the Animateds yesterday. 

And guess what - regarding the question of which of this year's set of Shorts is clearly better or worse than another set of Shorts, I was actually good with all the Live Action and most of the Animated. And most of the Documentary Shorts. So basically, there was no omg-wtf set this year. 

That's not to say there weren't some heavy topics!  I'll keep my thoughts short, since the Shorts were short. (Which is how I like my Animation, by the way.) 

OUR UNIFORM:  I was into this and then it ended too abruptly.  It's a kind of meditation about how girls are forced to wear the hijab (nowadays) in Iran and at the beginning there was a disclaimer of no offense to anyone who chooses to wear hijab but that this was about the experience of being forced to wear it in a certain place. Eye roll. 

LETTER TO A PIG: This is a meditation on .. a lot of things. Including escaping death, but also war and pigs (not War Pigs though) and some other stuff.  I want to watch this again and maybe again and again. 

There was no disclaimer of no offense to anyone who has not hidden in a pig sty. 

PACHYDERME: This was creepy as f*ck. I do not want to watch it again and again. There was no disclaimer of no offense to anyone who had a positive experience in a house with an elephant tusk on display. 

NINETY-FIVE SENSES:  I did watch this one twice. (It's available online and I also saw the group of Shorts in the theatre.) I like this one a lot too. It is heavy. It is also about being alive in a way unlike anything I've ever seen before. It kinda sneaks up on you of how good it is.  There was no disclaimer of no offense to people who do not have five senses. 

WAR IS OVER! INSPIRED BY THE MUSIC OF JOHN & YOKO: It's about war.  I liked it a lot! I was thinking it was the best and might win until I walked out of the theatre and heard two people complaining that it was the worst of the five. What!? It was so good. War is bad. Chess and birds and cease-fires are good. There was no disclaimer of no offense to the wars that are not over. 

Order I want them to win:  top 3 might as well be a tie

Ninety-Five Senses
War Is Over! Inspired By the Music of John & Yoko
Letter To A Pig

then Our Uniform
then big gap then Pachyderme

Order I think they will win: 
I am pretty sure this category is one of my worst in terms of predictions? Sadly I don't keep stats so we'll never know but that is my impression. Once in a while I get it right. Hmmmmm... 

probably War Is Over! Inspired By the Music of John & Yoko? 

maybe Ninety-Five Senses? 
maybe Our Uniform? 

maybe Letter to a Pig  which was weird but I loved it
please not Pachyderme

Have you gone to see the Animated Shorts at your local cinema? 

There's also a Highly Commended but not nominated one that was kinda like The Shape of Water 🤣🐟 except about real fish - sort of.   Animators sure can do weird stuff! 

Completed Category: Short Film - Live Action

Shorts week continues for me with the completion of the Live Action Shorts. 

I like them all, which is always nice, to not have either a dull slate or that one terrible one that needs to go away. Not this year! All are good - but there is a clear winner. I will avoid spoilers here.

THE AFTER: This one has star power, but it's also kind of strange; it fails to totally pack its punch even though it's super intense for a moment. It kind of fizzles out in a head-scratching ending. It's also short and not bad or anything, just left me feeling like they didn't really know what they wanted for the conclusion. 

INVINCIBLE:  Also well done, extremely well-crafted in fact, with beginning, middle, and end. I'd give it an A if this were film class, or at least an A-minus. This year, though, a poignant story of a troubled teenage boy with a strong young actor performance isn't quite enough to rise to the top of the heap. 

KNIGHT OF FORTUNE:  This is great. Two men have an encounter and more at a morgue, but there's a lot going on beneath the surface and the story unspools with little twists and turns,while still being a quiet, contained, emotional little journey.  In any other year I might say this is first place, but... 

RED, WHITE AND BLUE: Oh, yes. This one. I'll not say anything much about it other than it's about a woman in a state in the South trying to travel to a different state for an abortion. Go do yourself a favor and watch this one, which can be rented on Vimeo, even if you don't get to your local cinema to see the entire Live Action Shorts collection.  (Which you should totally do by the way.)

THE WONDERFUL STORY OF HENRY SUGAR:  Wow! Wes Anderson in small doses is the best Wes Anderson. And he matches perfectly with a Roald Dahl story. This is what he always should have been doing - keeping it short. 

Really, we don't need a big deconstruction of anything here. I simply enthusiastically recommend that you support whichever theatre near you is showing the Oscar-nominated Shorts. Most years I think that either the Animated are good and the Live Action are meh not so much, or the Live Action are great and the Animated are no thanks, and based on how good these five Live Action are, I don't have high hope for when I go see the Animateds. It must be a Live Action year! 

Order in which I want them to win: 
Red, White and Blue obviously
then basically could be a tie but I'll try to rank...
Knight of Fortune
Invincible 
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
The After 

Order in which I think they will win: 
Red, White and Blue, if anyone has any sense in their Academy-votin' heads
maybe The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar? 'cause people love Wes Anderson
maybe The After? because people love David Oyelowo
maybe Knight of Fortune? It's great. 
sorry Invincible

But like, none of the #2 through #5 rankings matter. Gooooo Red, White and Blue! 

Will definitely be throwing things at the TV on Oscar night if the right one doesn't win here. 

Completed Category: Documentary Short

 It's my first completed Shorts category this year, and quite the opposite of last year when I was thwarted and nobody would let me complete all of the nominees before the ceremony and it was mainly this category's fault because they weren't showing at a theatre in Atlanta (although the Animated and Live Action were) and one didn't become available online to rent/stream until last June!  How do I measure a year?  In Oscar nominees watched, that's how! But why dredge up the past? 

Anyway, so the powers that be decided to let me see all the Doc Shorts this year, thank you very much, and this I have now done. 

THE ABCs OF BOOK BANNING:  Hot topics do well at the Docs and at the Shorts and at the Doc Shorts, so this already starts out ahead. Is it well done? Yes. Are the featured people interesting? Yes. Does it invite me to look at this topic in a new way, or offer some fresh perspective?  Honestly not really. This series of reactions and analysis from a bunch of people, mostly young, about banned, challenged, and restricted books is not really breaking any new ground. Does it draw someone in who might not be interested in the topic at first? It does all right. People like charming little kids, right?  (They're not all that little.)  The first group of girls who started us off with their self-assured platitudes were a wee bit obnoxious, but some who get interviewed later are rad. The blond boy with the kind of mullet-look is by far my favorite.  "I just like to know stuff."  Yes. My man. Look for him. He's great. 

THE BARBER OF LITTLE ROCK:  Community development is my jam!  Haha kidding, it's just my job five days a week, as they say. But I fully loved Arlo Washington, his work, his team, the barber college, the way they drove around to show and point out the discrepancies between the predominantly white and predominantly Black communities on either side of a freeway, and the clear, cool-headed examination of the persistent racial wealth gap.  This absolutely featured interesting people, new perspective, and a way of drawing you in. I don't really fault it but it could have been a teeny tiny bit clearer on chronology but not in a way that mattered. Basically, good! Totally OK if it wins. 

ISLAND IN BETWEEN: I liked this one probably more than some people because I like to contemplate China and China-adjacent things and I am always fascinated by Taiwan, both so China and so not right now. This look at the Taiwan island that is just off the coast rightupthisclose to mainland China just really worked for me. But it might float in the middle of the pack here. 

THE LAST REPAIR SHOP: This one, though!  What a beautiful little slice of life, really well done, intimate (yet global in reach), a brilliant interweaving of stories, a profound look at how we really can make a difference.  I am one million percent #TeamTheLastRepairShop.  I always say any film that makes me feel positive feelings about humanity did a damn good job! In this case, the group of co-workers at a musical instrument repair shop and several kids in the Los Angeles Unified School District who have discovered how important playing a musical instrument is to them  tell their close-up stories, and the filmmaker weaves a pitch perfect macro out of the micro. I loved it! 

NAI NAI & WAI PO: Meh. This was kind of one note. Definitely was telling you it was more clever than it was. The premise of a guy documenting his two living grandmothers, who live together, was all right but the execution was...meh. Sometimes weird little ones like this resonate with people though, eye-rollingly to me. 

Order I want them to win: 
The Last Repair Shop
The Barber of Little Rock
Island In Between
The ABCs of Book Banning
Nai Nai & Wai Po

Order I think they will win: 
Like I said, probably The ABCs of Book Banning has the strong upper hand here
The Barber of Little Rock  has a chance
I hope The Last Repair Shop has more of a chance; maybe the L.A. connection will help? 
Nai Nai & Wai Po, ugh
Island In Between - just not sure how much this will wow people

Did you see the Documentary Shorts? 
What do you think? 

Completed Category: Makeup and Hairstyling

 Some years this category is weird and makes me watch something I would have actively avoided if not for the nomination. This year it has four nominees with nods in other categories including three Best Pic nominees and only one outlier. I watched the outlier last night. 

GOLDA: Right so, first of all I thought Helen Mirren was great. The scenes with Kissinger especially, but really the whole film. I understand there was some Controversy about her playing Golda Meir because Mirren is not Jewish. Anyway, the film held my interest throughout but then I mean I don't want to get into spoilers but I was sort of confused by the ending and thought I must have missed something I should have been paying closer attention to vis-a-vis the generals and spies and who had done what.  Ah, well. The makeup & hairstyling work was fantastic. Give it the prize! 

MAESTRO: Uh-oh, another Controversy! Anyway, this film was good, as I have noted elsewhere, and way more about his wife Felicia than I knew it was going to be, and there is more going on with the makeup & hairstyling of her character over the decades in the film than with him!  Also, 21 years ago I had to listen to all of everybody, up to and including Denzel Washington, who would not shut up about the prosthetic nose worn by Nicole Kidman in one of my top three all-time favorite films, The Hours, and as far as I am concerned, I don't owe anybody another second of my time listening to whining about prosthetic noses ever again for as long as the Oscars shall live.  I will be fine if this wins in this category, and maybe even more so if some whiners get mad about it. 

OPPENHEIMER: Is this going to sweep and thus win here too? Maybe. That would be the way for it to win this, though. 

POOR THINGS: If you haven't yet heard me say how excruciating of an experience watching this movie was, hi! Welcome!  Poor Things sucks. I actually hated Emma Stone's hair in this; it freaked me out. Not even remotely the thing I hated most about this, though! That said, the makeup job on Willem Dafoe was jaw-dropping. Possibly literally. If I let you give Poor Things this Oscar, could you pleeeeeease keep it to just this one?  No?  Ugh, do I really have to throw in Production Design?  Godz I just want this to go away. 

SOCIETY OF THE SNOW:  But this! This I want to sweep! But it's only nominated in two categories (should be in more - we're looking at you, Sound) and it's probably going to not win Foreign International so this might be its only chance and... that would be OK. It was great!

So you see my dilemma! The one I want most to win this category isn't the one I most want to win a prize that will probably need to win this category. 

Order I want them to win: 
Golda or Society of the Snow <tie>
Maestro
Poor Things (ugh, grudgingly)
Oppenheimer

Order I think they will win: 
Poor Things (ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh) 
Oppenheimer  or Golda
Maestro 
Society of the Snow (sadly) 

But, I might be wrong! What do I know about makeup and hairstyling?! I can't be bothered to do either on a daily basis. 

Completed Category: Costume Design

 We get a two-fer in my Oscar diary bloggage today, because viewing Napoleon last night completed two categories for me.  The second one I shall pontificate about is Costume Design. 

As it happens, Costume Design and Production Design have the exact same five nominees, which has happened only twice before -- you can read all about that here, if you're so inclined. I was inclined! 

BARBIE: As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, please please please give Barbie the Production Design Oscar, but I don't feel anywhere near as much pain to think about it losing anything else, including Costume Design. Yes it was great and fun, and honestly there is so much that goes into Costume Design in general that I don't want to say it isn't hard or anything but -- I'm putting this in the middle of the pack here. Lots of pink, lots of fun, lots of sharp looks, some women dressed as dolls, some men dressed as dolls, even a man dressed as a woman doll, two different worlds, Beach, there's lots of fun here. I wouldn't throw things if it won, but just don't need it to. 

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: But this! This really does need to win something and I'm running out of categories for it, and this sure would be a great one! As much as I support Lily Gladstone, I need Annette Bening to win Actress, and this here Costume Design honestly might be Killers of the Flower Moon's best other chance.  Again I will mention the intense but we're-so-professional-we-make-it-look-easy research and deliberate preparation that went into this flick and the support and work of the Osage community, but when you find out about the tiny little things like Mollie wearing something on her outfit that would indicate she'd been previously married but Ernest being oblivious, and all the other finely detailed little touches, you just have to be like let's please give this film an Oscar. Here would be fine. 

NAPOLEON:  I liked this crazy mess of a Napoleon movie, which I am aware some others did not enjoy as much, and I will say that I found his hat at times absolutely riveting. This was a high degree of difficulty and a lot of really cool crowns.  Also, the uniforms helped us out with the plot and various international players at times, and basically, I won't be mad at all if this wins and for now it's my strong strong second choice. 

OPPENHEIMER:  Meh. Not here. Like, it was fine - I think. Haven't heard of any egregious errors to match its props/flags error. But in general I think there was just not as much costuming as any of these other films. A lot of the scenes were the same scene flashed back and forth to, so the same suit or whatever, whether they had to make ten copies of it over the course of filming. 

POOR THINGS:  Enough with this movie.  And how much do you really care about the Costume Design when you're just waiting for Emma Stone's clothes to come off as her body gets passed to the next man who gets to possess it?  Ugh. 

In most years, Costume Design isn't one of my most thrilling races, but I occasionally do have a strong feeling or two.  And, as usual, we have a several-hundred-years-ago historical epic, a several-decades-ago smart film, something whimsical, something thoughtful, something weird.  All the usual suspects are here, and I'm not sure whether this will just get carried along with whichever one is winning everything, or if a unique contender will emerge. 

Order I would like them to win: 
Killers of the Flower Moon
Napoleon
Barbie
Oppenheimer OR Poor Things,  don't care

Order I think they will win: 
Poor Things, ugh
Barbie maybe
Killers of the Flower Moon
Napoleon
Oppenheimer

Completed Category: Production Design

I finished two categories by watching Napoleon - two categories with the exact same slate of five nominees!  One of them is Production Design. 

BARBIE: This is the first of these five films that I saw, and this is the category that I most want it to win. And none of these other four have surpassed it in my opinion. It took some toys we had all seen and most of us even held in our hands and made a magical, beautiful world - with compelling undertones. I think the movie as a whole is juuuuuuust a smidge overrated and its takedown of The Patriarchy is to say the very least incomplete, but hey - y'all beginners gotta start somewhere. While the film is flawed, the Production Design is not, at all. You truly believe you are traveling between these two worlds, and that this one really exists out there somewhere, giving you some instruction for how to think about your own world. It will be a travesty when Barbie loses this category. 

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: This has become a recurring theme here but Scorcese & Company did their jobs and their meticulous research so incredibly well, and created a world to tell us a haunting story, and I think it is a wonderful, scathing, entrancing film. However, in this category it is second place for me. I really don't want it to get shut out, so I won't be mad and throw things if it wins here. The degree of difficulty is more than you might think, with every little bit of house, business, outdoor, indoor, street, gathering, barber shop, car, explosion, you name it perfectly depicted. Strong strong silver medal.  Maybe we could have a tie? 

NAPOLEON: And this one, which I watched last night to complete the category, also did some visually marvelous work. With another incredible degree of difficulty. However, I understand that it also worked some magic with Visual Effects?  At any rate it was stunning, and somehow gorgeous when depicting bloody massacres, so hey - well done everybody.  I know this movie didn't work for a lot of people but I for one massively enjoyed batshit crazy Napoleon and Josephine, and all the other madness. It also made me nostalgic for when I read War and Peace. Mostly, I found it delightfully dark and amusing and weird and a totally solid entry here. 

OPPENHEIMER: Ya know, I recently went to Los Alamos. I've also been all around the Southwest, having grown up in Arizona, and been many times to New Mexico, but only the other year finally went to the actual weird little made-up town that still sits there in the middle of a gorgeous landscape where they unleashed hellish fury, terrifying and killing untold number of animals and plants, before moving on to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese humans. You have to show i.d. to drive into the actual town. Anyway, I honestly loved the film Oppenheimer and I also honestly don't think this had the same degree of difficulty as several others in this category, but mostly I am going to have to say something here about the still-unanswered (as far as I can tell) 50-star flag thing. Much has been made of the use of USA flags with 50-stars in a climactic scene set when there were only 48 states. Some insist that director Christopher Nolan did it on purpose, with that scene in color being Oppenheimer's memory, envisioned  from 50-state 1963. I think those insisters are reaching. Some claim to have been extras in that scene and report (on the internet) that the flags were some cheap bulk props brought in, which would be such an astoundingly bonehead mistake that it's hard to believe -- but then again, look at the stupid things humans do on the regular, like destroy all the life they come across. Anyway, I know Oppenheimer is going to win something, but I'm scratching it from this category. 

POOR THINGS: I wish I could scratch Poor Things from existence. It doesn't get better any time I have to write about it as the weeks pass. However, I will say that this Production Design category is kinda like how I was for Editing with Everything Everywhere All At Once. Terrible, excruciating movie that I wish I had never had to sit through, but this one category was sure done well. And that, I fear, is why it will probably beat Barbie, much to my dismay. 

Order that I would like them to win: 
Barbie
Killers of the Flower Moon 
Poor Things
Napoleon
Oppenheimer

Order that I think they will win: 
Poor Things
Oppenheimer
Barbie
Killers of the Flower Moon 
Napoleon 

Oh, how I want Academy voters to do the right thing

 

Completed Category: Original Song

 The category I completed earlier this week was Music - Original Song. 

And it just so happens, as I mentioned when the nominations came out, that this is the first category I unwittingly started on this year!  I was delighted on Nominations Day when I realized that I had seen... 

FLAMIN' HOT: "The Fire Inside" - This is Diane Warren's umpteenth nomination, and it has become kind of amusing in recent years for us Oscar completists to dredge up the increasingly random flicks for which she writes a song. But this year, I had a total moment with Flamin' Hot, the story of the guy who invented Flamin' Hot Cheetos, at the UnidosUS convention I attended for work; they showed the film (and served tasty snacks) at our Saturday night entertainment event, and both the real-life guy and the star of the movie were there, and... I kinda really liked it!  There is certainly a part of me that wants this to finally, finally, finally be Diane Warren's year. 

BARBIE: "I'm Just Ken" - But she is going to have to beat Barbie. Now, to be honest, I don't know that "I'm Just Ken" has much of a chance here. I think this song is fun, and that's all. In fact, I'm kind of like, Really?! about it even being nominated. I'm Just Ken was a fun phenomenon - but the song is pure silliness. Then again, we've seen the Oscars devolve into bigger lunacy than that, so who knows?  Still, the bigger buzz hype is for the other song from this film...

BARBIE: "What Was I Made For?" - ...because people are over the damn moon about Billie Eilish. And here's the thing: Yes, she's talented.  Yes, some of her songs are great. This song? Is kind of meh.  But people like it, and they want to give Barbie awards, and they want to give Billie Eilish awards, so this has a really really good chance. 

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: "Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)" - But this is the most interesting nomination, and the Osage singer Scott George was surprised by his nomination (read more here) and is kind of out of the whole Oscars loop, which is the absolute opposite of all of the above, and people might just want to give Killers of the Flower Moon something especially if they're voting against it for Lead Actress and.... I'm saying there's a chance.  I'm also really looking forward to the performance of this and hope they bring the Osage singers and that it's freaking awesome and important.  

AMERICAN SYMPHONY: "It Never Went Away"  - And then there's this song from a documentary, about Jon Batiste, and hey - the song is good. The doc is kind of forgettable, but he's really interesting, and this would put him one step closer to an EGOT, eh? 

Order I want them to win: 
"Wahzhazhe (A Song for My People)" - Killers of the Flower Moon
"The Fire Inside" - Flamin' Hot
"It Never Went Away" - American Symphony
<big gap>
(tie) "What Was I Made For?" and "I'm Just Ken" - Barbie 

Order I think they will win: 
"What Was I Made For?"
"Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)" 
"The Fire Inside"
"I'm Just Ken" 
"It Never Went Away" 

But this one is really hard to call. There might be a late breaking switch in the vibe.  I might be back to revise my thoughts here. 

Also - the Ken part of Barbie was interminable. I know people love that movie. It was  - fine. 

Completed Category: Cinematography

 The other category I completed last week for 2023 Oscars was Cinematography. 

EL CONDE: This was the film I watched last week, thus completing this category. This, my friends, is a weird ol' movie. I appreciate its hard work. I also definitely thought it looked really cool, especially when the vampire people were flying. By the way, the vampire people are, like, Augusto Pinochet and his family and he's been alive for centuries and licked the blood of Marie Antoinette off her guillotine and stuff. Yes, I said this is a weird movie and I meant it. Don't forget the manic-pixie-dream-exorcist!
The cinematographer, Edward Lachman, has worked on all sorts of films with all sorts of famous directors and been nominated for Oscars before. This film is in black and white, and in an interview with Lachman I read that they were pleased to have approval from Netflix to shoot in actual b&w, not color de-saturated in post-production. The distant nature and abstraction of b&w, he says, give us a way of "seeing the world differently than the way we do with our own eyes." Deep thoughts!  Maybe this can win. 

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON:  Despite its length and seeming falling out of favor to win many big prizes, I still think this film was quite an achievement. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto is also a previous nominee, including for two previous Martin Scorcese films (Silence and The Irishman) that were also very long. For Killers...Moon, they actually used different film/digital material to shoot the different perspectives, like the Osage ceremonies naturalistic on film, the evil Ernest and Hale bits on Autochrome, and then a different coloring/silver-retention process after things really start to unravel. (Read more about it here.)  The more I learn about the work that went into this film, the more I want it to be rewarded. It's simply astonishing. 

MAESTRO: Another previous nominee, Matthew Libatique, and another cinematographer-director ongoing working relationship, and another film with different colors and lenses to move through different eras and perspectives. I liked Maestro and thought it was done really well, but I don't think it's going to take the top prize here. It is interesting, though, how he talks about sometimes taking away all the trappings to get out of the actors' way is the ultimate test for a cinematographer, rather than putting more stuff in. 

OPPENHEIMER:  Don't forget that there is a good chance Oppenheimer wins everything, or at least a lot of things. And it has IMAX going for it. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema (is that really his name) points out that a lot of people think about IMAX and immediately think of big wide vistas but in Oppenheimer, "the faces became our landscapes," he says.  It's all about getting up in people's faces to take us through the many many (many!) places and people and aspects of this story.  I won't be mad if it wins. 

POOR THINGS: I still don't care for this film. (But we knew that.) Robbie Ryan was up for the challenge of pushing boundaries with weirdo Yorgos Lanthimos, and he talks here about a lot of the different shooting methods they used. I will give him props for creating this otherworldly place, totally not meant to be real, and meant instead to evoke a weird, very weird, very other place. I don't want this to win everything, please godz no, but I don't fault them for what they did here. 

Order I want them to win, I think: 
Killers of the Flower Moon
Oppenheimer or Poor Things
El Conde
Maestro 

Order I think they will win: 
Poor Things
Oppenheimer
El Conde
Killers of the Flower Moon 
Maestro

Cinematography is one of my favorite categories because you wouldn't have a film without it!  If you think about it, someone could make a weird avant-garde experimental film, or maybe a terrible stupid film (you know, like Everything Everywhere All At Once) and just flat-out refuse to have anyone do one of the other Oscar categories - no Sound, or no Visual Effects, or no Actors, or whatever. I suppose you have to have some sort of costumes, but maybe everyone could just wear their own clothes or something. But if there's no cinematography, there is no film. 

Which of these five was your favorite? 

Completed Category: Original Screenplay

 The other category that I completed by seeing The Holdovers last week was Writing - Original Screenplay. 

And in this category, I have a dilemma. You see, I loved Past Lives. I loved it, loved it, loved it.  But I don't think it was the best screenplay - that's not why. It was the feeling, the performances, the mood, and the direction. I was really hoping for Celine Song to shock everyone some people with a Directing nomination. 

Instead, she was nominated for screenplay, while... 

ANATOMY OF A FALL - Justine Triet got a Directing nomination along with her Original Screenplay nod here, which also surprised some people, mostly because she's not Greta Gerwig, but hey, people love Anatomy of a Fall. I also really liked it and would not be mad if it won here. It's talky and gives you lots to think about, both of which I generally like in movies. 

THE HOLDOVERS - You could sort of say the same for The Holdovers.  I love this misfit story quite a bit, and I might want it to win just a bit more than I'd want Anatomy... to win. I think The Holdovers also has a chance: people like it, and they might not be "able" to vote for Paul Giamatti so this would still be a vote for this film, and it's so exactly the kind of movie that gets a Screenplay nomination and I'm so okay with that. 

MAESTRO - This on the other hand?  Not as subtle or understated, and I think not as much of a chance to win this category, as Maestro was also not so much about the Screenplay as about the everything else about it, the boldness, the fantastic performance(s), the big swings it took. I think when people are thinking about the writing of words and crafting of a story, as opposed to the delivery of big scenes and big moments, they aren't going to dwell on Maestro. 

MAY DECEMBER - But May December? May be. First of all, it did not get any other nominations, despite the prognostication and the wicked good performances, and secondly, it was devilishly good. You are sort of horrified as it goes along at how dearly fucked up every character is, and it's great. It sneaks up on you. I am all for it winning here. 

PAST LIVES - And that is even above what was my favorite film in this category, Past Lives.  Taken as a whole experience, yes, this was far and away my favorite of these five. But I only put it third or fourth of these five for the Original Screenplay award. 

Order I want them to win: 
May December
The Holdovers
Anatomy of a Fall - Past Lives  (tie. I think.) 
Maestro

Order I think maybe they will win maybe: 
The Holdovers
Anatomy of a Fall (I might move this up) 
May December
Past Lives (I might move all these around, really)
Maestro

 But there's nothing terrible in this category!  That's always a plus. This will NOT be one of the times we feel like throwing something at the television on Oscars night. 

Completed Category: Film Editing

 Another category that I completed upon watching The Holdovers is Film Editing. 

These are some really interesting films in how they construct a story and construct a feeling in the audience. One thing to consider is that they also all received Best Picture nominations, and all but Killers...Moon also received Screenplay nominations, so one question to ponder is how much they will split up those wins, whether one can take home three of those, and so on. 

ANATOMY OF A FALL:  This movie is a talk-y movie mixed with a few stunning, beautiful scenes of the mountain locale and a back and forth to and from the setting where the title Fall happened. It builds tension, curiosity, frustration, and sadness, among other emotions, along with a growing despair that it's so hard to find the truth.  Josh Larsen of Filmspotting writes, Working with editor Laurent Sénéchal, [director Justine] Triet increases the sophistication of the film in terms of point of view as it goes on. This is such a good point. We start in close to one character, then get another, and another added in, and our perspective and questions expand, and the editor puts it together to build layers in the story.  This film has wowed awards season so far. Will any Oscars follow? 

THE HOLDOVERS: This is a movie of small moments that are big. Editor Kevin Tent talks about being guided by the actors when assembling footage, and also mentions that he has a "schmalz alarm" that helps get rid of anything manipulative. In the same interview he says, "I'm a big believer in 'When in doubt, cut it out.'"  Not everyone is good at that!  

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON: Thelma Schoonmaker is probably the most famous of these editors, and famously works with Marty - that's Martin Scorcese - on his films.  Sometimes people think Editing is about length, and then they like to make jokes about long movies (such as this one) without understanding the assembly and all the decisions that are part of editing, way beyond just trimming a 4-hour film down to 3 hours and 26 minutes. Thelma, like many of us, read the book and then she and Marty crafted a story built around the love relationship. She says the real-life Mollie told an FBI agent "I love him" when asked why on earth stay with this husband, and that informed their decisions as filmmakers to take the approach they did. With so much action all over the place, a through-line had to be constructed more than almost any other nominee... 

OPPENHEIMER:  ... yeah. Except then there's this one.  All over the place and then some, this film puts together a seemingly endless array of people, places, dialogue, philosophy, and spectacle. Editor Jennifer Lame is quoted saying "there's nothing more exciting than 'people talking in rooms.'" I think this person was born to edit a film like Oppenheimer! 

POOR THINGS:  This film is such a brutal experience for me to watch - I really dislike this experience. And I would in fact have liked this one to be shorter because so much of it was excruciating and terrible. But as far as surgically assembling this monster (heh heh...) goes, did you know that the editor is ALSO named Yorgos? It's true. Yorgos Mavropsaridis says, "“What is happening?” We keep that in mind, and in the editing, it’s not like the images of the situations succeed one another. It’s more that they’re overlapping. And there is a point when you need to answer this question."  Indeed. I did certainly ask "What is happening?" in the early minutes of this film. The question soon progressed to, "When can we make this stop happening?"  

Order I want them to win: 
Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, Anatomy of a Fall, The Holdovers, Poor Things

Order I think they will have a chance to win: 
Oppenheimer, Poor Things, Killers of the Flower Moon, Anatomy of a Fall, The Holdovers

Which editor do you think did a bang-up job putting together a bunch of images? 

Completed Category: Actor In A Leading Role

 I watched The Holdovers and thus completed three more categories.  Let's talk about one of them. 

Who should win? Who will win? What order did I see them in? Let's start there; the order I saw the films was Oppenheimer, Maestro, American Fiction, Rustin, The Holdovers. So like many, I've had Cillian Murphy in my head the longest, and yes wow did he carry that film! Can we make the compelling case for any of the others? 

BRADLEY COOPER, Maestro:  Er...yes. We can make a case for Bradley. And I also think a lot of people just, like, WANT him to win an Oscar. However, Maestro was a little strange and I'm not entirely sold. As I mentioned in my Actress In A Leading Role post, I would want Carey to win if not for Annette Bening. Bradley though .. there was just a lot going on and some of it was so - well. so much.  I know he gave the performance and film his all. But do we really need people to write, direct, and star in their films? Is this necessary?  With anyone I mean. Warren Beatty or whoever. Who else does this? Orson Welles? Most overrated film of all time. Woody Allen? No one needs him at all whatsoever. Just, like, pick a lane, men. Anyway, am I saying that Bradley's performance could have been better/different had he not been directing the film? I don't know, maybe. But am I saying it could have moved me more? Yes. 

COLMAN DOMINGO, Rustin: He's in two nominated films this year! There are a couple of people pulling doubles like that. I enjoyed Rustin, and he absolutely carried us through that film. It's kind of a feel-good movie, even though it depicts a lot of crucial moments of mid-20th century U.S. history.  I happened to hear his Fresh Air interview in December, right at the beginning of awards season, and it was interesting how he talked about capturing Bayard Rustin's mannerisms, invented accent, teeth, etc.  I applaud this performance but don't think he's going to win.  Are the Obamas coming to the Oscars this year or what? 

PAUL GIAMATTI, The Holdovers:  I had an issue with this film that almost had me ready to give up on it - we'll get to that on Best Picture day - but it wasn't Giamatti's performance. On the other hand, it's an interesting degree of difficulty here. Like on one hand, you might think, "He's playing a version of himself." Or does he just make it seem like that? Hmmm, interesting.  And he also sustains us through the film because it's a lot of quiet talking scenes in the same rooms - until it's not, of course - and he keeps us interested. Now that I think about it, I wonder if he's supposed to be unlikable?  I of course liked him - but I also dislike people, the bitter world, those who blow off their history studies, and so forth. 

I just realized that there's a whole thing about his nose for Maestro, and the teeth in Rustin, and then a recurring thing about his eyes in The Holdovers. Huh. What does it all mean?  (Nothing.) 

CILLIAN MURPHY, Oppenheimer:  He plays him at different life stages, different innocence/guilt stages (mostly guilt, but...), different pithy lines that take someone else down a notch. Awards-wise, I think the overall appreciation for this well done film helps him AND that he helps this well done film. The only thing I'd say is that there are also so many other people in it - it's one of those hey! him! and him! everybody's in this! movies, and so you wonder if that detracts in any way.  Probably not. Just more co-star friends to vote and campaign for you. 

JEFFREY WRIGHT, American Fiction: I love him in this.  Yet another beleaguered teacher, and so many great moments to show disdain for the lunacy that takes hold of all around him, but also so many different interpersonal relationships. It's like, each beat of this film is about how the next person to waltz in and out of the scene is going to interact with him and his words. Liked the book, liked the movie, liked his performance. 

See? I don't know.  I might have been swayed by the GGlobes and the way so many reacted to that into thinking it's all about Oppenheimer, including here. But the order I think they will likely win is: 

Cillian 
Bradley 
Jeffrey
Paul
Colman

I could be so wrong though!  Order I want them to win?  SO much harder. Can't do it. 

What do you think?