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?  

Completed Category: Actor in a Supporting Role

 The other category that I had completed already when the Nominations were announced was Actor in a Supporting Role. 

Yes, having as my completed categories on Nomination Day both Lead Actress and Supporting Actor, I definitely had an informed reaction to the many people on the interwebs who had a lot to say about Barbie. But no need to get into that again here. Let's just examine the two important questions of: 1)Were these all in fact Supporting performances?  and  2)Who deserves to win? 

STERLING K. BROWN, American Fiction:  This was the most out-of-nowhere of the twenty Acting nominations, for me. I liked American Fiction! (I read Percival Everett's book it was based on.) I expected it to get several nominations. I did not expect this. Listening to people talk this week, I have decided that I don't have the same viewer relationship to Sterling K. Brown that a whole lot of y'all seem to have as I have never watched an episode of This Is Us. That alone can't explain it, though, can it?  The brother that he plays in American Fiction is kind of - a jerk. Then again, I am more like the main character in so many ways, and maybe that's why I dislike the brother's antics?  At any rate, I don't think Sterling K. Brown is going to win this. But what do I know, clearly.  Definitely a supporting role. 

ROBERT DE NIRO, Killers of the Flower Moon: Now, he might win.  He has seven previous nominations and two previous wins. We all know him. Sometimes he's serious as all get out, sometimes he's funny, sometimes his movies are meh. In this role he's basically the devil. A greedy, manipulative, ingratiating son-of-a, who hurts people in about forty-three different ways.  It's a great film and his presence on screen is a big part of the nasty happenings.  He has a good chance, I think.  Also it is in fact a supporting role. 

ROBERT DOWNEY JR., Oppenheimer:  But I think this Robert has way more of a chance. First of all, I think Oppenheimer is going to take home a bunch of awards, if no scandal happens between now and March 10th. And I'm fine with that, as it was a great film and an indictment of humanity. Robert D Jr. is a beast with about 17 different layers to his character. Totally transformed as an actor into this antagonist character, and in cast of what feels like thousands he stands out sharply.  Is it a Supporting role? Yes - and it almost doesn't feel like it. I read that he has 24 minutes of screen time. It feels like he has an hour and 24. 

RYAN GOSLING, Barbie: Can this feel-good performance steal enough votes from the serious stuff? I don't think so. Yes, everyone loves him, and yes it was indelible and now "I'm Just Ken" and the mojo dojo casa house etc. will be with us all forever, but I think - I think - it was all just for funsies. Plus now some people might feel guilty voting for him since they didn't nominate Margot, whoops!  Oh, humans. Definitely a supporting role, though he feels like a co-lead probably because he shows up constantly, and the Kens part goes on and on interminably.  Side note: We might get a live song performance from Ken(s) at the ceremony. 

MARK RUFFALO, Poor Things:  Ugh. I like Mark Ruffalo; I dislike Poor Things; I wish the other Supporting contender Willem Dafoe was nominated here for Poor Things instead.  I'd have nominated Dafoe over either Sterling K. Brown or Mark Ruffalo.  Yes, Mark was very good in this psychotic film. He's always very good in everything though. He's steady, solid. I put him in the middle of the pack here. Is it a Supporting performance?  Yes, all the men who variously control and use Bella (Emma Stone's) body are "Supporting" in orbit around her. 

And so, this is the order I want them to win, my preference: 
Robert Downey Jr. 
(tie) Ryan Gosling / Robert De Niro
Mark Ruffalo 
Sterling K. Brown

And that is essentially the order of likelihood of actual winning, I think, too.  It may be that my "preference" is more about me not caring too terribly much.  Fine category overall with one obvious oversight, and no super-duper other strong opinions from me. 

Which Supporting guy did you like best this year? 

Completed Category: Actress In a Leading Role

 

Were you alive and well and on the internet this past week? Then you might have heard: Barbie was nominated for Oscars but Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie were not nominated, although Ryan Gosling was, and therefore the Academy has re-enacted the entire plot of the film: patriarchy!  At least that was one narrative that was shared, and shared, and shared.  As I mentioned in my initial post about Nominations Day, I had kinda forgotten that when Barbie made a billion dollars last year, that meant a whole lot more moviegoers were going to show up with opinions in Oscar season about what the Academy "always" does and what it "should" or "needs to" do. 

The Actress In A Leading Role aka Best Actress category was one that I had completed before the nominations came out, turns out - with or without Barbie - and so I, too, had opinions this week. I also had some facts. One fact is that when there are five nomination slots and many contenders, there will always be somebody who is disappointed. 

Also, by the way? It is not a "snub" every time someone we wish had been nominated is not nominated. But people love to throw that word around. It makes them feel Oscar-y, I think. 

What I kept asking people was, Which of the five nominated Actresses in Leading Roles would you want un-nominated for Margot to get in?  I didn't mean it facetiously. I know which one I'd give the boot! Can you guess?  Let's take a look at the nominees. 

ANNETTE BENING, Nyad: I was SO glad to hear her name called. I was worried. I was worried because I thought it might be Margot, Natalie (Portman), Lily, Emma, and Carey. I have been worried lo these few Awards buzz months, because I thought Natalie was going to steal Annette's Oscar again, like in 2010 (Black Swan), and I was straight-trippin' on the fact that THEN Annette was in the movie with Julianne Moore (The Kids Are All Right) and NOW Natalie is in the movie with Julianne Moore (May December) and everyone was buzzing that Natalie was like totally in for sure and starting to drown out swimmer Nyad but then it didn't happen like that at all. Annette is nominated! Hurrah! for playing Diana Nyad, who finally swam all the way from Cuba to Florida after many attempts and who is a headstrong but also body strong woman who gives some people grief but also has done some for real stuff in her time on this here Earth. I frankly loved Nyad and I also think Annette's performance was a marvel, and I want her to finally win her Oscar so, so, so very much. I don't have high hopes because I see how the winds have shifted and everyone's all like "It's a race between Emma and Lily!" but you just never know. Maybe if she goes to bed early in England like Anthony Hopikins did?  (Speaking of former Oscar connections to co-stars eh...)  She's just so good. And she basically became a marathon swimmer for the role, earning the praise of real-life Nyad and changing her own life for the better.  Gooooo Annette! 

LILY GLADSTONE, Killers of the Flower Moon:  But yeah, then we have this extremely strong competition here, which is an incredible, layered, powerful, poignant performance from Lily in the devastating adaptation of the book that examined the investigation of the murders of dozens of Osage in the early 20th century. In this case, Lily was nominated while Leo (nardo DiCaprio) wasn't, and that shocked people too. But that wasn't a re-enactment of #patriarchy! so it didn't get as many memes. Anyhoo, Lily is fantastic because this whole story is so terribly complex and fraught and infuriating and she is somewhat of a center around which a lot of happenings orbit, and I never wanted to take my eyes off the screen. In hearing her talk about specific scenes and with everything I've learned about the research and details and participation of the Osage in this filmmaking, I cannot be mad if it wins anything or even if it won everything (it won't though) so I'm happy for Lily and her Golden Globe, and I hope she makes a ton more movies forever, but I still don't quite want her to beat Annette.  But can anyone beat Lily? 

EMMA STONE, Poor Things: Well, yes. And...ugh.  So, Emma gives a maniacal, deep-digging, off-the-charts performance in this batshit movie and I just - hate this so much. The movie is excruciating to watch for the first half and then it gets a bit more palatable but it's still really entirely weird and wrong, like every Yorgos Lanthimos film, but in this case we are being told it's a feminist story and that Emma's character Bella Baxter is empowered and that the movie is a "nuanced" look at what it means to be a woman. People (men) have actually used that word, "nuanced."  Yes, to describe Poor Things. Um, Poor Things is a lot of things, but it is decidedly not nuanced. Nor is it feminist. Speaking of patriarchy, in Poor Things, Bella's body is controlled by various men in various ways until she becomes "empowered" by selling herself in a Parisian whorehouse. Don't you just love it when men explain women's liberation? It's enough to make you want to go find a bunch of bros on a beach somewhere strumming Matchbox Twenty for way entirely too long. 

CAREY MULLIGAN, Maestro: Carey is almost at that Meryl Streep level - or if not quite there, maybe Cate Blanchett - where you just know she's going to bring the Oscar buzz and most likely get a nomination. Interestingly, Carey was a lot of the Barbie-opinion folks' choice to sacrifice her slot for Margot, which I canNOT agree with, particularly since some of the said folks professing that opinion also noted that they had not in fact seen Maestro yet. One said that Carey couldn't be a Leading Role nominee for a biopic about Maestro Leonard Bernstein. To anyone thinking that, I can only say: Watch the movie. It's about them, not him. Her role honestly outshines his in a lot of ways. And, she's really damn good. I had no idea what I was in store for and as soon as I watched it I was like, yup, Carey's in! But it might not be her year to actually hold the statuette in her hand. 

SANDRA HÜLLER, Anatomy of a Fall:  It's such an honor to be nominated, isn't it?  Really. I hope that Sandra enjoys every second of this year, her multiple nominated flicks (she's also in The Zone of Interest), and how transfixed everyone was by Anatomy of a Fall and its many, many lingering questions. It's a talky movie, and she takes us right to the heart of a character going through a bizarre, unsettling situation with a great deal at stake, who absolutely has to remain calm. It's quite a feat. I think we haven't seen the last of her 'round these Awards parts.  But I was honestly surprised that she got nominated and Margot did not - which still does not mean "snub." 

And so, this is the order in which I want them to win, my preference: 

---> Annette Bening <----  
(tie) Carey & Lily 
Emma (ugh ugh ugh to the movie) 
Sandra

But this is the order I think of likelihood of winning, ugh: 

Emma (ugggggh, by thismuch)
Lily  (ohhh so close)
Annette  😢
Carey
Sandra

Please please please let me be wrong. Please let everyone remember how much they love Annette and want to make up for all the times they've not awarded her. I will accept a faux-lifetime achievement win, seriously, if that's what it takes. 

Who's your pick for Best Actress In A Leading Role? 
Whose performance surprised you?
Which movie did you love? Or hate more than I hated enduring Poor Things? 

Oscars time!

 The Oscar nominations are here, which it means it is time for my annual attempt to reignite the fire that once was this blog, Linda Without Borders.  Let's see if we can make it burn in 2024!  Because guess what? I am flamin' hot! More on that below. 

Prior to Awards Season, I had not been going to movies at the theatre much for a while; 2023 was a bananas year. Like many of you, I did go see Barbie and Oppenheimer. Unlike many, I had absolutely zero interest in going at any point close to opening weekend. I saw Barbie in September and Oppenheimer in October. Then, because #IAmVeryBusy I didn't do much else until basically Golden Globes week -- and it was time to dive in! But I did see Poor Things in time to have lots of opinions for that ceremony, and my opinions are mostly "UGH why Emma Stone must you participate in this why UGH" but more on that later as well, surely, with its obnoxious amount of noms. 

And so that brings us to Nominations Tuesday!  What did we think? 

Oppenheimer leads the way! 
I am good with its thirteen nominations and I will be OK with it if Christopher Nolan finally wins for Directing. Well done film! I was in Los Alamos just last year; it's such a weird little place plunked down in the middle of my beautiful Southwest, and when I was hiking in the Bandelier National Monument and some other spots around there I just kept thinking about how terrible it was for all of the birds, deer, squirrels, snakes, coyotes, rabbits, and so on and so on when suddenly a bunch of humans murdered the air and land and thousands of animals, on their way to murdering a few hundred thousand humans. We (humanity) are honestly so horrible to every living thing and this movie is great and, alas, it goes over some people's heads and they go "Oooh! We are smart! We make science!"  Great film. Horrible species. 

But, do I want Robert Downey Jr. to win? 
Weeelllll, maybe. I am disappointed in the Supporting Actor category. Because it is missing Willem Dafoe in Poor Things. 

But I hated Poor Things?
Yes, that is correct. I disliked Poor Things, but Willem Dafoe's performance is one of the most interesting portrayals that I have ever seen in my life. I won't spoiler anything here, but every second he is on screen and every new bit you learn about his character and every decision he makes - it's remarkable. I don't usually get too involved in this or that "snub" but I am so, so disappointed about him. This is one of my already completed categories, so we'll delve into it soon. Speaking of "snubs"...

Was Margot Robbied?
I'll tell ya what. When Barbie made a billion dollars, which is like 25 times more than many Oscar nominees make, I kinda forgot to anticipate that 25 times as many people would come out of the woodwork and onto the internet on Nominations Day with their opinions about what the Academy should/shouldn't/did/didn't do. It is amateur hour out there!  When I got sick of people re-sharing the meme on Tuesday about how Margot and Greta Gerwig not getting nominated is the whole plot of Barbie, I started commenting asking people which of the five nominated actresses they didn't want in the Lead Actress category. Some said, "Carey Mulligan" which tells me that they haven't yet seen Maestro, except for the one person who told me herself. I quote this person: "Carey Mulligan. Not a diss on her, and I haven't watched Maestro, but she should have been considered in the Supporting Actress category. I can't recall ever seeing the Oscars nominate anyone but a singular lead for a biopic."   I -  what?  That is such a spectacularly bad take.   
First of all, you haven't seen this movie but ... ?   SO then maybe don't proclaim this? Maestro is about their relationship. Mulligan is 100% a star of that film. 
Secondly, you "can't recall" that, eh?   That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The Theory of Everything. What's Love Got To Do With It. Walk the Line - Reese Witherspoon won Lead Actress. Seriously just no. Anyway, that is what it was like out there yesterday and today on the internet.  Sure, I'm sorry for Margot. But I need people to stop pretending they know what they are talking about regarding the Oscars and the Academy.  And by the way, Actress is one of my other already completed categories, so we'll talk more about this soon, but how about we get rid of, if anything, Emma Stone's nomination for depicting all different kinds of sex? Yes, that's another eye-roll at Poor Things. There will be more. I will roll so many eyes that I might need Willem Dafoe to surgically implant a new one in my head.  

What nominations are we happy about? 
I mean - Jodie and Annette!!  I am one of a few (apparently) who loved Nyad, but more so I loved both of their performances fiercely and while I was so worried leading up to Awards Season that it sounded like Natalie Portman was going to steal Annette Bening's Oscar again, as she did in 2010 (Black Swan), only this time it would be with Natalie in the movie with Julianne Moore (May December) instead of Annette in the movie with Julianne Moore (The Kids Are All Right) but that TOTALLY didn't happen. No Natalie, only 1 nod for May December and it's not for any acting, and Annette is instead going to have her Oscar stolen by - ugh, Emma Stone.

Also happy about Past Lives, which I adored, getting two nominations -- but I wanted more. 

We will (maybe) get into all of these categories over the next few weeks here on the blog (somebody hold me to this), but first let's talk about the very best thing that happened while I was listening to the Nominations live announcement. Now remember: I was behind, but during Golden Globes week I set out to become less behind, checking off a few of the multiple GGlobes nominees that I suspected would also become multiple Oscar nominees and delving into the biggies: Killers of the Flower Moon, Poor (ugh) Things, Anatomy of a Fall, American Fiction, and the like.  Well. So there I am listening to the nominations and they list the songs, and yeah two songs from Barbie, and the Wahzhazhe from KotFM, and oh of course a song from Diane Warren called "The Fire Inside" and let's see what increasingly obscure film did she write a song for this year to collect her billionth nomination and never win every year forever ... Flamin' Hot. 

Wait. Flamin' Hot?! I SAW that movie. I had a total moment with that movie. Not in a theatre, not on a streaming service, and not on a DVD. At the UnidosUS work conference I attended last July, our Saturday night gala event was a screening of Flamin' Hot - with both the star of the film and the real life guy who invented Flamin' Hot Cheetos both there in attendance.  My co-worker and I had a blast eating seven billion snacks including these flamin' hot man n' cheese balls that changed my life. We somehow made our caterer waiter love us so he kept bringing us extra. We hobnobbed and took photos and enjoyed the film. I went into that evening derisively:  a movie about the guy who invented flamin' hot Cheetos? Seriously? and I left a new woman, with a true appreciation for all things flamin' hot.  It's an ongoing thing for my colleague and me. And in all sincerity, I enjoyed the film, directed by Eva Longoria. I really recommend it!  But I also had entirely expected to hear it announced on Nominations Day.  Goooo Diane Warren! Maybe the two songs from Barbie can split their vote. 

What about you?  What did you think of the nominations? 

What have you seen? What do you want to see next?  With only 29 or 41 that I need to see, depending on how you count the Shorts, I don't even have to watch one a day and I can still be done by the end of February, as long as everything that needs to come to theatres for me in fact does come to theatres.  I am  on track for a totally manageable completist year. Let's blog about it!