#like i think oppenheimer will win and i think that it IS deserved but anatomy of a fall blew me away. such amazing character work

[swiftiephobe]

anatomy of a fall is incredible. no words.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Hello Reflections! Look at me, sending you an Ask.

The Oscars are 1 week away. What are your predictions? And will the dog from Anatomy of a Fall have an on-stage cameo?

Hello @peppertaemint and welcome to today's Oscar debate where I get to talk about who I want to win knowing full well my choices are far from the actual winners a week from now 🥳

Before I begin, I'll just add this list with all the nominations. I won't talk about each of them, only the ones that interest me more.

1. Actor in a leading role

Who will win: Cillian Murphy

My choice: Paul Giamatti

This is not to say that Cillian's performance was bad, far from it. I just found it unremarkable and if there's one for which he deserved all the awards was Kitty in Breakfast on Pluto. I think Giamatti's performance is far more memorable.

2. Actor in a supporting role

Who will win: Robert Downey Jr.

My choice: all the remaining nominees

I feel like I'm living in some alternative reality because how is RDR better than all the other actors and their roles?

3. Actress in a leading role

Who will win: ????????? (Probably Lily or Emma)

My choice: Sandra Huller, hands down. As much as I think Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone are equally deserving, there's one actress in 2023 that clearly stands out and is a bit ahead of all the others nominated in the category and that's Sandra. She is nominated for Anatomy of A Fall, but to have incredible performances in that and The Zone of Interest in the same year is impossible to ignore.

4. Actress in a supporting role

Who will win: Da'Vine Joy Randolph

My choice: Da'Vine Joy Randolph

No debate here.

5. Cinematography

Who will win: Oppenheimer

My choice: Poor Things

6. Costume design

Who will win: Poor Things

My choice: Poor Things

7. Directing

Who will win: Christopher Nolan

My choice: between Scorsese and Glazer

Another category in which more than half of the nominees understand the cinematic language and use it in a way to come up with something truly remarkable and do more than the favorite of this year.

8. Film editing

Who will win: Oppenheimer or KOTFM

My choice: KOTFM

9. International feature film

Who will win: The Zone of Interest

My choice: The Zone of Interest

10. Music (original song)

Who will win: What Was I Made For

My choice: I'm Just Ken

Just because.

11. Production Design

Who will win: Barbie

My choice: Barbie

12. Sound

Who will win: Oppenheimer

My choice: The Zone of Interest

It will be a shame when it loses because the sound became a plot device for Glazer to tell such a harrowing story.

13. Adapted screenplay

Who will win: Barbie (consolation prize)

My choice: I can't really say anything because in terms of adaption, I would need to have known the source material in order to have an opinion, but I haven't read the books.

14. Original screenplay

Who will win: Anatomy of A Fall

My choice: Anatomy of A Fall

15. Best picture

Who will win: Oppenheimer

My choice: Anatomy of A Fall

[mystery-moose]

EYO THE OSCAR NOMS ARE OUT

Let’s discuss!

BEST PICTURE: I've seen four of the ten nominees this year! Not a bad score for me. Of the remainder I am very interested in American Fiction, Anatomy of a Fall, and Past Lives. American Fiction in particular got Jeffrey Wright a Best Actor nomination! I love Jeffrey Wright! He deserves more recognition! Any film that can get him that has gotta be worth something.

Of the ones I’ve seen… I’d probably select Killers of the Flower Moon as the best? It’s a hard watch, but the craft on display at every level is exceptional. If not that, then… I dunno, maybe Barbie? The Holdovers is a safe choice, it’s a great movie, but there’s almost nothing… surprising about it. Barbie is CONSTANTLY surprising! But it’s also a madcap comedy bathed in metaphor so… man I don’t know!

Regardless, I wouldn’t pick Oppenheimer. Not to disrespect it, I genuinely believe it to be a very interesting film that’s compelling to watch, and as always Christopher Nolan’s ability to make weird-ass films with experimental structures popular with a mass audience is worthy of tremendous respect. But its pacing is rushed, its script is sometimes awkward to the point of parody, and I just don’t know that it’s saying or doing anything THAT interesting or enlightening about the real people involved or about people or history in general. Y’know?

BEST DIRECTOR: Nothing but Best Picture nominees here, which makes sense. Pretty blown away that Alexander Payne didn't get a nom here for The Holdovers. Not blown away at all that Greta Gerwig didn't get one for Barbie, despite that whole thing clearly being her baby. A real Streisand situation here, I'd say! "Eight nominations on the shelf, did this film direct itself?" Regardless of who wins (or even who I think deserves to!) I'd definitely say Gerwig got snubbed here.

BEST ACTOR: All best picture nominees here, save for Colman Domingo for Rustin. Had never heard of this film before, because it's a Netflix film and they always bury all their work, but it's about a civil rights activist so that makes... how many years that the Academy has included one of these in a Best Actor/Actress context? Selma, Harriet, Judas and the Black Messiah. I'm sure Colman Domingo gives a good performance, just noting that the Academy loves to nominate these for acting awards and not honor them in most any other way. (Hey, Jeffrey Wright's in that movie too! Good year for him!)

Bradley Cooper's here too. I don't think I like him very much! I've never disliked him really, but I've never loved his performance either. But the Academy seems to, since he's been nominated... TWELVE TIMES? Holy SHIT no wonder I wasn't surprised to see his name. Never won one, though. He keeps this up, maybe they'll throw him a pity one like they did for DiCaprio. Then again, I don't think Cooper assigns as much value to it as Leo did -- or at least, it doesn't feel like it. I care so little about Bradley Cooper! I don't follow his personal journey very closely! He's fine, I guess!

As a fan, I'd LOVE to see Jeffrey Wright take it, even though I haven't seen his movie. Of the ones I have, Cillian Murphy is very good in Oppenheimer, no question, but I've gotta give it to my man Paulie G. Dude is an incredibly talented actor with a non-traditional look who's done great work for decades and deserves a big win. He's fantastic in Holdovers too! It's a layered, funny, incredibly natural performance that he just falls into. Not particularly showy, which lowers his chances for a win, but to me (and most sensible folks) that makes it a better performance, so there, nyeh!

BEST ACTRESS: I haven't seen four of these but if they don't give it to Lily Gladstone they've fucked up. Sorry, other nominees, that's all there is to it. Also, where the fuck is Margot Robbie? She's incredible in Barbie! If I get to Supporting Actor and Ryan Gosling is there, this is misogyny.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: This is misogyny!! But I'd love for Gosling to win for this. It'd be his first, and for a role like this that'd be hilarious. That being said it's still a tremendous performance! His commitment to the role both on-screen and off is clear, he's having a ball throughout, and he does his own dancing! God, I just wanna see his speech.

That being said, he has some extremely stiff competition. De Niro continues his golden year renaissance with an excellent performance of a very evil man in Killers of the Flower Moon, and Downey Jr. is so good in Oppenheimer that it took me a couple minutes and a scene transition to realize it was him at all! Also Sterling K. Brown and Mark Ruffalo are here! I like both those guys! If I had to pick one that I've seen that isn't Gosling? Probably Downey Jr. If I gave Oppenheimer one award, it would be this one.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: I like all these actresses, I think America Ferrera is very good in Barbie, and Jodie Foster has been doing great work lately, but this award belongs to Da'Vine Joy Randolph. She takes a character that could be one note in The Holdovers and invests them with so much life and complexity and history. I still think about that movie in part because of her, and because she made choices that made that character feel more authentic. It's maybe the most I've been impressed by an actress in a good long while, frankly! She deserves this one! Don't fuck it up, Academy! (but I know you will)

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: All Best Picture nominees, save for a movie called May December... because it's a Netflix film, of course. God, they sure do make a lot of award-worthy films I never ever hear about, huh! Wild how that happens! (Did you even know a new Spy Kids movie came out this year? Of course you didn't! It was on Netflix!)

I haven't seen four of these, but heard good things about Past Lives. I do really love The Holdovers though! Unless one of the others really knocks my socks off, I'd be comfortable with that winning here.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Oppenheimer does not deserve this. I'm sorry, maybe it's a failure of editing, but the pacing on this thing is too breakneck. Maybe that's a failure of editing more than screenplay, though. Then again, the dialogue itself is uh... often pretty blunt and borderline silly, in that Nolan sort of way! So, y'know!

I'd love to see Barbie win it. It's so fucking funny, and occasionally vibrating with pathos. But I haven't seen the others, and they might rule, actually! American Fiction might be great! I'm looking forward to finding out when it hits digital!

ANIMATED FEATURE: I still think we probably shouldn't cordon these off into their own category, but then so few would get nominated for anything, so let's just live in the world we have, huh? The Boy and the Heron is a Miyazaki film, so that automatically makes it a contender, though I've heard some mixed things about it. Nimona is a dark horse that I remember having some buzz around it earlier this year, and Robot Dreams is a sad movie about a robot so it's automatically a movie I vibe with! Elemental... exists! (Why in the hell was this nominated and not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem?! Why of all things did THAT get snubbed?!)

But we all know this belongs to Across the Spider-Verse. It might not be a complete narrative, but purely on visual spectacle alone, it should win. It is, without question, the wildest eyeball experience I've ever had watching a movie, finally dethroning the previous occupiers, the Wachowskis' Speed Racer and the animated film Redline. It is constantly visually surprising and experimental, to the point that much like its predecessor I don't know how they fucking did some of the stuff they did. It's not the out-of-nowhere immediate game-changer that its predecessor was, and it might not have the immediate influence on an entire genre in the same way... but I think it pushes the medium even further! I can't wait to see what other movies look like in the future because of it.

(also the production sounds like it was a nightmare, animators deserve more pay and more respect, unionize, etc.)

PRODUCTION DESIGN: I mean, of all the things about Napoleon, how it looked was the absolute best of them. I wouldn't be too upset if it won... except I would, because Barbie. I mean, come on. COME ON. This one's a gimme. (Though why is The Creator not here? I know it was a pretty bad movie, but the design? Absolutely impeccable vibes!)

COSTUME DESIGN: I mean. Barbie. Did you see Ken's outfits?

CINEMATOGRAPHY: This is my nerd-ass award I care about. I've liked Hoyte van Hoytema's work in the past, and if Oppenheimer won this I wouldn't think it a complete miscarriage of justice -- it's got some really great images in it. But to me this is Flower Moon's award to lose. I haven't seen the others, but I don't know that anything else is going to match that. It's not too showy, but it is pretty damn impeccable.

There are also movies that I think got snubbed here, like John Wick 4 (yes I'm serious) and Sisu (again, I'm serious) and The Killer. Heck, they didn't even nominate The Holdovers here, and that movie leans into its period setting by aping the cinematography of films from that period! That's neat!

EDITING: That Oppenheimer is here is more proof the Academy doesn't know what good editing is. I mean, if you isolated a couple scenes of that movie, there IS great editing there! And even structurally, I think it makes some bold choices that should be rewarded! But as a whole, I didn't feel like I had time to breathe during a scene, and most of that is down to Nolan always choosing to cut or transition too soon. Sometimes it's even a matter of seconds! But those seconds matter! They're the difference between me feeling like I'm moving through a room and feeling like I'm being hurried through a room, y'know what I mean?

I'd probably go with Flower Moon here, but Holdovers has a lovely, languid pace to it and some very funny cuts, so I'm leaning in that direction too. Haven't seen the others!

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING: How is Barbie not here?! What the hell kind of award show is this?! (A Bad one, we all know this.)

SOUND: (This used to be two awards, one for sound mixing and one for sound editing, and on a technical level those are two very different skills, but whatever, Academy!)

This is one I think that Oppenheimer will probably take, because it does some cool things with sound a few times. But it's also one that I think The Creator might actually deserve. Some really killer sound in that film, right up there with its production design -- which it should have gotten a nomination for! Also, Mission: Impossible dark horse, just to give it something. Because I love those movies, even if this year's was maybe my fourth-favorite Mission: Impossible movie that still makes it better than most movies!

VISUAL EFFECTS: It's kind of a long-shot, but I'm pulling for Godzilla Minus One here. Guardians looked good, The Creator looked good (it's about all it did) and I absolutely adore and respect the commitment to practical stunts and car chases and effects in Mission: Impossible and it should get all the recognition possible for throwing a real train off a real cliff... but c'mon. It's Godzilla. And by all accounts, it does so much with so little, at least in terms of budget. It's a movie directed by a guy who previously supervised visual effects! Of course it was gonna look good! That it looks that good at that budget though? Might be enough to get it the big win. Here's to hoping! It'd be nice to see a movie that cost about ten million dollars be recognized as having better visual effects than a movie that cost... two hundred and fifty million Jesus Christ what are you doing Disney.

ORIGINAL SCORE: Be neat to see Indiana Jones take this one! Good score, nice but not too reverent. But I don't have particularly strong feelings this like I have in previous ones. Don't remember many movie scores from this year, nothing's made it into my playlist beyond a couple Mission: Impossible tracks, certainly nothing's impressed me as much as something like The Batman's score or anything.

ORIGINAL SONG: Two songs from Barbie here, one from the Flamin' Hot Cheetos movie (yes it's real and yes it's historically inaccurate!) and one from... Killers of the Flower Moon. Uh oh. Uh oh! I was all ready to be ride or die for "I'm Just Ken" (and to be clear if it won I wouldn't object) but that song in Flower Moon and how it hits at the end... well. It should probably win, is what I'm saying. Even if it's not the fun choice. Be nice to see it performed, at least. These will all be great performances, probably!

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: I haven't seen any of these! I usually don't until at least year or two after the fact! Just how I end up watching documentaries, usually. It'll probably be the one about Ukraine, though. Not necessarily because it's the best one, but because the Academy likes to think that making picks like that is somehow activism. (Also can you believe that's still happening? Ukrainian sovereignty, end the war, etc.)

INTERNATIONAL FEATURE: Haven't seen any of these, but heard good things about Society of the Snow. Zone of Interest is a best picture nominee, so odds are that'll be the one that wins. Surprised a Japanese film got in here but it's not Godzilla! Damn! Was hoping for a dark horse win for Big G!

ANIMATED SHORT: Never seen 'em!

DOCUMENTARY SHORT: Most of the short documentaries I watch are on Youtube these days!

LIVE ACTION SHORT: Good for all these people who got nominated!

THAT'S IT hoo boy the Oscars, huh. This year's a bit of a dull one, nothing that I'm really excited about winning anything outside of like, Barbie. Killers of the Flower Moon definitely deserves a lot of awards, but how many it'll get remains to be seen. Also I just realized DiCaprio didn't score a nomination for his part in that! Just Lily Gladstone! Haha! Good! (Though I do think DiCaprio's work has improved noticeably after he finally got his stupid Oscar. Almost like he stopped trying so hard and that made his performances feel more natural! Wild!)

Anyway, next year I'm gonna be stumping hard for Dune 2 so. Be prepared for that.

[mermaidsirennikita]

Thoughts on the oscar noms? (…and the current drama surrounding it)

Honestly, I need people to realize that Barbie was a cute movie that was ultimately meant to sell Barbie dolls. It had a great set design, really cool visuals and costumes, some fun jokes, and a very good performance from Ryan Gosling. I think Greta being snubbed is weird because the movie was very CLEARLY. DIRECTED. But then again, Wes Anderson does that a lot to mixed results with the Academy, so. A very clear and strong eye does not always please them. If we're gonna talk about women (because apparently the Oscars allow only one lady director) who directed films very smartly, I would say that Celine Song is a better choice. Past Lives was such a good movie, and I think her direction really helped communicate a story in which a lot was left unsaid, pairing well with the actors.

And I'll be real... I need people to get that the movie was always more about Ken. Ken had the best script. Ken had the best arc. Is that right, for a Barbie movie? I don't know, dude. But I frankly don't blame the Academy for nominating Ryan and not Margot, because Margot had nothing great to do and she didn't elevate the material. She was good, she was charming. Ryan was performing a lot more. I like America btw, but I don't get that nom lol.

Also, stop complaining about I'm Just Ken, it was great, let us have fun song nominees.

Best Picture: I don't know why Barbie is there, the Oppenheimer sweep has been boring and though I liked the movie, as a film it was absolutely nothing without Cillian and to me that does not a Best Picture make, Killers of the Flower Moon or American Fiction should win but won't, Maestro is a joke, Past Lives deserves but also deserves more noms, haven't seen Poor Things, Anatomy of a Fall, or Zone of Interest (though at least filmtwt can stop complaining about it not being well-marketed for the Academy) yet. I liked The Holdovers, but that was before I found out the director is uhhhhh a very very bad man.

Best Actor: Leo was snubbed and I do think him campaigning for Lily so hard had something to do with it but that was legit one of his most interesting, un-Leo performances; Bradley is a joke; happy for Colman but haven't seen Rustin yet; Cillian should win and I think he will but Paul G could dark horse it--I don't think his performance was Oscar-worthy but he was good and he's been picking up his fair share of awards; Jeffrey Wright was amazing in American Fiction and if anyone should dark horse it it's him. I'd still give it to Cillian. If this was up to me, I'd toss out Bradley and throw in Teo Yoo, who was so so good in Past Lives. But the Academy is sending a HARD backlash message to Asian creatives after the EEAAO sweep, imo.

Best Actress: As I said, I don't care that Margot wasn't nominated and I don't think she should've been, and imo her best performance was easily I, Tonya; I haven't seen Nyad so no comment on Annette, same with Sandra for Anatomy, and I think Carey had moments in Maestro but she overall was not one of those "standouts in a horrible movie" actors; Lily should win and absolutely killed her performance and dominated her movie, but I am worried that Emma could take it. I'd toss out Carey for Greta Lee.

Best Supporting Actor: Everyone needs to stop saying Sterling snuck in because he was deeply moving in American Fiction and is lowkey highkey one of the best actors working right now; RDJ basically just did Leslie Odom Jr. in Hamilton and F. Murray Abraham in Amadeus but with his RDJ cadence of speaking he can't drop to save his life, but he's taking this for a career Oscar; I hate that Charles isn't there, but if it wasn't him I'd give it to Sterling or De Niro, who gave one of my favorite performances in his career and was SO disgusting and menacing in Killers. Haven't seen Ruffalo, so if it was up to me depending on his performance I'd toss out RDJ for Charles Melton and possibly shuffle some other people around.

Best Supporting Actress: Lol Emily was horrible in Oppenheimer and I'll die on that hill, generally liking her as an actress; Da'Vine will win this and she was amazing in The Holdovers but the director really sours it for me; happy for Danielle, haven't seen TCP; America shouldn't be there but whatever; I literally though Nyad was about a mythological creature until I Googled last night and found out it was about a swimmer.

Best Director: This is going to go to Christopher Nolan for one of his better movies but not his best because that is FAR. AND AWAY. THE PRESTIGE. Should go to Scorsese, his direction for Killers is why (to me) that movie still felt like it was moving at a clip despite the length.

[priestfrommidnightmass]

like ok can i just dissect how terrible the best picture nominees are this year. i’ve done my due diligence in ranting abt how awful poor things and barbie are as “feminist” works (consumed in the wonderful packages of either misogyny slash ableism that feels so ancient it’s almost impressive or in a white woman commercial) so i won’t waste any more time speaking on those. same with oppenheimer. it’s simply so Dull that i can’t fathom how anyone enjoyed it at all let alone 200+ awards much 😭 american fiction was Good and jeffrey wright is the greatest but it feels like it was intended to come out a decade ago… the most anti-racism narrative the general public can handle without getting scared… the zone of interest was also Good but i don’t think we need any more holocaust movies from the perspectives of the nazis it’s NOT INTERESTING! (however it winning best sound was Deserved!) as i feel like i’ve said a thousand times these movies getting the praise they did just feels like a thousand steps backwards… i haven’t watched killers of a flower moon or maestro so i am not an informed hater on these but i have no desire to see bradley cooper/carey mulligan in another oscar bait musician biopic and well i’m not interested in anyone but lilly gladstone getting praise for killers of a flower moon. past lives the holdovers and anatomy of a fall for the WIN!!!

[tvnacity]

my best picture nominees ranking and what I gave them on letterboxd:

1) poor things ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

2) the zone of interest ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2

3) oppenheimer ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2

4) anatomy of a fall ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2

5) the holdovers ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

6) barbie ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

7) killers of the flower moon ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

8) american fiction ⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2

9) past lives ⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2

10) maestro ⭐️⭐️

this was a strong year… I only thought one of the movies didn’t deserve to be in contention at all (looking at YOU, maestro). brief thoughts on each under the cut :)

1) poor things: literally so good. performances were amazing; I loved the universe they created and the script and the SCORE and costuming and everything about it. only thing it was missing was a period scene but I didn’t even mind the lack

2) the zone of interest: haunting and bleak film.. did an amazing job creating an atmosphere and keeping it compelling even though it didn’t have much plot in and of itself. terrifying. the soundscape they made?? jesus

3) oppenheimer: the first hour or so dragged for sure. but I loved how it all came together at the end — the payoff was worth it. cillian and rdj were great and so was the cinematography. Ik it’s going to win everything and like I won’t be mad abt it but also I don’t think it was the movie of the year

4) I was enthralled the whole time. kept me so entertained. stellar performances and amazing script. miss sandra hüller and the kid were phenomenal,,, and the dog???????? wtf???? jesus????

5) the holdovers: man I loved parts of this. It was so heartwarming and giamatti, sessa, and randolph were so good. but ultimately it dragged a bit in the first half and for some reason it didn’t put me in my feelings like I wanted it to. still great though with some amazing lines

6) barbie: this was so fun overall. Obviously gosling was great, and the production design and costuming were stellar. I like that the academy is recognizing fun comedies like this. It wasn’t perfect; its take on feminism wasn’t perfect. It was ambitious, but not quite as ambitious as some others. But it was fun and an all around good time!

7) killers of the flower moon: man I wanted to like this more than I did. It was still an amazing story and a great film. and all the acting (especially gladstone’s) was stellar. I just don’t think it needed to be 3.5 hours, and I like long movies. I just wanted to see more of mollie honestly and less of dicaprio’s character, though in the end it was a very good movie

8) good movie, witty satire — brown and wright were great. I almost died laughing at parts. I was ready to give it a much higher rating but at the very very end (I won’t spoil it) they just lost me, and it kind of soured the whole thing just a tinge. Still worth watching though!!

9) past lives: this was very well made and well acted, but it just didn’t really resonate with me

10) maestro: I did Not like this movie. It had nothing to say. It was clearly made by someone who loved bernstein, but it also seemed intent on telling us nothing about him except things that portrayed him a bad light, and even then it showed us only unimportant scenes in which they talked vaguely about important events… carey mulligan was amazing, and I’ve never seen more convincing practical aging effects, but those were much the only good things about it

[ryanjdonovan]

DONOVAN’S OSCAR PROGNOSTICATION 2024

Truth -- that seems to be the theme for the films at the Oscars this year.  What is truth?  Is there such a thing?  Can it ever truly be known? (Anatomy of a Fall)…  Is it perception? (American Fiction)…  Is it fluid, subject to interpretation? (Poor Things)…  Is it disputable? (Nyad)…  Is it timeless? (Past Lives)…  Is it colored by history? (Oppenheimer)…  Is it clouded by memory and nostalgia? (The Holdovers)…  Is it based on perspective, bent by fame? (Maestro)…  Is it subjective, controlled by a narrative or manipulated for personal gain? (May December)…  Is it controlled by power? (Barbie)…  Does it get rewritten? (Killers of the Flower Moon)…  Does it become forgotten or ignored? (The Zone of Interest)…  Is it purple? (The Color Purple)… (Okay, I struggled with that last one.)

At a time when we doubt that anything is true, how can we believe in the Oscars themselves?  It's still secretive and opaque.  At least the cronyism this year has been discretely kept behind closed doors, as it should be, as opposed to transparently flaunted on social media (like last year with the Andrea Riseborough nomination scandal).  So this year, if the Oscars are going to be manipulated, at least they'll have the decency to hide it from us.

Here's one truth that's irrefutable: My 25th annual Oscar predictions are guaranteed 100% accurate.  So read on… and get ready for some unpopular opinions.  Think I loved masterworks from celebrated auteurs, like Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Zone of Interest?  No!  Overrated, all of them.  Film snobs (and Mattel executives) are sure to castigate and shame me for my treacherous viewpoints… because they are unwilling to accept the truth. 

Fact Check = True: You can follow me on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/ryanjdonovan/

BEST PICTURE:

SHOULD WIN:  The Holdovers WILL WIN:  Oppenheimer GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  May December INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  The Taste of Things

It's a big year for characters that have been name-checked in retro popular music: Oppenheimer (in Sting's 'Russians'), Leonard Bernstein (in R.E.M.'s 'It's the End of the World as We Know It', Barbie and Ken (in Aqua's 'Barbie Girl').  Unfortunately for The Zone of Interest, there are very few pop songs about Nazis…

Oppenheimer will win Best Picture.  That is certain.  But should it?  Maybe the better question is: Have we been tricked?  Tricked into thinking this is the most important film of the year?  Into believing that the only acceptable way to see this film is in 70mm IMAX on the biggest screen possible, when 90% of the film is people talking in small rooms?  Into believing that this is dazzling, dynamic filmmaking because the editing, sound design, and score make it all (again, 90% talking) so seemingly intense?  Into believing the most complex and destructive calculations that the world has even known can be written down and solved on a solitary blackboard or a single sheet of paper?  My answer: Yes, we have been tricked.  Now, I think it's a fantastic movie, and it deserves a lot of the recognition it's getting.  And I'm exaggerating my assertion that we've been tricked… but only a little.  Other than the One Big Explosion, was it really critical to see this in a format that only existed in 11 states (fewer than 20 theaters) in the entire country?  I can't believe I'm being heretical of the theatrical experience, but… no, it wasn't.  If you just saw it on a regular movie screen, was that okay?  Yes, you can be forgiven for your cinematic transgression.  (And, for all the hoopla about the technical perfection of the theatrical film print, I still had a hard time hearing the dialogue, which has been true of all of Christopher Nolan's recent films.)  I can't shake the notion that the film is relentlessly propulsive… but also very boring.  The sound, the way it's cut together, and the music (and let's be honest, the nudity) essentially manipulate the audience into believing the story is more interesting than it actually is.  Without those elements working overtime, would we be nearly as captivated?  Would we even care about the outcome of the trial or the hearing or the tribunal or the security clearance inquisition or whatever the hell is going on?  Honestly, I wouldn't even put Oppenheimer in Nolan's all-time top 5.  An apt comparison -- but superior film -- is Dunkirk: historical events, thrumming sound design, thriller pacing, time-hopping story, Oscar acclaim.  However, that film has real stakes and drama, not senate committees and conference rooms and smirched reputations (the atomic bomb, of course, notwithstanding).  Similar to Oppenheimer, during the first watch, many of the filmmaking elements in Dunkirk call attention to themselves, and the film tends to get in its own way.  But on subsequent viewings, those initially-troublesome aspects pay off, and the viewing experience vastly improves.  Today, I'm willing to call Dunkirk a masterpiece.  Maybe the same will be true with Oppenheimer.  I guess I only have to watch it five more times to find out. 

So, my personal pick for what Should Win is not Oppenheimer.  Unfortunately, I can't really decide between my top three films: The Holdovers, Anatomy of a Fall, and Past Lives.  It keeps flipping.  Ask me on a different day, and I'll give you a different answer.  Such distinct movies.  They couldn't be more disparate in the ways that they appeal to me.  Okay, I've made a decision… for today anyway.  Here I go again, voting with my heart instead of my head…

My choice is The Holdovers.  (I can hear your disappointment.)  Many would argue this is exactly the kind of dusty film we should be getting away from for Best Picture, and that my endorsement is the best evidence for why it shouldn't win.  Fair.  My cerebral choice would be Anatomy of a Fall -- that's the film I've spent the most time pondering over after the fact.  But The Holdovers speaks my language.  That's the best way I can describe my personal connection to it.  I wasn't alive in 1970 and I didn't go to prep school and I don't know what my history teacher smelled like.  But somehow it resonates.  This is probably the Alexander Payne movie with the most heart and the most sincerity -- and that earnestness mixed with all the gleeful bitterness and sarcasm that you expect from Payne is what makes it so gratifying.  For me anyway.  Everybody else apparently prefers to watch bombs explode.

Masquerading as a domestic drama and a legal procedural, Anatomy of a Fall is actually a puzzle -- inviting and challenging, frustrating and rewarding -- and we're not even sure we have all the pieces.  This is a good thing.  As we go through the steps of the dramatic conflict and courtroom proceedings, we are compelled to pick up pieces along the way, and try to make sense of how they fit.  We're even put through the paces as if we are being judged ourselves -- we endure the details and subjectivity and inhumanity of a trial.  (And not just any trial, a French one.  Which is nothing like American trials we see depicted in movies and TV.  It's bonkers.  I have no idea if it's accurate, but it seems that storytelling and conjecture are much more important than facts and evidence.)  For me, it's an apt allegory for any conflict where there are multiple perspectives and selective facts (e.g., anything online, or every episode of Judge Judy); I find the older I get, the more I feel this way.  By the end of the movie, when trying to draw a conclusion, we don't even know if we can trust the puzzle pieces that we've collected and stitched together.  And we're forced to confront the realization: Maybe we can never know the truth… or, more distressingly, maybe there's no such thing as the truth.

Past Lives, the least assuming of all the nominees, might feel slight compared to other films that tackle more 'important' subject matter.  (The problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, or so they say.)  The 'what might have been' theme is tried and true, but this movie puts a different spin on it, with the Korean concept of "in-yun" -- a kind of timeless fate between people.  And the sweeping love story doesn't rely on shortcuts (overt sexiness or titillating dialogue or suggestive imagery) or manipulation (sentimental music or emotional close-ups).  First-time director Celine Song gives the naturalistic film space to breathe and time to think.  A prime example (Spoiler Warning, for those who have not seen the film) is the final exchange between Nora and Hae Sung, which is truly exquisite.  They talk about what their relationship will be (in this life and future ones), and she says she doesn't know.  Initially, I heard his restrained response as "See ya, then" -- a deflated resignation and farewell.  But as it sunk in, I heard it as "See you then," as in "I'll see you in our next life" -- not as a goodbye, but as a resolute promise that he'll wait for her forever.  Subtle and deeply affecting.  (So, what about Nora and her husband Arthur, then?  I'm still a cynic, of course; this film did not thaw my cold heart.  They seem hopelessly tired of each other… and they don't even have kids yet.  Sorry guys, time to start thinking about the next past life.)

It's a little hard to describe to someone why I like Poor Things without sounding like a depraved lunatic.  "It's a really sweet coming-of-age story about a young woman who runs away from her domineering father -- who conducted experimental surgeries on her and an undead baby -- and has a sexual awakening that takes her across an otherworldly European hellscape, leading her to a life of prostitution and revenge.  Her numerous dalliances, which are graphic and sexual but not actually sexy, could be perceived as statutory rape since she has the mind of a child.  It's really great.  Hilarious."  Of course, the film is more than that, but it's a little hard to put into words.  I can't say I relate to any of it, but the perverse humor, fanciful sensibility, and fairytale/nightmare mash-up strike a chord somehow.  Maybe its power is in allowing the viewer a wide range of interpretations -- control or chaos, losing religion or finding faith, shunning love or welcoming it -- it's all there.  A couple things hold it back from being a truly superior film for me, specifically the dark turn in the final quarter (I get the point, but I don't need it) and the occasional bluntness (using a chainsaw when a kitchen knife would do.)  Overall a rewarding experience, but it's clearly not for everyone.

American Fiction has one of the toughest challenges of the nominated films: how to balance its many themes while still making their place in the story feel natural.  It's not a breezy list: death, family trauma, financial strain, artistic integrity, stereotype fetishization, heartbreak, commodification of pain, self-serving elitism, professional disrespect, societal expectations, alienation -- mostly as they pertain to race.  The film succeeds incredibly well.  Despite the personal and touchy subject matter, it's inviting, not hostile.  And despite its density and potential weight, it's thoughtful and light on its feet.  (Categorizing it as a comedy, which has been the case during awards season, is a bit misleading; half of it is satire, with plenty of humorous moments, but it's also a drama that avoids getting bogged down.)  Best Picture is not likely where the film will get rewarded, but I have a feeling it won't go home empty-handed. 

When Killers of the Flower Moon debuted, it seemed like it might have good chance at unseating Oppenheimer as the favorite.  And while there were plenty of rapturous reviews (though it's unclear how much of the fanfare was Scorsese-worship and how much was genuine love of the film), it never quite got there.  While admirable and epic and filled with exquisite craftsmanship, it feels somehow lacking.  True, the themes of evil in the hearts of men and descent into hell are undeniable and fuel every single scene (at an hour and a half in, the situation is already pretty execrable… and then they announce the KKK is coming).  But the overall story itself doesn't quite justify the 3.5-hour runtime.  The complex web of deceit and corruption might be more compelling if every character perpetrating the crimes wasn't such a moron.  The ensuing investigation isn't exactly a chess match; it's more of a game of checkers against a five-year-old.  (Bonus points to the brainiac who asks a lawyer if it's legal to adopt children and then murder them for financial gain.)

The Barbie trailer declares that the movie is for people who love Barbie and people who hate Barbie.  But what about people who have never cared one way or the other about Barbie?  Because that's me.  So maybe not surprisingly, I neither love nor hate the movie.  It's funny, engaging, and enjoyable.  But I never saw it as a contender to vie for Best Picture.  If you've been absorbing pop-culture satire anytime in the past 60 years, you know Barbie-as-metaphor is not a novel idea -- sketch comedy, music, The Twilight Zone, movies, etc.  (How quickly we forget about Tyra Banks.)  The movie has a lot of things to say, has been a huge success, and obviously means a lot to a great many people.  But I, ever the curmudgeon, like to look with a more cynical eye: Is this a pro-consumerism movie?  Or an anti-consumerism movie?  Or a movie masquerading as pro-consumerism in order to satirize unabashed consumerism while actually convincing us of the virtues of anti-consumerism but underneath really just being a vehicle to sell merchandise for a large corporation?  (Hint: Do you think Barbie doll sales increased in 2023?)  Where are the lines between self-awareness and subversion and hypocrisy?  Only Twitter knows for sure.

“A work of art does not answer questions, it provokes them; and its essential meaning is in the tension between the contradictory answers.”  Oh boy.  That's exactly what we want to see at the beginning of a movie, right? -- a clear indication that it will leave us confused.  That quote, from Leonard Bernstein, is what opens the film Maestro.  And sure enough, it delivers on that promise: almost no answers.  As someone who knew next to nothing about the legendary conductor ahead of time, I don't know what I was expecting to get out of this experience.  And despite spending two hours with the character, I don't think I really know much now.  Does that mean I wanted a more traditional biopic, a Behind the Music episode, or a film adaptation of his Wikipedia page?  Sadly, maybe.  The movie has its fans, and nabbed several nominations, so clearly some people are responding to it.  I'm sure director/star Bradley Cooper knew there was no way to please everyone.  (Maybe that's why Steven Spielberg pawned it off on him; Spielberg had planned to direct, but handed the keys to Cooper after seeing A Star Is Born, and stayed on as a producer.  Incidentally, Spielberg actually has more nominations for producing (13) than directing (9); this film makes him the most-nominated producer ever.)  Don't expect this film to factor in the race -- as soon as Cooper missed out on a directing nomination, its Best Picture chances were dead in the water.

I'm not quite sure what to say (or how to feel) about The Zone of Interest.  Through unique sound design (what you hear rather than what you see), it's a film that highlights the atrocities of the Holocaust by presenting it with an unsettling sense of normalcy, as seen through the daily lives of the Nazi family that lives next to Auschwitz.  The banality and ignorance are the point.  The idea seems to be that anti-shock value is even more disturbing than shock value.  But it's not sneaky, it's overt.  (Case in point: the flourishes -- like the red screen, the reverse negative, or the loud screeching sounds -- which may or may not be there just to wake up any dozing audience members.)  It's easily the most polarizing of all the nominees.  Whether you appreciate the film probably depends greatly on how effective you think the approach is.  Personally, I find the technique and the structure -- and therefore, the film -- confounding, preventing me from fully connecting with it.  It strikes me more as an experience than a narrative -- novel and provocative, yes, but not successful in terms of story.  (And it may or may not be pointing a finger at modern-day museum cleaning ladies, I can't be sure.) 

My pick for Ingloriously Snubbed is The Taste of Things, which was France's submission for Best International Film (instead of Anatomy of a Fall), but shockingly didn't end up making the cut for Best Picture.  It's a 19th-century French romance between a mature monogamous couple, set in a rustic country kitchen, cooking gourmet cuisine the entire time, with no violence, swearing, or enmity. In other words: porn for my wife.

Here is my unsolicited ballot with all the Best Picture nominees, from best to worst:

The Holdovers

Anatomy of a Fall

Past Lives

Oppenheimer

Poor Things

American Fiction

Killers of the Flower Moon

Barbie

Maestro

The Zone of Interest

BEST ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN:  Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer) WILL WIN:  Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Leonardo DiCaprio (Killers of the Flower Moon) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Ralph Fiennes (The Rat Catcher)

After months of being neck-and-neck with Paul Giamatti, Cillian Murphy has emerged as the front-runner for his work in Oppenheimer.  (Though it's not a sure thing; there's always at least one curveball on Oscar night.)  While Murphy and Giamatti both give bravura performances and are singularly perfect for their roles, Giamatti could probably do his Holdovers character in his sleep (or while eating a cheeseburger at In-N-Out).  Murphy, meanwhile, gives a performance unlike anything we've seen from him, making it seem like more of a revelation.  He certainly benefits from the year's best cinematography: framed like a portrait, wearing his hat and coat like a superhero outfit, paranoia frothing over his hard-edged face, and fish-eye-lens shots in close-up rendering him like a deer in headlights.  There's also the drama-versus-comedy bias at the Oscars, of course.  But in the end, voters will choose Murphy for delivering a career-defining performance and being the center of mass in the movie of the year.  (Then again, you could use the same description for Margot Robbie in Barbie, and we know how that turned out with the Academy.)

The central figure in The Holdovers is what you might get if you put "Paul Giamatti as a teacher" into an A.I. engine.  It is, without a doubt, the Paul Giamatti-est Paul Giamatti role ever.  And it is totally my jam (which is definitely a phrase that people still use).  After their magical collaboration in Sideways, it's hard to believe it's taken Giamatti and director Alexander Payne almost 20 years to team up again.  (Then again, I realize "grouchy Paul Giamatti star vehicle" is probably not high on many studios' wish lists.)  Readers of this article over the years (both of you) know he's a first-ballot Snubbed Hall of Famer: American Splendor in 2004, Sideways in 2005, and Should Win / Will Win for Cinderella Man in 2006.  And so, of course, this year I'm picking… someone else to win.  As much as it betrays the very fabric of my being, I think I have to endorse Murphy for Best Actor.  In terms of Oscar bait, Giamatti is missing a key element: The Big Emotional Speech.  You can almost picture it -- at the end, when he praises his student to his parents in front of the headmaster -- it could easily be a three-minute swooning monologue, full of lionizing epithets, clever wordplay, and inspirational Greek quotes, providing dramatic salvation for the boy while heartbreakingly sacrificing his own career, eliciting cheers as you uncontrollably and elatedly shout at the screen through tear-filled eyes, "O Captain!  My Captain!" or "You're the man now, dog!"  The Big Emotional Speech would have secured the Oscar immediately.  But that doesn't happen.  Payne doesn't subvert it (as you might expect), he simply avoids it.  That's not Payne, and that sure as hell isn't this movie.  True to life, Giamatti effectively sacrifices the Oscar by dutifully serving the film.  Like the Hall of Famer he is.

With American Fiction, Jeffrey Wright finally relinquishes the title of Greatest Living Actor to Never Be Nominated.  (On the ladies' side, Emily Blunt does the same with Oppenheimer.)  You may recall that I accurately predicted a nomination for Wright two years ago (never mind the fact that I said it would be for a different film this year, Asteroid City).  With Fiction, Wright elevates the already-crackling material in a way that I don’t think anyone else could.  He seems extremely at ease with his character, despite the fact that the character is not at ease at all.  His is probably the most believable portrayal in this race, a person you might know in real life.  (Like, I would probably be his despised neighbor, Phillip.)  He has some momentum here at the end of Oscar voting, having the most recent movie and winning the Indie Spirit Award, but it won't be enough to pull him ahead of Murphy or Giamatti.  (I'm sure he'll take solace in the fact that I have him in a virtual three-way tie with those two actors for Should Win.) 

If the Best Actor award is for who wants it the most, Bradley Cooper would win hands down for Maestro.  The man is campaigning hard.  If you've seen or heard one of the 5,000 interviews he's done this season, you know what I'm talking about.  How Leonard Bernstein was speaking through him.  How he trained 36 hours a day to be a conductor.  How he was handpicked to direct the project by God (a.k.a. Steven Spielberg).  In each interview, he makes sure to weep at least once and tries to work in the story where The Hangover director Todd Phillips told him he wished he believed in himself as much as Phillips did.  To his credit, it all seems very earnest.  I truly believe that handwritten notes from Michael Mann make him cry, and I truly believe that he very much wants to accept an Oscar.  As for the performance, it's transformative, but often feels like it slips into caricature, especially in the second half -- it's like Joe Piscopo doing Frank Sinatra, with Ben Stiller's Maury Finkle and Rick Moranis's Merv Griffin sprinkled in.  And as far as character motivation, I'm not entirely sure -- he seems to have two pursuits: getting summer to sing in him and humping anyone with nice hair.  As actor, writer, and producer of the film, Cooper adds three nominations to his previous nine.  But at the end of the night, the hardest-wanting man in show business will be 0 for 12, I'm afraid.  

After years (decades!) of admirable work in supporting roles, it's nice to see Rustin's Colman Domingo get recognition in a star-making turn.  It's just a shame it's not a better movie overall.  The screenplay aside, the film has the immobility of a walled-in stage play, with performances that play to the back row.  (Maybe not coincidentally, director George C. Wolfe has a highly-accomplished career in theater.)  Everyone in the ensemble seems to be overdoing it by about 10% (even Jeffrey Wright, who's so great in American Fiction), with a striking lack of naturalism (especially when compared to, say, Past Lives, which got zero acting nominations).  As such, Domingo, playing real-life activist Bayard Rustin, feels a bit broad early on; but he's at his best in the final act, when the performance rises to meet the poignance of the events in the film. 

Ralph Fiennes, my Ingloriously Snubbed choice for The Rat Catcher, is the best argument for why performances in short films should be eligible for Acting Oscars. 

BEST ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN:  Emma Stone (Poor Things) WILL WIN:  Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Natalie Portman (May December) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Juliette Binoche (The Taste of Things)

As we come down to the wire, it seems that Lily Gladstone is edging past Emma Stone, for her heart-wrenching role in Killers of the Flower Moon.  They've been deadlocked most of the season; just a few days ago I would have said Stone had the slight edge.  But the Screen Actors Guild award tips the race in Gladstone's favor.  Really, it's still up for grabs, but if I were wagering, I wouldn’t bet against Gladstone.  And while she gives a strong and effecting performance, she's not quite my top choice -- though it has more to do with the film itself.  Despite being the lynchpin of the movie, I don't quite believe the love story between her character and Leonardo DiCaprio's.  Her character seems too savvy and too emotionally mature to fall for DiCaprio's halfwit baloney.  And because that relationship is so essential to the narrative (and true to life, according to their descendants), and because it allows the viewer to understand how so many awful events in the story take place, my disbelief causes much of the film to fall apart.  And unfortunately, it's holding me back from fully endorsing her performance.

Emma Stone gives an astonishing, hilarious, and frank performance in Poor Things, as her character goes on a globe-trotting adventure of self-discovery and sexual awakening.  (She could be the protagonist of the Seinfeld movie-within-the-show, 'Rochelle, Rochelle'.)  She's my slight pick for Should Win over Sandra Hüller, based on the high level of difficulty in her role: She has to portray the mental and physical evolution of a child growing to adulthood in a woman's body (as well as portray a lot of "furious jumping") -- and despite the inherent bizarreness, none of it ever comes across as false.  Her journey feels shocking, but also inevitable.  Despite being manipulated by her 'father', she follows in his footsteps, using increasingly-scientific curiosity and methods to evaluate things, people, and experiences.  (You know, she's something of a scientist herself.)  Having won already for La La Land, many voters will be happy to give the award to someone else.  But for my money, Stone's Poor Things performance blows La La Land away.  (And I still hold a grudge against La La Land for crapping on A Flock of Seagulls.)

Watching Sandra Hüller's character, who's accused of murder in Anatomy of a Fall, she's like Schrödinger's Cat -- she's both guilty and not guilty.  She skillfully draws us into her perspective while somehow keeping her distance; we empathize with her, but we never know what she's thinking.  Upon that intimate unknowability, she adds more complex layers -- love for her son, knowing that she'll be judged in the public's eye even if she's found innocent, and arguing a point that she doesn't believe (or says she doesn't believe) for the sake of her defense.  It's a remarkable turn from an actress largely unknown in the United States.  Hüller may benefit from double-dipping (she's also fantastic in The Zone of Interest), but voters are clearly considering this a contest between Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone. 

In another year, Carey Mulligan might get my vote for her performance in Maestro.  Director and co-star Bradley Cooper has been vocal about Mulligan being the true star of the movie.  She's a formidable foil for Cooper in the first half, though she risks veering into affectation.  That changes in the second half, when the film ratchets up, and Mulligan's performance ascends, becoming more naturalistic and bare -- and as a result, more connected to the audience.  It's a showcase for the breadth of her talent.  Through it all, she more than holds her own in the cacophony of argumentative dialogue that gives the film its signature melody. 

Why are we doing this?  Why do we keep doing this to poor Annette Bening?  Nominating her again when she has no chance to win?  She doesn't need our charity.  Her fifth nomination (for Nyad) feels like an unnecessary courtesy, especially given the number of other deserving actresses this year (more on that later).  To be fair, at the outset of Oscar season, this seemed -- on paper anyway -- like a great shot for Bening to finally land the trophy: a biopic of a complicated real-life character, a unique story about a mind-boggling accomplishment, a punishing physical performance, a commentary about age and perseverance, and a potential showcase for emotion and drama.  Unfortunately, the movie itself, about long-distance open-water swimmer Diana Nyad, is less than amazing, and her performance probably suffers because of it.  She finds better footing (swimming?) in the second half of the film, however, when stilted dialogue and imitation give way to more authentic emotion.  A bit of a surprise when nominations were read, Bening will have to hope for another crack at Oscar glory in a better movie.  Regardless, I suspect she's doing just fine without us.

As for my pick for Ingloriously Snubbed… Thought I was going to say Margot Robbie for Barbie?  I actually preferred her (abbreviated) performance in Asteroid City -- her scene was my favorite in the film.  I have a few actresses I'd nominate over Robbie: The official choice is Juliette Binoche (The Taste of Things), but Greta Lee (Past Lives) and Zar Amir Ebrahimi (Shayda) would also be worthy inclusions. 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN:  Robert Downey Jr. (Oppenheimer) WILL WIN:  Robert Downey Jr. (Oppenheimer) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Charles Melton (May December) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Willem Dafoe (Poor Things)

There's little doubt that Robert Downey Jr. will win his first Oscar for Oppenheimer.  Voters are responding to an overwhelming sense of "it's his time", "the movie is awesome", and "he gives a great acceptance speech" (oh, and "his performance is good").  A question they may ask, before casting their vote in the supporting category, is whether they think Downey has an Oscar-winning lead performance in him sometime in the future.  (If Dolittle is any indication, probably not.)  Personally, I'm not quite sure who to endorse, in a group of solid if not electrifying performances.  (See Ingloriously Snubbed for my real pick.)  It's maybe more of a process of elimination, but ultimately I land on Downey too.  It's not exactly his most dynamic or captivating performance ever, but for a supporting role, he delivers the goods without going all 'Downey'.  And, I'm not going to lie, I'm rooting for him too… I mean, he does give a great acceptance speech.  (One lament about Oppenheimer's supporting roles: I wish they would have gotten Gene Hackman out of retirement, just so he could say the word "Oppenheimer" in his signature growl -- à la his Oppenheimer Funds commercials of yore.)

Just a few short years ago, I gave Robert De Niro a rare double-helping of Gloriously Omitted (for The Irishman and Joker) and suggested he hang up his holster.  I'm happy to say the calls for his retirement were premature.  Killers of the Flower Moon is the best De Niro in years (decades?) and his first well-earned nomination since 1991's Cape Fear.  It's vintage De Niro, full of menace and manipulation -- a schemer who's just wise enough to know that he doesn't have to outsmart everyone, just the guy next to him.  (In a movie landscape full of shared universes, is it possible this role is a Louis Cyphre origin story?)

It seemed inevitable that voters were going to include one of the standout supporting performances in Poor Things -- either Mark Ruffalo or Willem Dafoe.  While I would have picked the other one (see below), this is probably the silliest, most dynamic, and (intentionally) funniest Ruffalo we've ever seen.  (No "They knew!" grandstanding here.)  It's unlike any part he's ever played, and his odd vocalizations serve him well in the role.  Despite being the 'adult' in his relationship with Emma Stone's character, he really nails the I-didn't-get-my-way pouting that every parent knows well.  While effective, it ultimately feels like he's play-acting a bit, instead of authentically inhabiting the role, so voters won't be swayed to give him the award.

Well, one doll we know won't be represented in Barbieland is Oscar Winner Ken.  Ryan Gosling is more than game in Barbie, but this is probably the film's least likely shot at a trophy.  Maybe Gosling's Ken can use his clicky-pen doctor powers to explain to me what the point of the Mattel sub-plot is and what the corporation is doing in the movie.  I don't mean what Mattel represents, I mean what they literally do.  Like, how do the Patriarchy Ken dolls get manufactured so fast?  The Ken revolution (and corresponding mass production) seems to happen in the span of a day, without any involvement from the company.  Does Mattel make dolls, or do the dolls somehow self-manifest based on the actions of the Barbieland characters with Mattel just reaping the benefits?  Basically, I don't understand any of the Mattel movie logic.  (And Will Ferrell clearly doesn't either.)

Sterling K. Brown was a bit of a late-breaking surprise for his part in American Fiction.  After three Emmy awards and a bunch of recent nominations -- so many nominations -- it seemed inevitable that an Oscar nod was going to happen for him sooner or later (though his movie career has taken longer to fully launch than expected).  While he has no real shot to win, his nomination is likely an indication of things to come.  (An even surer sign that he's made it is that he's created sworn enemies -- the sincerest form of flattery in Hollywood -- in Charles Melton and Willem Dafoe, two actors that were hoping to get his slot.)

Speaking of Charles Melton… I am, apparently, the only one on planet Earth that is not blown away by Melton's performance in May December.  I understand that as a victim of trauma at an early age, his character is supposed to be stunted and withdrawn.  But where viewers and critics alike find his performance mesmerizing and chilling, I find it… well, oafish and flat.  ("Yes, of course it is!" the Internet yells at me.  "That's because he's broken inside, you inconsiderate monster!")  Okay.  I get it.  Actually, I don't.  The performance doesn't strike me as particularly nuanced or engaging.  ("But he has an emotional breakdown in front of his son who's half his age but twice as mature!  The fact that they're totally baked and weirdly sitting on the roof of the house make it all the more poignant, you cretin!")  Sigh.  Every commenter out there anointed him the Oscar winner long before nominations were announced.  ("He's so perfect they should rename the category after him!")  I was unconvinced.  And so, it turns out, was a large portion of the Academy.  What will hindsight say?  I've watched the film again, and, with everyone so passionate about the authenticity of his performance, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong about it.  On second thought, no.  I'm not.  And so I dub him Gloriously Omitted.  (A couple silly honorable mentions: Brendan Fraser, for showing up to yell for 10 seconds in Killers of the Flower Moon; and Jesse Tyler Ferguson, for treating Cocaine Bear like it's a sequel to Wet Hot American Summer.)

There's only one choice for Snubbed: Willem Dafoe in Poor Things, as the Scientist, or as the Father, or as Dr. Frankenstein.  (Or as God, if you like.)  In fact, he'd be my choice to win the Oscar over all the actual nominees.  His performance feels strangely authentic, despite the fact that his is probably the most audacious and ludicrous in the movie.  There's no note of novelty in his performance (which is something I can't say about his screen-mate, Mark Ruffalo).  It's as if Dafoe's long history of weirdo characters has led him to this wonderful culmination of superlative oddness.  Some other smaller performances worth mentioning: Tom Conti in Oppenheimer (I seem to be the only one who likes his goofball Einstein), Rhys Ifans in Nyad (the shaggy, underrated soul of the impossible quests), and Milo Machado Graner in Anatomy of a Fall (the gifted child at the heart of the film). 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN:  Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers) WILL WIN:  Da'Vine Joy Randolph (The Holdovers) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Julianne Moore (May December) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Viola Davis (Air)

The two leading contenders are the ones that (not coincidentally) have the best and most complete parts in their respective films.  The first is Da'Vine Joy Randolph, the runaway choice for her role as a grieving yet tender mother/coworker/road-trip-buddy in The Holdovers.  She's arguably the third lead in the film, with her own standalone story and well-developed characterization.  Typically a comedic actress, she gives her character a sense of faded warmth and vitality in the wake of recent difficulties.  She's never been my official Snubbed choice, but she's been in consideration for standout performances in Dolemite Is My Name and The United States vs. Billie Holiday (not to mention as the comically fed-up but dogged investigator in Only Murders in the Building).  (Good thing I'm not giving awards for Best Accent -- I'm not really sure what's going on with her occasional Boston inflection in The Holdovers.  She evidently didn't study Ben Affleck's Dunkin' Donuts Super Bowl commercial.)

Danielle Brooks similarly benefits from a fantastic part in The Color Purple, and she fully capitalizes on it.  The film brims with supporting roles that voters probably considered for nominations, but Brooks brings a unique (and welcome) energy to the film; each scene she's in changes the dynamics of the entire piece.  Her nomination is a no-brainer, encapsulating pretty much everything the Academy likes in a supporting performance.  She gets to sing, dance, and throw a punch -- but the role and screentime are less than what Randolph has to work with, so she won't realistically challenge for the prize.  But getting her own catchphrase ("Hell no!") isn't a bad consolation. 

Barbie has been called a lot of things -- smarter and dumber minds than mine have seen to that -- but one thing that stands out to me is that it's a sneaky coming-of-age story.  But unlike director Greta Gerwig's previous films (Lady Bird and Little Women), we realize halfway through that it's a coming-of-age story for the mother character (which makes it a coming-of-middle-age story, I guess?).  So the film in many ways is just as much about America Ferrera's character as it is Barbie herself.  I think that is a big reason why so many people (and voters) have responded to her performance, beyond her "Woman" monologue.  However, Ferrera's best performance of the year may have been trying to look impressed while co-presenter Kevin Costner awkwardly fumbled his way through an excerpt of her now-famous monologue at the Golden Globes.  Yikes.  (Bonus points to her for spoofing the speech in the Oscars promo video with Jimmy Kimmel.)

I think voters may have been grading on a curve when nominating Jodie Foster for Nyad.  It's a competent performance, but I personally don't think it's anything out of the ordinary; the fact that it's in a middling film with underwritten dialogue doesn't help.  I suspect that since she doesn't appear in many movies anymore, voters were enthused to see her on-screen, and lazily gravitated to her, over less-conventional performances from other actresses.  She'll get a True Detective bump (like Matthew McConaughey, Mahershala Ali, and Rachel McAdams before her), but she's no threat to collect her third trophy. 

While it's helpful to be graded on a curve, it's even better to be part of the snowball effect.  Case in point: Emily Blunt in Oppenheimer.  There's no real way to sugarcoat it: the nomination is week.  There's simply not much for her to do.  But Oppenheimer is rolling through town, and it's carrying a lot of people with it.  So her nomination has seemed inevitable since last summer.  The only surprise is realizing that she's never been nominated for anything else (like The Devil Wears Prada, The Young Victoria, Into the Woods, Sicario, A Quiet Place, Mary Poppins Returns, or The Girl on the Train).  Despite being her only nominated role, Oppenheimer probably won't even make the highlight reel of her career.  (At least her character has more to do -- albeit with less consequence -- than Rami Malek.)

The year had a lot of fun and interesting smaller roles, many of which weren't actually in contention for the Oscars, but are worth mentioning: Viola Davis is the obvious choice for Air, but it's certainly not her most memorable work.  Sandra Hüller (in The Zone of Interest) is a bright spot in a film I otherwise didn't love.  Kerry O'Malley is memorable in The Killer for what is essential a cameo.  (I hope she had a stunt double.)  Kate McKinnon is perfect in Barbie.  (I'm waiting for an announcement of a Weird Barbie spin-off.)  And Teyonah Parris: I'm not necessarily citing her role in The Marvels, but after doing action, horror, and drama, I would recommend a big-budget rom-com -- she has the best (and most under-used) smile in Hollywood. 

BEST DIRECTOR:

SHOULD WIN:  Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall) WILL WIN:  Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Bradley Cooper (Maestro) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Alexander Payne (The Holdovers)

This is the strongest lock of the night: Christopher Nolan for Oppenheimer.  But there is still intrigue with this category… specifically, after winning every single award of the season, how long can Nolan continue to pretend to be surprised and grateful and humble?  I don't think he can keep it up.  I think on Oscar night, upon his crowning achievement, he'll finally say, "We all knew I was going to win, I'm better than all these hacks, and it is long overdue."  A little honesty and pompousness would be refreshing.  (After many months of officially giving no comment on the Barbenheimer phenomenon and clearly having no patience for all the viral marketing nonsense, maybe he will finally tell us what he really thinks of Barbie.)  Perhaps he'll reveal how autobiographical his film actually is.  I'm not the only one who strongly suspects that it's a meta-commentary on the world at large not understanding his films and the negative reviewers not appreciating his genius.  (Lydon Johnson might as well be giving J.R. Oppenheimer a gold statuette instead of the Fermi Award at the end of the film, years after having his Inception Security Clearance revoked.)  And of course, Nolan is the obvious choice for Should Win… right?  I mean, how could he not be?  …Right?  Or…

…But then there's Justine Triet, director of Anatomy of a Fall.  While her film may lack the spectacle of Oppenheimer, she finds subtler ways to make it engaging and keep the viewer glued to the screen.  Through twisty psychology, magnetic performances, alternating points of view, DIY detective work, confounding legal proceedings, and shifting blame (plus a dog who may know more than everyone else), she keeps us highly invested while daring us to doubt the main character.  The film is long, but effectively so; Triet puts the viewer into the center of the arduous situation, frustrating us along with the protagonist.  It's a balancing act that could collapse at any time, but Triet keeps it all together.  So for the effect she has on the viewer, and the way she orchestrates all the components to tell the most engrossing story, I choose her for my Should Win.  (But if I'm being honest, that probably won't keep me from rooting for Nolan, one of my favorite directors over the past two decades.  Had he already won for Dunkirk, like I said he should, then I wouldn't be conflicted.)

From a visual perspective, I probably like the look of Yorgos Lanthimos's Poor Things best of all the Director nominees.  A Victorian fever dream with production design on steroids, the visual style matches the absurdity of the characters and the journeys they're on.  Elements that shouldn't go together end up meshing in a lovely but jarring, unique but familiar way.  It's a Frankenstein movie that evokes the aesthetic of a different monster movie -- Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula.  There are also strong influences from The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland, of course.  The city of Alexandria is straight out of Dr. Seuss's 'Oh, the Thinks You Can Think' (I was half expecting to see the Vipper of Vipp).  Much of the iconography seems heavily influenced by the Follies numbers in The Great Ziegfeld from almost 90 years ago.  And then it throws in some retro-future steampunk elements, just to irritate the European History teachers.  (I'd love to hear what Paul Giamatti's Holdovers character would say.)  I can't say I loved Poor Things quite as much as Lanthimos's previous effort, The Favourite, but he's become a must-see director for me. 

Killers of the Flower Moon gives Martin Scorsese his 10th Best Director nomination, vaulting him past his old nemesis Steven Spielberg for most by a living director.  (William Wyler is the all-time king, with 12.)  As Scorsese nears the end of his career, many thought this would be the grand finale and score him an elusive second statue, putting him in elite company.  But Christopher Nolan, his new nemesis, said, "Not so fast."  Were it not for Oppenheimer, I could easily see Scorsese winning; Flower Moon is one of his best-looking films (it looks a hundred times better than The Irishman).  It's also one of his best-sounding films -- without being able to lean on the Rolling Stones, he got a magnificent composition from Robbie Robertson (who passed away a few months ago), the kind of foreboding score that I really respond to, that isn't overly-manipulative or doesn't do too much heavy lifting (<cough> Oppenheimer <cough>).  It's also probably the most sensitive film he's made in years; instead of focusing primarily on the FBI investigation (which would have been in his wheelhouse), he refocused the story on "love, trust, and betrayal", after hearing input from members of the Osage Nation.  However, one hang-up I have is the radio-play ending, which felt awkward and blunt.  There's something dissatisfying about not seeing the characters meet their fate.  Maybe that’s the point… or maybe editor Thelma Schoonmaker said, "We gotta wrap this up."

This year's unconventional nominee, Jonathan Glazer, is an acquired taste, and certainly not for everyone.  With his résumé of button-pushing films (Sexy Beast, Birth, Under the Skin), he's not exactly a family-friendly director.  (My generation knows him as the director of Jamiroquai's iconic 'Virtual Insanity' video in the '90s, which won him an MTV Moonman Award.  Maybe he's going for a MEGOT?)  Glazer has jokingly referred to his film The Zone of Interest as "Big Brother in the Nazi house" -- which is not totally inaccurate.  A more serious comparison might be Jeanne Dielman…, or other European observational 'slow cinema' films.  Glazer goes to great lengths to make the film the inverse of what you might expect from a Holocaust film; visually, it's not graphic or assaulting or visceral, but thanks to the sounds he puts in the background (the "second film", he calls it), it is those things in your imagination.  The film goads and baits the viewer in ways no other film in my memory does.  I'm afraid to say it doesn't totally work for me, at least not as intended.  I can't help but feel like it's a lot of pretense lacquered onto subject matter that probably doesn't need it.  Glazer is clearly an artist of immense talent, who refuses to conform to conventions… which is another way of saying that he's probably a producer's nightmare.  I'm guessing in school he was often told how much potential he had by frustrated teachers threatening to fail him.  I just hope he someday channels that potential into a film that works for me (preferably one that includes a catchy tune, funky dancing, and a trippy moving floor).

I'm not sure if Maestro is well directed, but it's certainly very directed.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one that has director Bradley Cooper on the Gloriously Omitted list.  The film is full of pizazz and talent, but what's perhaps more fascinating than the film itself is the irresponsible psychological excavating we might do about its author.  How much of it is self-examination of Cooper himself and his thirsty quest for artistic recognition?  Only his therapist knows for sure, but I'd wager that the movie teaches us more about Bradley Cooper than Leonard Bernstein.  Honorable mentions to David Fincher for The Killer, doing less of what he does best, and Todd Haynes for May December, doing… well, I don't know what the hell he's doing.  (More on that in Original Screenplay.)

Under the singular direction of Alexander Payne, The Holdovers is like a warm, scratchy wool blanket at grandma's house -- despite the discomfort and awkwardness, it's so cozy and so familiarly specific that you never want to leave.  I'm a sucker for his analog-film aesthetic -- I relish Payne's version of the 1970s more than other retro nostalgia-porn, like Licorice Pizza or Dazed and Confused.  His omission was my biggest disappointment on nomination day, and is my easy Snubbed choice.  Other worthy contenders include Celine Song for Past Lives and Anh Hung Tran for The Taste of Things.  Song, a first-time film director, frames her shots in Past Lives like an old pro.  Perhaps my favorite is when the Greta Lee character (the center of gravity in the film) leaves the two men alone together.  The shot starts wide, as if it's unmoored by her departure, and calls attention to her absence.  But then as the men talk and make their own connection, the frame becomes anchored, centering on them and slowly pushing in.  But just subtly -- perfectly.  On the other end of the spectrum, Tran's sweeping camera work in The Taste of Things heightens the culinary experience that is the soul of the film.  While extremely complex and painstakingly choreographed, it feels effortless and looks natural, never calling attention to itself.  He also eschews a musical score, so the camera highlights the sounds of the gourmet kitchen -- and those sounds effectively become the score, providing surprising rhythm and melody. 

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN:  Arthur Harari, Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall) WILL WIN:  Arthur Harari, Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Christos Nikou, Stavros Raptis, Sam Steiner (Fingernails) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Alex Convery (Air)

There's an interesting phenomenon with the nominated writers this year: three of the films are written by domestic partners (Anatomy of a Fall, May December, and Barbie).  And appropriately (or alarmingly), those films also happen to include major conflicts between the sexes.  (I had assumed Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach had hashed everything out during Marriage Story.)  Anatomy of a Fall, written by Arthur Harari and Justine Triet, seems like it would be cause for concern for the couple.  Do we think a story about a woman who may or may not have killed her husband with zero remorse is a red flag?  I can imagine their writing style… 

Justine: [At the keyboard.]  Arthur: [Turns up music.]  Justine: "The husband is listening to his annoying music… and then he mysteriously falls off a third-story balcony to his death!"  Arthur: Shall I turn down the music, love? 

Assuming they haven't killed each other before then, I expect Harari and Triet will collect the Original Screenplay Oscar together. 

But it's far from a lock.  The script for The Holdovers (written by David Hemingson) has a good chance to sneak in.  It has the uncanny ability to make me nostalgic for things I've never known, places I've never been to, life before I was born, and experiences I've never actually wanted. 

Another strong contender and possible spoiler is Past Lives, the story of a love that defies the limits of time and distance… or the story of an Uber that shows up just a little too quickly.  Writer/director Celine Song, with her first film, handles the script with the delicacy of someone with decades more experience.  The film deals with the ideas of fate and free will, not just in this lifetime but across many lifetimes.  It also references another fantastic screenplay: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  That film is specifically mentioned by a character, but its themes of repeating connections and the inevitability of love (even when relationships fail and heartbreak is inescapable) also reverberate throughout the story and dialogue of Past Lives.  Eternal Sunshine won Best Original Screenplay 20 years ago; even if Past Lives doesn't win, it's a worthy successor. 

After watching Maestro, I'm still wondering what Leonard Bernstein has to do with the end of the world as we know it.  The script, written by Bradley Cooper and Josh Singer, is probably the least compelling of the bunch here.  I'm equally fascinated and frustrated by the dialogue; it's like Bernstein's music -- boisterous, abrupt, busy, discordant, jarring, overlapping… and, probably intentionally, difficult to fully understand.  Aside from never saying what they actually mean, characters talk over each other and -- more crucially -- past each other.  I get to the end of a scene and wonder, What did I just listen to?  What are they fighting about?  I heard words, and yelling, and disagreement, but I don't actually know the meaning of what they said to each other.  The characters do not seem to be confused, but I am.  If the dialogue in the film isn't for you, at least you can smile at the Snoopy Thanksgiving Parade Balloon metaphor (which, like life, literally goes by without Bernstein seeing it). 

May December (directed by Todd Haynes, written by Samy Burch and Alex Mechanik) was at one time a strong Oscar contender in several categories, but ended up an also-ran.  Its lone nomination is for screenplay, and for me, it's a hard one to wrap my head around.  How to interpret the melodrama-run-amok that we see onscreen?  Upon a second viewing, it's clear that there's more than a healthy zesting of camp (if you're not sure, remember that Haynes is the guy that made Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story -- with plastic dolls).  Here's my theory on how to reconcile the film (if you haven't seen it, skip this paragraph): We are not seeing reality; we are seeing the movie that Natalie Portman's character (the actress) is picturing in her head.  She is imagining the events of her research and interaction with the family as a melodramatic episode.  In her mind, she's picturing it play out as if it's her idea of a prestigious Oscar-type film.  But since she's not very talented, she's imagining it in an over-the-top, overly-performative, amateurish way.  So to Portman's character, it's supposed to be sophisticated, but it comes off (to us) as campy -- dramatic music, overt sexual tension, deceptive wife, boy-toy husband, evocative imagery, a lisp for a character tic, and herself as the sly (but ridiculous) seductress.  Since she doesn't have a deep imagination, she rips off other movies -- specifically her favorite prestige movie from her formative childhood: The Silence of the Lambs.  So she infuses the story with all kinds of Lambs elements that, of course, don't work at all in this narrative: butterflies, 1990s thriller score, a pet-shop stockroom that looks like Buffalo Bill's basement, a dark X-ray lab, face-to-face interrogation, characters looking into the camera.  But she's no Jonathan Demme, so her version of it is terrible, of course.  She thinks she's Clarice Starling, but she can't outwit Julianne Moore's Hannibal Lector.  (The film even casts Moore, who played Starling… but not in the original; instead she was in the second-rate, non-Demme sequel.)  We get to the end and see Portman's character has been deluding herself, stuck in a purgatory of basic-cable mediocrity.

If I name Asteroid City as my choice for Gloriously Omitted, will my Wes Anderson Fan Club membership be revoked?  It's… (choosing my words carefully here)… not one of his best.  I would probably go easier on the movie if 1) he hadn't included the scene with Adrien Brody and Margot Robbie, which is easily the most electric scene in the film, and made wish he made that movie instead, and 2) he hadn't also made The Rat Catcher, which I love, in the same year (see: the Adapted Screenplay category).  To be on the safe side, I'll go with Fingernails (written by Christos Nikou, Stavros Raptis, and Sam Steiner).  What a great premise.  What a boring execution.  The pitch: In an alternate reality, true love can be scientifically tested by ripping the fingernails off two people and putting them in a microwave-looking-thingamabob.  The experience: Dull people sitting around doing their mundane jobs or watching TV and passively doubting or projecting their feelings, failing to make us believe any of these mopes could possibly be in love with each other.  It should have been a lot weirder or a lot shorter -- it could have made a helluva Black Mirror episode.  (As it is, it's still better than any of the actual episodes in the latest season of Black Mirror.)  Honorable Mention unfortunately goes to celebrated writers Dustin Lance Black and Julian Breece for Rustin's script.  The film takes a dynamic figure playing a pivotal role in landmark events in history, and makes the experience feel educational instead of cinematic.  The screenplay often verbalizes the subtext, and makes it text.  You can practically hear a producer's reductive notes coming through in the stale dialogue.  A missed opportunity.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN:  Tony McNamara (Poor Things) WILL WIN:  Cord Jefferson (American Fiction) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED:  Julia Cox (Nyad) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED:  Wes Anderson (The Rat Catcher)

All the scripts in the Adapted category are smart and challenging, and interrogate what we think (or what we think we think) about well-established events, people, and perceptions (and toys).  A favorite among voters this year (and the likely winner) is American Fiction, the first film written and directed by Cord Jefferson.  All the films in this category confront the preconceived notions in different ways, but I think American Fiction does it more elegantly that the others.  My only reservation about the script is the ending.  (Some spoilers here.)  We come to form a relationship with Jeffrey Wright's character and become invested in his story.  So it's a letdown when we get a satirical resolution, instead of a sincere, meaningful one.  (I realize that's the point -- the character doesn't get to finish his own story, and he's succumbed to the idea of simply giving paying audiences the pandering ending that they think they want.)  We're left to question not only what happens to him, but also whether he's at peace with his choices.  Like the character himself, we feel a bit unfulfilled.  But I suppose that's life. 

Oppenheimer has yet to win a major screenplay award during the Oscar run-up, so despite it steamrolling through most categories, it's looking less and less likely to win here… but don't count it out.  With Christopher Nolan a sure bet to collect trophies for Director and Picture, voters will likely use this category to spread the love around.  And I agree with them; screenplay is not Oppenheimer's strongest suit.  Despite all the timeline chicanery, it's mostly a courtroom drama (never mind the fact that characters keep saying it's not a court).  More than that, it's a courtroom drama with low stakes.  Do we really care if Oppenheimer loses his security clearance?  Nolan's screenplay acrobatics try to trick us into thinking we care.  But we do not.  (And his framing device, despite being an attention-grabber, is ultimately inconsequential.  But don't tell Rami Malek that.)  In the script's defense, what I think Nolan is really trying to do is reclaim -- or at least reframe or question -- important (and very consequential) events in history.  And he succeeds in that.  (One final script critique: The movie goes out of its way to make the Trinity test extremely intense, but my wife will tell you, the most harrowing part of the movie is the relentless sound of the poor crying baby.  Good lord.)

If you're looking for a potential upset, the intense nomination-snub backlash for Barbie could propel it to a win here, as a way to reward writer/director Greta Gerwig (and co-writer Noah Baumbach).  The concept of a toy or doll coming to life is not exactly a new idea, so the core idea for Barbie is not terribly original.  Think of Pinocchio, The Lego Movie(s), The Nutcracker, Small Soldiers, Wreck-It Ralph, Mannequin, Annabelle, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Ted, Child's Play… even Barbie herself in the Toy Story movies.  They all yearn for (and usually get) agency over their own lives, and 'write their own story'.  (Well… the screenwriters, like Gerwig and Baumbach, actually write their stories.)  Within that construct, Barbie manages to take on some big ideas about humanity, womanhood, mortality, and feet.  When it comes to screenplays with fantastical premises, I tend to get hung up on the in-movie logic.  A small sampling: What's the relationship between the Barbieland Barbies and the actual toys?  Is there one Barbieland Barbie for every single toy?  If so, there would be over a billion of them, and many of them would theoretically look the same.  And Margot Robbie wouldn't be the first doll to be outgrown and discarded.  Or is it one Barbieland Barbie for every toy model?  If that's the case, then that would mean that thousands of people have a toy that corresponds to Margot Robbie, not just America Ferrera.  So wouldn't those people all have influence over her?  Why is Ferrera the only one impacting her?  But then how to explain Weird Barbie?  Per the movie, Weird Barbie started as a standard model (maybe the Margot Robbie model?), and then got played with too rough.  If it's one Barbieland Barbie for each individual toy, shouldn't there be a ton of Weird Barbies?  And shouldn't their faces all look like the other standard Barbies that they originated from?  Or if it's one Barbieland Barbie per model, then how did a single toy being mangled cause an entire model (with thousands of corresponding toys) to become Weird?  (And I wonder why people hate watching movies with me.) 

With movies, I have a tendency to laugh at things that are audacious, even if they're aren't conventionally funny.  It's an expression of shock and bemusement, more than actual humor.  As a result, I'm often the only one laughing in a movie theater.  (Which just thrills my wife.)  And so I spent a lot of time laughing at Poor Things (written by Tony McNamara).  Don't get me wrong, the film is hilarious, wickedly so… but, understandably, not everyone appreciates the humor.  But the audacity is where it truly excels and sets itself apart.  In a category where any of the films could win, this is my pick for what should win.

I've already written at length about my lack of connection to The Zone of Interest (written by Jonathan Glazer).  It's hard to judge the screenplay, when the directorial style overwhelms any real sense of story.  Strong narrative is paramount to me.  And this isn't that.  To be fair, tidy storytelling and artful subtlety are not the film's aim; decrying complicity is.  But Glazer's choice of contrasting audio and visual is a risky gambit, and the film is not as affecting for me as others covering a similar topic.  I guess the important thing is that it calls into question whether we really remember the atrocities as an urgent warning, or if we breeze past them like a dusty museum piece -- just another rote, distant history lesson.  (It can also be perversely seen as an outside commentary on the hollowness of the "American Dream", but I don't personally buy into that reading.)

This is probably unfair, but I'm giving Gloriously Omitted to Nyad, written by Julia Cox.  It's hard to tell if the clunkiness is in the writing or directing or producing (or all of the above), but it's there nonetheless.  If you've ever seen an underdog sports movie, you know the beats, you've heard the dialogue, and you've seen the cliches.  The directors, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin (another married couple!) are acclaimed documentary filmmakers (Oscar winners a few years ago for Free Solo), but this is their first narrative feature.  So maybe not surprisingly, they deftly handle the physical feats but not the human drama.  The good news is, the script and direction become more comfortable in the second half, and it's hard not to get the feels when the ending hits the right notes.  (But then again, the real-life protagonist, Diana Nyad, has been accused of making a lot of stuff up about her accomplishments.  So there's that.)

If I made the rules, Wes Anderson's short-film adaptation of The Rat Catcher would be eligible here, and I'd be clamoring for a nomination (thereby restoring my recently-revoked fan club membership).  For feature films, Ingloriously Snubbed goes to Anh Hung Tran for The Taste of Things.  At the screening I attended at the Chicago International Film Festival, the writer/director had a wonderful and brutal description of a script: he called it a "dead body", only becoming alive once it receives the language of cinema.  For his buoyant script, I respectfully disagree. 

[thebonerpit]

I did it! I watched ALL the best film nominees for the Oscars 2024. Go me. I thought I'd do a little personal ranking here just for kicks, but overall it was actually quite a strong year!

Oppenheimer. I mean... it really is perfect. And I don't even think I'm too biased as a huge Nolan fan. Truly one of his best films and honestly even though I hate the "career" awards I do think he deserves it.

The Holdovers. Maybe my biggest surprise and the film I've been thinking about ever since. I would watch this every year around Christmas tbh. It was heartwarming and sincere without being sappy and the performances and script were incredible. A real joy.

Poor Things. I love Yorgos and his fucked up weirdo mind. This was also visually incredible and like I said, even though it isn't my favourite of his films, I always enjoy the risks he takes and the performances he can get out of the actors.

The Zone of Interest. Harrowing and uncomfortable, exactly the way a movie about the Holocaust should be. The thing that really got me was the sound; seeing this family living their perfect little lives in the sunshine while hearing people screaming and industrial machinery in the background was so jarring and SO effective. Sandra Huller saying she gave Hedwig absolutely zero introspection was a god tier choice because it worked so well... she lacked any sort of empathy without being a cartoon villain.

Anatomy of a Fall. Sandra Huller strikes again! How iconic to be in two best picture nominated films in the same year. This was so riveting and I loved that it really boiled down to the fact that it didn't matter if she did it or not and rather how it affected her and everyone else in her life.

American Fiction. Another kind of delightful surprise. Didn't think I'd be hugely interested in this but it was soooo funny at times and also managed to express some deep emotional beats without being overdramatic. Great critique of the publishing industry alongside some realistic family relationships.

Past Lives. Not my usual type of film but it was shot so beautifully that it's really kind of stuck with me. Greta Lee was so natural in her role (and also insanely gorgeous like, HOW).

Killers of the Flower Moon. Scorsese isn't my favourite director and I did think this was way too long but it definitely had its moments. Lily Gladstone was the true star tbh.

Barbie. Ehhhh??? It was fine. Idk. Again, not really my usual type of film. In a way I'm glad to see it nom'd just because I think the Academy can get real snobby about what gets accolades but I definitely don't think it deserves to win.

Maestro. /fart noises.

There are some films that got other nominations that I haven't seen (Nyad, Rustin, May December, El Conde etc.) but I don't know if I'll get around to those. My biggest complaint about noms is that Dominic Sessa didn't get anything for Best Supporting Actor. For his first role EVER he absolutely nailed it. Margot probably should have had a Best Actress nom but I don't have super strong feelings about it. America Ferrerra nom is ?!?!?!? why tho. I wish Lily Gladstone was in Best Supporting because I think both Emma Stone and Sandra Huller had huge performances this year. But yeah overall really strong Best Pictures!

[daniellekiddfilms]

My 2024 Oscars predictions

Award season is in full swing and much like many other people working in or interested in the Film industry, I love to shout at the TV screen when the nominee I loved doesn't win their respective award. So bearing all that in mind, here are my predictions for who will win the 2024 Oscars:

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE -

Cillian Murphy - simply because he keeps sweeping all these awards, though I feel like maybe this one should go to Bradley Cooper.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -

Robert Downey Jr - again I personally think Ryan Gosling for Ken should win but with the sweeps this is most likely, my bets are otherwise on Mark Ruffalo.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -

Lily Gladstone - it's either her or Emma Stone.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -

America Ferrera - this is the one I mean when I say I will be gutted when she doesn't win but I think she deserves it.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM -

The Boy and The Heron - Spirited Away v2, though I think Spiderverse is by far the best there.

CINEMATOGRAPHY -

Oppenheimer - another sweep.

COSTUME DESIGN -

Napoleon - with renaissance there's always a demand for accurate costumes. If not this one, then it'll go to Poor Things.

DIRECTING -

The Zone of Interest - I just don't want Nolan to win and am still sad Greta isn't up there.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE FILM -

20 Days in Mariupol - I honestly don't know for this category so it's just a guess.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT FILM -

The Last Repair Shop - no idea, just a guess.

FILM EDITING -

Oppenheimer - another stupid sweep.

INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM -

Zone of Interest - if not this, then Society of The Snow.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING -

Poor Things - probably but I think maybe Maestro should win.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE) -

American Fiction - John Williams doesn't need it man.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG) -

What Was I Made For? - Though I'm just Ken should win it, the committees for these things don't like fun, they prefer the slower, more depressive tunes.

BEST PICTURE -

The Zone of Interest - I would love Barbie but it won't happen and I just want to wipe that smug smile off Nolan's face, as if Barbie didn't make triple what Oppenheimer did. A surprise would be nice again this year.

PRODUCTION DESIGN -

Barbie - please? Nah give it to Oppenheimer already...

ANIMATED SHORT FILM -

Letter To A Pig - no clue, but this sounds cool.

LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM -

Invincible - not sure why, got a good vibe.

SOUND -

Zone of Interest - its sound is one of the biggest parts of the experience.

VISUAL EFFECTS -

Godzilla Minus One - you can't give it to Mission Impossible, Tom Cruise says there isn't any visual effects and that it's all real. So, this is more process of elimination, though Napoleon has a chance.

WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY) -

Poor Things - the other good sweeper.

WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY) -

Past Lives - I reckon this has a good chance though Anatomy of a Fall might steal it away.

That's all of them in the order I saw on the Oscars website. Let's see how my predictions hold up, this is the last day of Feb and the ceremony is next month so all the best to the nominees. What changes would you make to my list?

[denimbex1986]

'No big surprises here this year, folks: it’s been an exceptional year for films, from the Oppenheimer/Barbie phenomenon to the canny marketing campaign for French courtroom drama Anatomy of a Fall.

Christopher Nolan’s curiously talk-heavy and historically heavyweight biopic of nuclear physicist J Robert Oppenheimer leads Bafta nominations, of which there are several...

Best Supporting Actor

Will win: Paul Mescal (All of Us Strangers)

Should win: Ryan Gosling (Barbie)

Few young actors are hotter than Irishman Paul Mescal, starring in this heartbreaker of a film; he seems to be a clear choice. But I could be wrong: I’d argue Gosling’s A-list hilarity as the scene-stealing, horse-loving Ken in Barbie is still the stand-out here.

Best Leading Actor

Will win: Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer)

Should win: Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer)

With decades of chameleonic and memorable roles across film and television, Murphy not only brings an understated and powerful performance that anchors the entirety of Nolan’s drama, but the sense that he has long deserved this kind of juicy, complex leading role. As far as I’m concerned, it’s done and dusted: a worthy actor, a faultless performance.

Best Director

Will win: Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer)

Should win: Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest)

The British bias seems like it may come into play here; Nolan scooping up an award for orchestrating the enormous ensemble cast and heavy-duty themes in Oppenheimer feels likely. I can’t understand why Martin Scorsese was abandoned in this category, given the greatness of Killers of the Flower Moon, but of the nominated directors, Jonathan Glazer seems to be the obvious option. Every single moment of his film is exquisitely controlled and deployed.

Best Film

Will win: Oppenheimer

Should win: Killers of the Flower Moon

Again, I think the combination of box office popularity and intellectual depth that Oppenheimer brought to cinemas make this the safe choice. I don’t think it holds a candle to that other three-plus-hour historical epic: Martin Scorsese’s towering story of racially motivated murder on a Native American reservation. But maybe the Bafta voters will surprise us and spring for Poor Things, which seems like the outside frontrunner.'

[smokeybrandreviews]

Glamour in Pink

It’s been a few weeks and all the Barbie Oscar nomination discourse has kind of died down. I’ve been waiting to chime in on it because I have a completely different take on that whole situation, and I kind of didn’t want to be called a misogynist for it. I don’t think my opinion should be all that inciting but, you know, the internet It’s like a box of cats out there, even more so on this hell site, but I’ve been around for years and want the smoke so here it goes. See, I watch movies. I’ve watched a ton of goddamn movies in my life. Probably several thousand. I mean, you can probably tell that from the fact I have a tertiary blog strictly for reviews. Be it television, film, comics, games, whatever, i have my soapbox. I also watched most of the films in the corresponding categories in which Barbie was “snubbed”. For me, these weren’t snubs. I’m not going to get into how the feminist film wasn’t recognized by the Academy and whatever else because that’s an emotional response. It’s like when people wanted Black Panther to win something. I disagreed then, too, for a lot of the same reason. Plainly put, Barbie, like Black Panther, just wasn’t good enough.

Best Director

Best Director was loaded to the gills, man. I didn’t see The Zone of Interest, but the rest of those films are, in my opinion, were directed much better than what we got in Barbie. I’m not taking anything away from Greta but, just surface level, I can honestly say the guiding hand of Lanthimos, Nolan, and Scorsese, kind of exposed a lot of what Greta was doing with her film. It’s weird to say, but watching Barbie kind of made me realize that Greta is still a little rough around the edges in terms of her craft. Those other names on the list, they have a clear vision as to how to execute the narratives they bring to the screen. Greta has this ability but it didn’t feel as focus in Barbie as it did in, say, Little Women. I don’t know if that’s because this wasn’t an adaption but compared to the others in this category, I see why she was left out. Like, what the f*ck was up with all of the Will Ferrell sh*t, anyway? Why did it take up so much of the film?

Best Actress

Straight up, my gut tells me Margot was robbed. Putting that out there immediately because I have a massive Robbie bias. I think she is an incredible actress and admire the f*ck out of her finding her own way in the industry with her Lucky Chap production company. All that said, objectively, this category is probably tougher than the Best Director one. Again, didn’t see Anatomy of a Fall so I can’t comment on Sandra Huller but every other actress on this list, f*cking killed. Carey Mulligan, for sure did her thing in Maestro and, while I found that film to be kind of boring overall, her performance never disappointed. Annette Benning is a giant in the industry and she threw that weight around in Nyad like it was just second nature to her. Lily Gladstone was absolutely brilliant in Flower Moon. She brought so much depth and emotion to that role, it would have been hard not to include her in this category. Now, for my money, Emma Stone takes this category because her time spent as Bella Baxter was incredible. Id Oppenheimer didn’t exist, Poor Things would be my Film of the Year, and that’s almost exclusively because of Emma f*cking Stone!

I may sound like I’m going in on Margot and Greta but I cannot stress enough how that’s not the case. I absolutely believe Greta is an exceptional director, Ladybird proved that, and my love for Margot is profound. Hell, even after everything just said, I don’t begrudge the fact so many people feel slighted that they got slighted. Like, they JUST missed the cut, in my opinion. If any one of those films slid into next year’s competition. If, say, Poor Things had a January release, Barbie would be right there. It is a really, really, great film and definitely deserves the Best Motion Picture nod, but I don’t think it’s good enough to win. I don’t think it deserves that gold. I think Runner Up or nomination, is just fine for what we have. The competition is just way too strong this year, which is why Margot and Greta didn’t get the nods. It’s not some gran, -Isitc, conspiracy. There is no irony to be had here. Greta didn’t put together a solid enough effort by comparison and Margot got lost in the shuffle of an unusually strong Best Actress class. That’s all. Seriously, watch the other films in their categories and tell me which one doesn’t deserve to be there. You tell me which film gets the boot to let Margot and Robbie in. I bet you’re going to have as hard a time as I did trying to figure that one out.

[smokeybrand]

Glamour in Pink

It’s been a few weeks and all the Barbie Oscar nomination discourse has kind of died down. I’ve been waiting to chime in on it because I have a completely different take on that whole situation, and I kind of didn’t want to be called a misogynist for it. I don’t think my opinion should be all that inciting but, you know, the internet It’s like a box of cats out there, even more so on this hell site, but I’ve been around for years and want the smoke so here it goes. See, I watch movies. I’ve watched a ton of goddamn movies in my life. Probably several thousand. I mean, you can probably tell that from the fact I have a tertiary blog strictly for reviews. Be it television, film, comics, games, whatever, i have my soapbox. I also watched most of the films in the corresponding categories in which Barbie was “snubbed”. For me, these weren’t snubs. I’m not going to get into how the feminist film wasn’t recognized by the Academy and whatever else because that’s an emotional response. It’s like when people wanted Black Panther to win something. I disagreed then, too, for a lot of the same reason. Plainly put, Barbie, like Black Panther, just wasn’t good enough.

Best Director

Best Director was loaded to the gills, man. I didn’t see The Zone of Interest, but the rest of those films are, in my opinion, were directed much better than what we got in Barbie. I’m not taking anything away from Greta but, just surface level, I can honestly say the guiding hand of Lanthimos, Nolan, and Scorsese, kind of exposed a lot of what Greta was doing with her film. It’s weird to say, but watching Barbie kind of made me realize that Greta is still a little rough around the edges in terms of her craft. Those other names on the list, they have a clear vision as to how to execute the narratives they bring to the screen. Greta has this ability but it didn’t feel as focus in Barbie as it did in, say, Little Women. I don’t know if that’s because this wasn’t an adaption but compared to the others in this category, I see why she was left out. Like, what the f*ck was up with all of the Will Ferrell sh*t, anyway? Why did it take up so much of the film?

Best Actress

Straight up, my gut tells me Margot was robbed. Putting that out there immediately because I have a massive Robbie bias. I think she is an incredible actress and admire the f*ck out of her finding her own way in the industry with her Lucky Chap production company. All that said, objectively, this category is probably tougher than the Best Director one. Again, didn’t see Anatomy of a Fall so I can’t comment on Sandra Huller but every other actress on this list, f*cking killed. Carey Mulligan, for sure did her thing in Maestro and, while I found that film to be kind of boring overall, her performance never disappointed. Annette Benning is a giant in the industry and she threw that weight around in Nyad like it was just second nature to her. Lily Gladstone was absolutely brilliant in Flower Moon. She brought so much depth and emotion to that role, it would have been hard not to include her in this category. Now, for my money, Emma Stone takes this category because her time spent as Bella Baxter was incredible. Id Oppenheimer didn’t exist, Poor Things would be my Film of the Year, and that’s almost exclusively because of Emma f*cking Stone!

I may sound like I’m going in on Margot and Greta but I cannot stress enough how that’s not the case. I absolutely believe Greta is an exceptional director, Ladybird proved that, and my love for Margot is profound. Hell, even after everything just said, I don’t begrudge the fact so many people feel slighted that they got slighted. Like, they JUST missed the cut, in my opinion. If any one of those films slid into next year’s competition. If, say, Poor Things had a January release, Barbie would be right there. It is a really, really, great film and definitely deserves the Best Motion Picture nod, but I don’t think it’s good enough to win. I don’t think it deserves that gold. I think Runner Up or nomination, is just fine for what we have. The competition is just way too strong this year, which is why Margot and Greta didn’t get the nods. It’s not some gran, -Isitc, conspiracy. There is no irony to be had here. Greta didn’t put together a solid enough effort by comparison and Margot got lost in the shuffle of an unusually strong Best Actress class. That’s all. Seriously, watch the other films in their categories and tell me which one doesn’t deserve to be there. You tell me which film gets the boot to let Margot and Robbie in. I bet you’re going to have as hard a time as I did trying to figure that one out.

[pinebeetles]

I’ve made an effort to see as many major award contenders as possible this year, thoughts on the Oscar noms below the cut

I’ll say upfront I haven’t seen Nyad or Rustin yet, bc I was kinda waiting to see how they did with noms before I added them to my pre-Oscar viewing roster

That being said I have seen almost every other nominated film, outside of the shorts and a couple of the international noms, and I have Thoughts on the Oscar nominations and predictions for winners

Best Picture

No surprises really. I’m really pleased Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives, and The Zone of Interest all made it on the list, bc the Academy doesn’t have the best record of recognizing non-English speaking films. Personally, I would’ve given The Color Purple and Society of the Snow noms over Maestro and American Fiction, but.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer. At this point in awards season, there’s no way the Oppenheimer win streak can be stopped. Which I absolutely loved Oppenheimer, so I’d be happy with this win

Best Director

Fuck, these are really good nominees. I wouldn’t make any changes to this list. I’m thrilled Justine Triet made it on for Anatomy of a Fall, along with Jonathan Glazer for Zone of Interest. One of my hotter takes of the year is, as much as I loved Barbie, Greta Gerwig didn’t really do Best Director level work, at least not in a year this stacked. There aren’t any directors that did get nominated that I would replace with Greta Gerwig.

Predicted winner: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer. Making a three hour, historical biopic that absolutely flies is hard stuff. This would be a deserved win.

Best Actor

If we’re being honest, the race is between Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti. I knew it wouldn’t happen, but I was really hoping Zac Efron would make it onto the list for The Iron Claw. I’m a Maestro hater, and really don’t think Bradley Cooper should’ve been nominated. I would’ve loved for Andrew Scott to make it for All of Us Strangers.

Predicted winner: Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer. The Globes acceptance speech locked it in for me. A win for the Irish is coming.

Best Actress

The nominations were announced this morning, and all goddamn day I’ve been irritated with the amount of talk about Margot Robbie being snubbed. The nominees are solid this year! For those thinking Margot was snubbed, whose spot should she have taken on this list? Margot was great, but be serious. This is all the more irritating bc it’s taking away from how close Lily Gladstone is from a historic win. I recently heard a film critic discuss the emotional work that was required of Lily Gladstone, a Native actor, to portray a real story of genocide of Native people, and that really locked in for me just how good their performance is.

Predicted winner: Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

Best Supporting Actor

No big surprises here. I was really hoping Charles Melton for May December could’ve snuck in, but I knew it was unlikely. My long shot, I-know-this-won’t-happen-but nomination wishes were Dominic Sessa for The Holdovers and Milo Machado-Graner for Anatomy of a Fall.

Predicted winner: Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer. This man has yet to lose this season, I would be shocked if anyone else won

Best Supporting Actress

I’m so glad Danielle Brooks was nominated for The Color Purple, she was such a scene stealer. I was really surprised America Ferrera was nominated; she was good but. I would’ve really liked to see Julianne Moore for May December or Cara Jade Myers for Killers of the Flower Moon make the list.

Predicted winner: Da’Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers. She’s been sweeping this awards season, deservedly so.

Adapted Screenplay

It’s absolutely ridiculous that Killers of the Flower Moon didn’t get nominated. Let’s be serious, it should’ve gotten the nom over Barbie.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer.

Original Screenplay

I was pleasantly surprised Anatomy of a Fall was nominated, and considering it won at the Globes, I’m now betting heavy on it winning. The only upset I could see is The Holdovers, which was also fantastic.

Predicted winner: Anatomy of a Fall

International Feature

Extremely funny how much the French government turning its back on Justine Triet has backfired. I absolutely loved Society of the Snow, and really wish it got more noms overall.

Predicted winner: The Zone of Interest. Especially considering how well All Quiet on the Western Front did at the Oscars last year, I think serious German films are favored by the Academy these days.

Cinematography

El Conde, a pleasant surprise! Overall, just a great year to see films in theaters, as they were meant to be seen.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer. Hoyte van Hoytema, it’s your year

Production Design

I’ve been watching a lot of behind the scenes videos for Killers of the Flower Moon, and the amount of work that went into making it both historically accurate and accurate to the Osage nation is just mind blowing. That said, I’m such a fan of the practical design that went into the Barbie sets, and just love all the random interesting choices the production team made when designing Barbie Land.

Predicted winner: Barbie. I have a feeling this will be one of the few wins for Barbie overall.

Costume Design

No surprise noms here, but I don’t think there’s a clear winner yet. Historically, the Academy really doesn’t like awarding more modern costume design, which puts Barbie at a bit of a disadvantage. Poor Things had really fun and creative costumes, just a great blend of historical clothing with interesting details. Like the production design, Killers of the Flower Moon did an astonishing amount of work to make accurate traditional Osage clothing, and I really want that to be recognized.

Predicted winner: Killers of the Flower Moon. Period pieces always have an advantage with the Academy, and I’d really love Jacqueline West and Jenny O’Keefe to be recognized for the work they did.

Makeup and Hairstyling

For most of the nominees, the makeup and hair seems to primarily be focused on successfully aging (or de-aging) the actors, which is definitely hard to do well! Except for Society of the Snow, which is great for gruesome injuries makeup and 70s haircuts.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer. I’m really rooting for Society of the Snow, though.

Film Editing

Again, very pleasantly surprised that Anatomy of a Fall got a nom. Overall, a really solid list with all radically different editing styles that work really well.

Predicted winner: Killers of the Flower Moon. Getting a 3.5 hour film to feel as tight as it did was a no small feat. I wouldn’t be surprised if Oppenheimer won tho.

Original Song

I really agree with recent discussion that only songs actually featured in the film, not in the end credits, should be eligible for this category. I’m tired of end credits songs that few people hear dominating.

Predicted winner: one of the Barbie songs. I really don’t give this category much attention

Original Score

Now how in the hell did American Fiction manage to sneak in here. What an absolute shame that Joe Hisaishi isn’t being recognized for The Boy and the Heron, on top of a lifetime of masterful scores.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer. Ludwig Göransson absolutely knocked it out of the park, his score fucks hard

Sound Design

I’m really bummed Society of the Snow didn’t get a nom. Sound design is tricky bc it often goes unnoticed, unless it’s being utilized in a particular way or is done badly. But when it’s done really well, it’s very noticeable in how effective it was, which is the case for Society of the Snow, The Zone of Interest, and Oppenheimer.

Predicted winner: Oppenheimer. Absolutely worth it to hear it in an imax theater. I have a suspicion The Zone of Interest may be a surprise winner on Oscar night tho.

Animated Film

There’s a great irony in Disney abandoning Nimona only for Nimona to get nominated over the Disney film of the year.

Predicted winner: The Boy and The Heron. I was locked in on Spider-verse until the Globes, but I think the Academy might be ready to recognize Miyazaki again.

Overall, I’m really pleased with the nominees this year! It is bit of a bummer that All of Us Strangers and The Iron Claw were completely locked out, but that’s just how studio campaigns go sometimes. I’ve been watching the Oscars for years now, and putting in a lot of effort into learning about film and how to be critical of films, along with really understanding how film awards season really works. And I feel like I’ve gotten a lot better at understanding the Oscars and being able to accurately predict nominees and winners.

[mermaidsirennikita]

Thoughts on the Golden Globe winners?

I'm really annoyed that Charles Melton and Past Lives lost their categories. Charles easily gave one of the best performances of the year (RDJ, in contrast, gave one of the most "he is desperate for an Oscar and overdoing it" performances.... I mean, really, he was outdone by Bradley Cooper more than anyone) and Past Lives had such a beautiful, introspective tone, script, everything. I can see why it was beaten out in certain categories, but Anatomy of a Fall beating it out otherwise... Nah.

I also find it interesting that both losses involved Asian creatives.

So happy for Lily Gladstone and Cillian, I really believe in those wins. Although the direct of The Holdovers cats a pall over the movie (I didn't realize he had accusations against him when I watched the movie, and though I don't think it should be a major awards contender, I thought it was really sweet and the performances were pretty much uniformly strong) I'm thrilled for Da'Vine. She was so, so good and gave an anchoring performance.

I haven't seen Poor Things yet but I'm a fan of the Yorgos/Tony McNamara team, and it sounds right up my alley. I'm not mad at Emma winning that award. Yorgos and Tony bring out the best in her. But that needs to be it, because Lily is otherwise THE ONE. Her speech was so moving. I also really like the way Leo has been taking a step back for her to be showcased this season. He's got... his issues... but I'd love to see them perform together again. They have a very natural chemistry on and offscreen. Like, maybe we could see them in something mildly less dark together lol (big ask of Leo, I know).

Succession deservers everything it got. I honestly think Jeremy and Kieran gave equally strong performances, but I adore Kieran's talent and I really wanted him to win this year. I hope he repeats it at the Emmys. Sarah Snook supremacy. Matty Mac is always amazing and deserving. Let's gooooo.

Musical/Comedy category remains ridic, especially in TV. Jeremy Allen White is someone where I'm like... aware of his talent, though, so I'm not mad when he wins. Also, I'll be frank, the Calvin Klein ad convinced me that he deserves.

Surprised by Debicki because of the low quality script but she was the one light of those last two seasons and gave a uniformly strong performance. She really did a great job with capturing Diana's mannerisms and voice.

I honestly don't need Oppenheimer and Nolan getting all the awards it has. Killers of the Flower Moon was a much stronger film, to me. Like, I think Oppenheimer is one of Nolan's stronger movies. I like Oppenheimer. KOTFM is a totally different level. Aside from Cillian, I found the performances way stronger (I mean, we really need to stop pretending that Emily Blunt was good in that movie--I like Emily, but Jesus), the visual sensibility was less bOMBASTIC but more beautiful imo, and Scorsese did the thing.