2023 Live Action Short Film Oscar Nominees: The Reviews

 

2023 LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM 

OSCAR NOMINEES

I like to watch as many of the short film Oscar nominees as possible: animated, documentary and live action. This year, I was able to see only the Live Action Short Film nominees. I now review them in order presented, adding the runtime as well.

THE AFTER 

(18 minutes)

Dayo (David Oyelowo) was a once-successful businessman who witnesses a random knife attack. This attack leads to his daughter stabbed. Adding to the horror, Dayo's wife plunges to her death when attempting to save her daughter's body. Sometime later, Dayo is an Uber driver who lives his life vicariously through his fares. It is not until a particularly bickering couple, along with their own daughter, comes along that he finally breaks down. The girl, Emily (Izuka Hoyle) gives him a hug, which causes him to fall to the ground and wail, frightening Emily's parents. With him all cried out, he returns to his vehicle.

I get what The After is going for, so I give some credit to John Julius Schwabach's screenplay for making the effort to tackle grief. I can also commend that the film both opted for a knife attack and did not shy away from showing children killed. However, I think that he and director Misan Harriman could not help themselves in being a bit too heavy-handed with the idea that grief cripples emotionally. At what is meant to be the climatic, cathartic moment of Emily/Laura (Amelie Dobuko) hugging Dayo, I suppressed giggles versus bawling. His collapse was actually funny, and to be fair, the parents' reaction was rational. I found Oyelowo more funny than tragic, and I do not think that is what The After was aiming at. I was not taken in by what I figure was meant as a moving drama on grief and acceptance, though the closing song, Let It All Go, was good.

DECISION: D-

RED, WHITE AND BLUE 

(24 minutes)

Arkansas waitress Rachel (Brittany Snow) is struggling financially when she sees the results of a pregnancy exam. She has two young children already: a tween girl, Maddy (Juliet Donenfeld), and a boy, Jake (Redding Munsell). Rachel opts for an abortion, with some help from a mysterious benefactress who gives her a very large tip. She will,  however, have to drive from the "slave" state of Arkansas to the "free" state of Missouri for the procedure. Rachel and Maddy bond on this unofficial road trip, but once at the abortion clinic, Rachel is met with indifference until we get the twist: the abortion is not for Rachel, but for Maddy.

Red, White and Blue is produced by Samantha Bee, who is so far on the Left that even the liberals that I know and knew find her over-the-top. The film veers dangerously close to being pro-abortion propaganda. By showcasing the most extreme case for an abortion, I think Red, White and Blue is not so much trying to start a conversation but promote a one-sided view on a very contentious subject. It is unfortunate, because Red, White and Blue came close to showing that abortion is not as clear-cut and simple as either side presents it. When the film leads you to think that it is Rachel who is seeking an abortion, we get quick shots of her looking at her children's pictures. In a particularly moving moment, we see Rachel seeing Maddy on a carousel then shift to Rachel remembering when she was pregnant with Jake, observing Maddy on a carousel, Rachel tenderly touching her growing belly. 

Had the film kept out the twist, we might have had a more introspective film from writer/director Nazrin Choudhury. It would have achieved something so rare in today's fierce abortion debate: nuance, and an acknowledgement that abortion is a complex issue with which people genuinely struggle about. Instead, it went for the shocking twist that did not sit well with me. It somehow suggests that a tween girl getting an abortion due to an assault is the same as an adult getting an abortion due to too many kids. It can be tricky to make that parallel without pushback. Red, White and Blue (whose title alone is suggestive of abortion as almost patriotic) ends with an overtly grand mini-speech by Maddy about how elephants are her favorite animals because female elephants stick together, help anyone in the herd and are strong and brave. I literally rolled my eyes at this point, clearly getting the forced subtext. Choudhury and Bee are laying the symbolism way too hard here. Red, White and Blue is well-crafted and well-acted. It just did not land the ending. 

DECISION: C+

KNIGHT OF FORTUNE 

(24 minutes, in Danish)

Widower Karl Bergstrom (Leif Andree) is seeing his wife's corpse at a Copenhagen morgue, or rather, her casket. He cannot bring himself to have the casket opened, attempting to distract himself by trying to fix the morgue's light and failing to do so. Soon, he is startled to find Torben (Jens Jorn Spottag) in the bathroom stall next to him. Karl does not want to admit he is there to see his late wife, but Torben says that he is there to see his own late wife. Reluctantly accompanying him, Torben begins a lengthy eulogy until they are interrupted by the real woman's family. Karl eventually discovers that Torben was unable to say goodbye to his wife. He spots him on a park bench, and they bond over their mutual spouses' favorite song, Knight of Fortune.

I will grant that perhaps the language barrier blocked my understanding of Knight of Fortune. However, a few years ago, all but one of the Live Action Short Film nominees were not in English and I not only understood everything but thought the only English-language nominee was the worse. Unsurprisingly, the sole English-language nominee, Riz Ahmed's film/music video The Long Goodbye won. Knight of Fortune, written and directed by Lasse Kyskjaer Noer, is I suppose fine. It has an idea in there. I just was not won over by it. The film left me colder than the corpses, as if it was trying to be funny but not succeeding. It may also be due to how Knight of Fortune was dominated by greys, with only the closing scene in any color. Maybe it is not a terrible film, but not one that I thought much of. 

DECISION: D-

INVINCIBLE 

(30 minutes, in French)

Starting in media res, Invincible tells of Marc-Antoine Bernier (Leokim Beaumier-Lepine), a young Quebecer who, despite the pleas of his mother over the phone, plunges a car into the water. We then go back to how we got to this moment. Marc is highly troubled, finding a bit of respite when allowed to go for a weekend with his parents and younger sister. Weekend furlough over, Marc goes back to the youth detention center. He clearly does not want to be there, making life hard for himself and a bit frustrating for friend and foe alike. Frustrated, he makes a desperate run for freedom, one that ends in tragedy.

Invincible is inspired by a true story, we are told in the beginning. Its writer/director, Vincent Rene-Lortie, was moved by the story of his friend to create this fictionalized version of events. Invincible is an excellent short film. Beaumier-Lepine's performance is exceptional. We see Marc as both a weary young man and sweet kid, arrogant but also life-affirming, beaten down but with some hope. In one particularly sharp moment, Marc uses an illegal lighter to set off the sprinklers to refresh himself after the fan in his room goes out. Invincible does not paint Marc as either an innocent or a victim. Rather, he is a complex figure. We see his world, one that has both joys and self-inflicted misery. This young man is a skilled wordsmith, a poem he wrote about his plight deeply moving. There is not a bad performance from the cast, though Beaumier-Lepine is the dominant figure. It is hard not to be moved by Invincible, whose title does seem ironic but which holds the audience in rapt attention. 

DECISION: B+

THE WONDERFUL STORY OF 

HENRY SUGAR 

(39 minutes)

Adapting a Roald Dahl short story, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is that of the ultimate anonymous benefactor. Narrated by "Roald Dahl" (Ralph Fiennes), we learn of a figure named Henry Sugar (Benedict Cumberbatch). He is a gambler looking for the perfect way to win at cards. While staying at an estate, he comes upon a book by Dr. Chatterjee (Dev Patel). We then get Dr. Chatterjee's account of Imdad Khan (Ben Kingsley), who comes to Dr. Chatterjee for him to verify that he can indeed see without his eyes. Khan, he tells the doctor, has learned this through years-long training with a Yogi (Richard Ayoade), who was reluctant to train him. Now having read Chatterjee's story of Khan's training with the Yogi, Henry Sugar will teach himself how to read what the cards are without seeing the front of them. He does so after years of training and begins to reap a fortune. Finding what to do with it, Henry causes an accidental riot when he flings the money out the window. Reprimanded for this, Henry decides to hit various gambling houses and use the winnings to fund hospitals and orphanages, the former in disguise and the latter anonymously. With Sugar now dead, his story can finally be told.

The Wonderful Story of  Henry Sugar is a Wes Anderson film, meaning that it doubles if not triples down on his twee style. Some people love it, some people hate it. I can go either way. Henry Sugar does not let up in the Andersonian deadpan manner. In fact, we get everything that people either adore or detest about Anderson in miniature, with a new twist. As Henry Sugar is adapted from a Dahl story, we get even the narration delivered by the actors in the same slightly disengaged manner. Every. Single. Word, be it dialogue or not, is spoken. We also get the various figures speaking to us directly at least once during their presentation. I continue to be unimpressed with Benedict Cumberbatch. I have yet to find a great performance from him, only his luxurious baritone. To be fair, this may be the most ethnically diverse cast Anderson has ever worked with: an Indian man (Patel), a black man (Ayoade) and a half-Indian man (Kingsley). I was not won over by The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, which I did not think was so wonderful. It does, however, have Benedict Cumberbatch in drag, so there is that. 

DECISION: C+

CONCLUSIONS

Looking through the five short films nominated for Live Action Short Film, there is a theme running through them, intentional or not. Each film revolves around death. Two of the nominated films (Invincible and The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar) have their lead characters die. Two of the nominated films (The After and Knight of Fortune) are about the grief that accompanies death. The last film (Red, White and Blue) involves the taking of life, at least as seen in some circles. From my perspective, I think the moving Invincible is the best of the lot. It hit me emotionally because it was so grounded, a far cry from the overt whimsy of The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar. I was disappointed in Red, White and Blue as I felt it lost the chance to look at abortion beyond the binary debate and bring shades of conflict and contradiction. The twist simply never sat well with me. Red, White and Blue is well-acted and mostly well-written, but dear goodness that "elephants are like women, STRONG AND BRAVE" speech coming from the girl came across as grandstanding and something a tween girl would not say. The After and Knight of Fortune are not terrible per se, but I found them uninteresting. Worse, I found The After slightly comical due to Oyelowo's performance. 

Ranking: 

Invincible

Red, White and Blue

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar *

The After

Knight of Fortune

Even before the Academy Awards ceremony, I figured that The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar would win. The Academy has been searching for a way to give an Oscar to Wes Anderson, who up to now had eight nominations counting this one. Now, Wes Anderson can be an Oscar winner. It is a terrible shame that the popular beat out the good. 

2021 Live Action Short Film Oscar Nominees: The Reviews (Review #1577)

 

This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, as of this writing, will not present the winner/winners of seven categories on their live broadcast. I understand it is so they can give more airtime to Billie Eilish and the comedy of Amy Schumer & Wanda Sykes.

Be that as it may, I have decided to take advantage and see the five short films nominated for Best Live-Action Short Film. I will review them in the order screened, followed by my final analysis. They run from a mere 12 minutes to a reasonable 38 minutes. Three are in foreign languages (Danish, Polish and Kyrgyz) while the other nominees in English are from the United Kingdom and United States.

ON MY MIND (18 Minutes, in Danish)

Henrik (Rasmus Hammerich) walks into an empty bar, clearly distressed. Barmaid Louise (Camilla Bendix) is more welcoming, albeit disinterested to Henrik versus her crabby boss Preben (Ole Boisen) busy with his taxes. Henrik's had his whisky and is about to leave until he spots a karaoke machine. Henrik pays, begs and pleads to use the machine and record himself singing Always on My Mind. An irate Preben finally demands to know why Henrik is making such an issue over this. While we know Henrik is singing Always on My Mind for his wife Trine, it isn't until he tells them that she is being "turned off" that we know why he's so insistent. It is so that Trine, or her soul, can hear this song before he agrees to turn off the life support system. Even if she cannot literally hear the song, her soul can.

On My Mind says in eighteen minutes more than most films say about loss, grief, love and that sad mix of the three. The three primary performances of Hammerich, Bendix and Boisen are excellent. They have basically one trait (forlorn, respectably disinterested and short-tempered), but when Louise and Preben realize Henrik's dilemma, their shock registers so much. Hammerich's agony is heartbreaking to watch. His face and specifically his eyes reveal Henrik's grief but also his quiet belief that her soul will fly. On My Mind is not a film about faith, but a film about hope. Intentional or not, at the end when Henrik opens the window after Trine dies, we see the light from the sun reflect on him. 

I admit to getting emotional at On My Mind. I was deeply moved by the story and the performances. Beautiful, heartbreaking but curiously hopeful, I found On My Mind perfect as a film, short or otherwise.

DECISION: A+

PLEASE HOLD (19 Minutes, in English and Spanish)

Mateo Torres (Erick Lopez) is going about his business when a police drone informs him that he's being arrested. He is never told exactly what his crime is, but Correcticorp, the automated justice system corporation, will not let him go. Mateo goes through indignity after indignity in this automated jail hell. He does not have enough cash to so much as turn the lights off in his cell, let alone hire a remotely (and remote) lawyer. Phone calls to his disbelieving parents eventually get him the $10,000 he needs to hire attorney Guillermo Lima, but in all those months locked up he already has agreed to work for Handmade, making literal cents knitting and crocheting. Mateo, on the brink of insanity, barely holds on long enough to not accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge to get Lima. Lima takes one look at him and appears, almost irritatedly so, to see Mateo may be a case of mistaken identity. Released, Mateo picks up his personal property to find his life in shambles and Handmaid still offering him employment.

Please Hold is a brilliant, dark and cynical tale of the worst of two worlds. On one hand there is the various automated operating systems we all endure whenever we are desperate to get a living person on the line. On the other, a criminal justice system that has nothing to do with justice. Please Hold clearly takes inspiration from both Kafka (The Trial immediately coming to mind) and the dysfunctional criminal justice system. The film, in a clever way, blends the frustrations of enduring machines repeated telling us "I did not get that" with the sad option for detainees to accept plea deals that will give them reduced sentences for crimes they did not commit rather than endure lengthy jail stays, expensive trials and perhaps longer sentences. "We hope you enjoyed your stay. Please exit the room to begin the discharge process", the faceless machine cheerfully recites to an emotionally spent Mateo. Lopez is brilliant as Mateo, this poor average Joe who finds himself in this insane world and struggles against two horrors: the indifference of machines and the indifference of justice.   

In turns frightening and funny, Please Hold is one of the sharpest satires I have seen, though it is also frightening. Amazingly clever down to the smallest detail (such as how corporations can exploit prisoners perhaps even after their nightmare ends), Please Hold works on both the literal and symbolic level.  

DECISION: A+

THE DRESS (30 Minutes, in Polish)

Lonely chambermaid Julia (Anna Dzieduszycka) lives her life of quiet desperation, smoking and performing auto-erotic exercises. Julia's loneliness is compounded by the fact that she is below average height. Bitter cynicism masks emptiness, until truck driver Bogdan (Szymon Piotr Warszawski) catches her eye. To her surprise, Bogdan appears interested too. Promising to return from a run to Kyiv, Julia prepares herself for romance, love and hopefully her first sexual experience. Her best friend/coworker Renata (Dorota Pomykala) helps her by presenting her a dress from Renata's daughter. However, the Bogdan/Julia tryst does not end as she had hoped. At the end, Julia can only observe a beautiful nude average-height woman in bed, a sad echo of Julia's own lost dreams.

I found The Dress well-acted, particularly Dizeduszycka as Julia. Her monologue to Renata, in tears, telling her how she just wants to be someone, anyone else, is deeply moving. There is also a wonderful, melancholy scene where she disrobes and gets into an empty bed, clearly imagining a romantic moment with Bogdan. Masking her loneliness with cigarettes and sarcasm, we see the longing in Julia. In many ways, The Dress is not about those with dwarfism, but about all those lonely people to quote a song. For me, however, the melancholy and unhappy ending push the film down. A film does not have to be happy to be good, and The Dress is good. However, it was not quite my cup of tea.

DECISION: B- 

THE LONG GOODBYE (12 Minutes, in English)

An average British family of Pakistani descent is going about their lives, preparing for a wedding, when a group of crazed white racists storm through the family's neighborhood. Forcing their way into the family's home, the racists men grab everyone in sight, separate the men from the women and children, and force the men down on their knees. One of the men (Riz Ahmed), attempts to flee but is shot in the back. He was lucky: the other men were shot in the head, with the British police helping the white thugs. Ahmed manages to get up and give us a spoken word/rap monologue, occasionally looking straight into the camera, about the racism all around him.

What the hell is this garbage? The Long Goodbye is not a movie. It's a mix of music video and diatribe, born of anger on how rampant racism is all around the world of Ahmed. It is no surprise that The Long Goodbye plays like a music video: Riz Ahmed is clearly rapping during the chaotic violence going on. We got only the tiniest glimpse of both the family and the rioters. This is not to say I want "the rioters side of the story", but what is the context of the extremism of their actions apart from Ahmed's worldview of how racism is all around him? Playing more like a promotional film for Ahmed's The Long Goodbye album than a real film, Ahmed does what for me is a bane of my film viewing: look straight into the camera to address us. I'm not one for lectures, and The Long Goodbye is just that. It is a film that thinks is insightful but which I found insipid. Pointless, smug, perhaps Ahmed might do well to make a film about a truly vile act of violence and racism: Partition. 

DECISION: F  

TAKE AND RUN (ALA KACHUU) (38 Minutes, in Kyrgyz)

Sezim (Alina Turdumamatova) has a chance to advance her life by scoring well on a university entrance exam, much to her very traditional mother's dismay. Sezim goes to the Kyrgyzstan capital Bishkek anyway, staying with her friend Aksana (Madina Talipbekova), who is shunned in their hometown as a "tramp". Sezim starts her new life: learning to drive, getting a job and waiting for her scores. One day, three customers come into the bakery asking for her colleague, frightening Sezim. To her horror, Sezim is abducted by these men and forced into marriage to one of them, Dayrbrek (Nurbek Essengazy Uulu). Sezim endures virtual slavery and rape, is horrified that her parents agree to this marriage, and finds the loss of her pet goat pushing her to deep depression. Fortunately, one day Dayrbrek's grandmother gives her some clothing to wash, one of them which contains car keys. She makes a break for it, stopping to quickly see her younger sister, and eventually runs out of gas. Sezim, despite no money, manages with some family heirlooms to pay for a bus back to Bishkek and hopefully safety.

Ala Kachuu is the given title, which refers to this little-known but still horrifying act of bridal abductions. The fact that anyone thinks any of this is rational is horrifying. What is surprising about Take and Run is that despite the monstrous situation they are not truly villainous. Sezim's mother-in-law is a nasty piece of work, but she is the general exception. Dayrbrek himself is not evil himself, and his grandmother has moments of kindness. However, we can't be blinded to how monstrous this system is and worse, how it is accepted. "We all came in tears, but our tears dried," the grandmother says, revealing that to them, this is how things are. This is a well-acted film, particularly Turdumamatova as Sezim, her optimism and horror revelatory. Take and Run ends with a note telling us thousands of women are abducted every year, a sobering thought. 

DECISION: B+

CONCLUSIONS

With one exception this year's Best Live-Action Short Film nominees manage to tell their stories with intelligence and entertainment. They tackle serious subjects, sometimes in a straightforward manner (Take and Run) and sometimes in dark humor (Please Hold). I was impressed with two of them, thought one of them was strong, one good but not to my tastes and one I found so much woke garbage. 

I think the big battle will be between the moving, somber On My Mind and the cynical and brilliant Please Hold. I would vote for On My Mind, though I expect that as one of the two English-language films Please Hold will win. I would not be unhappy if either won and should Take and Run pull off an upset I would likewise be pleased. The Long Goodbye is a waste of time: more a promotional video than a real film. If perhaps Ahmed had built a story around these characters, we might have had a film. Instead, we had nothing. I found the nominated films on the whole fine work. It's a terrible shame that they will not be recognized during the broadcast. 

Trust me: a few of them are much better than some of the feature films in major categories (looking at you, Spencer). 

My Rankings:

On My Mind

Please Hold

Take and Run

The Dress

The Long Goodbye

An Open Letter to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

 

TO: David Rubin, President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

CC: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Board of Governors

Dear President Rubin and Academy Board Governors,

To misquote the Apostle Paul in his Letter to the Galatians, "Oh foolish Academy, who has bewitched you"? I note with great sadness how your organization, once the benchmark for film excellence, has devolved into a curious mixture of audience pandering and indifference to those creatives you claim to celebrate and acknowledge.

Last year, you altered your awards presentation in a bizarre hope that a posthumous nominee would win and thus end your awards presentation on a "cinematic" note. When a still-living nominee ended up winning, you ended up looking almost exploitive of both a dead man and a senior citizen. You stepped on both the winner's moment and the late nominee's memory. You shamefully attempted to use affection for an actor gone too soon for your own cynical motives. You also denigrated the work of the eventual winner by drawing attention away from his work and achievement in hopes of getting a viral moment for your own self-promotion.

This shameful ploy was preceded by the Academy's proposals in the past few years to segregate certain categories to commercial breaks and this year, to cut categories out of the live broadcast altogether. This was built on the theory that, due to the broadcast's length, larger audiences would tune in if the show ran shorter. Eliminating "obscure" categories, the theory went on to say, would somehow increase viewership. 

I do not subscribe to the theory that viewership is down because presenting the Documentary Short Film Academy Award takes up slightly more or less airtime than presenting the Documentary Feature Film Academy Award. I doubt viewers were irritated that Colette took some time away from My Octopus Teacher.  

The backlash was so great the first time you proposed excluding certain categories from the broadcast that you were forced to reverse course and have all the categories presented live. One would have thought you would have learned from the loud objections Academy members and the remaining viewers voiced to the idea of removing categories from the broadcast when last proposed. 

Evidently, you did not.

You next attempted to pander to viewing audiences with the suggestion of a new category: "Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film", as nebulous a category as has been proposed. How would you define "Popular Film"? What criteria would you use for nominations to this category: box office receipts, number of screens, length of time in first-run theaters? All of the above?

As "Best Popular Film" could also be nominated for Best Picture, would that mean that a Best Popular Film winner that lost Best Picture wasn't that good after all? If a Best Picture winner lost Best Popular Film, would that mean it wasn't that popular to begin with? 

I would love to hear the logic of how simultaneously removing categories from the broadcast while adding a whole new category to the broadcast would shorten your presentation's running time.

Now you reveal your indifference to the Arts & Sciences of Motion Pictures by essentially saying that "some nominees are less important than others". 

The decision to exclude certain categories from the broadcast is a shameful one, displaying a callous disrespect to the nominees and their colleagues. The nominees in these categories have worked hard in their various fields, some for decades, before receiving in some cases their first nominations. Many toil away silently, attempting to excel in their chosen crafts. They now with their nominations have achieved a major milestone in their careers and lives. 

However, as some had the misfortune to have their work recognized in the Animated Short Film category versus the Animated Feature Film category, they are to be excluded from having said milestone celebrated.

A single nomination may be the highlight of their career, a win a crowning achievement. The cliche may be "it is an honor just to be nominated" but for a small group of artisans, a nomination for an Academy Award is indeed an honor, an exceptional recognition of their work. In some cases, it may be a once-in-a-lifetime moment, an experience they will treasure for the rest of their lives. 

Your decision to deliberately exclude them from having their wins broadcast live has robbed these craftsmen of their moment. To see their one moment in time stolen from them and substituted in favor of the #OscarFanFavorite hashtag or to celebrate the cinematic contributions of Billie Eilish or Beyonce has to be seen as an insult to their work and themselves personally. These makeup artists, these short film directors, have done more work for film than a pop singer whose contribution to cinema is a song written primarily to reward him or her with an Oscar. 

The artists in these shunted categories more than likely do not aim specifically for Oscar recognition. Most aim to merely work in their chosen field to the best of their abilities. They may dream about Oscar wins, but for most if not all the nominees in these excluded fields, just working at all is a reward, with working at something they love a blessing.  

I imagine that winning an Academy Award, even in "obscure categories" is a singular moment for the winner/winners. If it is a great moment for those in "major" categories, imagine those whose only moment comes in these now-excluded fields.

Best Actor winner Charlton Heston approached his Ben-Hur director, William Wyler, and told him with regards to Wyler's Best Director win, "I guess this is old hat to you". Wyler, who had won Best Director twice before winning for Ben-Hur, replied "Chuck, it never gets old hat". 

Mr. Wyler, despite his past wins, still recognized the extraordinary thrill of being chosen by his peers as that year's best. He recognized the enormous honor an Academy Award was, that thrill of victory that comes to so few. For those in lesser-known categories, to be before millions of people and receive what was once the most prestigious film award would be something out of a beautiful dream.

Now, however, in a failed effort to pursue audiences that do not care about the categories, the nominees or even film itself, you have decided that these craftsmen do not merit even the briefest moments in the sun for achieving a great feat. Instead, they deserve in your eyes to be all but ignored for their hard work.   

I am but one of many who do care about Original Score, about Film Editing, about Production Design, about Sound, about Hair and Makeup. I do care about the Short Subject Categories of Documentary, Live-Action and Animated Films, though I admit I would care more if I had greater exposure to them. Do note, however, that I make every effort to see the nominated films in those categories whenever I can.

My disappointment in seeing a formerly august body publicly degrade itself to please advertisers is great. You have publicly disgraced yourselves. You have revealed that you do not care about the arts and sciences of filmmaking. Instead, you have revealed that your only interests in filmmaking are the financial rewards your organization hopes to reap.

Your continued efforts to alienate your loyal viewers in vain and vainglorious efforts to attract viewers who, unlike myself, do not care about the various technical categories is disheartening. You, like Charles Foster Kane, no longer subscribe to your own Declaration of Principles.

Therefore, I have come to a most painful decision. After years if not decades of watching your awards telecast, I have decided, most reluctantly, most painfully, to not watch this year's ceremony. I cannot support with my viewership an organization that has betrayed its self-proclaimed objectives of recognizing the best in film and the art of filmmaking. I will not be party to a shameful sham of a ceremony. 

Even if you were to once again reverse your decision on this matter, which I hope you do, I will not watch this year. Why should I bother? If you do not care about those you yourselves nominate for your awards, why are you asking me to? 

I am aware that my singular absence will not be noted by your organization and may not have any impact on the ratings for this year's ceremony. I have decided, however, that if you do not care about showing respect to those your organization has nominated for your awards due to misguided efforts at popularity, I am under no obligation to be part of this disgraceful spectacle.

I wish all the nominees for the 94th Annual Academy Awards well. I acknowledge the Academy's exceptional work at film preservation. I look forward to visiting your Academy Museum. I hope to see next year's ceremony with great pleasure. 

I, however, have decided that I can best show the excluded nominees my respect by not watching this year's ceremony.

Most Respectfully,

Rick Aragon

93rd Academy Awards: A Review

 

The 93rd Academy Awards reminded me of the Best Picture winner Nomadland: started out interesting then dragged, and dragged and dragged. Add to that one of the most disastrous closing moments and you had a muted feel to what is meant to be the highpoint of a year in film.

Much history was made last night. Let's hit some of them.

All but one of the Best Picture nominees won at least one Oscar. Only The Trial of the Chicago 7 went home empty-handed, losing all 6 of its nominations. 

Best Actress winner Francis McDormand is one acting Oscar short of tying Katharine Hepburn's record four wins in this category. McDormand also won as a Best Picture producer.

Best Actor winner Anthony Hopkins at 83 becomes the oldest winner in any acting category.

Best Supporting Actress winner Youn Yuh-jung (Minari) becomes the second Asian actress to win in this category. Unlike the previous Asian actress to win here, Miyoshi Umeki for Sayonara, Yuh-jung won for a primarily Korean-language performance.

Yuh-jung's fellow nominee Glenn Close now has tied Peter O'Toole for the most acting Oscar nominations without a win at eight losses in total.

Best Original Song nominee Diane Warren has it worse. Her loss for the The Life Ahead song Io Si (Seen) is her twelfth loss with no win yet.

Nomadland's director, Chloe Zhao, is the second woman and third Asian director to win in this category (after Ang Lee and Bong Joon-ho).

Best Costume Design winner Anne Roth (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom) becomes the oldest female winner in any category at 89.

Best Hair & Makeup winners Sergio Lopez-Rivera, Mia Neil and Jamika Wilson (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom) become the first all-non-Caucasian winners in this category.

The record of the Best Film Editing winner (Sound of Metal) ending up losing to Best Picture to a fellow Film Editing nominee (Nomadland) continues for the eighth year. 

There were a few genuine surprises. I don't think anyone expected Mank to win outside Production Design, so its Cinematography win over the heavily-favored Nomadland led Film Twitter to audibly gasp. Most people, I think, also didn't think Sound of Metal would take anything outside Sound, so its Film Editing win was also a surprise. Best Original Song going to Judas and the Black Messiah's Fight For You may have surprised, but this category never had a favorite or frontrunner. However, it says a lot about this year's Oscars when the biggest upsets were in Live-Action and Documentary Shorts (Two Distant Strangers and Colette respectively). 

Most winners were expected, so even the highly divisive Best Documentary Feature winner My Octopus Teacher wasn't a surprise. However, it was near the end that things fell apart in spectacular fashion. 

This year, the Academy Award producers Jesse Collins, Stacey Sher and Academy Award-winning director Steven Soderbergh, with the Academy's blessing, opted to restructure the award presentations. Some elements worked (not cutting off speeches), some did not (having clips for a few categories but not for the acting ones). Why exactly Best Documentary Feature had clips of the nominees but Best Actor didn't is a puzzling and curious choice. 

Other elements drew tedious to the small audience who braved the entire presentation. Presenters waxing rhapsodic about each nominee's history soon lost its luster and become both rote and boring. However, it was the final three awards that made the 93rd Academy Awards a fiasco that somehow has eclipsed the La La Land/Moonlight chaos as among if not the worst final presentation in the Academy's history.

Since time immemorial the final award is Best Picture. For reasons still unclear it was decided that the final three awards would be Best Picture, Best Lead Actress and Best Lead Actor. Once Nomadland was announced as Best Picture the entire affair had an anticlimactic feel, as if we were done. I figure some viewers probably changed the channel to the more competitive and suspenseful San Diego Padres vs. Los Angeles Dodgers baseball game. Instead, it went for a "Hollywood ending" that blew up spectacularly in their faces.

It was highly expected that the late Chadwick Boseman would win for Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, a sentimental wave carrying him to victory. The Academy and the award producers could see how it would all play out: a standing ovation for someone taken much too soon, a weeping widow accepting an award her late husband had a very good chance of winning had he lived, a beautiful, iconic crowd-pleasing feel-good moment. Television viewers would have had a beautiful end credit scene.

Instead, a very unenthusiastic Joaquin Phoenix unenthusiastically, almost catatonically, read Anthony Hopkins' name for The Father before unenthusiastically accepting on his behalf and the entire show ended almost abruptly (and probably unenthusiastically).

Immediately pundits and Boseman fans began howling with rage, going so far as to attack and belittle Hopkins for committing the horrible sin of winning. Unsurprisingly racism was thrown about to explain this loss. People were angry that Hopkins had won over Boseman, and things grew to almost idiotic levels. "Why didn't Hopkins give a speech?!" the Boseman group howled. "Why didn't Hopkins show up?!" they bemoaned.

The concept that an 83-year-old man could be asleep at 4 A.M. in his Wales home versus opting to fly in to a COVID-infected area when so many people (including probably himself) thought he had little to no chance of winning somehow escaped those enraged over something said 83-year-old man had no control over.

As shocking as it may be, Anthony Hopkins had no say in whether or not he won an Oscar.

Worse, those whose emotions ranged from being "in shock" to "devastated" over Boseman's loss either never saw The Father or let their feelings for Boseman blind them to a sad fact: Best Actor was highly competitive. Anyone who saw all five nominees and was honest with him/herself knew the race was between Boseman, Hopkins and Sound of Metal's Riz Ahmed. Many were reporting that voters were checking off Hopkins because they "knew" Boseman was going to win anyway, a warning sign that Glenn Close supporters willed themselves into ignoring last year. Those who do not learn from history...

Hopkins had as good a chance of winning as either Boseman or Ahmed (Mank's Gary Oldman and Minari's Steven Yeun were highly unlikely to win). Finally, and perhaps most shockingly, Anthony Hopkins gave a brilliant, devastating performance in The Father.

It wasn't as if Chadwick Boseman lost to James Coco. 

I confess that I would have voted for Hopkins over Boseman, though it would have been an extremely difficult choice. I wavered between them and Ahmed, but I ultimately decided that while Boseman was brilliant in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, he was still "acting". His performance seemed stubbornly stagey, as if he was acting on the stage. Hopkins was "being" as this proud, stubborn but ultimately lost and pained man. Ahmed, Boseman and/or Hopkins were all worthy of a win, but that it was ultimately Hopkins was and should not be seen as a slam or rejection of Boseman.

Too many pundits wanted Boseman to win because it would be "the last chance" to honor him. I'm not big on turning a category into a de facto Lifetime Achievement Award, which is what those pulling for Boseman seem to have wanted. Yes, Chadwick Boseman gave a sensational performance in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, but sentiment alone is not a reason for someone to win an Oscar. Would there have been the outrage we've seen if a living Boseman had won over a living Hopkins or a dead Hopkins had won over a living Boseman?

Anthony Hopkins deserved to win. He did not "steal" anything from anyone. To say otherwise, especially after Hopkins' classy and brief acceptance speech where he paid tribute to Boseman is disgusting. Toxic fandom hits new lows when people feel free to beat up on an 83-year-old for winning for a performance said fans probably haven't even seen.

In retrospect, it's more boggling that the Academy opted to have Best Actor presented last when Best Actress was the more competitive and suspenseful category. Best Actress simply had no frontrunner. It was anyone's guess who would win. One day it was Promising Young Woman's Carey Mulligan who had it in the bag. Next day Ma Rainey's Black Bottom star Viola Davis was about to make history as the second black Lead Actress winner. Day after that, The United States vs. Billie Holiday's Andra Day could also be the second black Lead Actress winner. 

Instead, it was McDormand, and her accepting right after accepting Best Picture felt bizarre, almost uninteresting, anticlimactic.

It seems more and more clear that the Academy and producers thought Boseman would win and wanted to end on that note. It was a cynical use of a late beloved actor for a "big moment" versus actually focusing on those nominated. This disastrous moment will haunt the Academy for years to come.

Speaking of those no longer with us, the In Memoriam was shameful. Playing at what looked like double speed, the Academy rushed through the montage to where it was almost impossible for viewers to match the name with the face, let alone their accomplishments. In a year we lost one of the last figures of the so-called Golden Age of Cinema (Olivia de Havilland), to give her 3 seconds of remembrance is galling. The use of Stevie Wonder's As isn't to me horrifying or in bad taste. Dubious, yes, but not monstrous. 

However, given the hyperdrive In Memoriam followed a bizarre comedy bit about Best Original Song nominees/winners trivia that concluded with Glenn Close shaking her money-maker to Da Butt, it seemed so tone-deaf and coarse. The Academy should really just hand over In Memoriam to Turner Classic Movies, which manages to give the honored dead both time and context.

The 93rd Academy Awards started well only to slowly speed up to a rushed, chaotic and disastrous finish. And I'm sure the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will wonder why ratings continue to fall.

92nd Academy Awards: A Review

With regards to the 92nd Academy Awards, I can take a certain satisfaction that I was 20 out of 24. Since publishing my last predictions I had changed my mind on a few categories.

First, the list of winners, with asterisks on where I missed.

BEST PICTURE: Parasite *
BEST ACTOR: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker)
BEST ACTRESS: Renee Zellweger (Judy)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Brad Pitt (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Laura Dern (Marriage Story)
BEST DIRECTOR: Bong Joon-ho (Parasite) *
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Toy Story 4
BEST ANIMATED SHORT: Hair Love
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Jojo Rabbit
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Parasite
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY: 1917
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: American Factory *
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT: Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl)
BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM: The Neighbors' Window
BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM: Parasite (South Korea)
BEST FILM EDITING: Ford v Ferrari
BEST SOUND EDITING: Ford v Ferrari *
BEST SOUND MIXING: 1917
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Joker
BEST ORIGINAL SONG: (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again (Rocketman)
BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING: Bombshell
BEST COSTUME DESIGN: Little Women
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS: 1917

I had 1917 winning Best Picture, Director and Sound Editing. I also had originally thought Judy would win Makeup and Hairstyling but switched to Bombshell. Try as I might, I could not get Documentary Feature right. It really was an open category, where I thought Honeyland would get it.

For those interested in tallies of films with multiple winners, here they are:

Parasite: 4
1917: 3
Ford v Ferrari: 2
Joker: 2
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: 2

All other Best Picture nominees won one, meaning only one film was completely shut out.

No wonder Martin Scorsese looked as if was dropping off during Eminem's performance. The Irishman's fall was not unexpected but still disappointing. One simply wonders why the film failed so spectacularly after earning raves. My own theory is that other, "hipper" films stole The Irishman's thunder.

With regards to the winners there weren't any big surprises. Actually, I'd say there were no surprises. Sure, Film Twitter is elated about Parasite, and it is a good film. Maybe not my choice but not one that causes such anxiety as did Green Book last year. Every winner was if not predicted months ago at least well within the conversation.

My theory revolving around Best Film Editing/Best Picture continues to hold. I maintain that the eventual Best Picture winner is nominated but does not win Film Editing and that the film that wins Film Editing loses Best Picture. Parasite was nominated for Film Editing but lost to a fellow Best Picture nominee, Ford v Ferrari. As such, Parasite was really the odds-on favorite, since Irishman was dead on arrival, 1917 and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were not nominated and Jojo Rabbit, Ford v Ferrari and Joker had no chance in winning Best Picture. We should have seen it from the get-go.

The only win that I actively disliked was Best Original Song. Even after hearing Cynthia Erivo perform Stand Up from Harriet (giving her a standing ovation), they still went with the bouncy, peppy and inconsequential (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again from Rocketman. Subconsciously or not (I'm thinking not), Elton John sowed the seeds to his victory by pointing out he and his longtime writing partner Bernie Taupin had never won anything as a team. The Academy members, already enthralled by John's big Oscar bashes, voted for him regardless. I note that John did not get a standing ovation for (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again, but unlike Taron Egerton, Elton John had it in the bag.

At least Into the Unknown went unknown despite having it sung in a multitude of languages. I'm sure that five minutes after performing it, no one could actually remember Into the Unknown in any language, even whichever language former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg claims to speak fluently.

Come to think of it, I doubt anyone will be able to sing (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again without having to look it up. I still can sing Call Me By Your Name's Mystery of Love and Stand Up, as well as listen to them over and over. I can't even remember Remember Me.

We DID get to hear Eminem perform Lose Yourself seventeen years after winning Best Original Song. It should be noted that Billie Eilish, who performed Yesterday as part of the In Memoriam section of the broadcast, was a year old if that when Lose Yourself hit the airwaves, perhaps explaining her puzzled look at his performance. The loudness of Lose Yourself, punctuated by silences due to the necessary censoring of the lyrics, does not explain Marty's forty winks.

As has been pointed out, the many people happily rapping along to Lose Yourself can be simultaneously woke and not troubled by Mr. Mathers' past homophobic lyrics while being all pearl-clutching when it comes to Kevin Hart.

As for the show itself, again the Academy struggles with that kind of editing. It went well over its allotted time, and as expected there was the usual politicking going on. Unlike my fellow reviewers Christian Toto or Jacob Smith (Society Reviews), I'm not outraged or angry or even irritated by such things.

I'm just...puzzled by it all.

Brad Pitt's acceptance speech started out with an appraisal of the recent impeachment. Fine, he can speak on such things if he wishes. I would not think the Academy Awards is the best venue for such things, given he's accepting an award for having exceptional abs at age 56...I mean, for his performance in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I'm just puzzled as to whom he is actually speaking to.

He must be aware millions of people watch the Academy Awards, so he is not just preaching to the choir. Does he genuinely think his fellow Missourians are going to now vote for Bernie Sanders or any Democrat based on his lofty pronouncements?

Does Pitt genuinely picture some MAGA-hat wearing overweight white male, washing down his Oxycontin with Budweiser and who stumbled onto the Academy Awards confused as to why there was no football game on, calling out to his barefoot and pregnant wife in his best Defender of True & Pure Conservatism Rick Wilson imitating the "credulous rube" voice, "Well, Ma Kettle, that there pretty boy from Fight Club is just so upset about John Bolton not witnessin' in the Senate trial, so we ought to now get Trump out and bring Socialism to this here U.S. of A."?

Is that really in the back of Pitt's mind? I just want to know what the end objective is for Pitt, or Josh Gad throwing in climate change denial and healthcare advocacy while introducing Into the Unknown. What truly is their goal for all this? That they do such things during what is ostensibly an awards presentation for film and not a Democratic Party rally just strikes me as odd.

Granted, not Joaquin Phoenix/Renee Zellwegger-level odd, but odd nonetheless.

Why does he or Mark Ruffalo or anyone else paid far more than those "credulous rubes" feel obligated to lecture them on everything and anything? Best Documentary Feature cowinner Julia Reichert quoted Karl Marx while hobnobbing with people who get $78,000 cruises as part of their Oscar gift bags.

Is it me or is there just a slight disconnect?

However, who would have thought talking about cow insemination and the evils of milk drinking would trump The Communist Manifesto? Joaquin Phoenix is a fine actor and passionate animal rights activist. All well and good, don't begrudge him his views. Yet, in his four minute speech not once did he thank or even mention anyone from Joker.

Instead, his speech for winning an award for playing a murderous psychopath was on how awful humans were for not hearing the cries of cows for taking their calves and their milk.

In his world, we are all evil for drinking milk. Louis Pasteur should be dug up and beheaded.

For some reason, I'm reminded of Timothy Treadwell, the subject of Grizzly Man. Both Treadwell and Phoenix almost romanticized animals to where they applied human emotions to non-humans. Treadwell thought of the bears as almost his friends...until one ate him and his girlfriend. I have no way of looking into a cow's soul, but I don't think cows are all that upset over Man taking their milk from their utters.

Joaquin Phoenix is free to believe as he wishes. He's free to live his life free of all animal products if he wishes. He can even take up his time and the times of his colleagues to tell us how mad the cows are. He, however, is not free to dictate how my life or anyone else's life should be. If I wish to drink milk or eat steak, Joaquin Phoenix, no matter how well-intentioned, has no say in the matter and should have no say in the matter.

Such speeches don't win hearts and minds. They harden them, and end up making the speaker sound a bit bonkers.

Renee Zellweger decided Phoenix was a hard act to follow, so she ended up sounding more bonkers without resorting to cow insemination. To her credit, at least she mentioned Judy Garland, but what exactly was she saying? It was a list of people, but once she thanked her whole family she started sounding a bit loopy, as if she didn't know where to go after listing her "heroes" and just started rambling.

Who else thought name-dropping Dolores Huerta, Bob Dylan, Harriet Tubman and Martin Scorsese with Judy Garland somehow "unite us"?  "We agree on our teachers, and we agree on our courageous men and women in uniform who serve..." she went on and on. What exactly Fred Rogers and Judy Garland share in terms of heroics with my favorite teacher, Mrs. Hearn, I can't begin to guess.

Well, that's it for the 92nd Academy Awards. The winners save Original Song were once I thought were if not worthy at least good choices. The political nature of the show really does not bother me. It does puzzle me.

As for myself, I'll be washing down a triple-meat cheeseburger with an extra large mocha frappe, extra whipped cream, in honor of Joaquin Phoenix's courageous and powerful advocacy for bovine beauties.

Elsie, we hardly knew you...

92nd Academy Awards Predictions

This year's Academy Awards have been the most wide-open race I've seen in a while, at least with regards to Best Picture. I think there have been at least four "locks" to win: first The Irishman, then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, followed by 1917 and now Parasite. Their rises and falls show how fluid the race has been.

One aspect though that surprises me is The Irishman's tumultuous fall. Going in with 10 nominations, The Irishman has all but collapsed into irrelevance. It hasn't picked up any major awards since flopping at the Golden Globes, and it looks like there is no sign of it coming back to life. All the other Best Picture nominees are all but assured at least one win, and there have been occasions where Best Picture nominees have been frozen out. This, however, is something I did not expect: a massive failure for one of cinema's greatest auteurs.

How to explain The Irishman's astonishing fall? I'm sure my one-sided nemesis Jacob Airey will suggest if not flat-out state it is punishment for Martin Scorsese saying that his beloved Marvel Cinematic Universe is not "real cinema". That's not just a remarkably childish and narcissistic take, though not surprising for someone as childish and narcissistic as Airey, but a thoroughly uniformed one. The Academy members are not "voting against" Scorsese or to punish him for his "blasphemy". They may dislike or not care for The Irishman. They may just favor other films more than The Irishman. However, to think that the Academy, of all organizations, is filled with squeeing fanboys who cried when a talking tree disintegrated is just so moronic.

There is still that pesky question though. How did The Irishman fall so far and so fast? My own theory is that it just didn't catch on with voters in the same way Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or 1917 or Parasite did. For better or worse, this year the voters went for "the new big thing" versus something that will, I think, stand the test of time longer than those films. By no means are any of the most likely contenders bad films (all I think will make my Top Ten List). It's just a matter of poor timing: Marty's meditation on guilt and regret just wasn't as big as the fantasy of thwarting Charles Manson, a "one-shot" take on World War One or an allegory on capitalism.

Apart from Best Picture, pretty much all the major awards are locked in. It would take an Olivia Colman like upset to overtake the four acting categories, and even that win was not as unexpected as many still think. It is theoretically possible that at least one of the acting locks falls, but by now highly unlikely.

I expect there won't be any surprises, but right now there really is no way of saying Film X is the prohibitive front-runner. Until that last envelope is opened, there is simply no way of saying which of the four films with the best chance will emerge triumphant.

With that brief overview, let's move on to my predictions. These are not the ones I want to win, just the ones I think will, with some thoughts on my reasoning. Predicted winners in bold.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

1917 
Avengers: Endgame
The Irishman
The Lion King
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Despite Airey's assertion that Avengers: Endgame truly is a turning point in cinema history, this is its sole nomination. Curiously, it's the sole nomination for The Lion King, and frankly I'm not convinced that it should be there. Part of me wants The Irishman to win here just to stick it to the fanboys, but so far it seems the ravages of war are going to take it. To be honest, I didn't notice the visual effects in the film, and with that being the case then 1917 does deserve the win.

BEST FILM EDITING

Ford v Ferrari 
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker 
Parasite

In the past ten years only once has the Best Picture winner not been nominated for Film Editing. This year all five Film Editing nominees are Best Picture nominees. This would seem to doom the chances of both Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and 1917 for Best Picture, especially the latter since the whole point of it was to look as if it were shot in one take. 1917 can take comfort that the only Best Picture winner not nominated in Film Editing was also a one-shot-type film, Birdman. The Irishman's collapse has sadly extended to Thelma Schoonmaker's brilliant work on the film. Currently, the odds look to be that Ford v Ferrari takes it for its Le Mans race. If it's any comfort to The Irishman, it's that the Best Film Editing winner has not gone on to win Best Picture 8 out of 10 times this past decade.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

The Irishman
Joker
Jojo Rabbit
Little Women
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

This year there is no royalty among the nominees. The Academy has a weakness for royal garb in this category. The Academy also has a hard time with contemporary times costuming, which is why The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and by extension Joker look unlikely. Granted, they are not truly "contemporary", but they are set within people's current lifespans. While Jojo Rabbit is making a last-minute surge here, I think the Civil War threads from Little Women will be the ones rewarded. Despite its six nominations, the most for any Little Women adaptation, I think this may be its only win.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

1917
Bombshell
Joker
Judy
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

I would have gone with Maleficent: Mistress of Evil due to Angelina Jolie's cheeks alone, but jokes aside there seems to be a real momentum here for Judy's recreation of one of our most talented and mercurial performers. Bombshell seems to be the most likely to challenge it, but I'm thinking the winner may say, "Ju-DY! Ju-DY! Ju-DY!"

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

1917
The Irishman
Joker
The Lighthouse
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

When you think "cinematography", you think "most visually impressive". That would be 1917. Even those who disliked the film, or like me do not think it is "one of/the greatest war film ever made" admire the look of 1917. I won't say it has it in the bag, but I really don't see any of the others mounting a serious challenge.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

1917
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite

There's been another last-minute rally for Parasite, mostly due to the contrasts between the homes of the wealthy Parks and the poverty-row Kims. It may end up taking the Oscar, which I think would be a mild surprise, but I think Quentin Tarantino's recreation of 1960's Hollywood will eke out a win.

BEST SOUND MIXING

1917
Ad Astra
Ford v Ferrari
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

This really is a fight between the war sounds of 1917 and the racing sounds of Ford v Ferrari. Again, I hate pinning myself down but I think the war will impress voters more than the race. It's a pity that Ad Astra, which I didn't care for, was not nominated for Cinematography.

BEST SOUND EDITING

1917
Ford v Ferrari
Joker
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Same as Sound Mixing, though again Ford v Ferrari is the only film I see that could beat it.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away: Toy Story 4
(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again: Rocketman
I'm Standing With You: Breakthrough
Into the Unknown: Frozen II
Stand Up: Harriet

What a fall Frozen II has had. Frozen had Let It Go, an anthem if ever there was one. Now, who really is singing Into the Unknown? I figure they thought, "Just let Adele Dazeem BELT OUT a song as monstrously loud as possible and we'll have another hit".  However, I think it's a terrible song from a terrible movie and apart from the actual phrase "Into the Unknown", I cannot remember one thing about it.

The race is between two songs: Diane Warren's eleventh nominated song I'm Standing With You and Elton John's sole contribution to his jukebox musical biopic (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again...as if he had ever stopped loving himself.

I think Taron Egerton may be bitter about not getting a Best Actor nomination despite campaigning openly for it via a charm offensive that ended up failing. I say this because he isn't performing the song, odd given he performed it in Rocketman's closing credits.

In my view, once the public hears Cynthia Erivo perform Stand Up, they will ask why the bouncy, inconsequential (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again won. I'd love for Stand Up to surprise as I think it's the best of the nominees, and Warren may herself surprise with I'm Standing With You given how often she's lost. It would be a real surprise to see a "Christian" film be an Oscar winner, but right now the temptation to give Sir Elton and Bernie Taupin a joint award seems too much to resist. (I'm Gonna) Love Me Again winning will be one of the few things to cause me to vent some rage.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

1917
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I was convinced Little Women was going to take Best Original Score, and I think it's a beautiful score. However, while there was some momentum for 1917 it looks like it has not only shifted on to Joker, but it's gotten stronger. History will be made if Joker wins: it will be the first time a woman has won Best Original Score (or third if you count Rachel Portman and Anne Dudley, who won Best Original Musical or Comedy Score for Emma and The Fully Monty respectively when the category was briefly split between 1996 and 2000). It will also mean that 1917's Thomas Newman will have lost 15 times, beating out Diane Warren's unfortunate track record.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

Daughter
Hair Love
Kitbull
Memorable
Sister

All are well-crafted animated shorts, though the popularity of Memorable escapes me. With that said, I think the emotional and visual appeal of Hair Love will be too strong to deny it the Oscar.

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM

Brotherhood
Nefta Football Club
The Neighbors' Window
Saria
A Sister

Again, with the possible exception of Saria I think any of these would be worthy choices. Nefta Football Club seems the most likely surprise winner and would be the first Arabic winner in this category. However, The Neighbors' Window has two advantages. One: it is also quite good. Two: it is the only English-language nominee. In the past ten years, an English-language Live-Action Short Film nominee has won 7 out of 10 times.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

In the Absence
Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're A Girl)
Life Overtakes Me
St. Louis Superman
Walk Run Cha-Cha

Again, I think all of the nominees are worthy save for St. Louis Superman, which felt incomplete to me. Last year, the optimistic Period. End of Sentence won, and I point out it is "optimistic" because all the other nominees last year were almost unbearably depressing. I think the Academy will go that route again and select an optimistic, joyful nominee. While I loved Walk Run Cha-Cha, the powerful, beautiful and hopeful Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) will be the winner.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

American Factory
The Cave
The Edge of Democracy
For Sama
Honeyland

I think The Cave and For Sama, good as they are, will cancel each other out due to both being about the Syrian Revolution. My mind goes to Honeyland, which is also curiously nominated for International Film. There's no way Honeyland will win in that category, and I don't think it's a way of "rewarding" it by winning somewhere else, but I'm thinking that in a surprisingly strong category Honeyland will win.

BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM (formerly Best Foreign-Language Film)

Corpus Christi (Poland)
Honeyland (North Macedonia)
Les Miserables (France)
Pain and Glory (Spain)
Parasite (South Korea)

Last year, many predicted (or wished) that the Mexican film Roma would be the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture. If it had, it would also be the first film to win both Foreign-Language and Best Picture. That is the trouble with nominating one movie in both categories: inevitably winning Foreign-Language (now International Feature) cuts it from winning Best Picture. Many again hope (and wish) that the South Korean film Parasite break on through and wins both. At least in this category, I think Parasite has it locked up since no other film has really mounted a challenge to it.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
I Lost My Body
Klaus
Missing Link
Toy Story 4

Again, lo how Frozen II has fallen. Frozen was one of the surest wins when it was nominated. Now, its cash-grab/sequel was, yes, "frozen" out, a surprising rejection. What makes this race surprisingly competitive is that all the indicators have given us a variety of winners. Various organizations that normally signal which way this category goes has selected Missing Link, Klaus and Toy Story 4. I don't see a surprise win for How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World or I Lost My Body. I'm not convinced Klaus can gain that much support and I think it's a weak Missing Link. It really is an open race. As much, however, as I may have been underwhelmed by it, I think they're going to go for a safe choice and give Woody's last roundup a fond farewell.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

1917
Knives Out
Marriage Story
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite

To see just how fluid this season has been, the odds have shifted from Knives Out to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to 1917 and now Parasite. Another category where I simply cannot find a definitive certain winner. I can say that I don't think there was much of a screenplay for 1917 and I don't see any support for Marriage Story. Knives Out has faded on its sole nomination, so it's really a fight between a Hollywood story and a Korean story. Either could win, but it looks like the Academy will find some Seoul.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Irishman
Joker
Jojo Rabbit
Little Women
The Two Popes

Things have gone wildly awry for some films. The Irishman's momentum has fallen flat and Greta Gerwig looks likely to lose in both Original and Adapted Screenplay in separate years. She was the front-runner for some time, until for reasons I cannot fathom the Hitler camp comedy came roaring to life. I simply do not understand the hold Jojo Rabbit has over Film Twitter as this unimpeachable work of brilliance. However, I have to acknowledge reality and with deepest regret, have to concede it looks like this is where it has the strongest chance to win anywhere.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Kathy Bates: Richard Jewell
Laura Dern: Marriage Story
Scarlett Johansson: Jojo Rabbit
Florence Pugh: Little Women
Margot Robbie: Bombshell

I know many people are upset that Jennifer Lopez was not nominated for Hustlers. Personally, I don't get why so many think J-Lo taking her clothes off is some kind of acting miracle. Wasn't her Super Bowl performance essentially the same as her performance in the film? In the same way, I don't get the passion, the fervor for Laura Dern's performance in Marriage Story. I found it cartoonish bordering on parody, but somehow people have convinced themselves that it is something of majesty. I would have chosen Pugh's turn in Little Women, though to be honest I think the film made it a leading role. Again, however, I have to vow to reality and recognize Dern will win.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Tom Hanks: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins: The Two Popes
Al Pacino: The Irishman
Joe Pesci: The Irishman
Brad Pitt: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

It is a sad thing that Pacino and Pesci will cancel each other out. Nine times out of ten when two actors from the same film get nominated in the same category they end up losing. It is a sad thing because both Pacino and especially Pesci in my view gave better performances than the ultra-cool Pitt. He, however, has never faltered on his path to the win, and he will win.

BEST LEADING ACTRESS

Cynthia Erivo: Harriet
Scarlett Johansson: Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan: Little Women
Charlize Theron: Bombshell
Renee Zellweger: Judy

Best Leading Actress is the one place where we have racial/ethnic diversity among the nominees. If not for Cynthia Erivo's performance as Underground Railroad conductor Harriet Tubman, we would have heard again about #OscarsSoWhite. I think of all the performances Erivo's was if not the best then close to it. I also note that Saoirse Ronan has been nominated four times and is only twenty-five years old. If that does not speak to the breath of her talent, what does? It's a curious thing that it is Best Actress, not Best Actor, that has a majority of nominations for playing real people: Erivo, Theron as Megyn Kelly and Zellweger as Judy Garland. Normally it is the men who are rewarded for playing real-life figures. In this category, Zellweger has never lost her lead. Not one of the nominees has come close to challenging her, and her win is essentially assured.

BEST LEADING ACTOR

Antonio Banderas: Pain and Glory
Leonardo DiCaprio: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Adam Driver: Marriage Story
Joaquin Phoenix: Joker
Jonathan Pryce: The Two Popes

Normally, an actor in a biopic who has his first nomination after a respected career would be a front-runner, but Jonathan Pryce will have to be satisfied with just the nomination. Banderas (who may or may not qualify as "diversity") is not going to win. As a side note, I know many upset that Taron Egerton was not nominated for Rocketman, but I'll be frank: I don't think his performance was worthy of a nomination. I said flatly that it was too soon to say Egerton had it in the bag and was the inevitable winner, but Film Twitter did not listen. I still think he's bitter about it. He worked the rooms furiously to keep his Oscar hopes alive as he saw himself fading to the triumvirate of DiCaprio, Driver and Phoenix. It did not help.

That triumvirate has the best odds, but DiCaprio already used his "he's overdue" card for The Revenant, which is a shame given Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a better performance. Driver is fantastic in a film I was not crazy about, but again Phoenix's turn as Arthur Fleck is too powerful to ignore.

BEST DIRECTOR

Sam Mendes: 1917
Martin Scorsese: The Irishman
Todd Phillips: Joker
Quentin Tarantino: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Bong Joon-ho: Parasite

Again, the pendulum has been spinning all around: briefly Scorsese, then Tarantino, then Mendes, and currently Bong. Surprisingly, Philips' nomination is the only one never to take, and moreover one that Film Twitter despises. It really is open for anyone save Phillips and Scorsese, who are pretty much done. I don't think there was any directing in 1917 in terms of acting performances and much more in Parasite, and while I would not be surprised if Bong won I'm thinking Mendes may squeak out a victory.

BEST PICTURE

1917
Ford v Ferrari
The Irishman
Joker
Jojo Rabbit
Little Women
Marriage Story
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite

This really is the hardest category to say what will win. Personally, I would love for Ford v Ferrari to win if only to shock us all. I feel terrible for The Irishman because it is a great film that will be ignored. Joker is too divisive to win and I think passionately disliked by a large enough group to keep it from winning. I think the same goes for Jojo Rabbit. Little Women and Marriage Story have no chance. As much as Parasite is passionately loved by Film Twitter, the language barrier again crops up. Can the Academy embrace a foreign-language film considering how resistant it has been to adopting it. That really leaves two: the film industry centered Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the war epic 1917. Somehow, people may talk themselves into thinking 1917 is indeed an epic, something "for the ages". With that, I think the Academy will ultimate pick 1917 for Best Picture of 2019.

Again, I am not betting on most of these vague guesses. We won't find out until tomorrow, where I hope for some surprises.