MJ's Oscar Picks 2020

“I would have shared the raft.”

– Brad Pitt to Leonardo DiCaprio @ 2020 Golden Globe Awards

📷

Sigh.

Oh, Brad. I’m mad for you, too. (Think Rocky Horror Picture Show).

If BP’s playful jab, offering to alter fellow actor (and Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood co-star “LDC”) Leonardo DiCaprio’s fate in 1997’s epic TItantic didn’t bring a smile, perhaps his SAG acceptance speech did. Commenting on Cliff Booth, his hunky stuntman character in Hollywood, Pitt quipped: "Let's be honest, it was a difficult part: A guy who gets high, takes his shirt off and doesn't get on with his wife. [TV camera quickly pans to ex-wife Jennifer Aniston for a reaction.] It was a big stretch."

Handsome and self-depricating. Gracious and articulate. Celebrating a year of exceptionally fine acting, including his starring role in the much-lauded space journey Ad Astra, Pitt has a lot more to add to his Tinder profile than another SAG trophy (he’s won 2 so far). He continues to support various charitable, environmental and political causes, was a co-founder of Plan B Entertainment (which, to date, has yielded him three Oscars as producer for Best Picture winners The Departed, 12 Years a Slave, and Moonlight). And he was People Magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive” in 1995.

After all that, if Brad still doesn’t have you at “hello” or at least in the rear view mirror (referencing his cinematic introduction – and breakout role - as J.D. in 1991’s Thelma and Louise), then it’s probably safe to say you’re just not that into him. Oh, wait. That was the other Bradley (Cooper). You can stop groaning now (or scratching your head).

Regardless of your personal taste in Bradley’s, this year’s Oscars seem to have elicited more attention for their lack of diversity than for exemplary acting, so it looks like “OscarsSoWhite#TheSequel” has reared its racist head. Not even Parasite’s entry as Best Picture was enough to quell the outrage over the almost all-white acting and all-white, all-male directing nominations. Too (and yet again), the number of outstanding performance possibilities by male actors for lead and supporting nominations far outweighed those up for consideration among women. Will Hollywood ever learn…or is Hollywood simply holding up a mirror of persistently biased American values?

If I can play historian for a minute, I’d suggest a few things about using Hollywood as some type of barometer of the times. First, film – like all forms of art (and, yes, cinema is an art form, even though it is also part of the entertainment industry) – has the potential to express, interpret, and reflect social issues, as well as to initiate discussions and to suggest policies pertaining to social change. Second, film is a powerful, larger-than-life medium (NETFLIX’s attempts to change that notwithstanding, but that’s a topic for another section. Keep reading.), one that can provoke and educate via imagery.

Whether it’s Marilyn Monroe seductively standing over a subway grating, her white dress billowing up in The Seven Year Itch, Tim Robbins’s prison escape scene in The Shawshank Redemption, or ET and Elliott silhouetted a la bicyclette against the moon, film has the capacity to embed lasting images in our individual and collective psyches, sometimes to transformative effect.

We do not need to go go back to Birth of a Nation (1915) to witness the early impact of film as purveyor of racism and ignorance. We have sufficient Twitter bile spewing daily from #45. More positive results of film as social change can be seen, for instance, in Errol Morris’s 1988 documentary, The Thin Blue Line, which sparked an investigation that led to an innocent man on death row to being cleared of his charges. Norma Rae (1979) not only gave Sally Field her first Oscar, but it gave Americans insight into the importance of unions, which saw a documented increase in membership following the film’s release. Schindler’s List (1993) became another resource and tool for education about the Holocaust. Profits from the movie were used to create the Righteous Persons Foundation, dedicated, in part, to maintaining a vibrant Jewish community in the United States.

Most recently, Dark Waters (2019), a compelling legal thriller based on the 2016 New York Times article, "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare," saw DuPont’s stock drop by 7.15 points the weekend of its release. The movie’s carefully crafted script cuts through thousands of pages of dense legalese to provide a coherent, cohesive examination of how chemical companies can (literally) get away with murder when protective laws are not in place and profit supercedes people.

Back to my original question and explanation of where Hollywood fits in the larger picture of diversity and inclusion.

In 2016, AMPAS announced its goal to “double the number of diverse members” in the organization by 2020, meaning women and people of color. That same year, 46% of AMPAS invitees were women, 41% people of color (including a record high 71 Latinos). LGBTQ information was not available, nor was the breakdown in ethnicity for “people of color” (many have concluded that most invitees in this category were Asian).

Four years later, AMPAS has partially succeeded in changing the demographics of its membership, doubling the membership’s percentage of people of color from 8% to 16%, and raising female membership from 25% to 32%. The Oscars did set one record with this year’s nominations: 62 women were honored, which amounts to about one-third of 2020’s nominees. Were people overlooked? Yes. Are all the nominees deserving of the recognition? Probably not. Can/should we expect the Oscars to correct larger national issues of racism, sexism, and intolerance? Don’t be ridiculous.

Like many other institutions, AMPAS is making progress - enacting slow, but deliberate initiatives to address issues of diversity and inclusion. Expecting the Academy to change overnight – or even in five years – is unreasonable, if not impossible. Besides, longtime AMPAS members are not going to change their minds or their attitudes simply because membership is diversifying. A 91-year-old AMPAS member reportedly told a journalist who inquired about whether Jennifer Lopez was snubbed as a supporting actress nominee (Hustlers), that JLo is not considered to be a “serious actress” by Academy members, that she has not demonstrated a desire to make “important” movies, and is seen more as a celebrity than a working actor. Granted, this is only one comment which may or may not be informed, but – truth be told – one does not typically think of Jennifer Lopez in the same breath as Meryl Streep…or even Scarlett Johansson. So the fact that JLo gave a fine performance for the first time in two decades does not necessarily yield a nomination, even if she is a powerful force among Latinas. Perception - and politics - play a role in who gets nominated.

Numbers of women directors are increasing, but that doesn’t mean that women directors even come close to equaling men in either numbers or available projects. For example, women are rarely given epic, big budget or franchise movies like Avengers, and – left to their own devices – women directors often pick – or are typically given - different (re: smaller, more relationship-based) projects than men. Going back to JLo, Holywood would be wise to follow her model making Hustlers. Lopez produced the film, and hired then women as director, screenwriter, cinematographer, technicians, etc. Not a bad template for future film opportunities, and certainly a step beyond what, say, Greta Gerwig did making Little Women.

Wow. Here we midway through p. 3, and I finally mentioned “GG.” For newbies reading these predictions, I have a sort of ongoing of “relationship” w/Greta. So, more on Greta later. I’m just getting warmed up!

Suffice to say, Hollywood – and America – has lots of work to do addressing and changing standards of inclusivity in the movie industry. To say that the broader entertainment industry (including the scandal-plagued recording) is not “there yet” is an understatement, but to blame Hollywood for not being farther along in demonstrating more diversity is like chastising Americans for not electing a woman president. Oh, crap. We did that in 2016...nevermind. In any case, movies can be one of the most sustainable venues to impart change in racial-ethnic perception and understanding. And lasting change takes time. Let’s hope artists and artisans continue to persist in bringing about much needed change in film.

With all the bitching about this year’s nominees: lack of diversity, no women directors nominated, likely no JLo to walk the Red Carpet, what’s left to celebrate about the 2020 Oscars? Even its air date was moved up two weeks (to condense the awards season?)! The Oscars are now nipping at the heels of the Super Bowl, for heaven’s sake! And the BAFTA’s air simultaneously w/the Super Bowl (not that anyone really watches the BAFTA’s, but you know). Of course, JLo is performing the celebrated SB half-time show this year, so maybe viewers will confuse SB-LIV w/the Oscars and think JLo reigned triumphant. Stranger things have happened. Just watch the Impeachment hearings.

Before I let sarcasm gain too hard a grip here, let’s see if we can find some positivity in this year’s films and the ceremony:

📷 For the second year in a row, the Awards show will not have a host, so none of those mindless, half-hearted lame attempts by (fill in the blank: Kevin H, Ellen D, Jimmy K, Seth McF) to be witty, engaging, or even provocative. And no chance of Rob Lowe singing (I’m using the term loosely here) an opening duet with Snow White. Whew!

📷 There were no nominations for CATS (despite a noble effort by Taylor Swift, who co-wrote the song “Beautiful Ghosts” for the film w/Andrew Lloyd Webber). Given Taylor’s recent/ongoing drama w/Scooter Braun (How can anyone w/the name “Scooter” be taken seriously?), I’m sure the mostly male guild members responsible for music nominations made sure she wasn’t included. See what happens when you have integrity and stand up for yourself?

📷 Oscar ceremony dates for 2021 and 2022 will move the show back to the last Sunday in February (giving one of us more time to complete these damned predictions).

📷 Brad Pitt will walk the Red Carpet this year (with or w/out Jen) and, with a bit of luck and enough votes, give another memorable acceptance speech. Another Timber Profile update likely.

*******

As in past years, I’ll embed most of the “oversights” (snubs?) into their respective categories and try to be judicious in my level of whining about, let’s say, the fact that The Two Popes and Pain and Glory were not nominated as Best Picture. Granted, P&G is nominated in the newly re-named Best International Feature category, but so is Parasite (getting dual nominations). P&G, another astonishing work from Spanish auteur/director Pedro Almodovar, is undeniably a work of art. Its lack of nominations, save the International Feature and Best Actor categories (for Antonio Banderas), an only be explained in low box office receipts. Similarly, The Two Popes boasts acting nods for Anthony Hopkins (Supporting Actor) and Jonathan Pryce (Lead Actor), but little else. Money, politics and guild voting here are the likely causes.

Perenniel snubee Ethan Hawke again made one tiny independent (re: no one saw it) movie this year, Adopt a Highway, which premiered to mixed reviews at the 2019 South By Southwest Festival. Except for Hawke’s performance, the movie was pretty much undistinguished, unlike last year’s First Reformed which yielded almost 20 Best Lead Actor trophies for Hawke, including the Independent Spirit Award, but excluding the Oscar (not even a nomination!).

Word on the street now is that Hawke, director Richard Linklater and co-star Julie Delpy are in discussion to do one final “epilogue” as they’ve called it, in the “Before” series (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight). Like the first three, an epilogue will no doubt be welcome and wonderful, and Hawke will likely be overlooked in the lead acting category again. So, (I’m going out on a limb here), look for another Ethan Hawke acting snub in 2023.

I’m still waiting for that magical (impossible?) year when movies wll be valued as movies, and performances celebrated for their artistry and their ability to raise our conscienousness, elicit our compassion, and test our empathy. In other words, connect with our common humanity. This year, the two Best Picture nominees that captured that level of humanism were Jojo Rabbit and Marriage Story. Both challenge often pre-conceived notions about love, relationships, and crisis-instigated behavior. Though the films touch on very different situations (WWII v. modern day NY-LA), relationships (mother-son v. estranged husband-wife), and outcomes, the raw emotion and compassion shown through the characters in each film was a revelation, making both sometimes difficult to watch because the emotions expressed were often too close to the surface and the feelings all-too-real on many levels.

Though not in the Best Picture category, The Two Popes and Pain and Glory offered similarly compelling insights into the human psyche and soul, demonstrating again how our many differences often create more a more profound human symbiosis. Some of you reading this may find both Popes and P&G too talky and dull (re: there are no car chases, inter-galactic wars, or grisly blood-letting to hold audience attention). Yet no special effects are needed. The drama – and the beauty – in each film lies in the brilliance of the respective screenplays and in the actors’ abilities to breathe life into the written word and translate those emotions convincingly to the screen. These two cinematic gems are void of pretense, artificial “staging” and contrived situations. They are exquisite in their minimalism.

Speaking of cinematic pretentiousness, Greta Gerwig made a triumphant return to film-making this year with the much-lauded, overly remade classic, Little Women. I mean, how many times must we reinvent the corset, the hoop skirt, and the inevitable “happily married after” ending (except for poor Beth)? To date, there have been SEVEN movie or TV adaptations of Louisa May Alcott’s saga of the March sisters, with little variation on plot, costumes, or ending.

To jog your memory about my thoughts on Greta’s impending remake, here’s what I wrote last year:

I’ve read [Gerwig] is deep into the “remake” of yet another movie version

of that tried and true chick lit classic Little Women. No doubt, her re-interpretation

of a beloved story will carry much more gravitas with (some, most?) critics than Bradley Cooper’s reinvention of A Star Is Born.

Was I right? Critics (mostly male, BTW), couldn’t seen to get enough of Greta’s “modernization” of the March sisters sibling rivalry, adolescent snits, unsuitable suitors and unrequited ambitions. Gerwig was praised profusely in much the same way as she was for 2017’s over-rated Ladybird, for which she received a Best Director nomination. In reviewing Little Women, NYTimes critic A.O. Scott (who is rapdly becoming the film critic I trust least), wrote: “Without resorting to self-conscious anachronism or fussy antiquarianism, Gerwig has fashioned a story that feels at once entirely true to its 19th-century origins and utterly modern.” Horse feathers

.

Were we even watching the same movie, Mr. Scott? Or, were you too busy crafting the seductive prose for your review, eagerly calling LW’s Christmas Day release an “abolsute gift…a whole stocking full” of surprises. Eww.

Despite a brilliant cast that incuded Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, newly crowned heartthrob Timothee Chamalmet and Gerwig’s “It”-Girl/ Alter Ego Saiorse Ronan, Gerwig has done what most historians (here I go again) abhor: imposing contemporary ideas on the past. We used to call it “presentism” when I was in graduate school, and it wasn’t lauded.

I would have been more impressed had Gerwig completely modernized LW in the spirit of 1995’s Clueless (writer/director Amy Heckerling’s fabulous modern-day retelling of Jane Austen’s Emma). Then I might have appreciated the infusing of 21st century #MeToo-ism w/ 19th century feminism. Though the acting in this version is fine, the film sloshes along, languishing in Ronan’s sometimes overwrought performance and Gerwig’s earnest direction. I can picture GG framing every shot. But the end result was kind of a snore, despite obvious attempt to show movement (especially running, dancing).

In many ways, Gerwig’s efforts fall flat, leaving the film almost a devoid of emotion. I’ve watched every version of Little Women, and I’ve left every one at some level of emotional involvememt. Not so here. Concentrating on Jo’s attempts to become a published author, and chopping up the original narrative in a dizzing array of flashback/flashforwards, Gerwig gets caught up in her own head, leaving the audience dazzed and probably confused about the narrative and message of the film. Earlier verisons have done better to illuminate the feminist themes and the emotional bond that connects the March women – and all who enter their respective orbits.

2019’s Little Women isn’t awful, it’s just not a great film. No comparison to Boon Joon Ho’s masterful Parasite or Noah Baumbach’s (yes, that Noah Baumbach, Gerwig’s off-screen partner) haunting and, at time, gut-wrenching Marriage Story. And a Best Picture nominee should have some modicum of innovation and ingenuity. If there was a women director snubbed this year, it wasn’t Gerwig. It was Lulu Wang for The Farewell, which was astonishing in its layers of cultural heartfelt truth.

Okay. I’ll stop. Enough GG-bashing... until maybe next time. On to the movies.

So here we are with another wildly inconsistent season of awards, leaving many of us guessing as to what film will take Best Picture. What’s a film prognosticator to do? I’m still waiting on that rodent – or Bill Murray. And, after this year’s Super Bowl LIV commercials, I’m going for a ride with them in a bright orange Jeep. Cue “I Got You, Babe.”

What follows now is my annual assessment of the Oscar nominees, my picks for the winners (and sometimes, my wish for who should win). Putting my predictive accuracy (95+%) on the line once again, here goes.

And the envelope, please….

BEST PICTURE

1917

Ford v. Ferrari

The Irishman

Jojo Rabbit

Joker

Little Women

MarriageStory

Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

Parasite

While the trend in Oscars past has been that the film with the most nominations translates to a Best Picture winner (it happened nine straight years from 1992-2000), it has only happened four times in the last 10 years, or since AMPAS expanded the category to up to 10 nominees. Keep in mind, too, that some of the greatest films ever made did not win Best Picture: Citizen Kane, High Noon, Singin’ in the Rain (no nomination), Dr. Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, Cabaret, Nashville, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Brokeback Mountain, Do the Right Thing (no nomination), and BlacKkKlansman. Certainly puts the Academy’s selection process into perspective, and raises the question about how to define what art is – and whether great art equals “best” with the Oscars. Spike Lee was spot on when he quipped after last year’s win for Green Book, “Sometimes the ref gets it wrong.”

For that reason (in part) and for the past decade, I have bemoaned AMPAS’ decision to expand the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten so as to be more “inclusive” of the variety of films made (re: a way to insure that really mediocre, big budget films that made lots of money are included, potentially ensuring that Oscar’s TV audience is interested enough to watch). This explains, in part, why a film like 2010’s Toy Story 3 and 2015’s The Martian were included. Yet, in the ten years this expansion has been applied to the voting process, none of the biggest grossing movies has won Best Picture.

In fact, despite AMPAS’s desire to include more popular films in the Best Picturea category, most top-grossing films have not even been nominated. This practice held again this year as 2019’s two top-grossing movies – Avengers: Endgame and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker – weren’t nominated. The biggest grossing nominated film in this group is Joker which has, to date, made over $1 BILLION worldwide.

In 2018, the Academy’s Board of Directors suggested adding an second “best” picture category: for the best commercial/popular movie, but then opted against it. If that idea had become Academy policy, we might now be seeing a more dramatic split between commercial films and independent (re: lower budget) ones. This year, adding to the question of “what films should be included in the Best Picture category” was a renewed discussion about whether non-English speaking movies should qualify in the Best Picture category. The result of that discussion, in part, is the re-naming of another category. Instead of “Best Foreign Language” film, the category is now called “Best International Feature Film,” a title that is expected to reflect more inclusivity (re: a wider acknowledgement of feature films not produced in the United States).

Still, the question of language persists.The critical acclaim surrounding Parasite raised persistent questions about whether non-English speaking films should be included in the Best Picture category, or if all non-English speaking movies should only be eligible in (now) Best International Feature Film category (where there is no mention of “language”). Since 1928, only ten foreign language films have been nominated for Best Picture (none has won, but half of them won “Best Foreign Language” film), and only nine films financed outside the United States have won Best Picture (eight of those movies were financed by the United Kingdom, one by France).

The most recent Best Picture foreign language nominee (other than this year’s Parasite) was 2019’s Roma; the most recent Best Picture winner financed outside the USA was 2011’s The Artist. Roma’s failure to capture Best Picture has been linked to critics’ vociferous championing of Parasite this year. What I find curious is that both films deal with the underclass specifically, how the underclass ingratiates itself into a wealthier social strata, a theme which may be more important (to critics?) than the films themselves.

It wouldn’t be the first time critics as a group have taken on a cause celebre and then inundated filmgoers with reviews, interviews and stories encouraging them to see a particular film. That takes me right back to The Artist, when it seemed that – a century after film began - critics had just encountered black and white (and silent) movies. What a relevation! At best, The Artist was a charming story about a man and his dog, but hardly the stuff dreams - and great movies - are made of. But – thanks to vigorous campaigning by criics – it managed to win Best Picture.

Better yet is 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire, aka “India for Dummies” around our house. Former Today Show anchor Meredith Viera (and self-professed movie expert), made SM her pet project and promoted it every time an opportunity presented itself (and even sometimes when it didn’t). It was as though she had just discovered the widespread abuse of children in India and wanted everyone to be aware of it and take up the mantle of justice (of course, not sharing that many of the children used as actors in SM were subjected to grueling set conditions, low pay, mistreatment – you get the idea). When Slumbdog Millionaire won Best Picture, I’m sure some moviegoers felt proud that they experienced such revolutionary and socially conscious filmmaking. Ditto for last year’s Green Book.

I fear the same kind of fate for Joker, an almost embarrassing mishmash I’m calling “Heath Ledger meets Travis Bickle: Or How I Became a Serial Kiler and Learned to Love Charlie Chaplin.” Though the film shamlesslessly attempts to address “important social issues” (mental health, bullying, the destruction of the underclass), Joker ultimately becomes a parody of itself. Scenes depicting the underclass are gratuitous and gruesome, menacingly asking viewers to come in and have a look, like the freak show at a circus, or a massive car pile-up. Adding to the excess is Joaquin Phoenix’s over-the-top Pagliacci-esque interpretation of Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning turn in the same role (Supporting Actor in 2008’s The Dark Knight).

I’m sure a few of my younger readers (millenniels?) will tell me that I just didn’t get Joker, but the truth is, I got Joker all too well. Maybe that’s a consequence of being a film historian – or just a byproduct of getting older – but there was nothing new or profound about Joker that hasn’t been done before and done better. If Joker was profoundly anything, it was profoundly stupid, relying on the audience to revel in its faux paths and leave their brains at the concession stand. If you really want to watch the horrific emergence or a serial killer and one man’s descent into madness, try the first 45 minutes of Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, or the aforementioned Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. For my money, everything I needed to know about the Joker I learned from Heath Ledger. This Joker was no more than a sadistic, cynical money-grab.

I digress.

Back to Best Picture. This year’s list of Best Picture nominees got me thinking about what really makes a best picture. In a perfect world, or at least in a more deserving cinematic universe, the year’s “best picture” ought to at least be a “good,” if not “great” film. Something memorable, a movie you’d love to see again and again, each times discovering something new and wonderful.

The late film critic Gene Siskel used to say that there is a fine line between a “good” film and a “great” one. Good films, he argued, contained three memorable scenes. Fair enough. Great films, he went on, had three memorable scenes…and no bad ones. Not a precise definition, but one with some workable guidelines. How many of this year’s nominated films had three memorable scenes, and how many had three memorable and no bad ones?

By that standard, there are only two nominees that would (arguably, of course) qualify as Best Picture: Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood and Jojo Rabbit. The runner-up would be Marriage Story (except for two musical numbers tacked on late in the film, the movie is damned near perfect), a film that came out of the gate like wildfire last fall, but seems to have lost momentum throughout the awards season.

1917, in spite of its stunning one-shot cinematography, has no compelling plot and at least two scenes (the French woman and her baby, and the river sequence) that seem to function as add-ons to give the movie its length. Ford v. Ferrari was nominated because of the many deserving technical accomplishments (and the number of technical guild members who voted for it). It’s a good film with two great performances (Christian Bale and Matt Damon), but it falls short of “greatness” in its predictable finale and conventional plot structure.

Joker should not even be on this list, given its widely erratic and many negative reviews. It is an exploitation flick, not a good movie. But it is the first R-rated movie to make over $1B, and the Oscars love to reward movies that enhance and enrich the film industry. Director Todd Phillips, who is best known for the popular Hangover franchise, has Bradley Cooper serving as an executive producer who, in turn, snagged Robert DeNiro in a cameo role. No doubt the project looked great on paper.

In the end, Phillips doesn’t seem to know if he’s making a DC action film or an artsy independent character study, and Joker’s helter-skelter structure underscores an almost complete deconstruction of any type of coherent story or message. It’s a freakin’ disaster of a movie, except that audiences worldwide seemed to embrace it for whatever reason (white male rage?). Like bell-bottomed trousers or hot pants, Joker is a bad idea, a hot mess with a record-setting box office cache that gives it gravitous beyond its merit.

Little Women has at least three memorable scenes, but its sluggish, banal pace, along with the previously identified flaws in Gerwig’s modernization, leave it in the good Masterpiece theatre realm. Too, I kept wondering how many women of color could relate to Gerwig’s story. It’s still a film about spoiled, semi-privileged white women.

The Irishman, Martin Scorsese’s eighth collaboration w/actor Robert DeNiro suffers from length and Netflix. At 209 minutes, The Irishman is both a study in great acting and an example of an iconic director’s self-indulgence. So many superfluous scenes here. Plus, its quick exit to Netflix streaming will probably offend many AMPAS purists about cinema (including this non-AMPAS member). The Irishmen needed Netflex financing to get made, and the ensuing arrangement to send the film to streaming only 26 days after releasing it in the theater may be the very thing that kills its chances for Best Picture.

Overall, The Irishman is a very long, bloated film whose strong point is great performances by great actors (DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci), which do not necessarily yield a great movie experience. Scorsese should have been more circumspect in his scene choices and more judicious in the editing process (maybe releasing a “Director’s Cut” after the film’s theatrical release).

That leaves Parasite, clearly a director’s film in terms of its meticulous staging, cinematography and ambiance. Unfortunately, the movie runs a tad long (arguably, a pardonable offense), leaving some of the director’s scenes and editing choices up for discussion. Bong Joon Ho has created a clever, near masterpiece of class difference, but his studied, almost pedantic approach left me less than enamoured.

While I applauded the black comedy-thriller/horror fusion, I still didn’t leave the theatre wanting to see it again (for me, in addition to Siskel’s good/great definition, a measure of cinematic greatness). Happy to have seen it once, I don’t have any compelling desire to see Parasite again. And, after discussing last year’s Roma at length for its class-conscious focus, I’m not inclined to repeat for Parasite. It is what it is: a fine film and a deserving Best Picture nominee, but it would not be my choice for film of the year.

Which leaves Jojo and Hollywood, two films I would offer up as examples of Siskel’s notion of greatness. The problem for both movies is that they are (rightly or wrongly) categorized as “comedies,” which is the kiss of death when it comes to Best Picture. The Academy at least wants fans worldwide to think the best picture has some sort of importance social message or cultural relevance. How anyone could have thought that about last year’s Green Book remains a mystery, except that I’ve learned many people really don’t want to face issues like racism or sexism head on. They prefer their racism “light,” with characters and situations that lack depth or substance, but who can work out their differences and leave the audience smiling. Notice that we don’t see Harriet as a best picture nominee.

With Jojo, I am aware that many Jews found it distasteful, particularly it’s depiction of Hitler as the imaginery friend of an impressionable German lad in WWII. Let me say, first of all, that the following commentary in new way means to offend anyone, Jew or non. My assessment of Jojo as a film is this: I can appreciate that its odd take on Hitler as a kind of innocuous childhood companion is a bit startling at the onset, but I can’t agree w/one critic’s intentially snide remark, that Jojo is this year’s Life is Beautiful entry.

I remember well, back in 1999, when Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful was released, that director Stephen Spielberg dismissed it as “making light” of the Holocaust. The story of an Italian Jew sent to a concentration camp, uses humor and games to shield his son (also interred at the camp with his father) from the horrors of the Holocaust, was a critical and box office success and multiple Oscar winner (including Best Foreign Langugage film and Benigni’s win as Best Actor).

For this non-Jew, Life is Beautiful was a hauntingly memorable treatise on a parent doing everything possible to protect his child from the horrors of injustice and inhumanity. It provided a “based on true events” experience into a compelling essay on tolerance and understanding. And so it was w/Jojo Rabbit, a clever, inventive satire – did we see that? SATIRE – on the horrors of the Holocaust and the redeeming power of love.

I don’t want to give too much away here, as I think you need to see Jojo to appreciate it. That writer/director Takai Waititi hasn’t been more widely recognized is a mystery. Aided by Scarlett Johansson’s poignant portrayal as Jojo’s (newcomer Roman Griffin Davis) mother, and a supporting cast that includes Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson and the director himself as Hitler, this long-in-the-making coming of age tale is a fable for the ages.

And then there was Hollywood. Not just any Hollywood, but Hollywood in the late 1960s, a time of transition in the film industry as studio players and projects began to give way to independent filmmakers and unusual, cutting-edge art house movies. Enter Quentin Tarantino, arguably Hollywood’s greatest film geek. His knowledge of films and film-making is legendary, and his ability to translate often low-end “B” grade films into works of cinematic art is epic, as is his penchant for a white canvas and the color red.

Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood (the ellipsis is important) is a revelation, not just in terms of filmmaking and beyond the ubiquitous homage to the film industry (to call it that dimishes its artistic power and historical significance). I visited Hollywood twice in the late 1960s as a kid with my parents, and my memories of those trips have always been quite vivid. However, I was not prepared for the emotional wallop and deja-vu I experienced the first time I watched Tarantino’s ninth film.

Wow. Not only meticulous to detail (per usual), but evocative in spirit, with music, and in sync with the culture of the time. Not only do hippies personify the joys and impending demise of the counterculture, the Hollywood studio establishment exposes the deteriorating ethical core and fleeting, superficial sham of the industry as a whole. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick Dalton, a fading movie actor-turned popular TV star provides the metaphor to examine a Hollywood in transition. No longer recognizable as a popular, often innocuous entertainment medium, Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood turns movie-making and history upside down as it explores both the celebrity façade and technical underbelly of the film industry.

Once again, writer/director Tarantino’s contribution to film requires multiple viewings and hours of subsequent meditation and discussion. While critics and film historians will definitely argue about the film’s merits – especially the last 20 minutes – for decades to come, no one can deny that the film is destined to be included about QT’s – and Hollywood’s – greatest of all time. Hollywood is easily my second favorite QT film, after Pulp Fiction and certainly on par w/Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds, Jackie Brown and Django Unchained. You may not appreciate Quentin Tarantino’s approach to filmmaking, but you cannot deny he is one of cinema’s greatest directors, along with Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee, and Woody Allen, innovators all in their approach to storytelling and character development.

Can Tarantino be simultaneously post-modernist and traditionalist? With Hollywood, he takes precious care of breathing new life into - and honoring - an old Hollywood comeback story and the little known actors who brought it to life. At thie same time, he offers an intriguing, if controversial, take on revisionist history.

This year we’re back to the usual nine Best Picture nominees with Joker the only bonafide box office blockbuster among them. Obviously, despite three other nominations (and solid reviews) each, Bombshell and The Two Popes didn’t qualify. So once again, Hollywood couldn’t find 10 best picture contenders using the mathematical wizardry it employs (members from all AMPAS guilds vote for Best Picture, ranking the nominees from first to last), to actually identify the top films. So the 2020 list again includes only nine.

As I continue to beat this dead horse, the consequences of being able to nominate up to ten Best Pictures, but only five Best Directors has shaped up to have a longer term impact and unintended consequences on Oscar-winning tradition where the best picture almost always aligned with best director (65 of the 91 best pictures so far matched the best directorm but that match has faded in the last decade), which isn’t nearly as bad as the thought that more and more mediocre films are being awarded this prize. I was with Spike Lee last year as he walked out of the Dolby Theatre when Greeen Book was named Best Picture.

Now, with all the complaints of “Oscars So White” and “Oscars So Male,” the dichotomy between women filmmakers being acknowledged (62 total women nominees this year, up 18% from 2019) and being acknowledged as directors is even more striking…and still a long way from being realized.

The option of including five more picture nominees without expanding the best director category may have seemed somewhat moot initially. However, since 2000, eleven of the best picture winners matched the best director, but only five picture/director matches have occurred since the best picture expansion in 2010, most recently in 2018 when The Shape of Water took prizes for both director (Guillermo Del Toro) and picture. 2020 is shaping up to be another year of inconsistencies and surprises. Which may not necessarily be good.

2020’s recipients for Best Picture and Best Director could easily result in yet another split, especially given differences in the Producers Guild (PGA) winner for Best Picture – 1917, the SAG award for Best Ensemble - Parasite, the Golden Globes – Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood, and the Directors Guild (DGA) winner Sam Mendes. The favorite here appears to be 1917 which has clearly benefited from a late release (most theaters didn’t show it until the first week in January), so it is most vivid in most AMPAS members’ minds. Parasite was released earlier in the fall, and Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood opened in July. The last time a summer release film won Best Picture was The Hurt Locker (2009). Whether audience favorite Joker prevails over art house darling Parasite remains to be seen, but I would be delighted if neither of these entries took home the golden statue.

A few things to keep in mind re: 1917 and Parasite. Best Picture nominees that have no acting noms rarely win the top prize. Of course, best pictures used to match best director until recently, so there may be other things changing as well.

MAJ’s pick: 1917 (but calling a potential, if unlikely, upset for Parasite)

WHAT I’D REALLY LIKE TO SEE WIN BEST PICTURE: Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

BEST DIRECTOR

Bong Joon Ho, Parasite

Sam Mendes, 1917

Todd Phillips, Joker

Martin Scorsese, The Irishman

Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time in….Hollywood

Five nominees. Two have won before (Mendes and Scorsese). Two are first-time nominees (Phillips and Joon Ho). One is long overdue (Tarantino). Only two Best Director winners in the past 10 years have been American. The 2020 Directors Guild Award recipient was Sam Mendes.

The obvious snub this year (no, not Greta), was Noah Baumbach, whose beautiful story of love, separation and divorce hit all the right notes as a tender drama of a family in crisis. The violence here is all emotional, both compellingly visceral and evocative. Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson are superb, as is the supporting cast (Laura Dern, Ray Liotta and Alan Alda). So did this movie direct itself? A film this tight doesn’t materialize without a strong directorial vision, and Baumbach should have been included in this group.

The odd one out is Phillips, nominated because of Joker’s strong box office take. He’s really being rewarded for bringing in lots of money to the industry, not for creating a movie masterpiece. As I indicated earlier, Joker is a mess. The other first-time nominee, Bong Joon Ho is on track to take home the Best International Feature Film award, which will be his (only?) consolation prize.

And then there is Martin Scorsese, who waited over 30 years and six nominations before finally being recognized with the Best Director Oscar (2006’s The Departed). Now often referenced as the “greatest film director of all-time” (I respectfully disagree), Scorsese’s Irishman opened to strong reviews and comments that this film was his finest accomplishment yet. And then there was Netflix, and backlash from his choice to allow Netflix to stream the movie shortly after its theatrical release. Not a good move with the old Hollywood guard, although the only way to really watch this three and a half-hour marathon is to stream it. Sitting through it in the theater is almost unbearable. Too, the film seems to have floundered throughout the awards season, and Scorsese’s chances of winning appear to have dropped as well.

Obviously, I’d vote for QT. Last year, I would have voted for Spike Lee. Here are two of Hollywood’s most important, industry-changing filmmakers, and neither has won the Oscar for Best Director. Heck, Spike Lee received his first directorial nom only last year. That Hollywood is an old white boys club is legend, that it is a turgid old white boys club is becoming clearer. Directors like Tarantino and Lee march to their own beat, and often that beat doesn’t quite follow the old Hollywood industry line. Consider that Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Jean Renoir never got a directing Oscar. Ditto Orson Welles.

Too bad. Given the larger-than-life power of cinema to challenge, provoke, move and inspire, the Hollywood industrial machine usually opts instead to reward those projects whose messages are safe and unlikely to offend. So Tarantino may get yet another consolation prize this year, his third: Best Original Screenplay. All the momentum right now seems to be with Sam Mendes.

MAJ’s pick: Sam Mendes for 1917 (but hoping beyond hope for a Hollywood ending)

UPSET: Quentin Tarantino for Hollywood, or Bong Joon Ho for Parasite

BEST 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

Denzel Washington did not make a film this year, so Hollywood lost its chance to diversify the Best Actor pool. Arguably, the most competitive category this year (and in many a year), Best Actor all but appears to be a lock for Joaquin Phoenix and his tragi-creepy turn as Arthur Fleck in Joker. I’ll comment on Phoenix’s performance in a moment, but first, let’s take a look at the fine performances not nominated this year, among them Taron Egerton in Rocketman, Christian Bale in Ford v. Ferrari, Eddie Murphy in Dolomite is My Name, and Adam Sandler in Uncut Gems.

Sandler and Murphy, according to multiple sources, either fell out of favor or failed to show “proper respect” – whatever that is - for the Oscars and/or the craft/art of acting. Some of these assessments are mildly amusing, given George C. Scott and Marlon Brando’s disdain for the whole Oscar competition.

Fifty years ago, Scott’s refusal to accept the Best Actor Oscar for Patton resulted in a kind of unspoken ostracization in Hollywood. Two years later, Brando’s similar no-show for The Godfather (he sent Native AmericanSacheen Littlefeather in his stead), sparked questions about the actor’s mental state. Still, despite their lack of enthusiasm for the Oscars per se, both actors were nominated and received the most votes from their peers across the industry.

In Sandler’s case, his appearances on talk shows promoting Uncut Gems may have proven fatal to an acting nom when he repeatedly made light of getting a nomination, at one point, threatening to make another “really bad movie” if he was passed over this year. Apparently, it wasn’t much of a threat. Murphy has been an outsider for some time, with his most egregious act: his persistent arrogance. This year, Murphy’s prodical return as host on “Saturday Night Live” seemed, to some Academy members, a blatant attempt to be recognized for the mostly overlooked Dolomite is My Name. “He’s trying too hard,” one Academy member reportedly said, “and his [eagerness to please] seems forced. Maybe too little too late.” Bale, who has been a lightening rod in terms of his political commentary in the past, probably just didn’t make the cut this year, though his portrayal of another real-life maverick (Ford v. Ferrari’s ill-fated race driver Ken Miles) received consistently strong reviews – and widespread audience approval. The politics of Oscar rises again? Guess I’m just not a Ford man.

Yet, of all those strong performances not recognized for Best Actor this year, I’m most sad for Taron Egerton, whose fantasy-inspired interpretation of rocker Elton John was far more creative and moving than Rami Malek’s Oscar-winning impersonation of Freddie Mercury in last year’s Bohemian Rhapsody. Campaigning for a film released far too early in advance of the usual holiday season Oscar deluge, Egerton did everything possible to keep his vivid, poignant portrayal of an Elton John struggling through rehab, in audience and voters minds. He reportedly attended every Oscar-related event, shook hands and spoke to fans, Academy members, and the press.

Unfortunately, Egerton suffered from what I’d call post-rhapsodic malaise, as rumors spread that Academy members were unlikely to award yet another Best Actor Oscar to an actor in a rockstar biopic. Too, Elton John’s still very much alive, so Egerton could not benefit from the subsequent beatification that was bestowed on Malek/Mercury. Guess dead rock stars generate more sympathy than living ones.

Two things: Rocketman is a far better film than Bohemian Rhapsody in both its retelling of John’s extravagant, sometimes erratic (and erotic) drug-infused life, giving Egerton more room to interpret the rock fantasy aspect of John’s life, rather than simply re-enact it. Second, and unlike Malek, Egerton does all of his own singing in the film, an accomplishment that goes far with this film historian. Having the freedom to truly reinterpret the life and presence of a still-living rock star without diminishing or distracting from the real thing is no small feat, and Egerton showed grace and compassion in his performance. Hopefully, we’ll see more of him in the future (and not just as a sidekick to Colin Firth in that awful Kingsman franchise).

On to the nominees….

Antonio Banderas had me at “Hola” in 1988’s Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown and secured my devotion seven years later as guitar-playing gunslinger El Mariachi (aka “Manito”) in Robert Rodriguez’s 1995 Tarantino-inspired action flick Desperado, when he delectably purred, “Let’s Play.” (No Puss ‘n’ Boots pun intended…well, maybe). Banderas’ kinship with Spanish auteur-director Pedro Almodovar is as tight as Robert DeNiro’s collaborations with Martin Scorsese (8), Johnny Depp’s with Tim Burton (8), or Mia Farrow’s with Woody Allen (13… well, maybe that’s not the best collaborative example – the other duos are still speaking). Banderas and Almodovar have made eight films together since Banderas’ breakout role in Women on the Verge....

Playing a film director not unlike his mentor Almodovar (the actor said in an interview making this film was like having the character direct him) in this semi-autobiographical film, Banderas manages to draw you into his cinematic world, watching as he grapples with physical pain, reflects on past artistic glories, and revisits some of the personal relationships that influenced is life. It is a stunning, tour de force performance for Banderas: understated and intimate, but with a bigger, universal message. How many of us wonder, what if? Have I done enough? What does my life really mean?

At film’s end, Banderas’ character, Salvador is lying on an operating table, waiting for the doctor to arrive. Suddenly a shadow covers his face and he smiles. The doctor is there.

Salvador: I’m writing again.

Doctor (smiling behind his surgical mask): Is it a comedy or tragedy?

Salvador: I don’t know yet. It’s still….it’s still art.

The anesthetic begins to take effect, and Salvador drifts off. But his response is brilliant: “I don’t know yet.” I left the theater thinking, yes! - this is what great cinema, great art is: the ability to express the most private, often hidden emotions – and also our most complex, undeniably common human experiences – the movie ultimately lift us up. Yes, that is the cinema I hope continues, the one that champions “the stuff dreams are made of.” What a work of art this film is, and what a transformative performance from Banderas. He’d get my vote…and – BTW - it’s his first nomination.

A few words about the other three nominees who won’t win: Leo, Adam and Jonathan. Poor Jonathan Pryce. For years, he’s been told he looks just like Pope Francis. Finally, he gets to portray the pontiff in a beautiful tete-a-tete w/Anthony Hopkins (playing Pope Benedict XVI). Watching these two pros discuss everything from Vatican II to soccer is a delight, so rich and human is their fictitious meeting. Happy to see Pryce recognized for this performance.

Leo is, well, Leo. He’s one bonafide movie star who has spent over two decades proving his worth as an actor. He’s fucking Rick Dalton, after all, and in Hollywood, LDC dazzles once again, everywhere from a sure-to-be-classic scene with child actor Julia Butters to a self-indulgent meltdown in his trailor. And who knew Leo was so handy with a flame torch? I don’t think I’ve ever seen Leo so loose, his acting so effortless as it is here. It’s as though he’s finally comfortable in his own acting skin and not afraid to take creative risks. The result is absolutely captivating.

And last, but not least, Adam Driver, who was the early on favorite to take this prize. If you haven’t paid attention to Driver before, take a look now. He’s already got an impressive resume on TV (“Girls”) and in films (beyond the legacy character Kylo Ren in the latest Star Wars trilogy). He was nominated last year in a supporting role for Spike Lee’s wonderful BlacKkKlansman), so I’m looking for more nominations in his future. Except for Banderas, Driver gives one of most cerebral performances of this year, taking us on a very personal journey as Charlie Barber, a NY theater director whose wife (Scarlett Johansson) has left him and wants a divorce. Driver is stoic on the surface, but we can see the emotions bubbling from inside. Quite simply, this is a beautifully nuanced, touching performance from an incredibly talented actor. Not sure why Marriage Story seems to have lost steam.

Perhaps, like The Irishman, its quick-to-streaming move has turned off Academy voters.

And that leaves Joaquin, always an interesting actor, never dull in his interviews or acceptance speeches. I’ve liked his work for some time, though I would have preferred to see him win for something like 2012’s The Master (he was nominated in a supporting role), or 1995’s To Die For, a little-seen, but critically acclaimed black comedy w/Nicole Kidman (who was nominated for Best Actress).

Joaquin has been cleaning up the awards circuit, winning literally every award he’s been nominated for – Golden Globe, Critics Choice, SAG, BAFTA – so I’m not going out on a limb here predicting an Oscar for him this year. I’ve often expressed my preference for actors playing characters, rather than portraying real people we already have lots of footage of (as w/Rami Malek last year, though I would argue than Taron Egerton’s performance this year was much more impressionistic and less impersonation), but with Phoenix’s turn as the Joker, I kept asking myself if this is really his creation, or just his version of Heath Ledger playing the same part. In effect, it’s Joaquin playing Heath playing Arthur (The Joker).

I dunno. Used to be that a stellar (showboat?) performance by an actor in a mediocre or bad movie never got Oscar recognition (think Sean Penn in I Am Sam, John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever or Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction). But then Sandra Bullock won for 2009’s The Blind Side, a movie that – except for her participation in it – might have gone directly to the Hallmark Channel, so again…the times they are a changin’ for the Oscars, or at least how Academy members vote.

Changing for good or bad? Comedy or Tragedy? I can’t say. It’s still…..art?

MAJ’s pick: Joaquin Phoenix in Joker (Adam Driver appears to be the only competition)

No foreseeable upsets….but oh, if only Antonio’s name was in that envelope!

BEST ACTRESS

Cynthia Erivo, Harriet

Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story

Saoirse Ronan, Little Women

Charlize Theron, Bombshell

Renee Zellweger, Judy

The pickings are slim (again) in the Best Actress category, unless, of course, the Academy had chosen to diversify its pool. Cynthia Erivo is left carrying the torch for all actors of color, all underrepresented groups of artists. It’s a heavy load, and she’s unlikely to bring in a payday. She should have at least been joined by Akwafina for The Farewell. Again, see what happens when you call a film a “comedy” – the actors get no respect. Rodney Dangerfield was right, or was he?

After last year’s stunning upset that saw Olivia Colman snagging the Best Actress Oscar for The Favourite (a comedy!) over perennial bridesmaid Glenn Close (who’d won just about every acting award for The Wife), I suppose anything is possible. Maybe there is hope for Antonio after all. This year, though, seems less likely we’ll see another such dramatic turnaround among actresses. Here’s why.

Erivo, a British singer/songwriter and actress more known for her theater work (she won a Tony for The Color Purple), gave a wonderful performance in a movie few people saw. Her lack of notoriety, together withi the film’s lackluster performance with critics and at the box office, just doesn’t generate the momentum that fellow Brit Olivia Colman had with last year’s The Favourite (which had multiple noms). If Erivo does win (she’s also got a nom for Best Original Song), she’ll become the youngest EGOT recipient.

Charlize Theron and Renee Zellweger have previously won Oscars, though Zellweger’s was in the supporting actress category. Theron’s turn as Megan Kelly in Bombshell had great initial buzz, but reviews and box office disappointed. By the time Oscar nominations were announced, Bombshell seemed to be hanging in, but not really hanging on as a contender.

That said, Theron’s performance is fine – nothing I would rave about. Again, it’s watching ripped-from-the-headlines drama that we’ve all seen before (including the recent Showtime series about Roger Ailes starring Russell Crowe, rehashing the whole Fox News harassment debacle).

Saoirse Ronan’s nomination in this category, and second w/director bud Greta Gerwig, for Little Women is well-deserved, but somewhat underwhelming. It’s as though every actor in this movie was trying too hard, making sure that every feminist nuance was not overlooked (believe me, there was little subtly with the movie’s message). Ronan is a fine actress with an solid resume and a bright future. But no Oscar yet, at least not this year.

And now for Scarlett Johansson, who would get my vote in this category. Her pas de deux w/Adam Driver in Marriage Story is breathtaking: there are moments when you ache for her heartbreak, and others where her character’s behavior and choices confound and irritate. Everything about her character is conveyed in her expressive face, a turned up smile, a side glance. It’s all here and done with precision. What some of you may find surprising is that, though she has been around for almost two decades and made some wonderful films (Lost in Translation and Match Point come to mind), this is Johansson’s first nomination. Two, actually. She’s also up for Best Supporting Actress for Jojo Rabbit. Recently, she has been outspoken in support of Woody Allen as a filmmaker (she’s made three films with him and said she would work with him again. In the #MeToo era, ScarJo may have inadvertently turned off some Academy voters. But I applaud her for her strength in standing up for her convictions. She’s as powerful as her Marvel comic alter ego, Black Widow.

That means Renee Zellweger is the last woman standing, and – like Joaquin Phoenix – she has won every single award she’s been nominated for. And, like Phoenix, Renee gave a great performance in a mediocre movie. Judy is not a biopic, but a biopic about a beloved Hollywood legend. The tragedy of Judy Garland is the stuff fans thrive on, and Zellweger delivers on all counts. She did her own singing. She’s mastered all of Garland’s mannerisms: the kind of scared, frenetic, insecure – and endearing – ways she moved and interacted with people, most of whom were parasites looking for a moment to bathe in her glow.

It’s also a comeback performance for Zellweger, who has been absent from films for some time. Since 2008, except for the third Bridget Jones film, she’s appeared in mostly low-budget films targeted as Direct-to-TV/DVD, though she has been attached to a Judy Garland film project for awhile and has been one of several actresses attached to a Janis Joplin biopic (though that ship has likely sailed).

In addition, tabloids have dogged her for having had reconstructive surgery (which she’s repeatedly denied), and fans have clamored for her since her re-entry into the Hollywood awards circuit, beginning last fall at the Toronto Film Festival, where she received a five minute standing O for her performance as one of America’s most encuring sweethearts. Audience reverence for Garland begs the question: Are Academy voters casting their ballot for Renee or Judy? Hard to say, but either way, Zellweger wins.

MAJ’s pick: Renee Zellweger in Judy

Upset: None in sight, unless voters decide to throw Ronan’s Jo in Little Woman a bone.

Personally, I’d love to see a ScarJo upset.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Antony Hopkins, Two Popes

Al Pacino, The Irishman

Joe Pesci, The Irishman

Brad Pitt, OUATI…Hollywood

If there’s a favorite this year (sentimental or otherwise), it’s Brad Pitt. Let’s say it. All together, now. And the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor goes to…Brad Pitt. From start to finish, Pitt’s won everything this year, from critics to fans to guild members and the Hollywood Foreign Press. His Cliff Booth might not be considered an acting “stretch,” but he’s done what any supporting actor should do – be the most memorable thing about a film. Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood might be Leonardo DiCaprio’s film, but it’s Brad Pitt’s movie. Everything he does – every word, every gesture, every moral code he lives by – is consistently in character…with just a little wiggle room for mystery.

Pitt’s good looks (that’s an understatement) have always been a bit of an albatross, despite his own efforts to take gritty roles in independent films (Kalifornia), or play against type (Twelve Monkeys). Even his hunkier roles (Fight Club) show a bit of an edge, a darker, even sinister take on his screen image. Pitt has already taken home Oscar gold as a producer (12 Years a Slave), and he’s already stated he doesn’t know how much longer he wants to act, saying it’s really a “younger man’s game.” Either way, he’s a screen legend and a fine, intelligent actor. It will be nice to see him recognized this year.

All the other nominees have won Oscars, all in the lead actor category, except for Pesci, who won in this category for GoodFellas over two decades ago. He and Pacino (along w/Robert DeNiro), really defined The Irishman, which plays like a seminar on method acting. These two actors are both strong nominees, but are also poised to cancel each other out: who to vote for as both are stunning in the same film?

Anthony Hopkins shows range, going from Hannibal Lecter to Pope Benedict XVI. He also played Richard Nixon in Oliver Stones mid-90s biopic of the former president. Come to think of it, maybe there are some similar qualities/themes in these role. To wit, Hopkins’ conversational duet w/Jonathan Pryce in The Two Popes instilled more humanity in and compassion for “God’s Rotweiller” than I thought possible. It’s a deserving nomination and a knockout performance.

Two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks (Back-2-Back Best Actor Oscars for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump), has not been nominated since 2001 (Castaway), and never in this category. Though he has almost as much screen time as the lead character, a skeptical journalist played by Matthew Rhys, Hanks really serves as the supporting voice to the movie, the catalyst that drives the action and plot. I must admit that I went into this film somewhat skeptical myself, thinking it would be another “beloved actor playing beloved children’s icon” in a sappy, feel-good marshamallow of a movie.

The film and Hanks performance were anything but. Instead of mimicry, Hanks relies on his own subtle gestures, marrying them with Fred Rogers’ own and demonstrating a level of depth and complexity to Rogers’ personality, which in both consistent with and far beyond his TV persona. Nice job, Tom, and the only remotely possible longshot/upset in this category.

MAJ’s pick: Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood. Period. No upsets. Just Brad.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Kathy Bates, Richard Jewel

Laura Dern, Marriage Story

Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit

Florence Pugh, Little Women

Margot Robbie, Bombshell

Not much drama in this category, and likely, no surprises…except how in the hell did Kathy Bates get a nomination in another bad, over-the-top, crusading-for-justice Clint Eastwood film? She must have some pull with AMPAS voters. Bates, a Best Actress recipient (Misery) is a strong actress with some exceptional film work, but not this one. If you’re going to whine about JLo’s snub, here’s reason to do so. Jennifer Lopez may not be thought of as a serious actor of Bates’ caliber, but her performance was definitely more memorable, and more integral to Hustlers than Bates’ is to Richard Jewel.

For the remaining nominees, it will hard to block the juggernaut that is Laura Dern, who gave two strong performances in film this year (the other as Marmee in Little Women), as well as her ongoing participation in HBO’s popular Big Little Lies. The daughter of Hollywood royalty (sort of – Bruce Dern and Diane Ladd are her parents), Dern seems poised to be recognized for her body of work, although her feminist lawyer in Marriage Story is one that will stay with you long after the credits roll.

Sometimes supporting actors have one magnificent moment that defines their performance and Dern certainly had hers as she waxes rhapsodic about the injustices of sexism that pervade modern culture. It is a powerful, sometimes funny, but riveting feminist monologue that is sure to lock her in for this honor.

Of the remaining nominees, Margot Robbie gave two strong performances this year, and I would have nominated her for the other: as the ill-fated Sharon Tate in QT’s Hollywood. Though some journalists questioned Taratino’s script, which has minimal dialogue for Robbie, his vision of Sharon Tate was almost angelic, and her screen persona in Hollywood (alledged foot fetishes notwithstanding) is one of enigmatic, illusive starlet (one who is naïve, yet knowing, simultaneously hopeful and frightened).

Scarlett Johansson’s dual nomination here and in the Best Actress category often means the Academy will award her one prize, but Dern’s track record as award recipient will undoubtedly prevail. Florence Pugh’s headstrong Amy in Little Women provides a fine foil to Saoirse Ronan’s Jo (and the romantic rival for Timothee Chalamet’s affections), but it’s not in the same league as Robbie, Johansson and Dern. Another year. Pugh has a promising future.

MAJ’s pick: Laura Dern in Marriage Story

Upset: None to speak of, unless Johansson pulls out a squeaker. She’d have my vote.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Knives Out, Rian Johnson

Marriage Story, Noah Baumbach

1917, Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino

Parasite, Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han

Continuing great news: For the ninth consecutive year, both original and adapted screenplay categories are mostly solid, demonstrating yet again, that good writing matters. This year, the winner may amount to directors (Tarantino or Joon Ho) whose script is deemed most worthly of a “consolation” prize, though one wonders how many consolation prizes QT needs before taking home the Best Director trophy. To date, Quentin has won two original screenplay Oscars: Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained. He was also nominated for Inglourious Basterd. Two outta three ain’t bad.

In Hollywood, Tarantino again shows his unique skill and writing style: often direct and peppered w/numerous variations of “fuck,” but also designed to draw the audience in, using words as instruments to set up overarching character development, plot and storyline. From the very first scene in Hollywood, DiCaprio and Pitt ease into the QT’s conversational rhythm as effortlessly as Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, or Christoph Waltz in magnificent soliloquy.

Of the other the nominees, Noah Baumbach’s script for Marriage Story is human and absorbing, tinged with both humor and pathos, and poignantly brought to life by his cast. It’s Baumbach’s second nom in this category (2005’s The Squid and the Whale) was first. Early buzz on Marriage Story made Baumbach look like he was headed for multiple thank you’s, but the film’s inability to take other writing awards seems to have potentially sealed his fate.

I’m doubtful Mendes will win for 1917, as there just isn’t that much of a script (or a story) here, and Rian Johnson’s clever fusion of Clue and any good Agatha Christie novel shows a deft hand for sharp repartee. Even though the film received mostly good reviews, Knives Out is too commercial (and conventional) a project to take home an original screenplay award. One last question will be whether Joon Ho’s script, translated from Korean, will be an asset or a detriment to voters. Parasite was, at times, wickedly funny.

But Joon Ho picked up two awards in the last week push before the Oscars (and while ballots are still out), winning the Writers Guild and BAFTA awards. Tarantino was not eligible for the WGA because he is not a member, but both were nominated for the BAFTA. Might be possible that this award will be Joon Ho’s consolation prize, since Tarantino already has won twice in this category.

MAJ’s pick: Quentin Tarantino for Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

OR Bong Joon Ho for Parasite (ALMOST TOO CLOSE TO CALL)

LONGSHOT NOW: Noah Baumbach for Marriage Story

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Irishman, Steven Zaillian

Jojo Rabbit, Taika Waititi

Joker, Todd Phillips and Scott Silver Little Women, Greta Gerwig

The Two Popes, Anthony McCarten

With a veritable pantheon of mostly newcomers, this year’s adapted screenplay category should receive approval from the audience, no matter whose name is announced. The only name(s) I’d remove from this list: Todd Phillips and Scott Silver, as Joker is a joke among nominees (save, arguably, Phoenix’s over-the-top performance). We’ll see how long and sweeping big box office coattails can be.

Of the other deserving nominees, Steven Zaillian, an early favorite for The Irishman, now seems lost in the awards season shuffle. Taika Waititi’s inventive, sometimes wacky and irreverent, but ultimately touching script (adapted from the book, Caging Skies by Christine Leunens), would get my vote here. Jojo Rabbit was one of my two favorite films this year, I’m sure, in part, due to Waititi’s combination of clever dialogue and powerful storytelling. Here’s an example of why everything you see is a movie is there for a reason. There is a moment little more than half-way through Jojo, an “I-didn’t-see-it-coming”one, but then an “I knew it would happen kind of scene” that just kicked me in the stomach…and tugged at my heart. If the Academy is giving a consolation prize to a non-nomimated director, go with Taika.

Until Super Bowl weekend, I thought Greta Gerwig was poised to win for her much lauded re-writing/modernization (?) of Little Woman, and a win for her would be due, in part, to the onslaught of criticism toward the Academy for giving a Best Director nom. But then the Writers Guild and BAFTA awards for Adapted Screenplay went to Taika Waititi for Jojo Rabbit, so I needed to rethink my prediction quickly.

The unfortunate oversight in this category is really Anthony McCarten, whose script for The Two Popes is like a revisiting of My Dinner w/Andre, minus Andre’s pomposity and infused with a kind of secular humanism unimaginable between a pontiff ane a pontiff-in-waiting. Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce turn what could have been a pendantic discourse on Catholicism into an engaging dialogue about being human and being alive in a post-modern, post-Christian world.

MAJ’s pick: Taika Waititi for Jojo Rabbit

Maybe?: Greta Gerwig for Little Women

LONGSHOT NOW: Steven Zallian for The Irishman

ORIGINAL SONG

"I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away" from Toy Story 4 Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

"(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman Music by Elton John, Lyric by Bernie Taupin

"I'm Standing With You" from Breakthrough Music and Lyric by Diane Warren

"Into The Unknown" from Frozen II Music and Lyric by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez

"Stand Up" from Harriet Music and Lyric by Joshuah Brian Campbell and Cynthia Erivo

To reiterate my annual rant (and not to put too fine a point on it again): This category’s been fucked up for years! Period. What should be an award for a song that best fits the mood and theme of a movie, Best Song has become synonymous with which nominated song ha been the biggest Top 40 hit. Screw its relationship to the film, and bring on the recording industry for another pat on the back.This year, the nominees provide the opportunity for Oscar to award what the category intended, and also meet the unspoken standard of creating a memorable song.

After last year’s triumph win (and much talked about live performance of the song w/co-star Bradley Cooper), Lady Gaga set new standards for the power of an original song, and the ability to “act” the emotions of that song so convincingly that the audience couldn’t see the fine line between performance and reality. “Shallow” is one of the few examples of what this category is all about, done right.

This year, the nominees are mostly undistinguished (do we really need another entry from Disney, especially one from Frozen II or “Re-Frozen” as I like to call it), except for perhaps the snappy upbeat one from Elton and Bernie, and Cynthia Erivo’s anthem from Harriet. If there’s a snub – and boy, was there ever some immediate backlash when the nominations were announced – it was Beyonce, whose contribution to the repurposed “live action” Lion King was apparently considered (by some) to be a shoe-in nomination. Guess not.

Instead, perennial nominee (this is her eleventh) Diane Warren does not seem like a strong candidate this year. Arguably, her first two noms were strongest – the joyous “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now” from the undistinguished rom-com Mannequin or “Because You Loved Me” from an even sappier rom-dram Up Close and Personal (cloyinging sung by Celine Dion), but I’d hoped a few years ago that her collaboration w/Lady Gaga “’Til It Happens to You” from the 2015 documentary The Hungting Ground would yield a win, but it did not. Three noms later, Diane seemed destined to try again. She’s already in the Songwriters Hall of Fame, so how about an Oscar already?

At any rate, I’m going with the Elton-Bernie reunion love song.

MAJ’s pick: Elton John and Bernie Taupin, “I’m Gonna Love Me Again” from Rocketman

Upsets: Joshuah Brian Campbell and Cynthia Erivo, “Stand Up” from Harriet OR

(please, no!) Kristin Anderson-Lopen and Robert Lopez for “Into the Unknown” from Frozen II

ORIGINAL SCORE

Joker, Hildur Guðnadóttir

Little Women, Alexandre Desplat

Marriage Story, Randy Newman

1917, Thomas Newman

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, John Williams

Only one newbie here: Hildur Guðnadóttir. Three of the nominees have won previously (sometimes, in John Williams’ case, on multiple occasions). The other, a perennial groomsman w/fourteen noms and no wins is Thomas Newman, part of the Newman composing family that, to date, has amassed more Oscar nominations (more than 80) than any other Hollywood family. Talk about a dynasty. Early buzz has Guðnadóttir’s evocative score from Joker taking the prize. None of the other nominee’s work is memorable enough to challenge…unless the Academy wants to recognize T. Newman. T. Newman’s fellow nominee (and cousin) Randy waited a long time before being recognized. We’ll see if Thomas finally breaks the curse. I’m betting no.

MAJ’s pick: Hildur Guðnadóttir or Joker

Upset: Thomas Newman for 1917

And now for the less sexy Oscars: no one will care what these nominees are wearing or who they bring as a date. Hell, most of the Red Carpet announcers may not even recognize them. I used to look forward to the Red Carpet quips, blunders and surprises, but not anymore. Most of the broadcast journalists have no clue about film, the actors, or movie-making, except what they’ve been given by equally incompetent staff members as preparation. I may just put the TV on mute to watch the parade of gowns and tuxes.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Rodrigo Prieto, The Irishman

Lawrence Sher, Joker

Jarin Blaschke, The Lighthouse

Roger Deakins, 1917

Robert Richardson, Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

Cinematography is often tied to Best Picture. If that holds true this year, then Roger Deakins may win his second Oscar in as many year, though it took him almost a quarter century and fourteen nominations to win the first won. Together w/director Sam Mendes, Deakins’ stunning one-shot approach to filming 1917 resulted in the audience becoming a part of two WWI soldiers’ mission: to deliver an important message to the British front before the army runs straight into a trap set by Germany.

Using a variety of hand-held and camera-tram techniques, Deakins creates a seamless “you-are-there” experience for the audience, and the light and dark shading he creates is almost another character in the movie, coaxing the young colonel to go on, becoming both a guide and an obstruction to the mission. With 1917 on a roll in many technical categories, Deakins may not need to wait long for Oscar #2.

He does have competition, though. Robert Richardson uses natural-light photography that illuminates the meticulously recreated Hollywood of the 1960s in Tarantino’s fan/love letter to the city he grew up in. What is astonishing about Richardson’s work here is that he manages to illuminate both the fantasy and the reality of Hollywood in an age of transition, gently remembering the movie-magic associated with classic film, and juxtaposing that against the grittiness of the new film order that was in its infancy.

MAJ’s pick: Roger Deakins, 1917

Upset: Robert Richardson for Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

FILM EDITING

Ford v. Ferrari, Michael McCusker and Andrew Buckland

The Irishman, Thelma Schoonmaker J

ojo Rabbit, Tom Eagles

Joker, Jeff Groth

Parasite, Yang Jinmo

Even more than cinematography, film editing most closely mirrors the Best Picture award, but again this year tradition may not prevail since neither 1917 or Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood is nominated. With its eleven nominations, Joker may pull a victory here, though Jojo Rabbit offers worthy competition. The Irishman may an example of not enough judicious editing: it’s not just a long movie, it’s a long, sometimes self-indulgent film (and Schoonmaker has won three times before).

Ultimately, though, this race may well come down to Parasite or Ford v. Ferrari, especially since the latter has been a powerhouse picking up technical awards this year. Don’t dismiss it as a “NASCAR” fantasy: Ford v. Ferrari is like a case study in how good editing can produce excitement amidst a backstory of pettiness and dangerous corporate competition.

MAJ’s pick: Michael McCusker and Andrew Buckland for Ford v. Ferrari OR Yang Jinmo for Parasite

Upset: Jeff Groth for Joker

PRODUCTION DESIGN

The Irishman, Production Design: Bob Shaw; Set Decoration: Regina Graves

Jojo Rabbit, Production Design: Ra Vincent; Set Decoration: Nora Sopková

1917, Production Design: Dennis Gassner; Set Decoration: Lee Sandales

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, Production Design: Barbara Ling; Set Decoration: Nancy Haigh

Parasite, Production Design: Lee Ha Jun; Set Decoration: Cho Won Woo

The Academy loves seeing a good European (re: British) period piece or an epic futuristic world, but I’m not sensing that either WWI or WWII will score a victory this year. Instead, this race is between Quentin Tarantino’s precise, evocative recreation of Hollywood in the 1960s and Bong Joon Ho’s compulsive vision for the house that becomes the focal point of class conflict in Parasite.

MAJ’s pick: Barbara Ling and Nancy Haigh for Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

Upset: Lee Ha Jun and Cho Won Woo for Parasite

HOWEVER, if 1917 begins to sweep the awards, there could well be an upset in favorite of Gassner & Co.

COSTUME

Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson, The Irishman

Mayes C. Rubeo, Jojo Rabbit

Mark Bridges, Joker

Jacqueline Durran, Little Women

Arianne Phillips, Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

This award usually goes to a period (historical) piece, so depending on your definition of “period” – either all or almost none of the films fill that bill this year. If the Academy takes this category quite literally, Little Women’s smorgasboard of corsets and hoop skirts will win. Truth is, the older the historical period, the easier it is to take liberties with the costume design, meaning that a movie like Hollywood is actually harder to design for. The late costumer designer extraordinaire, Edith Head, often said that the hardest costumes to design were for men wearing suits. So maybe The Irishman has a shot.

MAJ’s pick: Arianne Phillips for Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood

Upset: Jacqueline Durran for Little Women

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

Bombshell, Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker

Joker, Nicki Ledermann and Kay Georgiou

Judy, Jeremy Woodhead

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten and David White

1917, Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis and Rebecca Cole

Holy cow! For the past several years, this category could not even come up with five nominees, and this year, the list is full. Too bad. Early buzz has remained consistent: the team from Bombshell did a miraculous job transforming Charlie Theron, Nicole Kidman and John Lithgow into almost recognizable versions of three Fox News icons (and almost made Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson likeable). I doubt even Arthur Fleck’s smudged smile or Angelina Jolie’s chiseled (wooden?) cheekbones can compete.

MAJ’s pick: Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker for Bombshell

SOUND MIXING / SOUND EDITING

Sound Editing

Ford v Ferrari, Don Sylvester

Joker, Alan Robert Murray

1917, Oliver Tarney, Rachel Tate

Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood, Wylie Stateman

Star Wars: The Rise of SkyWalker, Matthew Wood, David Acord

Sound Mixing

Ad Astra

Ford v Ferrari

Joker

1917

Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood

Lest I repeat myself (again and again!), yes, there is a difference between sound editing and sound mixing. The nuanced difference between overall sound and aural effects is sometimes lost on the average moviegoer, mostly because these awards often go to the same film and the films are usually BIG (not to be confused w/LOUD). In short, you can really tell when sound is making a difference. This year’s nominees again all had the kind of sound quality that is distinctive and powerful – such that, even if you’re not paying attention to the sound, you really do notice it because it impacts the overall experience of watching the film.

Sound typically favors two film genres: musicals and action adventure, so with no musicals in the mix this year, it looks like action/adventure will prevail, though w/Ad Astra switching off w/Star Wars, I would eliminate both, leaving it to Ford v. Ferrari, Joker or Hollywood.

MAJ’s pick: Ford v. Ferrari for both

Upset: Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood for both

If 1917 sweeps, both these categories may ride that wave.

VISUAL EFFECTS

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

Many people equate this award with a summer blockbuster. In fact, most recent winters have been fall or holiday releases, with several also receiving Best Picture nods (think Life of Pi, Hugo,or Gravity). But this year none of the nominees is up for best picture, so the winner is likely (again) to be a virtual visual crapshoot. But last year’s winner, Avengers: Infinity War, brought us back to form and will likely win again.

MAJ’s pick: Avengers: Infinity War

Personally, I wish that this category would develop some creativity. It’s almost as though it should be called “Best Video Game,” given the reliance on digitial/video technology to create something less than ambiance or atmosphere. It would be refreshing to see something new and different in the future. I don’t go to the movies to play a video game, or to be drawn into that world. I prefer to be transported to other ones. Sigh.

INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM

Corpus Christi Poland Directed by Jan Komasa

Honeyland North Macedonia Directed by Ljubo Stefanov and Tamara Kotevska

Les Miserables France Directed by Ladj Ly

Pain and Glory Spain Directed by Pedro Almodóvar

Parasite South Korea Directed by Bong Joon Ho

I have seen two of the nominated films at the theater – and all or parts of the others online, so I’m speculating a bit based on reviews….

Like last year, the big question in this category is whether Parasite also nominated for Best Picture, will take both awards, making it the first film in Oscar history to win both the English speaking and International Feature films. Since I suspect I’ve made my feelings about Parasite pretty clear at this point, I would vote for Pain and Glory, Pedro Almodovar’s intimate treatise on life. It’s less showy than Parasite and yielded almost no US box office returns to impress some Academy voters, but if we’re talking “great” v. “good” films here, I’d give P&G an understated edge.

The other three contenders are all fine films, notably France’s Les Miserables (not to be confused w/Victor Hugo’s epic novel), but this one is a toss up between Parasite and Pain and Glory. Expect the former to win, especially if 1917 fulfills its anticipated sweep.

MAJ’s pick: Parasite (Pain and Glory is the only possible competition, and unlikely to win)

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

American Factory, Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert and Jeff Reichert

The Cave, Feras Fayyad, Kirstine Barfod and Sigrid Dyekjær

The Edge of Demoracy, Petra Costa, Joanna Natasegara, Shane Boris and Tiago Pavan

For Sama, Waad al-Kateab and Edward Watts

Honeyland, Ljubo Stefanov, Tamara Kotevska and Atanas Georgiev

With its typical collection of important social and political subjects – war, finance, world hunger – Best Documentary feature has an interesting set of newcomers this year: Michelle and Barack Obama, whose newly created production company, Higher Ground, is responsible for American Factory. If AF wins, expect some type of crude, nasty Tweet from #45.

For all its celebrity production backing, American Factory is not necessarily the frontrunner. For Sama, an intimate portrait of one woman’s journey through war-torn Syria may have the right balance of political and gender relevance to capture the Oscar. Then there’s The Edge of Democracy, an impressive entry from Brazil that examines the dangers of a political system moving toward the far right.

The last two nominees here, Honeyland and The Cave, are longer shots, with Honeyland a possible upset. It was the first film to win both the Grand Jury and Best First Documentary Feature awards last year at Sundance. A win for National Geographic’s The Cave would give it consecutive victories (NG won for 2018’s Free Solo), so probably not a repeat for the producers.

MAJ’s pick: For Sama OR American Factory (Too close to call, but Sama won the BAFTA)

ANIMATED FEATURE

Toy Story 4 I Lost My Body

Klaus Missing Link

How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

Even before Oscar nominations were announced, the money was on Toy Story 4. And then the Annie award went to Klaus, and now all bets may be off. The winner of the Annie award usually signals where Oscar is headed. Because of both strong box office receipts, critical praise, and likely epilogue’s for each franchise, Toy Story 4 and How to Train Your Dragon remain frontrunners. Of the two, Toy Story 4 probably has a better chance than Dragon (it’s hard to compete w/Tom Hanks, Tim Allen and Keanu Reeves voicing key roles), though Dragon is concerned the superior in terms of animation.

Missing Link and I Lost My Body all challenge traditional notions of animated films being mostly for kids, with themes of wanderlust and existentialism, respectively. But it’s Klaus that could upset the applecart if its recent Annie Awards victory (actually, sweep) is any indicator. And I can’t leave this category without commenting that, if there was a snub (more like a surprise) this year, it was the omission of Frozen II. Despite strong box office and another ubiquitous song nomination, the ongoing saga of Elsa, Olaf and Sven did not generate enough critical acclaim to merit a feature nom. Maybe we should just let it go.

MAJ’s pick: Toy Story 4 OR How To Train Your Dragon

Upset: Klaus

I’m going out on a limb here and calling Klaus to upset.

DOCUMENTARY / ANIMATED / LIVE ACTION SHORTS

Not having kept up w/the Documentary, Animated or Live-Action (short) categories for the umpteenth time, I’m mostly taking a pass, but I’m always certain one of the nominees will win. It seems pretty clear from various prognosticators that there are frontrunners in each of the categories, with Hair Love a favorite in the Animated Short category. Animated Shorts also had the largest number of qualified entries this year (92). Three of the directors are women and one African-American male (for Hair Love).

We shall see..or not. One of these years, I’ll make it to the marathon pre-Oscar showings of all these nominees.

BTW, no one has yet (still not?) responded to my annual question: How many of you go to see the “short subjects” when they play as a single bill in theatres?

DOCUMENTARY SHORT

MAJ’s Pick: Learning to Skate in a Warzone (If You’re a Girl)

The title alone should merit a win.

ANIMATED SHORT

MAJ’s Pick: Hair Love

LIVE ACTION SHORT

MAJ’s Pick Brotherhood OR The Neighbor’s Window

And the Oscar goes to….

EPILOGUE

There are so many issues that warrant discussion this year: ongoing issues concerning Oscar’s lack of diversity, #MeToo as it relates to filmmaking and filmmakers (re: Is Margo Robbie’s minimal dialogue in Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood an indicator that writer/director Quentin Tarantino is a sexist/misogynist? – I’d say “no,” but that means a longer essay on the strong roles women have played in many of his films. Ditto Woody Allen. Nadda Martin Scorsese). Speaking of Scorsese, though, one of the biggest issues Hollywood faced this year is what the future of the big screen will look like. Will Netflix and other streaming services ruin the viability of the movie theater experience?

From its inception, film has been a curious medium. Unlike theater or concerts, going to a movie was equated with having a “group experience alone.” There you could sit, in the dark, and not participate in the shared experience associated with the theater or concerts. TV, on the other hand, was considered more immediate, and bringing people (actors, news media) into your home involved a different type of decision making than leaving the comforts of your abode and paying to see something on the big screen.

Last fall during his David Lean lecture in London, Scorsese said this about contemporary cinema:

"Theatres have become amusement parks. That is all fine and good, but don’t invade

everything else in that sense. That is fine and good for those who enjoy that type of film and, by the way, knowing what goes into them now, I admire what they do. It’s not my kind of thing, it simply is not. It’s creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that."

Fellow directorial icon, Francis Ford Coppola offered support to his peer and colleague, but responses from other, younger directors were swift and less flattering. James Gunn, director of Guardian of the Galaxy wrote, “Not everyone will be able to appreciate [superhero films]…even some geniuses.” Ouch.

Gaunlet dropped. Arguments, varying in degrees of nastiness, ensued. In response, Scorsese wrote an OpEd piece for the NY Times,*** hoping to clarify his comments. Some of that text merits inclusion here:

"For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started

making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation —

aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the

complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures,

the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face

to face with themselves…. It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen

and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was

possible in the art form.

"Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures.

What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at

risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

"In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts.

But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night:

the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products

manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams

of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the

unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the

riskiest factor of all…

"For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the

situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply

writing those words fills me with terrible sadness."

If anyone reading this is thinking, “OkayBoomer,” be sure to PM me, and I’ll never send you another copy of my Oscar predictions. For those who immediately called out Scorsese as “out of touch,” lacking an understanding of the power of modern (re: Marvel & DC comic-book films) film-making, take a long, close look at the four preceeding paragraphs. Notice words like “aesthetic” and “spiritual.” Complexity. “Confronting the unexpected …and enlarging the sense of what was possible.”

The future of American and International Cinema is at a crossroads, and one of the most frightening issues is that franchises like Marvel and DC comics are gradually narrowing the choices of what films will be made, meaning that, over time, films will exist more and more to pander to whatever demographic is buying the most tickets.

That more and more movies will now face streaming options is another concern: will cinema as we know it – a larger than life art form – now be reduced to the restrictions associated with TV viewing? Not an appealing thought. Scorsese admitted his own concern that, in order to make The Irishman, he needed financing from Netflix, which only offered limited theatrical release before going straight to streaming.

When I was a kid, what drew me to the movies was the absolute wonder of seeing something I didn’t see in real life, of imagining things I never thought possible, of learning about places and people I’d never visited or hadn’t met yet. I remember going to see My Fair Lady with my parents and my aunt Helen at the Palace Theatre in Lorain, OH. Dad dropped mom and Aunt Helen at the theater door because it had started to snow. I went with him to park the car.

It was really cold, and I didn’t have boots on, insisting (probably whining) to my mom that I had to wear my new penny loafers to the theater. My shoes dried quickly enough, and I never noticed my feet were still wet, because the beauty of the film – and the amazing music (especially the lyrics) – captivated me for the next three and a half hours.

I still remember walking back to the car at movie’s end – it was dark and way too late for me to be out. I was following my dad, singing “Wouldn’t It Be Loverly?” in my best cockney accent, my new loafers making fresh impressions in the snow. I was also making a mental list of all the new words and phrases I had just heard. I had just gotten a history and literature lesson, after all, and I couldn’t wait to get home and look up all the new information in my possession. To this day, whenever I hear or read a reference to the Spanish Inquisition, I immediately retreat to Henry Higgins’ preference for its “new edition.”

Sometimes I think I go back to the movies over and over just to recapture that kind of awe, that introduction to something new or, more recently, a reminder of experiences and people I cherish.

So I’m sorry, James Gunn and all those who wait in anxious anticipation of the next Marvel comic installment. Those movies just don’t cut it for me. Never have. Probably never will. Not because the technology isn’t amazing, and the special effects mesmerizing…but because they are formulaic (not in a good way), and do little to create understanding or compassion for the human experience…at least, not on any deep or meaningful level.

It’s similar to this now-apparently acceptable notion (with which I don’t agree, by the way), that Baby Boomers prefer to acquire “things,” while younger generations prefer to collect “experiences.” Fine and dandy, but explain to me how repeated trips to Disney World can possibly equal trips to Europe, Asia, or other parts unknown (even some pretty astonishing destinations right here in the United States).

What they seem to provide, just like DC-Marvel Comics movies, is a safe, artificial environment – “the architecture of assurance,” as one pop culture art historian said of Disney theme parks…one that threatens to replace genuine experience. Hell, people don’t even want to go out to the theater anymore, many preferring to see movies at home because it’s more convenient.

For me the jury is still out on the generational changes now going on politically, socially and in movies. I’m not sure if it’s good or bad, comedy or tragedy. But I do hope that, in the end… there is still art.

Meantime, see you at the movies!

PS Don’t forget the always-fabulous, consistently-irreverent Independent Spirit Awards: Saturday, February 8 @ 5:00 PM EST on IFC.

***I’m including the link to the entire OpEd, in case anyone wants to read it in its entirety:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html