MJ's Oscar Picks 2024: The Barbenheimer Edition

Welcome to MJ's Annual Oscar Picks: The 2024 Barbenheimer edition. Please begin by clicking on the link and feel welcome to sing along.

MJ I'm Just Me Oscars 2024

0:00

I'm Just Me*

MJ's Version

Based on the song "I'm Just Ken" from the movie Barbie

Written and produced by Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt

Doesn't seem to matter who I pick, 

Even poor John Wick.

No one asks me why I try so hard. 

I have thoughts I just cannot explain:

How "Barbie" put to shame

All the rest. The final test

Is next on Oscar night. 

But I'm just me....

Blogging 'bout movie history.

Is it my destiny to risk my academic credibility?

Yes, I'm MJ.

At an AMC matinee

Where Nicole says, "Hey, the film's the thing. Don't stay at home and stream."

BRIDGE

I wanna know who's gonna win. Is it the real deal?

I wanna know who's gonna win. Open the envelope.

Did I pick well? Will it be swell? Or am I dreaming?

I'm a dreamer.

I'm just me....

In another time, I'd be on TV.

Jammin' with Gene and Roger E., kvetching all about the silver screen.

I'm MJ.

At an AMC matinee.

Where Nicole says, "Hey, the film's the thing. Don't stay at home and stream."

Yeah, I'm MJ.

And I'm enough.

And I'm great at writing stuff.

So, hey, check me out

Yeah, I'm MJ.

I'm just me.

And so are you.

And it's fun thinkin' I'm cool. So, hey world, check me out.

'Cause I'm just me.

I'm just me.

Baby, I'm MJ.

And I'm enough.

*******

Is that enough? I dunno. I was just getting warmed up.

It is, quite literally, almost impossible to be a woman, an academic, and a movie blogger. Trying to juggle all three often seems impossible, like I'll never be good enough for any one of them. Like, I have to always be extraordinary at all three, but somehow I'm always doing at least one of them wrong.

Here's the thing: You have to be smart, but not too smart. And you can never say you think you are intelligent. You have to say you don't think you're that smart, but also you have to make mistakes. But not too many. You have to be intellectually independent, but you can’t ask for help or assistance because that’s shows weakness.

If you hold a leadership position in higher education, you have to be a boss, but you can’t be bitchy. You have to lead, but you can’t dismiss other people’s ideas. You're encouraged to have outside interests, but only if they relate to work. God forbid you like movies, rock and roll, or (pause for effect) teach Zumba. "Zumba?" a former supervisor inquired with all the derision and disapproval they could muster. Guess I crossed a line there.

You have to be a career-focused, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to tolerate men’s bad behavior, but if you call them out, no one will believe you. You're a PhD, after all. No one that smart would be the target of sexual harassment.

In the midst of all this career-building, you’re supposed to want to be a mother, so don’t talk too much if you don't have children of your own. You'll be pitied, hated, accused of being a lesbian, or even called a "childless monster." Above all, don't make any kind of comment about children to women who are mothers because you're likely to be reminded almost immediately that you can't possibly know anything about raising children (even if you've been teaching teens and young adults for decades).

You’re also expected to be attractive in a non-threatening way, but not so pretty that you tempt men or show any interest in fashion or personal appearance. You're smart, after all. No one can be smart and pretty. Over the years, I've been told to cut my hair, put it up in a bun, wear glasses, gain fifty pounds - you know, so that people won't be jealous because I'm already smart. I can't be successful if I threaten other women because I'm part of the sisterhood.

So always lean in and stand up, and always remain grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that without seeming cynical. Like Barbie, "I can never get mad, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line." That means never using curse words that might offend others. Fuck. What's a woman academic blogger to do?

It’s too much at times, too contradictory and, even when you think you might have found that balance and gotten it right, nobody gives you a medal or says, "Good job! Well done." That's because it often turns out that people are silently judging you, that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

Some days it's totally overwhelming. I’m just so tired of watching myself and every other woman tied into knots so that people will like us, and most of all, approve and accept us as we are. And, since we now know all of this is also true of Barbie, what hope is left?

That last question is rhetorical - though maybe that adjective has too many syllables for a movie blog. I've been told that my reviews are too "erudite," which means they aren't always accessible to the casual browser who only wants to know, in 25 words, 30 seconds or less, whether I liked the movie. If that's what's you're looking for, check out Rotten Tomatoes.

At any rate, I wasn't the only one that had a year of reflective moments, of intermittent anger, and ultimately, enduring hope. Even Barbie had an existential crisis, one that was so profound and resonant with women globally that it has become a cultural touchstone. In a year that saw moviegoers return to the theater in droves: Barbie and Oppenheimer combined grossed over $2 Billion, but it was Barbie that has been credited with single-handedly saving the movie industry. Pretty fucking amazing for a doll.

Yet, even with that kind of cause for celebration, it's interesting that all of the ten films nominated for Best Picture deal, in some way, with death, with philosophical questions about life and how we navigate it. No fluff here. No Marvel comics, no mindless action adventure movies sweeping the box office receipts. Guess I'm not the only one asking, "What was I made for?"

But enough about me. On to the movies…

Let's take a look at this year's best: some of the common threads that bind them and my annual assessment of who will win an Oscar, who should win, who might have been snubbed, and who surprised us. As in recent years, I’ll embed most of the “oversights” (snubs?) into their respective categories and will try to be judicious in my level of whining about, let’s say, Greta Gerwig's omission for Best Director. I've already written a separate blog post about it, but several weeks after the nominations were announced, I'm still thinking about why the woman who directed a now iconic film that saved Hollywood wasn't recognized by her industry peers. More on that later, so be prepared for more "Barbie Talk."

What follows is my annual assessment of the Oscar nominees, my picks for the winners (and sometimes, my wish for who would win). Last year was a pretty good one for me, predictions-wise, and this year there may be more than one "lock" (more on that later). Putting my predictive accuracy (95+%) on the line again, here goes.

And the envelope, please….

BEST PICTURE

American Fiction

Anatomy of a Fall

Barbie

The Holdovers

Killers of the Flower Moon

Maestro

Oppenheimer

Past Lives

Poor Things

The Zone of Interest

Let's just acknowledge something upfront. Unless the stars re-align or AMPAS voters get a clue, Oppenheimer is going to win Best Picture and anything else that its very long cosmic rays can grab. Not that Christopher Nolan's epic biopic isn't a fine film. It is. It has a good story, great performances, some interesting technology and visual effects that underscore the main character's personal and professional conflicts, and it drew big box office numbers. Academy boxes checked.

But this year's ten Best Picture nominees are all worthy (mostly) of the nom, and the fact that there was one bigger and equally, if not more, important blockbuster besides Oppenheimer, plus several other innovative and creative entries this year, makes the all-but-certain Oppenheimer sweep a bit disappointing. And it means the awards themselves are likely to be a snoozer.

It's simply not the only film this year that deserves Oscar recognition. Of course, I remind myself that the Oscars have never been the best indicator of quality in films, as the "best" picture each year does not necessarily match what's in the envelope on Oscar night, mistakes from Faye Dunaway notwithstanding.

In any case, rather than go through my usual list of "not a chance in hell" winners versus those that might be contenders, I'm going in a different direction this year. What has emerged among the nominations is an interesting collection of movies that have some common themes, yet many diverse perspectives on the world we live(d) in. If you want to read more in-depth analyses of each Best Picture nominee, check out my reviews on this blog.

A closer inspection of themes among the ten nominees...

"This night is just perfect....

You guys ever think about dying?" - Margot Robbie, Barbie

I'm guessing the response from many of you reading this post is "yes," with appropriate qualifiers as to how often and how intently each of us ponders the existential question of being or not. Or, as Woody Allen once wrote, "Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon."

Greta Gerwig, who renounced Allen during the #MeToo crusade, might not appreciate my connecting her Barbie's existential crisis with Woody's all-too-glib assessment of life, but in many ways, both writer/directors share a proclivity toward experiential philosophy as it relates to self-reflection and individual happiness.

But Barbie wasn't alone in her examination of self, of how we spend our time on this planet.. Almost all of this year's ten Best Picture nominees examine some aspect of life, death, and the meaning of existence:

Personal - Barbie

Global - Oppenheimer

Cultural - Killers of the Flower Moon and The Zone of Interest

Intellectual - American Fiction

Physical - Anatomy of a Fall and Poor Things

Professional - The Holdovers, Maestro

Inyeon (a Korean word for "fate" or "destiny") - Past Lives

The fact that I saw death in some form in each of these films made me stop and wonder whether it was the movies, or whether it was me reading into them, but what was intriguing was how different views of life - intellectual, cultural, imaginary, emotional - were all silent characters in each of this years Best Picture nominations.

What is also worth noting is that, given the recurring themes about various kinds of death, four of this year's nominees are comedies: dark, quirky and offbeat comedies, with Barbie boldly embracing the "musical" genre as well, that are poised to push AMPAS voters to at least reconsider, if not change, their usual notion of a "serious" film. Unfortunately, Hollywood's track record in the Best Picture category perpetuates the notion that a movie must be serious (re: a drama) in order to be important.

To date, only twenty comedies in Oscar's almost century-old history have won Best Picture, with two of them coming recently: 2019's mixed genre Parasite and last year's equally convoluted genre mash-up, Everything Everywhere All At Once. The last musical to win Best Picture (unless you count Faye Dunaway's 2017 envelope mix-up) was Chicago in 2003. Only ten musicals have won Best Picture, and nine of those recipients were either remakes or retreads of Broadway productions. The sole original, An American in Paris (1951), was the brainchild of the brilliant director and choreographer Gene Kelly, who followed the next year with another classic, Singin' in the Rain.

Often called "the greatest movie musical ever made" by both critics and historians, Singin' in the Rain wasn't even nominated for Best Picture. Wasn't even nominated. I'll let that sink in for a moment. Singin' in the Rain wasn't nominated for Best Picture, and neither was its creator/director, Gene Kelly. The movie-within-a-movie veers from the traditional "break-into-song" in the middle of a sentence format typically employed by the likes of Rogers and Hammerstein. Instead, Kelly weaves a clever subtext about the early age of films when "talkies" were developed, changing the sound of movies and the careers of many actors whose voices didn't quite measure up to their screen images.

It's both funny and serious, slyly skewering filmmakers desperate to preserve the celluloid fantasies movie stars create. Kind of like Barbie where Greg Gerwig and Margot Robbie's vision of the fantasy implicit in Barbie Land contrasts the stark differences in the Real World.

Unfortunately, AMPAS voters still can't seem to grasp the power of comedy or that subtlety and understatement are as effective as straight drama with a side of solemnity. As actor Jeffrey Wright quipped during his acceptance speech for Lead Actor at the Film Independent Spirit Awards, about American Fiction's intersection of comedy with cultural hypocrisy: "Cord (Jefferson, the film's writer/director), what you did, at the very least, was to give us opportunity to laugh at the goddamn utter absurdity of it all."

Indeed. The world is filled with goddamn utter absurdities, and laughing at them does not mean the absurdities are any less serious. For all its desire to produce big movies that yield huge box office returns, Hollywood still likes to think of itself as a socially-minded, politically aware industry, offering works of art that may inspire as well as entertain. And yet it can't seem to embrace diversity in how those themes are delivered. A nomination, maybe, but winning Best Picture? Not a chance.

So what about all these iterations of death and loss? Of comedies addressing solemn issues like death, loss, and unfulfillment? Is Hollywood only now expressing the numerous and increasingly varied ways we are dealing with conflict, trauma, death? Maybe. But there is still a lingering notion that, unless the audience fully feels the weight of its gravitas, a movie isn't serious. It's like Americans need to be told something is important to get their attention, and then be hit over the head repeatedly with its significance before they believe it.

No metaphors, allegories, or historical references, please. Hollywood in general and American audiences in particular, don't usually handle nuance well. Just constant reminders we're seeing something of value. Could Oppenheimer or Killers of the Flower Moon have been any less subtle?

Take Killers, for example. Three hours and twenty-six tedious minutes of hit-you-over-the-head messaging about the white man's inhumanity to indigenous peoples. Did you feel enlightened afterward? You were supposed to. And to marvel at Martin Scorsese's bold vision, even though it still focused on two white men. From the get-go, Killers was marketed and distributed as a serious film that we all needed to see.

In contrast, Cord Jefferson's bitingly funny American Fiction, equally serious about racism, almost didn't get made because he had difficulty securing financial backers. I would argue there is more social awareness in each of the four nominated comedies than in all eight hundred seventy-eight minutes of the serious films combined (yes, I did the math). I mean, Candide was serious, right? And Catch 22? Guess AMPAS voters aren't familiar with the works of Voltaire or Heller.

Molière, anyone? Honestly, I know that the Catholic church controlled certain aspects of film content back in the 1930s, but sometimes now it seems like you have to do penance watching a movie in order to call it a good. The more painful to watch, the better the film. By that standard, Killers of the Flower Moon would be shoe-in for Best Picture.

This year's Best Picture "comedies" - American Fiction, Barbie, The Holdovers and Poor Things - use humor to emphasize serious social/culture issues, including racism, cultural stereotypes, the challenges of womanhood and conventional notions about sex as it relates to gender behavior. Integrated into each of the story lines is a kind of death - actual or metaphorical (and sometimes both) - that adds depth to the movie. Two of the nominees - Barbie and Poor Things - offer audacious and edgy interpretations of what it means to be a woman, and Barbie has become a kind of cultural touchstone for women globally.

Each of these four comedies is nuanced, deliberately balancing the equilibrium between serious message and humorous situations. The Holdovers, for example, could have descended into frat boy humor or farce. It does not, instead, examining the disappointing life of Giamatti's teacher as he interacts with a student's (newcomer Dominic Sessa) painful rite of passage to adulthood.

So, per my remarks in past Oscar predictions, few comedies (no matter how serious) win Best Picture, and some of the greatest films ever made did not win Best Picture: Citizen Kane, High Noon, Singin’ in the Rain, Dr. Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde, The Graduate, Cabaret, Nashville, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Brokeback Mountain, Do the Right Thing (no nomination!), and BlacKkKlansman. Note that seven of the above-mentioned "losers" were musicals and/or comedies.

For my money, the People's Choice Awards got it right this year (I can't believe I'm writing this), when they selected Barbie as Best Picture and Best Comedy. I can feel the snickering from a few of you reading this: How can "the people" know quality? That's always been the complaint about expanding the Best Picture category: that "popular" films would be acknowledged but, of course, would never win. So far, that's proven to be true. The top grossing movie has not won Best Picture since Titanic in 1997.

For the third consecutive year since 2009, when this now-ubiquitous expansion rule began, there are ten nominees and, for maybe the first time, all the nominees are deserving, though I'm still not convinced that Killers of the Flower Moon is more than another Martin Scorsese retread. This is what happens when audiences are told they'll blown away, that Marty has somehow revealed a heretofore little known event in American History and raised it up as a social statement about indigenous people.

And, while that may be what he and the movie's distributors want you to think (and thus be amazed and blown away), there's still that matter of the film itself: an overlong, overblown, tedious treatise that focuses on white men. True, Lily Gladstone is the movie's heart and shining light, but her performance alone doesn't make this movie great. I'm wondering if we'll even be talking about this film in five years.

As I've written before, traditional patterns regarding Best Picture wins show that the film with the most nominations translates to a Best Picture winner (it happened nine straight years from 1992-2000), have all but dissipated since 2010, with only four Best Picture winners from those most nominated in the last thirteen years, or since AMPAS expanded the category to up to ten nominees.

Then last year, Everything Everywhere All At Once, which led the Oscars with eleven nominations, won the most awards (seven), including Best Picture. This year's most celebrated nominee, Oppenheimer, with thirteen nominations, is currently the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture and thus continue to restore the tradition that most nominations equals a Best Picture win. Whether that is synonymous with whether great art equals "best" at the Oscars will remain a topic of ongoing discussion (even if the short answer to this debate is, "No, a Best Picture win doesn't necessarily mean the film is the "best," and that's especially in a year when Oppenheimer is not the only blockbuster and there are other, critically praised audience favorites in the mix.

Spike Lee was right when he quipped after Green Book’s win for Best Picture, “Sometimes the ref gets it wrong.” Indeed. And Spike Lee may be one of the best examples of how Hollywood has missed honoring the best film with Best Picture. Lee wasn't even nominated for directing his now iconic Do The Right Thing (1989), as Greta Gerwig was similarly not nominated this year for Barbie. Both films were creatively and culturally innovative, bucking conventional themes and outcomes, which may be too much for the Hollywood establishment to recognize as a best picture.

As regular readers of my annual Oscar picks know, I have bemoaned AMPAS’s 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 or, more precisely, 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.

Now, for the sixteenth time since this expansion has been applied to the voting process, none of the biggest grossing movies ever has won Best Picture. In 2023, the top-grossing movie was Barbie, with a $1.4 BILLION box office take globally, and it's probably Oppenheimer's top challenger for the Best Picture trophy. But then, Barbie's director, Greta Gerwig, wasn't nominated (did I mention that?), so apparently the movie directed itself. Never mind that its brilliant vision or creative spirit outshined the competition. Gerwig's imprimatur apparently wasn't evident to the voting members. Or maybe Barbie's powerfully feminist theme was just too much for the mostly white male Directors Guild contingent. They prefer movies made by - or similar to - their own.

Will Gerwig's omission in the directing category help or hurt Barbie's chances to nab Best Picture? Abso-fucking-lutely. But it would be a shining moment for women and film to see the Academy honor the biggest box office draw and, arguably, one of the most inventive, entertaining, and culturally phenomenal movies in years to win Best Picture.

Finally, I do want to address the ticking time bomb in the room: that Oppenheimer is the best picture and should win because its subject is "important." Sorry, folks. Addressing relevant social or political themes can always enhance an artistic endeavor, but please don't compare Robert Oppenheimer to Barbie, even and especially their respective places in history. Because I'd be willing to bet that Barbie has had more direct influence on individuals globally than Oppey. In short, the subject matter of a movie does not necessarily make it a better film.

Truth be told, Oppenheimer is, at the end of the day, a well-made, if conventional Christopher Nolan film. Looking at his past work, including the Batman trilogy and even Inception, Nolan consistently functions from a mostly linear template. Dunkirk is a great example of how Nolan integrates narrative with innovative special effects. But he's no Tarantino when it comes to storytelling, and no Spike Lee when it comes to addressing controversial social/political themes. Oppenheimer's basic conceit, which focuses on the rivalry between Robert Oppenheimer and Lewis Strauss is fairly pedestrian, even as the impending global catastrophe of nuclear annihilation looms large as a backdrop.

If you are looking for snubs in the Best Picture category, I'd say that Sofia Coppola's understated, melancholy Priscilla was overlooked here and probably in the Best Actress and Adapted Screenplay categories. Writer/director Coppola's deeply probing and evocative script shattered many previous portrayals of Elvis Presley and instead explored more intimate details about the impact of his celebrity on wife Priscilla. It's a poignant and disturbing exploration of women's romantic expectations and disappointments amid a troubling journey of self-discovery.

Indie darling (and multiple BAFTA nominee) All of Us Strangers deserved some recognition. I'm guessing its lack of wide distribution in this country hurt its chances, as it is a haunting, sometimes unsettling story about death and loss that you really have to see to appreciate. Emerald Fennell's sophomore effort, the thoroughly twisted Saltburn, showcased a push-the-envelope attack on the British upper class and boasted several stellar performances, notably from Barry Keoghan and Rosamund Pike, both of whom were nominated for BAFTA's.

Past Lives had three Oscar-worthy performances from leads Greta Lee and Teo Yoo and a strong supporting one from actor John Magaro. They were all in early Oscar predictions but fell off the radar before the final cut. Only writer/director Celine Song has remained in contention. Even Iron Claw had some fine performances, notably Zac Efron and current TV favorite Jeremy Allen White. Claw is probably too melodramatic and formulaic for additional kudos, but recognizing great performances in mediocre films isn't new to the Academy. Remember Sean Penn in I am Sam? Or Al Pacino, who finally won his only Oscar for Scent of a Woman, which was not a critical favorite at the time.

Overall, I'm beginning to see the Oscars the same way I view the Electoral College: no longer functioning as it was originally designed, in danger of becoming irrelevant, and increasing slanted toward the "winner take all" approach to recognition. I imagine that, by the time the Best Picture is announced, many viewers will have abandoned the show, even though its start time this year (7 ET/6CT) won't keep you up past midnight. It's just all too predictable right now, and I don't see Oppenheimer generating the same kind of excitement or eliciting the same kind of love as Barbie.

But the love doesn't matter, at least not in Hollywood. It's the (perceived) gravitas that counts. You can, perhaps, understand - or at least, appreciate - the cognitive dissonance I'm experiencing. I'm hoping for a pink tsunami, but expecting a toxic male explosion. No matter what the outcome, Barbie is still brilliant.

MAJ's Pick: Oppenheimer 

Or maybe: Barbie

BEST DIRECTOR

Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things  

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon

Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

Guess it was easier to nominate a French woman reportedly snubbed by the French government than it was to recognize the American woman who saved Hollywood. Not that Justine Triet doesn't deserve to be on the short list. Anatomy of a Fall is an intelligent, complex narrative that juxtaposes the death of a marriage with a real death (or maybe murder). Triet never tells us at the end. But to include her and not Gerwig makes me wonder what members of the Directors Guild were thinking, except that Triet's movie is a drama and Gerwig made what appears to be a frothy comedy. Barbie, of course, is all that and so, so much more.

But Yorgos Lanthimos got a nomination because it's okay for a man to make a comedy about a woman's sexual liberation. Men clearly know more about women than women. And Scorsese's here because, with Woody Allen in exile from the movie industry, he's the heir apparent (re: oldest, active) leader of the directorial boys club, not that Allen ever curried favor in Hollywood. And Jonathan Glazer's nomination for a film that feels like "the Von Trapps do Auschwitz without the music," shows that Hollywood is more interested in Nazis than intelligent women.

Go figure. I won't belabor the point. This is Nolan's year and, with the Directors Guild trophy already on his shelf, he'll win. But Barbie was brilliant.

MJ’s pick: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

UPSET: None, but did I mention that Gerwig wasn't nominated?

HUGE SNUB: WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AND WON?

Greta Gerwig, Barbie

*******

NOTE: In the February 18, 2024 New York Times Magazine, there was a wonderfully clever

feature called "The Best Wildest Weirdest Performances of the Year" that might actually be more appropriate and fun than winning an Oscar, so I have referenced a few of them among the acting nominees.

BEST ACTOR

Bradley Cooper, Maestro                                        

Coleman Domingo, Rustin                      

Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers

Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer                                                 

Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction

This year, there's an interesting theme, or just an unusual anomaly, among the Best Actor performances: all have a connection to teaching and/or education. The Los Angeles Times recently ran an interesting, if brief, essay by freelance writer Carla Meyer in which she identified some unique similarities among the Best Actor roles, notably that four of the nominees' characters were teachers or professors and the titular (Bayard) Rustin in Rustin attended Wilberforce and Cheyney universities on teaching scholarships. Though only two of the characters - Paul Giamatti's prep school Classics teacher in The Holdovers and Jeffrey Wright's novelist professor in American Fiction - are actually educators in their respective roles, Cillian Murphy's Oppenheimer is shown in the classroom at Berkley where the physicist once taught, and Maestro's Bradley Cooper is seen teaching and lecturing (which Leonard Bernstein did from time to time).

Meyer finds the dominance of the education in this category this year noteworthy, as great performances by lead actors playing teachers - or anyone remotely connected with education - are few and far between. And, given that last year's Best Actor recipient, Brendan Frasier, played a teacher in The Whale, we will likely see another lead actor winner this year connected in some way to education.

I'm not sure the confluence of Best Actor nominees' connection to education really means much, as teaching is only pivotal to Giamatti and Wright's characters. Still, we might consider further how each character's tie to the classroom impacts their characters' respective journeys. Oppenheimer, for instance, is clearly a competitive, innovative academic unafraid to defend his scientific views which differed greatly from those of Albert Einstein. Bradley Cooper imbues his Bernstein with a charismatic, if narcissist persona, eager to perform as much as profess. And Rustin's skill as principal organizer of 1963's March on Washington was clearly fueled by his ability to infuse the teachings of Gandhi and to promote the pacifism of the Quakers in his work. Anyway, probably best to wait before calling this year's commonality among lead actor nominees' characters a positive trend toward recognizing educators. Somehow, I don't see Hollywood movies jumping on the teaching bandwagon unless there's a guarantee of box office success, especially since the NY Times deemed Giamatti's performance as the "Best Acting Above the Nose" (but in a good way), and Wright as "Best Curmudgeon."

Of the five nominees, the race has pretty much come down to Paul Giamatti's curmudgeonly prep school teacher, Paul Hunham, and Cillian Murphy's turn as the title character in Oppenheimer. Jeffrey Wright's funny-smart portrayal of a novelist professor forced to deal with unwanted celebrity when his book, written as a joke about Black culture, becomes a runaway success, is sharp and bold. Wright, who won the Film Independent Award for his performance, is an underdog here due, in part, to American Fiction's late and limited theatrical release. Too bad. He should be giving Giamatti and Murphy a run for the gold.

There are also a few film critics holding out for a Bradley Cooper upset in this category, as both Cooper and co-star Carey Mulligan were early favorites as to win as lead actors. Unfortunately, Maestro has mostly fizzled and faded since its November release, despite persistent accolades from many major American film critics awards. When neither Cooper nor Mulligan snared a SAG award, it seemed pretty certain that any upsets, especially for Cooper, had disappeared.

Coleman Domingo, effective and quietly powerful as Rustin, a movie that went almost straight to streaming, doesn't seem to have a chance this year. Though you can't blame the Academy for a lack of diversity among male acting nominations, I still don't see much movement toward marketing films populated mostly by actors of color. Ditto for Jeffrey Wright and American Fiction. More work here for sure.

Until the SAG awards, I would have predicted that Paul Giamatti had a shot to upend Cillan Murphy's cruise to an Oscar, but Murphy's SAG victory, together with the BAFTA, Golden Globe (Drama) and Critics Choice wins, all but make his Oscar win a fait accompli. It's a fine performance and, arguably, the driving reason for Oppenheimer's success, though I found the role to be more of the conventional conflicted hero than anything new and refreshing. At least Giamatti doesn't try to sugar coat or replicate other famous teaching roles, notably Robin Williams' John Keating in Dead Poets Society. Instead, Giamatti takes the stereotypical unlikeable teacher and turns him into something more complex, more nuanced, more human. Overall, though, this looks like Murphy's year.

MAJ’s pick: Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer

UPSET: Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers

And, PS, just so we're clear: Leonardo DiCaprio was not snubbed for Best Actor this year. He's been nominated seven times, six in this category and won once, for The Revenant. I've always argued he should have taken the supporting trophy for What's Eating Gilbert Grape, but that's probably a topic for another blog. Suffice to say there were other, more compelling performances this year than Leo's sniveling bastard Ernest Burkhart in Killers. In fact, there were arguably better sniveling bastards this year (see Best Supporting Actor).

BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening, Nyad

Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall

Carey Mulligan, Maestro

Emma Stone, Poor Things

Last year, this category was a face-off between two-time Oscar winner and veteran newcomer (to the Oscars) Michelle Yeoh, who sailed on the crest of the Everything Everywhere All At Once wave. This year, it's the battle of the "Stone's" - Emma and Lily Glad. With both actresses Golden Globe winners (Lead Actress, Drama for Lily and Lead Actress, Comedy for Emma), and a split with the BAFTA (Stone) and SAG (Gladstone) awards, the Oscar for Best Actress is shaping up to be a nail biter.

Stats on whether the BAFTA or SAG is a better predictor of Oscar doesn't help much. Of the thirteen times that Best Actress nominees have been split with one winning the SAG and another winning the BAFTA, seven SAG winners have gone on to win the Oscar, and six BAFTA's have received Oscar gold. So a pretty much a dead heat there, too.

A lot depends on who has the widest base right now, and the most compelling case to win. If I were voting, I'd cast my vote for Emma Stone for the same reason I'd vote for Ryan Gosling in the Supporting Actor category: both roles were unique, unconventional, risky - characters we had never seen before. No stock stereotypes for either, and each actor's interpretation of the part was refreshingly original and memorable. Stone has won Best Actress before, as recently as 2017 for La La Land, and Poor Things is considered a comedy, albeit a dark one, though Olivia Colman won for another Yorgos Lanthimos' The Favorite in 2019. So how popular is Emma among her peers and the Hollywood film industry, and how compelling was her audacious turn as Bella? The NY Times called it "Best Gonzo Performance," and I happily agree.

Lily Gladstone will make Oscar history if she wins, as the first indigenous actor to win an Oscar. Last year, Michelle Yeoh's win made her the first Asian to win a lead acting Oscar. Gladstone has been highlighting her cultural roots throughout the awards season, specifically, speaking in her native Blackfeet each time she has received an award. Hollywood does like to think of itself as progressive and inclusive, and the recent #OscarsSoWhite still lingers as the Academy continues to diversity its membership.

But Molly Burkhart, Gladstone's character in Killers of the Flower Moon, is more of a "type" (long-suffering wife, the quiet, but intelligent woman who exudes inner strength) than a character, and it is Gladstone's ability to infuse humanity into the character that ultimately draws the audience in a compassionate, empathetic way. She is probably the only reason to watch Killers.

This is Gladstone's first major role and her first Oscar nomination. Her career to this point has consisted of mostly small parts in films about Native Americans. Given the still limited options for roles among people of color, it's hard to say where Gladstone's career will go after this year. The challenge for her with AMPAS voters might be sheer recognition and the fact that this is her first major film and nomination.

Of the other nominees, Sandra Hüller gave two great performances this year, the one recognized for Anatomy of a Fall, and the second as the wife of a German commandant in The Zone of Interest. Hüller is not well-known in this country, though her body of work is consistently impressive. She's been a good sport this awards season, attending most ceremonies but getting little recognition. Ditto for Carey Mulligan, one half of the very strong Bernstein couple in Maestro. Several months ago, the odds were favoring both Mulligan and on-screen husband Bradley Cooper to take the top lead acting prizes. What a difference a few weeks and a few award losses makes.

Finally, five-time nominee Annette Bening as swimmer Diane Nyad in the straight-to-streaming Netflix film of the same name seems to be here because of her long and illustrious (but with no Oscar) career. She's actually taken Margot Robbie's spot for Barbie, so unless husband and Hollywood icon Warren Beatty is paying AMPAS voters, I'm not looking for an upset. Bening was the favorite years ago for American Beauty, only to lose to Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry. There has been no buzz to speak of around Nyad except a few articles about Bening's preparation for the role, so a real longshot to win, at best.

Now, for the fourth consecutive year, this category may be too close to call.

MAJ’s pick: Emma Stone, Poor Things                

OR: Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction

Robert De Niro, Killers of the Flower Moon

Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer

Ryan Gosling, Barbie

Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

The past few years, this category has been among the most interesting and competitive. The 2024 class boasts another collection of very strong performances, including one of the most unique and iconic performances ever: Ryan Gosling as Ken, Barbie's #2. So far, the year has belonged to Robert Downey, Jr.'s much praised turn as Lewis Strauss, the intellectual villain to Cillian Murphy's titular brainy hero in Oppenheimer. And Downey is certainly a worthy recipient. This is his third nomination, the second in this category and, over the years, he has definitely shown range, depth, and ability in a variety of roles, from Chaplin to Iron Man. Plus, he's a Hollywood redemption story, as his well-publicized battle with substance abuse during the 1990s and into the early 2000s morphed into maturity as a reformed man thriving professionally and within a long-term marriage. He's gushed over wife Susan in every acceptance speech this year.

But his role as Robert Oppenheimer's nemesis Lewis Strauss is kind of a stock-in-trade villain. Yes, his performance is nuanced and shaded, and Hoyte van Hoytema's black and white cinematography further highlights his ominous presence. Nonetheless, it's a character we've seen before in countless movies - the disgruntled loser lurking in the shadows - so in terms of bringing something new and refreshing to a performance, I'd argue Downey is mostly showcasing his acting range in something other than the Marvel comics franchise.

On the other side of beach is Ryan Gosling, whose sad, sweet, almost-empowered Ken is a joy to behold. Unlike, say Will Farrell's caricature as Mattel's unnamed CEO, Gosling brings depth and dimension to a role that could have easily been a one-note joke. As the NY Times applauded his performance as "Best Theft of a Movie," I couldn't help but wonder when I've seen anything as breathtakingly beautiful, as slyly funny, and as wistful as this Ken. In my book, he's a ten for reasons I could wax rhapsodic about for days.

There will never be another performance like this one, or another character as thoroughly innovative as Gosling's Ken. This is the iconic supporting performance of the year, and if you've seen Barbie, you know I'm right. Watch it again, and notice all the little gestures, details - his neediness and lack of self-confidence - all combine with subtle maneuvers that punctuate his performance. It is one for the ages.

Even though it's been a showdown between Downey and Gosling all season, with Downey all but sweeping the major awards, the other three nominees are not too shabby. Sterling K. Brown delivers a funny and wise performance as the recently outed, casual drug using plastic surgeon estranged from his brother Monk (Jeffrey Wright) in American Fiction. As the two men tap dance around family issues, long held animosities toward each other, Brown offers what is perhaps the movie's best line when he tells Monk to let people "love all of him." In addition to his Oscar nom, Brown has already received the supporting award from the Black Film Critics Circle and the African American Film Critics Association.

Robert De Niro is, admittedly, the one actor I would have omitted from this group. He's basically playing himself (or some variation of it), in Killers of the Flower Moon. We've seen this character before, most recently in 2020's The Irishman. Who should be here in his place? Probably Charles Melton, whose critically acclaimed performance in May December dominated some of the early film critics awards.

And finally, there's Mark Ruffalo as the lecherous fop Duncan Wedderburn in Poor Things or, as the NY Times called it, "Best Sniveling Bastard." This is Ruffalo's fourth nomination in this category. His two previous roles, as the sperm donor father in The Kids are Alright (2010), and as real-life reporter Michael Rezendes in 2015's Best Picture Spotlight are as different as they were restrained compared to debauched lawyer Duncan. He matches Emma Stone's freewheeling Bella step for step (literally, if you've seen their impromptu dance), and his descent into jealousy when Bella rejects him is as wildly amusing and it is seriously depraved.

It's tough choosing between Downey and Gosling, but if I had an Oscar ballot - the truth is - I'd cast a thousand votes for Gosling based on the sheer one-of-a-kind character he created in Ken. There isn't a single wink, muscle flex or forlorn gaze that is wasted, no gesture overdone. He may bemoan the fact that he's "Number Two," but Gosling's performance goes straight to the top. He'd be my Ken anytime. No one has ever captured blonde fragility (re: male insecurity) like this.

With Ryan's rich and genuine performance, I'm going to retire my annual selection of Brad Pitt in this category. Ditto Bradley Cooper. I've found my forever favorite in a role that tugged at my heart, and made me laugh. Bravo, Ryan!

MAJ’s pick: Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in…Hollywood.

Period. No upsets. Just Brad.

Okay, I'm officially retiring memories of 2020 and Brad as my annual Oscar choice.

MAJ’s REAL pick: Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer

But secretly hoping for... Ryan Gosling, Barbie

PS Ryan is scheduled to perform the Oscar-nominated "I'm Just Ken" at the ceremony. So cool.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Emily Blunt,  Oppenheimer

Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple

America Ferrara, Barbie                                                                        

Jodie Foster, Nyad

Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Da'Vine Joy Randolph had audiences and award voters at hello when first she appeared on screen in The Holdovers. Despite some shuffling of the final five in this category, Randolph's star has never faded, as she has won virtually every award in this season. Two-time Oscar winner Jodie Foster, in the little-seen Nyad is likely here because of her name (and the fact that she hasn't made a movie in years). Foster probably nabbed the spot many thought Penelope Cruz would have secured for her role as the long-suffering, but feisty wife of Adam Driver, the title figure in Michael Mann's disappointing Ferrari.

But one disenchanted wife is probably enough for Hollywood, and that goes to Emily Blunt this year. I'm still trying to figure out how Blunt made it to the final five, as her performance as Robert Oppenheimer's wife Kitty is all but a one-dimensional prop, and Danielle Brooks in the much anticipated, but quickly faded box office musical The Color Purple, probably doesn't have enough steam to overtake Randolph.

That leaves America Ferrara, who - naysayers be damned - deserves to be here. In what may be this year's most memorable cinematic soliloquy, Ferrara beautifully captures the challenge of being a woman in ways, both little and big, that resonated with women all over the world, captivating a global audience and reminded us that Greta Gerwig's vision of a plastic doll was nothing short of miraculous. Did I mention that Gerwig's vision was overlooked in the directing category?

MAJ’s pick: Da'Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Longshot: America Ferrara, Barbie

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Anatomy of a Fall - Justine Triet and Arthur Harari

The Holdovers - David Hemingson

Maestro - Bradley Cooper and Josh Singer

May December - Samy Burch

Past Lives - Celine Song

Continuing great news: for the thirteenth consecutive year, both original and adapted screenplay categories are very solid, demonstrating yet again (my first criterion for a great movie): good writing matters. This year, the awards might go to writer/directors in each category who won't win the directing trophy but whose script is deemed most worthy as a “consolation prize,” though one wonders how many consolation prizes Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee, and now Greta Gerwig, need before taking home the Best Director trophy.

In every other awards show this season, Barbie has been included as an Original Screeplay. Only AMPAS decided that being based on a doll with no official backstory or book was the equivalent of a screenplay adapted from another medium. Go figure. It sets up a false face-off w/frontrunner Oppenheimer, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Anatomy of a Fall has been cleaning up most awards so far, and its only competition seems to be Samy Burch's first screenplay for May December, which recently won the Film Independent Spirit Award. I don't know if Burch has enough notoriety or momentum to overtake Triet and husband Arthur Harari's very intelligent and compelling script.

Celine Song's warm and wistful screenplay for Past Lives in a beautiful choice as nominee - and one of my favorites this year - but, like Burch, was written for a small movie by a first-time writer, so I don't see it emerging as the winner. Ditto for first-time nominee David Hemingson, though The Holdovers is probably the most popular of the three movies.

Finally, Josh Singer and Bradley Cooper's creative and probing screenplay for Maestro hasn't really gained much buzz or acknowledgement since the movie's release, and both have been nominated here before for Cooper's directorial debut film, A Star is Born.

MAJ’s pick: Anatomy of a Fall, Justine Triet and Arthur Harari

LONGSHOT: May December, Samy Burch

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

American Fiction - Cord Jefferson

Barbie - Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach

Oppenheimer - Christopher Nolan

Poor Things - Tony McNamara

The Zone of Interest - Jonathan Glazer

The last three years, the Adapted Screenplay was a mirror of Best Picture, but I'm not sure a repeat this year is a lock since the Academy deemed that Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach's totally original screenplay for Barbie belonged in the "adapted" category because....(drum roll), Barbie was a doll. Huh? Now there's a revelation.

Usually "adapted" screenplay means adapted from another medium, like theater, music, or literature, you know, written materials. Barbie has been nominated in the Original Screenplay at every other award this season, except the Oscars. Do we smell a rat here? Though both screenplay categories boast strong nominees, the sheer uniqueness of the Barbie story seems diminished (or at least, the nomination appears to do so) by a nom as a adapted work.

Of course, moving Barbie to "adapted" puts it head-to-head with Oppenheimer, the early favorite and still the anticipated winner among some film prognosticators, until Barbie showed up. I would also add that the screenplays for American Fiction and Poor Things are exceptional: funny, smart and clever, much more than the sometimes mundane science-speak in Oppenheimer. Since the Writers Guild Awards will not be announced until after the Oscars (due to last year's WGA strike), we don't have much to go on except wins at places like BAFTA or the Critics Choice Awards.

Cord Jefferson has won multiple awards for his wickedly funny adaptation of Percival Everett's 2001 novel, Erasure, including the Critics Choice, BAFTA, and Film Independent Spirit Awards, going head-to-head with Oppenheimer in each.

But Barbie's inclusion here, coupled with Gerwig's snub as Best Director (have I mentioned yet - and often enough - that Gerwig did not receive a directing nom?), might just spell a different outcome. Here's hoping. America Ferrara's monologue alone is now part of cinema history, and Gerwig (and co-writer/husband) Noah Baumbach have crafted a script that is as poignant and meaningful as it is witty.

MAJ’s pick: Barbie - Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach

WORTHY CONTENDER: American Fiction - Cord Jefferson

LONGSHOT: None, and one that Oppenheimer should not win.              

ORIGINAL SONG

“The Fire Inside” - Diane Warren, Flamin' Hot

“I'm Just Ken” - Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt, Barbie 

“It Never Went Away” - Jon Baptiste, American Symphony

“Wahzhazhe (A Song for My People)” - Scott George, Kenny Bighorse, Van Bighorse, Killers of the Flower Moon

“What Was I Made For?” - Billie Eilish and Finneas O'Connell, Barbie

Would somebody just give Diane Warren a lifetime achievement Oscar or something? She's up for the fifteenth (!) time this year (with NO previous wins) for a totally forgettable little ditty called "The Fire Inside" from the movie Flamin' Hot and based on.... you guessed it, the Cheetos snack. Directed by the actor Eva Longoria, Flamin' went straight to hell or, in this case, streaming on Hulu. So it doesn't really have much of a chance, unless Oscar voters decide Warren should get a trophy.

To revise my annual rant (and not to put too fine a point on it yet again): This category’s been fucking inconsistent for years and continues to be! Is it getting better? Maybe. Except for 2019’s “Shallow” and 2022's "No Time To Die," not many recent winners have a meaningful connection to the film’s theme, characters or story, though last year's winner, "Naatu Naatu," from RRR probably best fit, even if the song is totally forgettable, the original creation of this category as it was evocative of RRR''s theme and message.

For almost thirty years, though, what should be an award for a song that best fits the mood and theme of a movie, Best Original Song has become synonymous with which nominated song was 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 again provide the opportunity for Oscar to award what the category was meant to be, and also meet that unspoken standard of creating a memorable song and maybe even a bonafide hit. Too bad Christopher Nolan couldn't have convinced Elton John or Bono to write an apocalyptic power ballad for Oppenheimer, something like "Circle of Doom" or "Where the Bomb Leaves No Names."

Of course, true to form, another silly rule - no more than three nominated songs from a single film - ' meant that Dua Lupa's superb disco pop mantra, "Dance the Night Away," didn't make the cut. Lupa's frothy backbeat underscores what Barbie calls her "best night," and is easily a better musical composition than "The Fire Inside." But rules are rules.

Jon Batiste, a fine composer/musician in his own right and subject of the highly praised, but not nominated document, American Symphony, has a solid song in "It Never Went Away," which unfortunately, was never really heard, so it probably doesn't stand a chance against the two juggernauts from Barbie. "Wahzhazhe" does not have the popularity that "Naatu Naatu" had, so - as lovely a cultural tribute as it is - I don't see it as anything but an extreme and unlikely longshot.

That leaves Billie Eilish's evocative "What Was I Made For?" and Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt's prog-rock anthem, "I'm Just Ken." Very different musical genres but equally catchy and appropriately placed in Barbie. Thus far, Eilish (with writing partner and brother Finneas O'Connell), have pretty much cleaned up in this category, except for an "I'm Just Ken" upset at the Critics Choice awards, which sparked a series of shocked memes featuring Ryan Gosling.

But it is, arguably, Eilish's uncanny grasp of Gewig's story that is most compelling melody this year. Eilish continues to show remarkable maturity for her young years - not pandering here - one look at the lyrics reveal a profound melancholy that not only fits perfectly with Barbie's journey, but resonates with any woman's (or man's) raison d'etre. I get choked up every time I hear it, it's hauntingly beautiful and filled with a kind of reluctant hope.

Both Eilish and Ronson have won this award before: Eilish and Finneas for "No Time to Die" two years ago from the James Bond installment of the same name, and Ronson w/Lady Gaga, Anthony Rossomando and Andrew Wyatt in 2018 for the haunting love ballad, "Shallow" from A Star is Born.

Ronson (side note - he's actress Meryl Streep's son-in-law, married to her daughter Grace Gummer), has really emerged as a strong presence in Hollywood films, and "I'm Just Ken" is nothing short of a great song. Punctuated by multiple key changes and musical styles (I'm geeking out now), then underscored by Andrew Wyatt's soulful, plaintive lyrics, the melody and accompanying dance production perfectly capture Ken's struggle with the patriarchy, especially as it is minimized in Barbie Land. It's been parodied (guilty as sung), memed and discussed for months, but its presence here shows the strength of its message (I can't count how many young men have told me they love the song), and the power of Gosling's vocal performance. Another example of Barbie's resonance across generations and gender. But then Gerwig didn't get a nomination as Best Director. Sigh.

Back to the nominees. Despite the odds someday swinging in her her favor, I’m not optimistic about Warren winning, mostly because no one (well, almost) has seen Flamin' Hot, at least not in the theater, and “The Fire Inside” is not exactly burning up the Billboard charts the way some of her previously nominated songs have done. Without a popular movie or a stand-alone hit, not to mention that Warren is not exactly a household name like some of her fellow nominees, I’m doubtful that #15 will be a charm.

Unless there's an upset in the making - or a last-minute surge for Diane Warren, I'm predicting a second Oscar for Billie and Finneas. It's already won the Grammy fo "Song of the Year," and on its way to becoming a genuine classic.

MAJ’s pick: "What Was I Made For?,” Billie Eilish and Finneas O'Connell, Barbie              

UPSET and Contender: “I'm Just Ken,” Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt, Barbie

LONGSHOT: Any of the other nominees.

REMINDER: We can still start a “Go Fund Me” page for Diane Warren to raise enough money to buy her an Oscar. Maybe not. Some type of life achievement may be coming.

ORIGINAL SCORE

American Fiction - Laura Karpman

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - John Williams

Killers of the Flower Moon - Robbie Robertson

Oppenheimer - Ludwig Goransson

Poor Things - Jerskin Fendrix

In a curious group of nominees, Oscar mainstay and 54-time nominee John Williams (with forty-eight nominations in this category and five wins), a frequent collaborator of Steven Spielberg, is back with another nomination for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. The prolific composer created a fairly pedestrian score for the thoroughly uninspiring "last" (for now) installment of aging archeologist/adventurer Indy. Similar to last year when he was nominated for The Fablemans, Williams is not favored to win in a category that's still pretty tough to call right now.

Early - and sentimental - favorite Robbie Robertson, a long-time Scorsese friend and collaborator who died last August, seemed poised to take home the Oscar for his haunting score in the otherwise tedious Killers of the Flower Moon. But Oppenheimer's sustained momentum has allowed Ludwig Goransson's ponderous and (for me) sometimes off-putting character-driven tones: he used dissonance to underscore Oppenheimer's emotional and intellectual struggle and harps to signal rival Lewis Strauss, reportedly at director Nolan's insistence.

All that might seem extremely creative and meticulous to some, but I found the overall result a distraction to the movie. By contrast, first-time nominee Jerskin Fendrix captures just the right about of eclectic eccentricity to enhance Bella's journey of self-discovery in Poor Things. He'd get my vote, but I suspect Goransson will benefit from an Oppenheimer sweep.

Whatever. As Oppenheimer momentum builds, expect Goransson's score to take the top prize.

MAJ’s pick: Ludwig Goransson, Oppenheimer                        

Last Chance : Robbie Robertson, Killers of the Flower Moon

Upset: Jerskin Fendrix, Poor Things

And now for the less sexy Oscars: no one will care who wins or whether they bring a famous date. Hell, no one will probably care since most names are not familiar. Too bad. It’s always fun to see those who actually “make/create” what we see on film. But that’s not considered an integral part of Oscar night. Sigh.

Here are the “other” Oscar predictions…..

CINEMATOGRAPHY

El Conde - Edward Lachman

Killers of the Flower Moon - Rodrigo Prieto

Maestro - Matthiew Libatique

Oppenheimer - Hoyte van Hoytema

Poor Things - Robbie Ryan

Cinematography is often - and more recently - tied to Best Picture, and this year Oppenheimer is the likely winner, though Matthiew Libatique's work in Maestro stunningly underscores director Cooper's profound respect for Leonard Bernstein's musical genius. I also liked Robbie Ryan's integration of black and white with color and texture as a kind of counterpoint to Bella's coming of age as a re-animated woman with a child's brain in Poor Things.

If you're scanning the list and wondering what the hell is El Conde, it's a Chilean entry from director Pablo Larraín that's been described as "Nosferatu meets 'Succession,'" so think Dracula does black comedy. I haven't yet seen El Conde, but understand that Edward Lachman's use of black-and-white expressionism to create depth and suspense is breathtaking. Lachman's been nominated before for two Todd Haynes' films, Carol and Far From Heaven, but El Conde's lack of prominence with AMPAS voters pretty much makes Lachman a longshot.

That leaves Killers and Oppenheimer to duke it out, and I suspect that Hoyte van Hoytema's culminating IMAX collaboration with director Nolan will prevail. Critics have lauded his ability to create intimacy juxtaposed against a global catastrophe through Cillian Murphy's nuanced performance. If you've seen Oppenheimer, you may have also noticed that Murphy's narrative is filmed in color, where nemesis Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey, Jr.) is filmed in black and white. Not all that subtle, but apparently impressive enough to make Hoytema the favorite over Rodrigo Prieto's similar experimentation of visual effects to enhance the story of the Osage murders in bleak 1920s Oklahoma. It's still tedious.

MAJ’s pick: Hoyte van Hoytema, Oppenheimer

If not, then… Roberto Prieto, Killers of the Flower Moon

If I had a vote.... Matthiew Libatique, Maestro

FILM EDITING

Anatomy of a Fall - Laurent Sénéchal

The Holdovers - Kevin Tent

Killers of the Flower Moon - Thelma Schoonmaker

Oppenheimer - Jennifer Lame

Poor Things - Yorgos Mavropsandis

Even more than cinematography, film editing used to mirror closely the Best Picture award, but there wasn't a match between Editing and Picture from 2012 until last year's match with the Everything Everywhere All At Once sweep.

If Oppenheimer continues to push forward toward the top prize, it may pull Jennifer Lame along for the ride and become the second Editing/Picture match in more than a decade. Talk about returning to a traditional connection in how movies are made and recognized. Of course, don't count out Thelma Schoomaker, Martin Scorsese's mainstay editor/ collaborator and now the most honored film editor by her peers, or Kevin Kent, whose delicate balance between the mischievous and the melancholy gave The Holdovers an extra layer of depth and emotion.

Of course, potentially lost on American AMPAS voters is the tightly built suspension in Anatomy of a Fall. Justine Triet's fine script and directorial efforts might otherwise have fallen flat without Laurent Sénéchal's careful, calculated rhythm which allowed themes of love, jealousy, fear, ambition, and regret to unfold in both real time and within our imagination.

MAJ’s pick: Jennifer Lame, Oppenheimer

Upset: Thelma Schoonmaker, Killers of the Flower Moon  

Longshot: Laurent Sénéchal, Anatomy of a Fall   

PRODUCTION DESIGN

Barbie - Production Design: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer

Killers of the Flower Moon - Production Design: Jack Fisk; Set Decoration: Adam Willis

Napoleon - Production Design: Arthur Max; Set Decoration: Elli Griff

Oppenheimer - Production Design: Ruth De Jong; Set Decoration: Claire Kaufman

Poor Things - Production Design: James Price and Shona Heath; Set Decoration: Zsuzsa Mihalek

Though I loved the exquisite fantasy design in Barbie, especially the meticulous re-creation of Barbie Land and the inventive use of 2-D animation traveling back and forth between Barbie Land and the Real World, I suspect that the comic surrealism of Poor Things may prevail this year, mostly because the latter received the Art Directors Guild (ADG) award this year.

The Academy loves seeing a good European (re: British) period piece or an epic futuristic world, and Poor Things has both. Still, the fabulously creative and authentic fantasy of Barbie Land can't - and shouldn't - be ignored. Think about how easy it would have been to turn Barbie Land into a cheesy faux universe. Instead, it's a savvy, thriving feminist paradise. Talk amongst yourselves.

MAJ’s pick: Poor Things

But don't be surprised if it's... Barbie

COSTUME

Barbie - Jacqueline Durran

Killers of the Flower Moon - Jacqueline West

Napoleon - Janty Yates and Dave Crossman

Oppenheimer - Ellen Mirojnick

Poor Things - Holly Waddington

Designer icon Edith Head, distinguished as the woman who has won the most Oscars to date, once said it was easier to design a period piece than a contemporary film because audiences were more likely to spot flaws in clothing they knew (unless, of course, you're a Civil War historian, in which case you count buttons and check the shoes).

That said, this award usually goes to a period piece, which used to mean pre-20th century or pre-moving pictures, so depending on your definition of “period” – or when you were born - either all or two of the films fill that bill this year. If the Academy takes this category quite literally and traditionally, then Napoleon or Poor Things would take home the gold.

Right now, Poor Things has momentum after winning the BAFTA award in this category. Both Poor Things and Barbie were recognized by the Costume Designers Guild (CDG) recently for "period" and "sci-fi-fantasy," respectively. So, even though this is one of those technical categories that many don't pay much attention to, it's a race this year between these two.

With few nominations and little acknowledgement this awards season, I'd take Napoleon off the battlefield (pun intended). Killers hasn't demonstrated any buzz in this category. Of course, if Oppenheimer really dominates the awards, it could eek out a win here. But I'm seeing this one coming down to the dress: the quirky silhouette of Bella as she is transformed from curious child to liberated woman, or the emancipation of Barbie as she moves from fantasy to reality, taking both the character and the audience on an emotional and historic journey of feminism transformed.

Designer Jacqueline Durran was tasked with taking all the familiar, classic Barbie doll costumes and creating something fresh, clothes that were both a fantasy, a period statement from the late 1950s and early 1960s (a nod to another icon, Brigette Bardot), and a more contemporary metaphor for becoming a woman. It's a tricky task that, in other hands, might have turned into kitschy schtick, but here Durran has designed costumes that honor the past, represent the present, and provide the perfect compliment to Barbie's journey from plastic to human. It's an astonishing accomplishment that is certainly comparable to Holly Waddington's offbeat blend of nineteenth century styles with 21st century rubber and latex to embrace Bella's unconventional story.

I'm going to go out on a limb a bit here and predict that American AMPAS voters will push Barbie forward as the winner. If not, then.... Bella. But you heard it here first.

MAJ’s pick: Jacqueline Durran, Barbie

OR: Holly Waddington, Poor Things

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

Golda - Karen Hartley-Thomas, Suzi Battersby, Ashra Kelly-Blue

Maestro - Kazu Hiro, Kay Georgiou, Lori McCoy-Bell

Oppenheimer - Luisa Abel

Poor Things - Nadia Stacey, Mark Coulier, Josh Weston

Society of the Snow - Ana Lopez-Puigcerver, David Marti, Montse Ribe

Holy cow! For several years, this category could not even come up with five nominees, and then – for the sixth year running – it’s filled. This year - again - the big question again is whether prosthetics or just plain old cosmetics will prevail.

Much of the hoopla around "make-up" this year, specifically, the use of prosthetics, surfaced shortly before Maestro was released. Claims of anti-Semitism around the enhancement of lead actor Bradley Cooper's probiscis went viral in late summer, potentially distracting audiences from the really fine film Maestro - and Cooper's performance - are. Bernstein's children came to the movie's defense, and Cooper's decision to use a prosthesis, but some of the damage may have already been done. An early Oscar favorite, even after Oppenheimer's release, Maestro seemed to fade from the box office, then got lost in the awards season shuffle. Even with seven nominations, the movie doesn't seem to be a frontrunner in any category except maybe this one.

Unless Oppenheimer wins every one of its thirteen nominations (possible, but unlikely), look to see Kazu Hiro & Company take this award for their remarkable ability to turn Cooper into Bernstein without the kind of silly putty result often associated with helping actors look like real-life people. Remember Tom Hanks's appearance as Colonel Tom Parker in last year's Elvis? It almost ruined an otherwise fine film. Ditto Helen Mirren this year in the also-nominated Golda.

There are moments in Maestro when you'd swear it was Bernstein himself conducting: so precise is the make-up and so evocative is Cooper's performance. Except for Poor Things, there isn't much strong competition from the other nominees. Of course, Barbie wasn't nominated. Just sayin'.

MAJ’s pick: Maestro                    

UPSET: Poor Things

Longshot: Oppenheimer                                                                                 

SOUND

The Creator - Ian Voigt, Erik Aadahl, Ethan Van der Ryn, Tom Ozanich and Dean Zupancic

Maestro - Steven A. Morrow, RIchard King, Jason Ruder, Tom Ozanich and Dean Zupancic

Mission Impossible: Dean Reckoning, Part One - Chris Munro, James H. Mather, Chris Burdon and Mark Taylor

Oppenheimer - Willie Burton, Richard King, Gary A. Rizzo and Kevin O'Connell

The Zone of Interest - Tarn Willers and Johnnie Burn

Since the Academy collapsed sound editing and sound mixing into one category, my annual explanations about the difference between sound “editing” and sound “mixing” are no longer needed. I’m left with a “use your ears” approach to this category. In short, you can really tell when sound is making a difference if you use your aural skills wisely. One suggestion: close your eyes and listen – best sound nominees utilize various techniques – from music to special effects to even silence – to capture and add an effective dimension to film. 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, and we have both here, though Maestro is an unlikely winner. I'm betting on either Oppenheimer or The Zone of Interest to take the prize. It really comes down to whether AMPAS voters were more impressed by the cosmic soundscape employed in Oppenheimer or the horror movie pastiche used to evoke the banality of evil in Zone. In both films, sound and silence create uncomfortable, foreboding effects that make the sensory movie experience richer, but also uneasy.

MAJ’s pick: Oppenheimer       

CONTENDER: The Zone of Interest

LONGSHOT: The Creator

VISUAL EFFECTS

The Creator - Jay Cooper, Ian Comley, Andrew Roberts and Neil Corbould

Godzilla Minus One - Takashi Yamazaki, Fiyoko Shibuya, Masaki and Tatsuji Nojima

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3 - Stephane Ceretti, Alexis Wajsbrot, Guy Williams and Theo Bialek

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part One - Alex Wuttke, Simone Coco, Jeff SUtherland and Neil Corbould

Napoleon - Charley Henley, Luc-Ewen Martin-Fenouilllet, Simone Coco and Neil Corbould

Many people equate this award with a summer blockbuster and, if that theory holds, then Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Part One would be the expected winner. But recent recipients have been fall or holiday releases, with several also receiving Best Picture nods (think Life of Pi, Hugo, or Gravity). This year, a genuine sleeper, Godzilla Minus One, the little movie that could from Director: FVX supervisor Takashi Yamazaki has captured the interest and admirations of critics and audiences alike.

Given the mostly meh group of nominees, I'm rooting for the little guy with the big title.

MAJ’s pick: Godzilla Minus One

LONGSHOT:              The Creator          

INTERNATIONAL FEATURE FILM

Io Capitano (Italy)

Perfect Days, (Japan)

Society of the Snow (Spain)

The Teachers Lounge (Germany)

The Zone of Interest (United Kingdom)

I haven’t seen all of the nominated films via streaming, so I’m speculating again a bit based on reviews….I'm guessing that, since it is unlikely to win Best Picture, The Zone of Interest will take home the International prize. It has too many other nominations to be ignored, and this acknowledgement would be a consolation to not winning the Best Picture. Zone does not have the widespread appeal of 2019's Parasite to take both Best International Film and Best Picture.

Zone has not been without controversy, as the story focuses on the family of a German commandant living outside the wall at Auschwitz, enjoying a carefree life, confiscating everything from clothes to gold teeth that are taken and discarded from the concentration camp prisoners. It is a chilling study of willful ignorance in the face of inhumanity that never waivers in its depiction of cold-hearted greed and selfishness.

Competition is solid, especially from Spain, though Society in the Snow seems to have run out of steam throughout the awards season. The other nominees are all highly regarded among film critics and within their origin countries, but Zone clearly has the notoriety, momentum and awards season wins to make it almost impossible to beat.

As I've written previously, the biggest issue selecting foreign films is the process, as the nominees are not voted on by the Academy. Individual countries (up to 90) are asked to submit what they think is the best film from their respective country. You can see the predictable consequences – in an effort to be more inclusive and diverse in the “international” nominees, we may not necessary be seeing the “best.”

This year, Anatomy of a Fall was initially on the short list from France, that is until director Justine Triet criticized French President Macron during her Cannes acceptance speech for the prestigious Palme D'Or. Whether the film's eventual omission as France's submission was a direct result of her comments is unclear, but - had it been among the five nominees - this category's odds would be very different, and Zone would have had some serious competition.

All that said...

MAJ’s pick: The Zone of Interest                            

Longshot: Society of the Snow                                    

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Bobi WIne: The People's President - Moses Bwago, Christopher Sharp and John Battsek

The Eternal Memory - Nominees have yet to be determined

Four Daughters - Kaouther Ben Hania and Nadim Cheihrouha

To Kill a Tiger - Nisha Pahuja, Cornlia Principe and David Oppenheim

20 Days in Mariupol - Mstyslav Chernov, Michelle Mizner and Raney Aronson-Rath

With its usual collection of important social and political subjects – war, finance, world hunger – Best Documentary feature has some interesting nominees again this year. Three years ago, the late release – and crowd-pleaser - My Octopus Teacher won the Producers Guild Award and the BAFTA in this category and went on to win the Oscar.

I totally missed last year's winner, The Elephant Whisperers, but I'm betting some now wish that Navalny would have won, especially given recent events in Russia. Let's see if I can redeem myself this year with a more accurate pick. Honestly, the two anticipated movies in this category, American Symphony and Still: The Michael J Fox Movie, did not make the final five. Guess I'll go with the recent BAFTA winner, 2o Days in Mariupol, since it speaks to Hollywood's affinity for picking something that seems politically relevant and it likely has a large British backing with the BAFTA win.

American Symphony won the Producers Guild Award and isn't even nominated here. If I had to pick an alternative winner to 20 Days, I'd go with Four Daughters OR The Eternal Memory, as both have been honored in other venues.

Lots of gravitas here, but only one award.

MAJ’s pick: 20 Days in Mariupol

Upset: Four Daughters or The Eternal Memory (currently the odds-on favorite)

ANIMATED FEATURE

The Boy and the Heron

Elemental

Nimona

Robot Dreams

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

I’m reminding myself of a bold statement in my 2023 Oscar picks: “If you’re betting on a sure thing and don’t need a big return, Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio in the Animated Feature category may be the only lock this year.” Was I right, or what?

This year, The Boy and the Heron has dominated awards season in this category, so I'm thinking this is as close to a lock as we might see (other than an Oppenheimer sweep). Keep in mind that Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse won this year's Producers Guild Award, which is an important, if sole, victory over The Boy and the Heron.

MAJ’s pick: The Boy and the Heron

Upset: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse                                                                                                                                     

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, and more nominees are available via streaming than in the past.

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

The ABC's of Book Banning - Sheila Nevins and Trish Adlesic

The Barber of Little Rock - John Hoffman and Christine Turner

Island in Between - S. Leo Chiang and Jean Tsien

The Last Repair Shop - Ben Proudfoot and Kris Bowers

Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó - Sean Wang and Sam Davis

Two movies have risen to the top for very similar reasons: The Last Repair Shop and Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó both tug at the heartstrings. Conversely, The ABC's of Book Banning and Island in Between are more politically inclined. Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó has gotten a lot of buzz on social media for its video of the movie's director Sean Wang watching the Oscar nominations being announced with his two grandmothers who serve as the title subjects of his movie, which is as rich in nostalgia as it is probing the how the quirks of family members can form an inextricable core of love and loyalty.

The strongest competition comes from The Last Repair Shop, about a warehouse in downtown Los Angeles where a handful of local craftspeople work to repair musical instruments for students who could otherwise not afford to have them. Winner of several awards, including the Critics Choice in this category, The Last Repair Shop is not a runaway winner, but the current favorite.

MAJ’s Pick: The Last Repair Shop

Upset: Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó                                

ANIMATED SHORT

Letter to a Pig

Ninety-Five Senses

Our Uniform

Pachyderme

War is Over! Inspired by the Music of John &Yoko

Not a weak link in the lot of animated shorts again this year, and not a light-hearted subject among them. Dark-themed projects all, with a few favorites emerging. War is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko is definitely made for a Baby Boomer audience, as it cleverly weaves a storyline involves WWI with the music made more than a half-century later. Imaginative and compelling, War brings new meaning and an alternate universe to John and Yoko's beloved peace anthem.

War's closest competitor, Letter to a Pig, weaves similar themes of generational trauma as they intersect with war (in this case, WWII), and a schoolgirl's immersion into the story of a Holocaust survivor. It's hard to determine which of the five nominees, each with its own powerful theme relevant to today's polarized political environment, will emerge with Oscar gold, but War and Pig appear to be frontrunners.

One trend that continues to evolve in this category is more adult-themed animated shorts.

Repeat after me again (all together now): Animation. Not just for kids anymore.

MAJ’s Pick: War is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko

Contender: Letter to a Pig                                         

LIVE ACTION SHORT

The After

Invincible

Knight of Fortune

Red, White and Blue

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

The big news in this category is the inclusion of a film by feature director Wes Anderson, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar. Anderson's labor of love, the first of a multi-film project to bring the stories of Roald Dahl to life as short movies. We don't typically see the likes of Anderson here, or others as serious or committed to elevating live-action shorts.

The other nominees aren't undeserving, it's just that Anderson's foray into this genre is huge for movies and likely the impetus needed to win. The only possible upset might be The After, specifically, because its tone is more maudlin and therefore in sync with the type of films that often wins in this category.

So I’m going to go with the frontrunner…or something lighter. 

MAJ’s Pick: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

Upset: The After

Last year’s predictions were mostly on target and, overall, and gave me a small boost with my Oscar predictions, so my accuracy is stable. I’m still here with 95%+ on the line, so we’ll see what new trends emerge, what surprises ensue, and who takes home the gold this year.

And the Oscar goes to….

EPILOGUE

The past year has been a kind of roller coaster for me, in terms of both personal and professional changes. At times, I felt like Michelle Yeoh in Everything Everywhere All At Once but without the eyeball attached to my forehead. Last March, I was furiously completing my predictions and using them as a distraction while I waited for the results of a biopsy that turned out to be early stage breast cancer.

Today I am healing and hopeful, grateful for the exceptional care I received at the Cleveland Clinic, thankful for the support of friends, family, and my heart/partner-in-crime Paul, and optimistic about the future of most things, including cinema, which has always been a kind of sanctuary for me. No matter what was going on in my life: love, heartache, divorce, death, new job, lost job - whatever, movies were the place I could escape and reinvigorate. At home or (preferably) in a theater, I've always relied on the constant replenishing of energy only movies can bring. Life would be empty without them.

Last year's line from Del Toro's Pinocchio, "What happens happens. And then we're gone," kept coming back to me, each time taking on a new perspective about mortality, about time - not only how we spend it but with whom and why - and on where we find and identify our joy.

After the 2023 Oscars, I kept postponing a trip to the movie theater, partly because my outpatient surgery and follow-up treatment took place during what I typically call Hollywood's dry season: right after the Oscars and before the summer blockbusters. I finally ventured out in late June, post-radiation, to see one of my favorite directors' newest project, Wes Anderson's Asteroid City but, despite Anderson's signature clipped dialogue and quirky characters, was left a bit disappointed. Apparently Hollywood agreed, as the movie received no Oscar noms. Anderson's highly anticipated first installment of The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, on the other hand, is on the watch list for Live-Action Short.

The next trip to the theater, a cautious viewing of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, was similarly discouraging, and I began to wonder if maybe I'd lost my movie mojo. Had cancer killed something more than a few malignant cells?

Then along came Past Lives, Celine Song's inaugural film, and I didn't want to leave the theater, so absorbed had I become by this quiet little movie that probed so many emotions about life. Song's main characters, two Koreans who met as children and whose lives continue to intersect, despite her relocation to the United States, crept in and touched my heart and made me think about relationships: who we meet, who we love, how deep are those connections that we make with certain individuals for often a short, but meaningful time.

Introspection again, as I revisited some of the times and people in my life that matter(ed) most. This was a joyful trip, especially learning how many good feelings were reciprocated, then and now. Do we each have inyeon (past lives), people/spirits we re-connect with over and over through time, deepening the bond, the connection to each other?

And then there was Barbie, boldly announcing herself to the strains of Stanley Kubrick's majestic 2001: A Space Odyssey, and taking so many of us on a journey of self-reflection and renewal. I'm zeroing in on double digit viewings of Greta Gerwig's masterpiece as I write this, each time seeing something new, something fresh, something that makes me pause and reconsider things, whether it's the homage to movie musicals like Grease, or the gentle image of Barbie and Ruth Handler's hands touching briefly and then letting go.

There's good stuff here and, for me, a reminder that movies matter, and that the transformative power of film still lives deep within my soul. You see, I floated and fell down, got up and turned round. And everything looked the same, yet different from before. I saw what I'm made for.

I'm an academic who loves movies and popular culture.... so as an academic I need to demonstrate appropriate veritas for my discipline (American History), yet - at the same - be accessible to those who might find my prose too lofty. I need to be witty but not too sarcastic, knowledgeable, but not so much as to appear arrogant.

My blog reviews need to be helpful and informative, but not so long that no one will read them. I can't only review movies that have "artistic" value because I might alienate a potentially larger social media audience, but I also need to show that I have the ability to discern between those movies of value and those that are akin to stale popcorn (sorry, that might have been a bit snarky).

As a cisgender woman of a certain age, I am encouraged to bring experience and even wisdom to my blog, but I am also expected to remain open to new movies, actors, themes and styles. Even if I am a champion of Barbie for its innovative and creative interpretation of how a doll became a cultural icon and subsequently representative of women's issues everywhere, I must be careful not to diss Martin Scorsese too harshly for his mostly white male-centric retelling of the 1920s murders in Osage county so as not to be accused of ageism or male bashing. I've been advised to have a friendly, happy photo on my website, one that conveys confidence but not superiority. I am responsible for marketing my blog, but not so aggressively that people find me pushy.

A year from now, I'm betting that few people, except for maybe film profs and cinema geeks, will remember Oppenheimer except for its length and maybe a nod to its subject. Not that Oppey isn't a fine movie. It is. But it lacks a certain something that Sex and the City's Carrie Bradshaw used to call the "zsa zsa zsu," a kind of celluloid heartworm that creeps into your soul and psyche and stays there, becoming a sense memory sanctuary you can go to when your spirit craves renewal. That's what Barbie was for me this year, a gentle, but powerful reminder of why we're here, what we were made for, and how we use the time we are given.

Because, you know, as Woody Allen, so aptly put it, "There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman?" Many of this year's movies took on various aspects of death - metaphorical and real - giving new depth and potentially more meaning to what we see on the screen. Barbie may have raised the essential existential question we all face in the most personal way, but she also opened the door for lots more discussion on how we deal with that most private query. How do we navigate what happens before we're gone?.

As for me, for now, it's time to cue the music....

Baby, you can find me under the lights

Diamonds under my eyes

Turn the rhythm up, don't you wanna just

Come along for the ride?**

See you at the movies.

*******

END CREDITS

Special thanks to Todd, Steven, Mirlanda, and Phil for their time and assistance with the recording of "I'm Just Me."

*Additional lyrics, "I'm Just Ken/I'm Just Me," MaryAnn Janosik copyright 2023. Karaoke from Radar Weekly Instrumentals.

** Dua Lupa, "Dance the Night Away" (from the Barbie soundtrack).