2020 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Animation

Hair Love: B+
Daughter: B
Sister: B
Mémorable: B
Kitbull: B+ [“Highly Commended"]
Henrietta Bulkowski: B
The Bird & the Whale: B+
Hors Piste: B
Maestro: B For some reason in the past I tended to expect to enjoy the animated batch the best out of all the Oscar-nominated short films, and yet, in recent years it's the genre that tends to have the weakest batch overall. This year is no exception, although several of them feature impressively unique animation styles I have never seen before. On top of that, this year they are uniformly melancholy in one way or another. Among the five animated shorts in this program that actually earned nominations, without exception they deal with either death, disease, or some kind of violence. Amazingly, not even the one short by Pixar Animation Studios artists (in this case still 2D animation) stands apart from this theme. It even extends to two of the four "Highly Commended" shorts that are included, just to pad out the overall run time and make it feel worth going to a theater to see them. The other two of those extras are the only ones of the total nine shorts here that evidently have no purpose beyond just being fun, and those are . . . fine. The first in this presentation is the 7-minute American short Hair Love, which is maybe the most light-hearted of all the five nominees, even though it features a woman (voiced by Issa Rae) who is a mother with cancer. It's because this woman is in the hospital that the story we see is of a man attempting to do his daughter's hair for the first time. Given that this is a black family, these are characters not often seen in animated shorts, and that alone makes it more worthy of attention. Overall I enjoyed this short film, even though the animation itself is not much better than adequate. The story is memorable and affecting, however, and once you see the other shorts it's up against, you see that this one is the most worthy of the award. Things just get sadder from there, although I must admit I found Daughter, a 15-minute short from the Czech Republic, the most difficult to follow. In this story, a grown woman is regarding her father apparently on his deathbed, and we get flashback memories from both of them. This film has by far the most impressive animation out of any of the nominees, with stop-motion animation captured with camera work that feels like live hand-held camera footage. I was truly impressed by how this short film was shot—I just couldn't quite glean a clear picture of the story, or any kind of plot. I spent most of its run time basically lost. Sister, an 8-minute short from China, presents a "what if" where the narrator imagines what it would have been like to grow up with a sister in a country that had a one-child policy for over thirty years. This is also stop motion but with what look like dolls made of fabric, and the issue it tackles is thorny at best: forcing women to have abortions is objectively a violation of human rights, but from the perspective of Chinese national pride, without the policy the country would not only not be nearly as prosperous as it is now, it likely would not be prospering at all. That's not an excuse by any means, and it's always good to consider the ramifications of a policy like this, and particularly the many misguided means of executing it. Mémorable is yet another short film about the frustrating effects of dementia in a person's old age, a 12-minute French film featuring a man losing his memory and his wife who is increasingly frustrated with him. The man is a painter, and thus the animation style here is a sort of stop-motion with 3D figures made out of brushstrokes of paint. It's hard to explain, but the animation here is sort of too good, paintings brought to life in a way that has a sort of "uncanny valley" effect that just gave me the creeps. The five Oscar nominees are rounded out by the 9-minute Pixar film about an unlikely friendship between a streetworn kitten and a pitbull, who we learn maybe halfway through is being used as a dogfighter. This film did indeed have the deepest emotional impact on me, as Pixar films often tend to do, but again, the animation here is almost shockingly rudimentary given the studio behind it. And who wants to be thinking about animal abuse when watching a Pixar short, anyway? Starting off the four extra "Highly Commended" shorts is Henrietta Bulkowski, a 16-minute American short that also has its own very distinctive kind of 3D stop-motion animation style. The title character is an airplane obsessed young woman voiced by Christina Hendricks, who cannot be the pilot she wants to be because of a hunchback. She builds a plane in a landfill, where she meets a police officer with stunted legs voiced by Chris Cooper. Rounding out the all-star cast is Anne Dowd as the narrator. The story has a nice message about loving every part of yourself as a whole human being, but its execution is still a little odd and meandering. The Bird & the Whale, a 7-minute short from Ireland, is animated entirely with oil paint on glass, and has arguably the prettiest animation of all these films. Once again though, the story is surprisingly sad: the chance meeting of a baby whale that has been separated from its pod, and a caged bird that is the sole survivor of a shipwreck. Together they struggle to survive, and I suppose it could be said they only both manage to do so on a technicality. The way this one ends is meant to be uplifting, I suppose, and yet I still just found it to be a bummer. Hors Piste, French for "Off Road," is a 6-minute short and one of only two in this entire program that exists just for the viewer to have fun. The animation is slick and textured, the story amusing in a way that barely obscures the darkness of its humor. This is the misadventures of a couple clueless mountain rescuers attempting to bring an enjured skier down from the mountan, and basically finding countless innovative ways to injure him more in the process. Maestro, by far the shortest film in this series at all of two minutes, is a French short with spectacular CG animation rendering a bird, and many other animals, singing a short opera and being conducted by a squirrel. Now, I truly hate squirrels, but in this case I can tolerate one for two minutes, if he's conducting an opera performance of forest animals. Overall: B

LITTLE JOE

Directing: B-
Acting: B
Writing: C+
Cinematography: C
Editing: B-

Little Joe is a modern riff on Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or at least it clearly wants to be. In this case, though, instead of the plants being some sort of alien species, director and co-writer Jessica Hausner offers up another argument for paranoia about genetic engineering. In this script, which is repeatedly on the nose with its themes, more than once we are reminded of the dangers of a modified organism doing whatever it can to propagate itself.

To Hausner’s credit, she creates a visual palate rich with vibrant color, using fairly limited resources: most of the story takes place in either the large, sterile lab where all of these plants are being grown, or in the home of the lead plant breeder (or scientist, or whatever), Alice (Emily Beecham), where she has brought one of the plants as a gift for her teen son, Joe (Kit Connor). She names the plant “Little Joe” after him, and thereafter in this story, not just that single plant, but all of them, are referred to thusly.

Much like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, once a person is affected by the plant—in this case, infected, by inhaling its pollen—their personality becomes permanently, but almost imperceptibly, altered. All they care about is the safety of the plant, at the expense of all else. Hausner clearly wants us to feel as though people’s behavior becomes slightly odd once this happens. The problem here is that, the way Hausner directs every single actor in her film, they don’t act quite natural even before this change occurs, when we are supposed to think of them a “normal.”

Little Joe is one of those small “indie films” (in this case, also a British film) overly concerned with maintaining a quiet, eerie tone, from which it never quite deviates. The delivery of every single line is calm and muted; a raised voice only happens occasionally and for effect. This near-monotone way of speaking is adopted by everyone and is quickly established as the default. And this is what keeps Little Joe from quite working, because the characters rather feel like they have been “body snatched” from the start.

The story is also a gross over-simplification of things like genetic mutation. Sure, movies like this exist to take liberties with facts, but most science fiction at least convolutes things to the point that you feel like the “science” would be too complicated to understand either way. There’s just something off about the plausibility here, like this movie is just a “thinking man’s” version of M. Night Shyamalan’s notoriously bad The Happening.

It has other problems, most of which just amount to pretension. The camera work is occasionally baffling, the camera always sliding to one side at a slow, steady pace, but occasionally in a slow zoom, until the two people speaking to each other on either side of the screen go out of frame and then all you are looking at is the wall behind them. What? And then there’s the music. Bizarrely, I can find no music or score credit for Little Joe, even though the soundtrack is full of strangely erratic percussion, occasionally punctuated by what sounds like a tonal mix of multiple dogs barking.

And yet . . . I must admit, I did find Little Joe compelling. Granted, it also stars Ben Wishaw, one of the most beautiful actors working today. It’s not just him, though, that made Little Joe nice to look at: misguided cinematography notwithstanding, the production design is both stark and memorable, with lots of swaths of solid color and simple patters, all of which is lit impeccably. It’s an odd compliment to give, but the lighting is Little Joe’s greatest asset.

Still, even though I never found it dull or boring, there’s no escaping how Little Joe’s premise is just something dumb disguised as an intellectual exercise. It kind of pains me to give this movie the same rating as I have others that made me much angrier with how stupid they were, but I still have to be fair. In this case, it’s almost insidious, because too many people will be convinced this is something more “academic” in nature when in reality, fundamentally it’s just as stupid.

You better watch your back around those plants!

Overall: C+

BAD BOYS FOR LIFE

Directing: B-
Acting: B-
Writing: C
Cinematography: C
Editing: C+

I was regarding Michael Bay with contempt before it was cool. This was the guy who directed common-denominator movies designed to pander to dipshits, from Armageddon (1998) to Pearl Harbor (2001) to the moronic and incoherent Transformers (2007) and its many sequels.

Before all that, though, in 1995, he directed Bad Boys (1995), and it was kind of fun, even with Téa Leoni as a walking stereotype. It wasn’t a great movie, but it was fun. And then Michael Bay returned to direct the 2003 sequel, which . . . wasn’t as good.

I guess Michael Bay was busy this time around, because another 17 years later, we’re treated with Bad Boys for Life, now directed by “Adil and Bilall,” a relatively unknown Belgian director duo, who, incidentally, were 7 and 9 years old when the original Bad Boys was released. Surely a couple young, hip directors will breathe some fresh life into this old franchise, right?

Wrong. This movie has the feel of something directed by people who need a little more practice, and is written—by a team of three writers—with no trace of originality or genuine wit. Okay, I’ll admit I laughed a few times. That has less to do with the boneheaded action-movie writing than it does with the familiar chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, who are now 25 years older than they were in the first one of these movies. The script is peppered with a good amount of jokes about their age.

Adil El Arbi and Bilal Fallah clearly want this movie to be part of Michael Bay’s legacy, with its refusal ever to traffic in subtlety. The villain is, I kid you not, a Mexican witch (played by Mexican actress Kate del Castillo). I guess each of these movies must have a different woman in a key supporting role. This one has two, the other one a fellow cop played by Paola Nuñez. Both are old flames of Will Smith’s Detective Mike Lowrey. Side note: Vanessa Hudgens also features in a part as one of a new “AMMO” squad staffed by younger people. I guess just because these movies are set in Miami, the villains always have to be Latino. Speaking of which, there’s a lot of wide shots of the Miami skyline, which I suppose is cool. Until it gets, like everything else in this movie, vastly overused.

For a lot of people, Bad Boys for Life will just be a fun return to the mindless nineties action movie aesthetic, and I get it. It’s just not for me. And too many of the plot turns are predictable—a notable thing for me to notice, as I am never looking to predict where the story is going. The script employs narrative devices that were overdone twenty years ago, like a fake-out meant to make us think Mike has died, even though the movie is less than half over. I’d have far more respect for this movie if they actually did kill him off forty minutes in.

So okay, sure, this movie is just harmless, dumb fun. I only found it sporadically fun, and mostly just dumb. And a movie like this doesn’t have to be so lazy in its execution. But, a time tested truth is that lazily executed movies with likable stars will always have an audience. I prefer a movie made by people making more of an effort.

They’re getting too old for this shit.

Overall: C+

LES MISÉRABLES

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: B+

How one takes in this new French film Les Misérables, in U.S. theaters currently, will differ slightly depending on what context is at hand, what kind of literary as well as motion picture history can be drawn from, if at all—not to mention French history itself, both centuries back and a decade and a half back. Citizens of France and particularly Paris, with a working memory of the 2005 riots that occurred there, have no doubt had a unique point of view on this film.

My own background knowledge of all these elements is limited, to say the least. This Les Misérables is different from the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo (easily one of the most famous works of French literature ever written), or the stage musical adaptation by the same name that premiered in France in 1980, translated and expanded in English for a London premiere in 1985 and first premiered on Broadway in 1986, which I have also never seen. I merely saw the 2012 movie musical adaptation starring Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman, and although it was one of countless adaptations, with its live on-set singing, it stood apart.

This Les Misérables stands apart as well, but for entirely different reasons. This is not even close to a direct adaptation, although there are clearly thematic through lines. Fundamentally, though, its only connection to Victor Hugo is that it shares the title, and it is set in the same neighborhood Hugo lived in when he wrote the novel. These are very deliberate choices on the part of French director Ladj Ly, who uses subtle means to evoke national pride, history, injustice, and police brutality.

The police brutality is a particularly key element, and much of the film’s run time there is an expectation of violence that never comes . . . until it does. It never gets all that graphic, but it gets its point across. And it involves a reckless teenager caught in the crosshairs, who, much like the original Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s novel, receives punishment that is far out of proportion to his crimes.

After opening on scenes of national unity and celebration when France won the World Cup, crosscut with the opening titles, it takes a little while for a story even to take shape. We follow three police officers, one of them on his first day after transferring to the city to be closer to his child who lives with his ex-wife, making rounds in this gritty Paris suburb and generally puffing their chests and occasionally harassing people. They do a “police check” on a group of young girls just waiting for a bus at a bus stop, and when one of them tries to record them with her phone, the officer with the shortest fuse grabs her phone and hurls it at the sidewalk.

It’s relevant to note that two of these cops are white, one of them black, and when a confrontation with a group of kids escalates to a dangerous degree, it’s the black cop who goes overboard and injures one of them, also a black kid. I know nothing of class, immigration issues, or race relations and the many nuances thereof that are no doubt specific to France, but it is almost curious that director Ladj Ly puts no obvious element of racial tension in his film—only tension between native French citizens and immigrants (though most of the latter are Muslim and black), and particularly between the residents of this suburb and law enforcement. A story like this would absolutely play out differently if made in the U.S., but here, the otherwise most-hotheaded cop is all about protecting the other cops on his “team,” and the story that proceeds from here is about retrieving the memory card from a drone they notice hovering overhead, having recorded the entire incident.

We see that drone earlier in the film, controlled by another young black boy in the neighborhood, using it to peep into the windows of teenage girls in one of the wide, blocky high-rise apartment buildings. It therefore comes as no surprise that the drone becomes a key figure in the plotting to come. There is a bit of a clever trick to the cinematography here, though, because instead of just being yet another movie with obvious drone shots for nice effect, these camera angles actually serve the story. It doesn’t hurt that the shots also happen to work very well on an aesthetic level.

This all builds to a predictably violent confrontation, after some odd asides including the kidnapping of a local circus troupe’s lion cub. Ly stops the story short in the midst of an individual standoff, leaving us to decide for ourselves where it goes from there, but making it clear that all parties involved have created an untenable situation that cannot possibly end well for any of them. The richness of history, both long ago and recent, very much informs the action here, but this Les Misérables offers plenty of food for thought either way.

Misguided police tactics: they’re everywhere.

Overall: B+

JUST MERCY

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

Just Mercy is an inspiring story that feels very much like the movie version of that story, “based on” the truth but sprinkled with contrivances to make it work as a story told over the course of a couple of hours. Within those confines, though, it works quite well. The average movie-goer with an interest in movies of this sort will quite like it.

More than once I found myself thinking of the 1995 film Dead Man Walking, which was even more pointed in its anti-death penalty message—and had also been based on a true story. And although that story was about a specific case, the implications were still about the broad morality of capital punishment without sociopolitical context. That context is what Just Mercy provides, shifting the setting to Monroe County, Alabama, and highlighting the systemic racism that led to the wrongful murder conviction of Walter McMillian.

Just Mercy includes this statistic in the midst of much information about its characters just before the end credits, but it bears mentioning here: for every 9 death row executions in the U.S., one person on death row has been exonerated—”a shocking rate of error.” Indeed. And this movie uses McMillian to put a face on how senseless capital punishment is. Even for those who believe in its effectiveness in theory have to admit our system is not equipped to implement it efficiently.

I happen to believe capital punishment is morally wrong whether the person is guilty or not, but that’s a conversation for another space—although Just Mercy makes pretty clear it has the same message: when McMillian’s death row neighbor, who suffers from PTSD and should actually be in a hospital, feels genuine guilt for a woman who did die because of him, McMillion tells him that doesn’t give anyone the right to do the same to him.

This is all not to say that Just Mercy is particularly heavy handed about its messaging; it really is not, and makes for a compelling story on its own merits. The cast is top notch, with memorable performances by Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian; Michael B. Jordan as Byran Stevenson, the idealistic lawyer trying to help; and Brie Larson all but disappears into the part as Eva Ansley, the Operations Director of the Equal Justice Initiative she co-founded with Stevenson. We’re also treated to the dependable Tim Blake Nelson as a key witness who also happens to be a convicted felon.

Ansley is handled well in the film, but I have more mixed feelings about a couple of the other white characters, who have a kind of “moral awakening” by the end of the story, including a prison guard, as well as the Monroe County District Attorney. To be fair, the latter character may have changed his mind only when he realized he could no longer win this fight. But the prison guard feels a little like a character thrown in to make white people feel better about all the widespread racism and bigotry, a thread of redemption that likely was not so easily found in the real struggle of proving McMillian’s innocence.

And of course, the story beats are familiar, with the requisite, climactic rousing speech in a courtroom near the end. At least the gathered crowd didn’t erupt into applause. More realistically, the gathered community breathes a collective cry of relief when they finally get what has been fought for in the face of insane obstacles spanning several years.

It should come as no surprise and is thus not a spoiler to say Just Mercy has a happy ending. But boy, was it a difficult road to get there. And that road includes the execution of one of McMillian’s fellow inmates after a request for a stay is denied. The inclusion of this scene, which is very difficult to watch and maybe the most heartbreaking in the film, is necessary. It only becomes easy to tolerate the inhumane when the practice has no human face associated with it. Just Mercy is a tale of persistence and resilience, a textbook case of overcoming adversity. Its telling may be patently conventional, but that in no way diminishes its impact.

He got by with a lot of help from a friend.

Overall: B+

I'd Like to Thank the Academy

(And the nominees are...) Okay, let's just get this out of the way: Joker leads the pack with 11 nominations, which basically makes one of the year's biggest piles of garbage a huge Oscar front-runner. Should I finally lose all faith in humanity? Nah, maybe not. I mean, in Joker's defense, it's a gorgeously shot, beautifully scored, impeccably acted pile of garbage. That said, three other movies came quite close to tying that number, with ten nominations each: The Irishman, 1917, and Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood. Each of the are more deserving of every award than Joker, though by varying margins. But, that's not a very high bar either. Academy voters sure do know how to set that bar low. Anyway, let's get on with it!
Actor in a Leading Role 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 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Ugh. This feels like a bad omen, starting with the first award almost guaranteed to go to Joker. Adam Driver was the front runner for some time, but at the moment Joaquin Phoenix seems all but guaranteed to win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: You know what? I'm not sure I made this decision until this very moment. This is the first time Antonio Banderas has ever been nominated, amazingly, and he actually did Oscar-worthy work in Pain and Glory. I'd be happy to see Adam Driver win too, but if I were voting, and I were voting today, my vote would go to Antonio Banderas.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I really hate that I am saying this, because I prefer to say Joker doesn't deserve any Oscars for any reason, but even though I enjoyed The Two Popes and Jonathan Pryce is great, I'd still say he's the least deserving out of this group.
Actress in a Leading Role Cynthia Erivo, Harriet
Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan, Little Women
Charlize Theron, Bombshell
Renée Zellweger, Judy WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Renée Zellweger has all but won this award already, judging by the predictions of everyone and their mother for the past four months. Given that she already has an Oscar, and Judy was merely good and not great, I would be delighted if an upset happened and any of the other women in this category won.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: To be fair, I actually think Zellweger winning would be absolutely fair. Upon further reflection, though, I think I vote for Saoirse Ronan, who has been a stunning performer since as far back as Atonement in 2007—four nominations ago!
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I honestly don't think either Cynthia Erivo or Scarlett Johansson deserve this award, at least not for these roles. Even though they are both fantastic actors, and Erivo is in the truly unfortunate position of being the "token black" among the acting nominees this year. Or even more accurately, "token nonwhite." I would have preferred to see Awkwafina nominated for The Farewell, a movie which inexplicably got no nominations at all.
Actor in a Supporting Role Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood WHO I THINK WILL WIN: If Brad Pitt does not win this award, it will be the biggest Oscar upset of the night.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'm pulling for Tom Hanks, here with his first Oscar nomination in nineteen years, which is extraordinary. But, this is the sole nomination given to A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, which does not bode well for it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Al Pacino in The Irishman? Come on. That movie is decent but wildly overrated, and Al Pacino's is the most blustery performance in it.
Actress in a Supporting Role Kathy Bates, Richard Jewell
Laura Dern, Marriage Story
Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit
Florence Pugh, Little Women
Margot Robbie, Bombshell WHO I THINK WILL WIN: If all the prognosticators are to be believed, Laura Dern is a lock. Which honestly makes little sense to me; she's a great actor but she's hardly doing her best work in this particular part.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Among this group, I think perhaps Margot Robbie gave the best—and certainly the most nuanced—performance.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I love Kathy Bates. And I haven't even seen Richard Jewell. But, I know enough about it to know this nomination—the only one given to this film—was not necessary, nor did Bates need it.
Cinematography The Irishman, Rodrigo Prieto
Joker, Lawrence Sher
The Lighthouse, Jarin Blaschke
1917, Roger Deakins
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Robert Richardson WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This one seems a lock for 1917, although I can also see Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood pulling through here.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: 1917 is indeed the obvious choice; the camera work in that movie is legitimately amazing.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I'm sorry, but the cinematography in The Irishman was just nothing special. Even in The Joker, the cinematography was one of the few things actually worthy of high compliment.
Production Design The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
1917
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I would bet money that Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood will win this one. The cinematography actually is great, plus Hollywood loves movies about itself, especially nostalgic ones.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: It's too well integrated to be noticeable, but the production design iin 1917 is actually by far the most impressive thing about it, once you really think on it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Jojo Rabbit? Really? That movie will not win this award, nor should it.
Costume Design The Irishman, Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson
Jojo Rabbit, Mayes C. Rubeo
Joker, Mark Bridges
Little Women, Jacqueline Durran
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Arianne Phillips WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This category is often used to throw a bone to period films, so I'm betting on Little Women.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Little Women also actually deserves it.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The only reason Joker even got this nomination is because an inexplicably huge number of people are jizzing themselves over that garbage dump of a movie. There are some elements that really are impressive about it, which makes it even more annoying, but this is absolutely not one of them. Are we supposed to cheer because the guy was dressed in a red and orange suit?
Directing Martin Scorsese, The Irishman
Todd Phillips, Joker
Sam Mendes, 1917
Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Bong Joon Ho, Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: This one is a tough call. The real answer is "I have no idea." Gun to my head, I would say Sam Mendes for 1917. If that happens, I'll bet anything this will be yet another year in which Best Director and Best Picture are split—and Joker wins Best Picture. I'll just have to keep my barf bucket handy.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Sam Mendes, actually! I would also be happy with Bong Joon Ho, although his movie was wildly over-hyped and that did it no favors. With 1917, though, I was duly impressed even with that movie's own large amount of critical praise.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Listen, everyone. The Irishman just isn't the "great film" cinephiles seem to think it is.
Film Editing Ford v. Ferrari, Michael McCusker and Andew Buckland
The Irishman, Thelma Schoonmaker
Jojo Rabbit, Tom Eagles
Joker, Jeff Groth
Parasite, Yang Jinmo WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Given the subject matter and how incredibly well put-together its racing sequences are, I'm actually going to predict that this will be the only Oscar Ford v. Ferrari wins.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'd be happy with Ford v. Ferrari, but thanks to its intricate plotting, Parasite is arguably more deserving.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Again with The Irishman! I get that its massive length is part of the point; its ending would not be as effective without all the time spent on what leads up to it. The same effect could still have been achieved by cutting this movie down to three hours. Why would we give the editing award to the guy who refused to edit?
Makeup and Hairstyling Bombshell
Joker
Judy
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
1917 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I can pretty easily see Joker winning this one, just because a lot of times Academy voters like to be on the nose.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I'm going with Bombshell on this one, its actors—particularly Charlize Theron—were so impressively transformed.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker can shove a bundle of makeup brushes right up its own ass.
Music (Original Score) Joker, Hildur Guðnadóttir
Little Women, Alexandre Desplat
Marriage Story, Randy Newman
1917, Thomas Newman
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, John Williams WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I really can't answer this one with any authority whatsoever either, but I'm still going to guess 1917.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: You know what? I don't really give a shit.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Well, except that of course I really don't want Joker to win this one either.
Music (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 Rocket Man, Music by Elton John, Lyric by Bernie Taupin
"I'm Standing With You," from Breakthrougj, 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 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I think this will be Rocketman's one Oscar win. (It's also its one nomination.)
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: If there were any justice in the world—and as we all know, particularly in the world of the Acadeny, there often is not—then Cynthia Erivo, while not deserving of the acting award in this case, would at least be rewarded for her truly incredible voice.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: The trailer alone revealed Breakthrough to be a bunch of religious claptrap best avoided. It will be cool to see This Is Us's Chrissy Metz sing a song at the Academy Awards, but for this movie, that should be enough of an award.
Visual Effects Avengers: Endgame
The Irishman
The Lion King
1917
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker WHO I THINK WILL WIN: It won't be at all justified, but I think this will go to Avengers: Endgame, not because it actually has the best effects, but because it was a massive box office smash, and it's the only award it's even eligible for. And voters will likely vote for the movie with the most visual effects, as opposed to the best.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: This is also the only award nomination for The Lion King—which did not even get the widely expected Original Song nod—but, that's still the movie that deserves the win. None of the other movies come even close to how visually amazing this film is.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Avengers: Endgame is only here as a consolation prize in this year's popularity contest, and because of how noisy and packed with effects it is. That hardly makes it the best.
Writing (Adapted Screenplay) The Irishman, Screenplay by Steven Zaillian
Jojo Rabbit, Screenplay by Taika Waititi
Joker, Written by Todd Phillips & Scott Silveri
Little Women, Written for the screen by Greta Gerwig
The Two Popes, Written by Anthony McCarten WHO I THINK WILL WIN: The current odds are apparently the same for both The Irishman and Little Women as the front runner in this category. I don't think The Irishman will actually win many of the 10 awards for it was nominated, but I think it likely has the edge here. Unfortunately, Little Women just isn't getting the respect it deserves, so I don't even trust it being regarded as a front runner. But, I'd love to be proven wrong.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honestly, I'm realizing at this very moment that among these five films, I think The Two Popes actually has the best-written dialogue.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker is less deserving of this award in particular than any of those it was nominated for. Did a bunch of people's hands slip and nominate this film by accident? Its script is by far Joker's biggest problem—big enough to make the movie irredeemable. A well-shot and well-acted piece of shit is still a piece of shit. Watching Joker is the metaphorical equivalent of looking at a turd in HD.
Writing (Original Screenplay) Knives Out, Written by Rian Johnson
Marriage Story, Written by Noah Baumbach
1917, Written by Sam Mendes & Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, Written by Quentin Tarantino
Parasite, Screenplay by Bong Joon Ho, Han Jin Won; Story by Bong Joon Ho WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, even though it doesn't deserve it. But, this is where Tarantino has gotten his previous two Oscar wins as well as half his ttotal Oscar nominations, and this is by far his most-nominated film to date. If he wins any Oscar this year—and he is likely to win multiple—then it will be this one.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: It'll never happen, but I would be ecstatic if Knives Out won this award. I'd also be really happy with Parasite.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Ironically, I actually think Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood is the least deserving of these five films. People love that movie so much they somehow overlook the many flaws in its script.
Animated Feature Film How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
I Lost My Body
Klaus
Missing Link
Toy Story 4 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Well, this is new. I've only seen one of these films! I still think Pixar will prevail and Toy Story 4 will win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: I really couldn't say.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I couldn't really say here either, although Missing Link looked pretty dumb.
International Feature Corpus Christi, Directed by Jan Komasa (Poland)
Honeyland, Directed by Ljubo Stefanov and Tamara Kotevksa (North Macedonia)
Le Misérables, Directed by Ladj Ly (France)
Pain and Glory, Directed by Pedro Almodóvar (Spain)
Parasite, Directed by Bong Joon Ho (South Korea) WHO I THINK WILL WIN: You'd have to be a corpse not to know that Parasite will win this award.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Honeyland was the best movie I saw all year, but I don't see the sense in awarding it for both the categories in which it was nominated. Here, I would also go for Parasite. Bong Joon Ho deserves a win.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: I can't answer this for this category either, as I only saw three of the films, and all three of them were either very good or phenomenal.
Documentary Feature American Factory, Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert and Jeff Reichert
The Cave, Feras Fayyad, Kirstine Barfod and Sigrid Dyekjær
The Edge of Democracy, 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 WHO I THINK WILL WIN: I haven't seen it (and I really should; it's now streaming on Netflix), but I still know the buzz is all about American Factory, and by a stunningly wide margin.
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: If Academy voters did their jobs (and I am not an Academy member, so I have more of an excuse for not having seen quite all of these movies!), they would watch every screener available to them—and if they had any sense, they would vote for Honeyland.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Any movie that is not Honeyland. In this case I don't care that I haven't seen any of the other nominees! In fact I usually omit this category for this very reason, but with Honeyland being my favorite movie of the year, I had to include it.
Best motion picture of the year Ford v. Ferrari
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
1917
Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood
Parasite WHO I THINK WILL WIN: All bets appear to be on Once Upon a Time ...In Hollywood, an I see no reason not to make that my expectation as well. As long as Joker doesn't win, I'll be satisfied—although the love for that movie is so irritating to me, I can still see a surprise win for it here. That's right, every voter is just thinking, What will annoy Matthew the most?
WHO I THINK SHOULD WIN: Well, this is strange. Only two of these movies were on my top 10 for the year (Little Women and Ford v. Ferrari), so I guess I should choose one of those, huh? Except! I didn't even get a chance to see 1917 until last week, after I had written up my top 10—and it would have been on it had it been given the chance. So, 1917 is my choice.
WHO I THINK SHOULD NOT WIN: Joker. Joker. JOKER. Fuuuuck Joker! How many times do I have to say it? Actually for a while there I thought I would be reserving this attitude for Jojo Rabbit, which is overrated and problematic in its own unique ways, and it looked like it might ride a wave similar to last year's Green Book. So much for that! I've got so much hate for Joker that I've hardly got time to resent Jojo Rabbit, which now seems unlikely to win any of these awards anyway. What tragic irony that I would rather see it win anything than Joker. That wrongminded movie made by a troupe of dipshits will now dominate this year's Oscar conversation, and I can't wait for that part to be over. Or at least, to revel in some of its inevitable defeats; it won't possibly win them all, and I'll take solace in that much, I guess.
(Nominations for documentary short, animated short, live action short, sound editing, and sound mixing were also announced, but I don't know enough about them to make any worthwhile observations.) The 92nd Academy Awards telecast will air on ABC Sunday, February 9 at 5 p.m. Pacific Time.

VARDA BY AGNÈS

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B-
Editing: B-

My take on Varda by Agnès will be unfair. It will also be surprising, in light of how much I enjoyed the 2017 documentary Faces Places, which was largely about the same woman—or, half of it was, anyway. It’s just that Faces Places was about just one of Agnès Varda’s many artistic exploits, and it happened to be one of her far more interesting ones. Varda by Agnès is much more a retrospective of her entire life’s work, with a heavy focus on her work as a film director, and for me at least, it just wasn’t anywhere near as compelling.

Not that it matters to the, say, two and a half people who might bother reading this review. How many of you even know who Agnès Varda is? or was—in contrast to Faces Places, Varda by Agnès has been released after her death nearly a year ago, in late March 2019. I didn’t even realize that until coming home from the movie today, at which I did marvel at her mental acuity at such an age, still creating art, which she evidently did to the very end. She clearly took great joy in her work, and had a stunning vitality for her age. We should all be so lucky to be like Agnès.

And, to be fair, if you are familiar with Agnès Varda, and you have interest in the broad spectrum of her work, you will no doubt find Varda by Agnès worth your time. And even I found some of this movie’s presentation interesting: it edits together footage from an apparent speaking tour, in which Varda sits on a stage, refers to notes, and regales live theater audiences with observations about the whole of her career. Much of it is then intercut with the works to which she is referring, and this does mean there is a fair amount of crossover using footage already seen in Faces Places. In fact, once this film reached that point in her career, for a moment I wondered if it was the same movie.

Nope. I would recommend you check out that other film, actually. It’s available for rent on iTunes and it’s better than this movie, the place at which you could watch it now, I could not tell you. It played as a film at the SIFF Film Center at Seattle Center this weekend only, and was apparently first a two-part TV miniseries. The theater showings, locally at least, are now all done. I only went to see it because it has a stunningly high score of 85 on MetaCritic. A lesson I still need to learn, apparently: those scores do not always reflect your personal tastes.

I’m sad to say that Varda by Agnès literally put me to sleep. I mean, I did not sleep through the whole movie; I did see most of it. But I kept nodding off, and relentlessly so, largely because of the strangely soothing sound of Varda’s “sweet old lady” voice. And I don’t speak French, so if my eyelids droop at all and I can no longer see the subtitles, it just becomes a very pleasant sort of white noise.

I could never say with any authority that it would have the very same effect on any other viewer, of course. This woman was clearly overflowing with talent. Conversely, she was not always without pretension—a bit of an irony, given her reference to some others in this film as being “not pretentious.” Many clips of her films are shown here, a lot of them just presenting nude subjects in “artistic” poses. It smacked of the kind of “art film” sensibility often spoofed by sketch comedy.

To be fair, it’s entirely possible I could feel completely differently were I to watch Agnès by Varda at another time, with a different mindset. This is that kind of movie. There are some compelling stylistic choices, with Varda commenting on the blending of staged action with documentary filmmaking—something she and JR did in Faces Places, and was one of my few least favorite things about that film—at the very same time she’s doing the same thing here. In one scene, she talks about shooting tracking shots, while riding the rig directors use to shoot tracking shots,, and the shot itself is a tracking shot. In another moment, she speaks to breaking the fourth wall, and in so doing, she breaks the fourth wall.

And I am usually super into this sort of meta commentary, particularly on filmmaking. But, for whatever reason, about 80% of this movie just plain bored me. Perhaps it would have been a different story had I even known who Agnès Varda was before February 2018, and I had been following her stunningly long, sixty-year career. Sometimes you just need a hell of a lot more historical context for something to work.

Turns out Agnès herself is more captivating than her work.

Overall: B-

1917

Directing: A-
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: A-
Editing: A
Special Effects: A

When 1917 begins, it feels pretty standard. The camera opens to a green, flowery field, until we pull back and immediately meet our two principal characters: Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay), taking a breather near the front lines in the third year of World War I. Blake is approached by another soldier, told to “choose someone” and to report to their captain; he chooses Schofield, evidently because he happens to be closest, and they head on over.

The camera follows them, making occasional turns to the right or left, without any discernible cuts. And that, really, is the hook of the entire movie for 1917. Much has been made of this film, if not actually being, then appearing to be “one single long take,” and a minor source of irritation, after seeing it, is that this description is not quite accurate. Just as happened in the similarly shot—and similarly exhilarating—Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014), it actually has the appearance of just two single, long takes. There is a moment when Schofield gets knocked out cold, and the screen goes black for several seconds. When he comes to and the picture comes back, several hours have passed and it is almost morning. Clearly that does not count as the entire movie being shot in “real time.” But, it’s close. It has two sections that are shot in real time, and just to be clear, that brief pause has no detrimental effect on the film’s narrative flow. I’m just a stickler for accuracy.

And, make no mistake: 1917 is a technical marvel, a thing to behold, something not to be missed, and absolutely best seen on the big screen. I truly have not been this impressed by production design and cinematography since Children of Men (2006), which was similarly jaw-dropping in its visual execution, if also far less plausible in futuristic concept, in contrast to this film’s uber-realistic historical one. I feel compelled also to mention the special effects. This is not a “special effects movie,” but the fact that you never think about visual effects while watching it, and yet there’s a couple hundred credits on its effects team, underscores how impressive it really is.

It takes a while even to notice the camera work. Somewhat in contrast to Birdman, this film is far more successful at not calling attention to the stunningly long takes. Quite a lot of the film goes by before it even begins to dawn on you, because you are so engrossed in what these two soldiers are doing, whether they are winding their way through trenches, crossing “no-man’s land,” or rushing over vast fields.

The cumulative technical achievements are so high with this movie that it’s easy to overlook the performances, which is too bad: Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay are both excellent, and they are unlikely to get the recognition they deserve beyond mentions in reviews like this one. The fact that you forget that they are even acting is testament to their skill. That said, there are brief appearances by Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, and even Flabag’s “hot priest” Andrew Scott, their varying levels of fame creating varying levels of distraction in a film where it’s really best if the actors are unrecognizable enough to disappear into their characters. That is the most minor of minor quibbles, though.

1917 is engrossing from the start, but the “how in the world did they do that?” moments don’t start until about halfway through the film. I found myself wondering, first of all, how massive the sets must have been, to accommodate these actors traversing such large distances in real time. Then there are two sequences, one a chase through a decimated French town and then into a river, the other a run across an attack over a battlefield (a glimpse of which is seen in the trailer), which are genuinely stunning.

And while the takes are objectively long either way, they could not possibly have actually been only two genuine takes, which makes the editing arguably the most impressive achievement. I can think of only one moment, when the camera follows the two soldiers into a trench tunnel and the screen goes dark for a split second, when I thought about how there could have been an easily imperceptible cut. Wherever else there are cuts in the film, effects work must have been incorporated—and seamlessly so.

The story is an incredibly simple one, already made clear in the trailer: Blake is informed that his brother is part of another company that is about to launch an attack on German forces that is actually a trap, and their attack must be called off. When they were told they had something like eight hours to get to their destination on foot, I immediately wondered how director (and co-writer) Sam Mendes was going to accommodate that expectation with the “single shot” concept: he easily took care of that with the moment when Schofield is knocked out for several hours. Schofield does hitch a ride on the back of a truck at one point, but for all of five minutes, so upon further reflection, crossing that expectation of distance in the space of two hours is clearly implausible, but 1917 is otherwise so astonishing and great that it’s easy to forgive. It’s still a movie!

And a fantastically suspenseful, compelling and often tense one, at that. Maybe once a decade a movie comes along that pushes the technical limits of filmmaking forward, without sacrificing the sanctity of storytelling. This is one of those movies.

A brief pause for reflection on a cinematic roller coster.

Overall: A-