Oscar Predictions 2015 Part II

Now that I've discussed the major awards in Part I, it's time to discuss what many view as the sort of second tier awards. Which really isn't fair--these are all pretty incredible achievements and are just as fascinating to consider and be aware of as the major awards. Although, admittedly, I guess I contribute to their second tier status because I have much less to say about all of these. This time, I'm just going to say who I think WILL win, rather than also always choosing who should win and who should be nominated. Or, in the case of sound mixing, who should not have been nominated.

I'm talking about Interstellar. Interstellar shouldn't have been nominated.

Best Animated Feature Film:
Everyone is still reeling from The Lego Movie not being nominated here, and its exclusion here has certainly left the category wide open. The frontrunner by a hair is currently How to Train Your Dragon 2, but this is hardly secure, and either of the two beautifully crafted indie projects Song of the Sea or The Tale of Princess Kaguya might just gather enough votes to pull an upset win. I personally am keeping my fingers crossed for one of my favorite movies of the year, Big Hero 6 to take the crown. And then there is The Boxtrolls which...is the fifth nominee. It's probably good.

"An...film...I...appreciate...nice"--A.O. Scott, from his review of The Boxtrolls

Will Win: How to Train Your Dragon 2

 Best Foreign Language Film:
This race has two definite frontrunners. At one point, it looked like Ida, from Poland, was the runaway favorite, but in recent months, Russia's entry Leviathan has steadily gained popularity and is now the more likely of the two. Either has a chance, but I'm predicting Leviathan on instinct.
Will Win: Leviathan (Russia)

Best Documentary Feature Film:
The Edward Snowden documentary Citizenfour has been making waves ever since it first premiered and has not lost momentum since. At one point, it faced some competition from the Roger Ebert documentary Life Itself, but with that failing to grab a nomination in a surprise snub, Citizenfour is the far and away favorite.
Will Win: Citizenfour

Best Original Song:
Many months ago, the song "Lost Stars" from the underrated gem Begin Again was once the frontrunner in this category, and it's a really great song. But it has faded from the spotlight and another great song has taken its place as the frontrunner: "Glory" from Selma. Selma's only nomination other than Best Picture, it seems inconceivable that "Glory" will not take home this prize, and it's definitely deserved. "Glory" manages to perfectly tie in the film to present day events--it's a powerful and vibrant song which works both as a song in the context of the film, and as a song in its own right. I can't wait to see it performed during the ceremony. And, it'll be nice for Selma to go home with at least one award given how little attention the Academy paid to it.

But...while I love "Glory" very much, it's actually not my favorite song of this group. That would belong to "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" by Glen Campbell, which comes from a documentary about Campbell, which followed him on his final tour as he battles with the starting effects of Alzheimer's. The song is the last song he'll ever write, and is about his own struggle with this disease. It is heartbreaking, bittersweet, poignant. It's a song that makes you well up when you listen to it. "Glory" is a call to action, but "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" is just as effective as a sweet and emotional heavy ballad. It'll probably be "Glory," but if "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" pulls off a surprise win (which it definitely could) it will certainly be deserved.
Will Win: "Glory" from Selma
Could/Should Win: "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" from Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me

Best Original Score:
Everyone (including me) talks about how the Academy likes to honor those who are overdue. And few are as overdue as the composer Alexandre Desplat, who has been nominated for this award six times before this year. And this year, he is nominated twice, for both The Imitation Game and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Desplat is very likely to win this award, the only question is for which film. And it really is a toss up. I'd give a slight edge to The Grand Budapest Hotel, but we'll see. Of course, the true best score of the year actually belongs to Birdman. Composer Antonio Sanchez's almost entirely percussive score was deemed ineligible for a nomination due to a technicality (read: bullshit) which is a shame because rarely has a score ever so perfectly fit a film. That score is brilliant, and there's really nothing like it. It leaves an impression on you in a way none of the nominated scores do.
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Have Been Nominated: Birdman 

At Wes Anderson's insistence, the entire score to Grand Budapest was performed by this up-and-coming Portland band.

Best Production Design:
What does "Production Design" mean? It means, basically, the entire look of the film. Production designer oversee the entirety of the art department, and coordinate all of the design aspects. And, of the nominees, the bright and vibrant The Grand Budapest Hotel certainly stands out. Considering how distinct a look Wes Anderson's films always have, the fact that no film of his has ever won this award is pretty shocking--he's overdue. The Grand Budapest Hotel has been his most Oscar-friendly film and, if my predictions are right, it will certainly pay off for Anderson in multiple categories on Sunday.
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Cinematography:
Birdman is in the running for a lot of awards, but this is the only one it's actually guaranteed to win. Birdman's cinematographer Emanuel Lubezki won last year for his groundbreaking work on Gravity, and is the clear frontrunner to win again this year. Now, everyone knows I love Birdman and I hope it is showered with awards, but...even with as great as the cinematography was...I am kind of rooting for an upset here. My favorite cinematography this year actually came from Mr. Turner. And not just because I want to hear someone (hopefully John Travolta) say cinematographer Dick Pope's name again. The cinematography is beautiful. Some shots of the film look like they were taken right out of a Turner painting. Birdman will win and its cinematography is certainly worthy, I just wish that it was in a different year so that Mr. Turner could be recognized too.

One of the many spectacular shots from the gorgeous Mr. Turner

Will Win: Birdman
Should Win: Mr. Turner

Best Film Editing:
Those who take these awards show prediction things seriously will often talk about the Best Editing category. Because many claim that winning Best Picture and winning Best Editing go hand in hand. I think the connection is much more tenuous. In this article which talks about the connection it says that "of the 61 films that have won Best Picture Oscars since 1952, 32 have won the editing statuette as well." It says this as if that's a high percentage...but it's actually less than 53%. And in the last ten Oscars, only for of the Best Film Editing winners have also won Best Picture. And some editing winners, like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Bourne Ultimatum weren't even nominated for Best Picture. so, the connection is not as important to me as it is to some. And I think we're going to see a break in the categories this year too. Of the two films in contention to win Best Picture, Birdman is surprisingly not nominated. And while Boyhood is nominated, this award tends to go to films with a much faster pace which Boyhood definitely lacks. Some are calling this award for Boyhood solely on the basis of its Best Picture frontrunner status, but I just don't see it. I think this award will go to American Sniper or Whiplash. Between the two, I hope it goes to Whiplash. Not just because it's a much better film, but because the editing itself is more impressive. The last scene alone should win this film the Oscar--an impressive ten minute drum solo was edited down from, I believe, 23 hours of footage to make what still looked like a single cohesive performance. And what an exciting performance at that! But, throughout the film, the fact that we believe Miles Teller is a professional drummer is pretty extraordinary, and accomplished almost solidly through editing. Boyhood seems like the odds-on favorite to win, but I just simply don't see it winning over Whiplash in terms of editing.
Will Win: Whiplash

Best Sound Editing:
The frontrunner here is American Sniper. Military films tend to do very well here, so American Sniper definitely seems like the frontrunner. But, there's a chance that Birdman might actually win, especially if the controversy surrounding American Sniper catches up to it and Birdman can ride a goodwill wave to the win. Who really knows, this is kind of an unpredictable category, but for now, the safer bet is American Sniper.
Will Win: American Sniper

Best Sound Mixing:
So, when I posted my reaction to the nominees, I spent a lot of time talking about the sound mixing for Interstellar. And how terrible it is. And...I don't want to go into that right now but let's just say HOLY CRAP THE SOUND MIXING IN INTERSTELLAR SUCKS HOW THE HELL IS IT NOMINATED FOR AN ACADEMY AWARD I'M SO ANGRY!??!?!

So, Interstellar won't win. American Sniper has a chance of winning, but the frontrunner, and the film that SHOULD win is Whiplash. This is a film where sound is front and center. And not just any sound, LOUD sound. Loud sound which is used to actually tell the story. So, sound mixing is crucial--it has to be just present enough. If the drumming is too soft, we won't feel its effect and the stakes won't feel as high. If the drumming is too loud, it gets annoying rather than exciting. Whiplash's sound is balanced perfectly. As much as Interstellar's sound mixing is bad, Whiplash shows how sound mixing should be done.
Will Win: Whiplash
Should Win: Interste...HAHA JUST KIDDING THAT WOULD BE THE FUCKING WORST THING IN THE WORLD

Best Visual Effects:
This is another category that's kind of up in the air. Interstellar is certainly the frontrunner, but Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Guardians of the Galaxy definitely have a shot here. X-Men: Days of Future Past could make a grab at the win based on that now famous Quicksilver scene alone. The only one I don't see winning is Captain America: The Winter Soldier (although that is a fantastic film overall). Interstellar is the frontrunner, but this category could definitely have an upset. And I'm not just saying that because I hate Interstellar and its shitty sound mixing. I am in the middle of writing a giant blog post outlining why I don't like this movie, so definitely look for that to be posted soon. But, in the meantime, I do grudgingly give it the edge here.

Although, a quick note, while I don't think it would have or should have won this category, I was really hoping that Birdman would get a nomination in this category. Granted, there aren't a lot of visual effects, but there are a few (the giant bird, the fireball, the flying, the moving objects) and all of them are done exceedingly well, and fit seamlessly into the more realism-based world of the film. I was impressed by them, and thought it should have at least gotten some recognition.

Does Interstellar have a giant cyborg bird? That's what I thought.

Will Win: Interstellar
Will Also Win the Miles Purinton for Worst Sound Mixing Ever: Interstellar
Should Have Been Nominated (for Best Visual Effects, not the worst sound mixing thing): Birdman

Costume Design:
The fancy period dress of Mr. Turner is what my gut is telling me here, but so far, the awards seem to be going for The Grand Budapest Hotel. Which would be great. They're bright, colorful, really distinct, and work so perfectly in the world of the film. As beautiful as the costumes in Mr. Turner are, I'd love to see a non-period piece film win this year. So, if everyone's predicting that The Grand Budapest Hotel will win this, I'm more than happy to go along with that.
Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Tilda Swinton shows off both the costume design AND the makeup and hairstyling for The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
This one should really be a no-brainer. Steve Carell has a prosthetic nose, and Tilda Swinton has old-age makeup, but...Guardians of the Galaxy is a movie that, by its design, features much more complete and innovative makeups which are used more prominently throughout the entire film. Consider Drax the Destroyer.

For your consideration

Looking at him, you probably think that his skin is created through some computer effect. Nope. Makeup. It's all makeup. That's impressive. And Oscar-worthy.
Will Win: Guardians of the Galaxy

Best Live Action Short Film:
As always, I highly recommend people seek out the nominated short films if they ever get a chance. It's always a really good selection, and these categories can offer some of the absolute best films the year has to offer. This year, of the Live Action shorts, most things I've read online have given the win to a Northern Irish film called Boogaloo and Graham about two brothers and their pet chickens. It's a cute film, but...I can't see it winning. It just doesn't have the same staying power as some of the other films. Last year, everyone seemed to predicting this win for a film called The Voorman Project and I went against the grain and chose a film called Helium based on instinct, and I'm going to do the same thing again this year. It won't be Boogaloo and Graham. It will, and certainly should, be a film called The Phone Call, a really touching and well-executed film starring Sally Hawkins, and co-starring Jim Broadbent in a voice-over performance. Hawkins is simply incredible--her work in this one film is better than most of the acting nominees in the regular categories. And the film itself is great too. I simply can't imagine it not winning.
Will Win: The Phone Call

Sally Hawkins gives a masterful performance in The Phone Call

Best Animated Short Film:

This category is a lot tougher. The five selections are all very strong, and all for different reasons. Frankly, I could see any one of these films winning. Disney's selection, Feast, has the brand recognition, and is a cute sentimental story, but to me is certainly the most lightweight of the offerings and doesn't really stand up in the lineup of nominees. A Dutch short called A Simple Life, is by far the shortest offering, at only two minutes long, but it's really great, and tells all the story it needs to in those two minutes. You want to watch it over and over again, and it definitely has my favorite premise of the five films. But, its length might work against it. Then there's a film called The Dam Keeper which is beautiful and engaging and tells the most complete and conventional story of the five...but is kind of off-kilter and bizarre (as most films with anthropomorphic animals tend to be) and that might work against it with the generally stuffy Academy. Although it's probably my favorite of the five. If I had to guess which way the Academy will go, I'd guess it will either be Me and My Moulton--a film by animator and director Torill Kove, who adopts a documentary feel not unlike in the movie Persepolis to talk about her time growing up in Norway. It's cute, whimsical, and very well-written. But in terms of animation alone, it pales in comparison to The Bigger Picture, whose animation is actually painted full-size on walls. It's fascinating to watch, and its discussion of grand themes like death and family are certainly relatable. If I had to choose one film, my guess is that The Bigger Picture will win, but really, any of the five have a chance.
Will Win: The Bigger Picture

Animator Daisy Jacobs paints one of the stills that make up The Bigger Picture

Best Documentary Short Subject: 
I did not see these. I was going to, but then I read about them. They all sound very good. But they also all sound very, very depressing. Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 is about the workers at a suicide call center for veterans. White Earth is a movie about how, essentially, the American dream does not exist and how people endanger themselves and their families by taking on dangerous jobs in the oil industry in an attempt to stay above the poverty line. Then there's a film called Joanna about a woman who is diagnosed with cancer and is given three months to live but promises her 5 year-old son she will stay alive as long as she can. If you think that's probably the worst one, then you haven't heard of Our Curse, which is about the parents of an infant who suffers from a rare condition where if the baby falls asleep he dies, so the parents have to be on constant watch in order to ensure their infant does not decide to take a nap and is killed. Lastly, there's a film called The Reaper (La Parka) about a man who works in an animal slaughterhouse which doesn't exactly sound happy but I thought sounded the least immediately depressing...but have since read through reviews that it is the MOST depressing of the lot.

This shot from Our Curse pretty much sums up all of my feelings right now.

I could not see these films in one sitting, I just couldn't do it. I already saw the film Unbroken and don't want to go through another depressing film-viewing experience like that again. So, what will win? I don't know. How about Joanna. That's the one about cancer. That sounds the most Oscary. I guess that's my prediction but really I just don't want to think about this category too much.
Will Win: A really sad movie.
Should Have Been Nominated: A movie about bunnies hopping through a field and eating delicious strawberries and nothing bad happens ever.

And that's every category! What are your thoughts on the nominees and/or on my predictions? Share your own predictions in the comments section, and be sure to watch the Oscars on Sunday, February 22nd!

Oscar Predictions 2015 Part I

 The Oscars are coming up in a few days (Sunday, February 22nd, mark your calendars everyone!!!!) and the question on everybody's mind is "Who will win?" Now, I spent last month outlining my own picks for the best films of the year, and provided my thoughts as soon as the nominations were announced, but now it's time for the real stuff: the actual predictions for who will win the awards. This is actually turning out to be an exciting race--many categories that once seemed set in stone are suddenly up in the air, so I'm actually much less confident in my predictions this year than in years past. If anything, the major prediction I'm going to make is that I'm going to get several of these predictions wrong. So, please don't blame me if you lose thousands of dollars on your Oscar pool. You really shouldn't be betting so much money on something as fickle as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

As I go into these predictions, I would like to make the disclaimer I always make: my predictions reflect who I think WILL win, not who I think should win (although I'm also going to be talking about who I think should win, so...I shouldn't actually need this disclaimer). Following in the tradition of many critics who can't shut up their own opinions, for all of the major categories, I'll be listing who I think will win, who I think should win, and who I think should have been nominated.

Oh, and because I am ridiculously verbose and have, as always, written way too much, feel free to scroll to the end of my long paragraphs to read the TLDR version of my picks. And now, here is my analysis. Wish me luck.


Best Picture:
Remember earlier when I said "many categories that once seemed set in stone are suddenly up in the air?" Well, this is one of the ones I'm talking about. That's right, for the first time in years, there is no real frontrunner to win Best Picture. Sure, in the past there have been murmurings about a frontrunner being unseated. "Could Gravity beat 12 Years a Slave?" "Will Lincoln defeat Argo?" "Might The Social Network take down The King's Speech?" "Was Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close really nominated? Well that has no chance of winning." But every year, these speculations seem to come more out of a desire to make the race exciting. In actuality, the category of Best Picture has actually been pretty boring in terms of predictions for the past few years, with the winner being the same one which won every award up until that point.

Boyhood was an early frontrunner for Best Picture, but its grasp on the title is starting to loosen.

It looked like history would repeat itself this year. Right out of the gate, Boyhood turned out to be the big awards darling, and it's not hard to see why. Sure, Boyhood may have had its detractors (who surely stand around screaming "There are dozens of us. DOZENS!") but for the most part, it was a universally beloved film, which seemed to strike that magic chord of audience and critical appeal. It would be an unconventional Best Picture winner for sure, but it seemed unbeatable. It gained multiple early awards wins, including the Golden Globe, the BAFTA, and the Critics' Choice.

But then something seemed to shift. The quirky dark comedy Birdman reared its ugly (and brilliant) beak and started to enter the race. It picked up the SAG award for best ensemble, the Producer's Guild award for best picture, and the Director's Guild award for best director. That last one especially is a pretty big deal--the DGA award is usually seen as the best predictor for the Oscar each year, having matched up with the Best Director winner 10 out of 11 years, so director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's win there signifies that he has a good shot at winning best director. And the best director prize almost always matches with best picture. If, say, Inarritu wins best director but Boyhood wins Best Picture, that would mean this was the first time in history that these awards have not matched three years in a row (last year, Alfonso Cuaron won for Gravity and the year before Ang Lee won for Life of Pi). And that just seems like an incredibly unlikely streak. The Producer's Guild award is similarly a good indicator, having correctly matched with the Best Picture winner for the past seven years. These awards are not only big for Birdman, they're also coming later than Boyhood's early awards show dominance, which places the momentum squarely in Birdman's corner. Everywhere I look, people seem to be claiming that Birdman is going to be the Best Picture winner. It has, in fact, become the odds-on frontrunner.

This picture symbolizes Birdman rising to the top of the pack. Get it? Because he's flying.

I should be happy about this. After all, I named it as my favorite film of the year. But, something still feels off. Birdman is definitely my personal favorite film of the year--it is masterful filmmaking and its themes and ideas really resonated with me. But, when I think of what is the actual picture of the year, it's Boyhood hands down. This is a film that will never be replicated--one that did something so completely new and original I feel like it has to be recognized. Both are popular films and both will surely be regarded as masterpieces years from now, but Boyhood is a film that I think has more potential to show up on "Best Films Ever Made" lists. Birdman is my favorite film of the year, but Boyhood makes a stronger case for actually being the best film of the year.

And that's why I think that, despite Birdman's late rise to prominence, this will always be Boyhood's award to lose. It simply has too much broad appeal. So, I'm going against the grain and sticking with Boyhood as the winner for best film of the year. I'll either look like an idiot or a genius come Oscar night. We'll see. No matter what, it will be close, and I can't wait to see which film comes out on top. Honestly, either way I'll be happy.

As for which film should have been nominated, an obvious choice would be the underrated yet brilliant Snowpiercer as, after all, I named it as my second favorite film of the year. But, instead I'm going to go with Foxcatcher because it is simply unbelievable to me that Foxcatcher is not nominated for this award. The Academy recognized it in all the major categories--it received nominations for Best Director, Best Screenplay, and two nominations for acting. How can a movie be one of the best directed, best written, and best acted films of the year and NOT be considered one of the best pictures of the year? That's a major oversight. And the film deserves better.

Will Win: Boyhood
Should Win: Birdman or Boyhood (I CAN'T CHOOSE!)
Should Have Been Nominated: Foxcatcher



Best Director:
As I said in my Best Picture analysis, it is unlikely that Best Picture and Best Director will be awarded to two different films for three years in a row...and yet that's exactly what I think will happen. Once again, it's going to be a close race between Richard Linklater for Boyhood and Inarritu for Birdman, but I think Inarritu definitely has the edge, especially after his DGA win. And while Linklater's work on  Boyhood is impressive, Inarritu's directorial eye is definitely more readily on display in Birdman, and no less ambitious by any means. If Linklater wins, then Boyhood is pretty much guaranteed Best Picture, but I definitely give a leg up to Inarritu for this category. Linklater will have to wait for his next brilliant directing gimmick.

Behind the scenes of filming Birdman

A case could, frankly, be made for four out of the five directors in this category. Morten Tyldum's nomination here is complete bogus, to be honest. I'm sure he's a great guy, and he does a decent job with The Imitation Game, but his directing was competent and unexciting (like the film itself). But Inarritu, Linklater, and their fellow nominees Wes Anderson and Bennett Miller all truly left their mark on their respective films, and that's a joy to see. Not everyone loves Anderson, but there's no denying that he does some really innovative stuff and I think it's surprising that this is his very first directing nomination--he won't win this time, but I can't imagine this nomination will be his last. Miller, meanwhile, was not expected to make this list of nominees. In fact, in my review of Foxcatcher, I specifically cited that I wished Miller was getting more attention on the awards circuit since it seemed like he was being so ignored. Well, I got my wish, and he got a nomination here. I've read more than a few peoples' thoughts that he stole this spot from Ava DuVernay for her work on Selma, but I'd give that dishonor to Tyldum. Miller absolutely deserves this nomination. For the performances he got out of his leads alone, he would deserve his place here. The question of who should win is such a toss-up for me...so I'm going to just default to Birdman and go with Inarritu. His work is extraordinary and it will be great to see such a brilliant director finally get his due.

Bennett Miller takes the chance to squeeze Mark Ruffalo's bicep, while Ruffalo in turn takes the opportunity to squeeze Channing Tatum's bicep.

As for who should be nominated...that's also tough. DuVernay's absence here is certainly the most puzzling. But what about David Fincher, whose work on Gone Girl was ignored along with almost everything else great about that movie. Or unknown directing wunderkind Damien Chazelle for somehow making a movie about jazz drumming one of the most exciting and critically acclaimed films of the year? They all deserve it, but I'm going to with Bong Joon-ho for his work on Snowpiercer. In my world, that movie is nominated for all of the awards, and Joon-ho's eye gave Snowpiercer the incredibly distinct world which really allowed it to stand out from the pack. I thought it was expertly paced and meticulously crafted, so in my world, he would be the one to knock Tyldum out of this race.

Will Win: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu--Birdman
Should Win: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu--Birdman
Should Have Been Nominated: Bong Joon-ho--Snowpiercer


Best Actor:

Eddie Redmayne, one of the frontrunners for Best Actor this year.

As you will soon read, the other three acting categories are pretty much decided at this point, but this category is still a very close race. Much like with Best Picture, the person who was once seen as a frontrunner is now sort of fading into second place as a new frontrunner emerges. The one fading into second place, interestingly, is Birdman star Michael Keaton. He was, and still is, the sentimental favorite. But The Theory of Everything star Eddie Redmayne has won award after award and has emerged as the most likely winner in this category. At the beginning of the awards season, many thought that Redmayne and The Imitation Game star Benedict Cumberbatch would split the vote, but Redmayne has by far emerged as giving the more decorated performance. He's the best bet, but it's still going to be close between him and Keaton. Both have a lot of things going for them that the Oscars love. The Oscars love to recognize those they haven't before, and this is Keaton's first ever nomination despite his prolific career. It's also a comeback--his work as Riggan Thomson has brought him back into the spotlight and people seem thrilled to see him there. It's a career-defining performance, which the Oscars absolutely love. And a factor which no one is talking about is that he's the only one of the nominees playing an original character. The other four characters are all real people, but Riggan Thomson is Keaton's own creation--that might help him stand out from the crowd. But Redmayne has a lot going for him too. He might be competing against others who are portraying real life figures, but his real life figure is probably the most exciting, the most challenging, and certainly the one who is most present in the public eye. And while Redmayne is young and at the start of his career, he's not some nobody, and already has a really impressive resume behind him. While the fact that Birdman is a better film as a whole than The Theory of Everything  might let Keaton pull off an upset, Redmayne is undeniably the favorite. I can't help but think back to 2008, where Sean Penn's portrayal of a historical figure in Milk beat out Mickey Rourke's triumphant comeback in The Wrestler. The same thing is going to happen here. Plus, Redmayne shows a lot of versatility considering that he is also in this year's Jupiter Ascending which proved that he can give both good AND bad performances!

Pictured: a great actor

That being said, of the two, I liked Keaton more. Redmayne is amazing, and is the only thing that made The Theory of Everything  even watchable for me, but...that's exactly the problem. The film's script is so weak that Redmayne frankly has less to work with. Keaton, however, is given a really rich script and mines a lot out of it. Plus, if he doesn't deserve to win for Birdman, he deserves to win for his work with Jimmy Fallon.

David Oyelowo, snubbed for his performance in Selma

As for who should have been nominated, it's tough to look at the current nominees and complain too much. These are all five very strong performances which I liked a lot. But...I'm going to complain anyway because there were definitely better performances. The main snub everyone is talking about here is that of David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma. In my writeup on the film I think my opinions on Oyelowo's performance come across much harsher than I meant them to. I said that I never believed Oyelowo was Martin Luther King Jr., and I stand by that statement, but that's because no one can play that role. What Oyelowo does is create his own character and interpretation and he is riveting to watch. Oyelowo deserved a nomination, and many feel his spot was taken by Bradley Cooper this year for American Sniper, whose nomination was certainly a surprise. Cooper gives a strong and thoughtful performance, the best of his career so far, but looking at these performances side by side, there's simply no comparison. As American heroes go, how can Chris Kyle compete with Martin Lutker King Jr.? Then there's Redmayne and Cumberbatch, who each play tortured British geniuses, but while both are good, my favorite depiction of a tortured British genius this year was Timothy Spall in Mr. Turner. He won Best Actor at Cannes and has been up for numerous awards, but for some reason was mostly left out of the Oscar conversation, and that's a shame. Spall doesn't get a chance for a lot of leading roles, and he absolutely rose to the challenge this time, creating a masterful performance that showed tremendous understanding of his subject.

Timothy Spall's brilliant performance as J.M.W. Turner went unrecognized by the Oscars.

Steve Carell is great in Foxcatcher, but I was actually more impressed with Channing Tatum's work in the same film--Carell gives the more extravagant performance, but Tatum's is deceptively complex, and brought a tremendous amount of fragility to his work. He's the heart of the film, and while Foxcatcher is very much an ensemble piece, Tatum is actually the one who stood out, so I'm sad he's the only one of the three leads to have been unrecognized by the academy. Keaton's work is great, and truly acted as the glue that held the ambitious world of Birdman together. But you could say the same about Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel, who created one of the most well-rounded original characters of the year. But, if I had to choose one single person who should have been in this category, it would easily be Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler. Holy crap, this is a great performance, and one which really establishes Gyllenhaal and proves what he can do. He should have been nominated, hands down. To be honest, he should be the one winning this award.

This face will haunt your nightmares with his acting talent.

Will Win: Eddie Redmayne as Stephen "The Hawk" Hawking--The Theory of Everything
Should Win: Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomson--Birdman
Should Have Been Nominated: Jake Gyllenhaal as Lou Bloom--Nightcrawler (but also Ralph Fiennes in The Grand Budapest Hotel, David Oyelowo in Selma, Timothy Spall in Mr. Turner, and Channing Tatum in Foxcatcher)


Best Actress:
Finally an award that is not up in the air. It's going to be Julianne Moore for Still Alice. Hands down.  She has previously been nominated four times (including twice in one year) and has never won. And given the Oscar's love of giving awards to people who they consider overdue, it's Moore's time. She could have made a film where she blew her nose and she would win this award.

That being said, she does much more than blow her nose in Still Alice. In her role as a woman going through early-onset Alzheimer's, Moore brings such emotional strength to this film. Her work is poignant, distinct, well-rounded, and incredibly heartfelt while remaining grounded. We can feel Alice as she tries to keep control. In just an expression, we can see whether Alice is present or if her mind has slipped in that moment. I worry that this role, which is SUCH an Oscar-y role, might get written off as a shameless grab for an Oscar, but it's really much more than that. It's an incredible performance and, as much as I'd love to say that the glorious Rosamund Pike should win for Gone Girl, Moore more than deserves this award.

Julianne Moore, a soon-to-be Oscar winner in Still Alice.

As for who should have been nominated, it's a really good lineup. Personally, I think Felicity Jones does good work in The Theory of Everything, but it's nothing that I see as particularly Oscar-worthy. She didn't really leave much of an impression on me. In a world where horror movies got any Oscar recognition at all, Essie Davis' work in The Babadook definitely should have gotten some attention for her gut-wrenching performance as a woman who tries to protect herself and her son from a monster lurking within, but this was never going to happen. Although, that film was certainly a career-maker for Davis, so I wouldn't be surprised to see her get an Oscar nomination in a few years' time. she certainly deserves it. But, the biggest snub in this category was definitely Jennifer Aniston in Cake. She campaigned very hard for a nomination, and I can see why. While the movie itself is not incredible, Aniston really is. Aniston plays Claire--a troubled and unlikable woman who becomes obsessed with the suicide of an acquaintance of hers, all while dealing with her own depression and rapidly deteriorating life. Aniston gives Bennett a very distinct edge--she's not approachable--yet shows a very complete understanding of this character. She's prickly because that armor is all that she's got. She pushes people away because she's afraid of getting close to them. Aniston's performance is funny, abrasive, and bristling, but at its core, it's heartbreaking. In hindsight, her nomination was always going to be a longshot. My disappointment and surprise at her being left off feels like a "what were you thinking" moment. But she really deserved it. If nothing else, her work made me consider her and her talents in a completely new light.

Jennifer Aniston, who deserved a nomination for her work in Cake

Will Win: Julianne Moore as Alice Howland--Still Alice
Should Win: Julianne Moore as Alice Howland--Still Alice
Should Have Been Nominated: Jennifer Aniston as Claire Bennett--Cake


Best Supporting Actor:
J.K. Simmons will win. I don't need to say why, I don't need to explain why, but he will win. Just accept that. It's going to be J.K. Simmons. He has won every award up until now and he will continue to win. Because his performance as a tyrannical jazz teacher is brilliant, and because after seeing Whiplash, Oscar voters are afraid of him and what he might do if he doesn't win. There. Done.

Well, that's settled.

But Simmons' dominance over this awards season, while certainly deserved, does not do justice to how strong this field of nominees is. Edward Norton is Birdman's secret weapon and gives one of the funniest, and one of the most fully-rounded performances of Norton's already prestigious career. Mark Ruffalo is the emotional core of Foxcatcher and provides an unexpected sensitivity to such a fraught and tense film. And Ethan Hawke is the truly standout performance of Boyhood--managing to keep his character consistent, and consistently evolving, over the course of the twelve year shoot. I can't argue with a Simmons win, but if only because he has won everything and I want to give someone else some recognition for a change, my vote would actually go to Hawke. But again, all four of these performances are amazing and are exactly who I would have chosen to be recognized by the Academy.

And then...we have Robert Duvall in The Judge. And this is where the category falls apart because this nomination is just ridiculous. I don't know if anybody reading this saw The Judge but my guess is that you did not because nobody has seen The Judge. Robert Downey Jr. hasn't seen The Judge and he's IN The Judge. And you didn't know that Robert Downey Jr. was in The Judge because you haven't seen The Judge. And yet...if you were to watch The Judge you would think to yourself "Have I seen this movie before?" because it is the most predictable and generic film of all time. Seriously, not a single surprising or interesting thing happens this entire movie. Duvall's okay in it I guess, but he's really just phoning it in. The whole movie is phoning it in. That it is an Oscar-nominated film is, frankly, an insult. So undeserved. So, who would I put in instead? For a long time, I was going to say Riz Ahmed for his underrated work in Nightcrawler, but I'm going to go really left field and say...Chris Pine in Into the Woods. Hear me out. His work as Cinderella's Prince is incredibly goofy and ridiculous...but that's what that role is supposed to be. Into the Woods has an all-star cast, but Pine easily outshines them all, and seems to be the only person involved in the production who really understood what the source material is really about. He steals the film from some real heavy hitters, and while a nomination for him is unconventional, when I consider the supporting performances this year, he keeps coming to my mind as a deserving nominee.

Chris Pine. More like Chris Divine.

Will Win: J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher--Whiplash

Should Win: Ethan Hawke as Mason Evans Sr.--Boyhood
Should Have Been Nominated: Chris Pine--Into the Woods



Best Supporting Actress:
This is another category where four of the nominees don't even have to show up because they have no chance. The winner will be Patricia Arquette for her work in Boyhood. She has won, I would estimate, ten gazillion awards already for her work in this movie and they might as well engrave her name in the Oscar right now. She will win.

That being said, I was not impressed with her work. I know, that's blasphemy, since everyone else seems to love her, but...I just don't see it. I think the character is wonderful, but Arquette's performance bothered me. Every performance she gives, she speaks with this sort of drowsy quality that sounds, to me, very stilted and odd. Her performances always strike me as kind of emotionless and detached. Many people who like her work have praised her as being natural, but I don't see it. To me, she just comes across as boring. Personal preference, I know, but I feel that the character of Olivia Evans--who really is fantastic--works on the strength of the writing rather than the strength of Arquette's performance. I longed to see what another actress could have done with the role. Maybe another actress who actually varies the tone of her voice once in a while. I think that with another actress as Olivia, an already strong film would have become even stronger. Compare Arquette's performance with Hawke's. What I love about Hawke's performance is that the character evolves. The Mason Evans Sr. we see at the end of the film is not the same as the one we see at the beginning, and yet he is believable as being the same character. Hawke keeps just enough of the original Mason Sr. intact that we believe that the final product is the man he would have grown into. Olivia, on the other hand, goes through a lot--certainly more than Mason Sr.-- and definitely changes as a character, but...I don't think Arquette's performance evolves at all. I don't see any difference in how she plays Olivia from the first scene than in the last. Olivia has revelations, she has discoveries, she suffers hardships, and she experiences triumphs. Arquette doesn't manage to capture these moments in the way a stronger actress could have.

Patricia Arquette in a performance that everyone loves except for me.

That being said, the other nominees don't really stand out to me either. Laura Dern is a wonderful actress, but as written in the script for Wild, she's not really given much to do, and does her work competently, but not extraordinarily. Meryl Streep got a nomination for being Meryl Streep, and while I love her forever, her performance as The Witch in Into the Woods is far from award-worthy. She's not bad, but this should have been a movie-stealing role, and it just wasn't (the movie-stealing role went to Chris Pine, as I already mentioned). Keira Knightley and Emma Stone both give good performances, but neither really jump out at me. Knightley, like everything in The Imitation Game, is very good but not great. Stone is the best of the bunch and the one I'd most like to see win--her performance as a rebellious teen manages to come across as unpretentious and effortless. She blends into the background when she needs to, and she makes her presence known when she needs to. Unfortunately, she plays third fiddle to Keaton and Norton. But it's a solid fiddle.

Emma Stone in Birdman.

It shouldn't be a surprise, therefore that, like with the Best Actor category, I'd pretty much scrap all of the existing nominees and replace them with a new batch. It's a shame that I find these nominees so unimpressive because there really were an endless number of fantastic supporting female performances this year that nobody talked about. While Mr. Turner got rave reviews for Timothy Spall in the lead role, the film features two incredible performances from supporting actresses--Dorothy Atkinson as his beleaguered housekeeper, and Marion Bailey as Turner's late-in-life love Sophia Booth, an overly-chipper innkeeper who provides a beautiful foil for Spall's gruffness and who really elevated the film for me.

Marion Bailey and Timothy Spall in a cute scene from Mr. Turner

Everyone (including me) gushed about Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler, but where was the love for his co-star Rene Russo, who turned in a fantastic performance as a news producer forced to work with a psychopath. While Rosamund Pike is deservedly recognized for her work in Gone Girl, she's not the only great actress in that movie. Kim Dickens is great as Detective Rhonda Boney, and Carrie Coon is also a standout for her work as Margo Dunne. Everyone talks about how great Tyler Perry is in the film, and he really is great, but Coon is the one who stole the film for me. I can't understand why people weren't talking about her more.

Carrie Coon's great work in Gone Girl went tragically ignored on the awards circuit

Then there's Kristen Stewart in Still Alice, who gives a tremendous performance as Julianne Moore's daughter. Her performance is quiet, studied, and deeply authentic. Stewart has long been criticized as an actress because people stupidly assume that her work in the Twilight series is indicative of her talent as a whole. It is absolutely not. I wish she had been nominated for Still Alice because she gave one of the best performances of the year, but I also wish she had been nominated so that people would shut up and stop saying that she only acts with one expression. Seriously, watch this film--she is incredibly impressive.

Tilda Swinton's brilliant and bizarre character in Snowpiercer

But, anyone who has talked to me at all knows the one person who I think should have been nominated: Tilda Swinton in Snowpiercer. I already gushed about this performance in my analysis of the film, but seriously...she gave the best performance of the year hands down. In a just world, she would be showered with awards for her work. Watch any scene of Swinton in Snowpiercer and then watch any scene of Arquette in Boyhood back to back. Granted, the roles are about as different as two roles can be, but I think the difference in quality will be pretty clear.

Will Win: Patricia Arquette as Olivia Evans--Boyhood
Should Win: Emma Stone as Sam Thomson--Birdman
Should Have Been Nominated: Tilda Swinton as Mason, Minister of the Train--Snowpiercer (also Marion Bailey in Mr. Turner, Carrie Coon in Gone Girl, Rene Russo in Nightcrawler, and Kristen Stewart in Still Alice)


Best Original Screenplay:
This is another two-horse race and, like all of the other close races thus far, one of the major players is Birdman. The script succeeds on so many levels--it's a great concept, it's ambitious, it's funny, it's sad, it's thought-provoking, it's exciting. Then again, the same can be said about the other contender in this race: The Grand Budapest Hotel. And Grand Budapest definitely has the slight edge this time. This is Wes Anderson's third screenplay nomination (after The Royal Tenenbaums and Moonrise Kingdom) and would be his first win and so he is overdue. Plus, it's fresh off of a Writer's Guild Award win, so it is definitely the frontrunner, even though Birdman could still pull off an upset.

Tom Wilkinson as "The Writer" in The Grand Budapest Hotel

Of the screenplay categories, this is certainly the most competitive of the two, and I think all five nominees are very deserving. In terms of who should be here, an obvious choice is Selma, which is the only best picture nominee not to be nominated for its screenplay. But, the thing about the screenplay categories is that they're often a chance for an unconventional film to get nominated. This year, that film was Nightcrawler, as this is that excellent movie's sole nomination. I'd have loved to have seen some other less recognized films join it here. One that jumps out at me is the Chris Rock project Top Five, which he wrote, directed, and starred in. As such Top Five's voice is entirely unique and earned comparisons to Woody Allen for how well Rock was able to transfer his comedic voice to the screen. Top Five may not have earned Rock a writing nomination, but is he keeps making films like Top Five, he'll get one soon.

Chris Rock and friends in Top Five

 But, if I had to choose a nominee for Best Original Screenplay, I'd go for a small indie sci-fi film called The One I Love. Starring Elisabeth Moss and Mark Duplass, the film kind of came and went, but it featured one of the most original premises I've ever seen. The film as a whole is good, but the screenplay is really great. I don't want to talk about it too much because I don't want to give anything away. But you should watch it. It's on Netflix. It's cool.

This still shot from The One I Love tells you nothing about the movie and that's just how it should be.

Will Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Win: Birdman
Should Have Been Nominated: The One I Love


Best Adapted Screenplay:
I hate this category. I hate it hate it hate it. That films like American Sniper and The Theory of Everything  can be nominated for Best Picture is not something I'm happy about, but I can see why they were nominated. But, Best Screenplay? These films were both TERRIBLY written and should absolutely not be here. Luckily, I don't think they will win. I also don't think that Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice has a shot at winning. Beloved by some, I personally thought that Inherent Vice succeeded more as an experiment than as a film as a whole--no one has ever tried to adapt a Thomas Pynchon book before, and this film proved why. It certainly captured Pynchon's tone, and is probably the best adaptation of Pynchon that one could hope for. Unfortunately, that meant it felt kind of muddled and confused, with things that really didn't make sense or hold up (amongst numerous questions I had, why was a relatively minor character acting as the voice-over narrator, who then disappeared for long portions of the film). But, for its ambition alone, it deserves its nomination here.

Josh Brolin has already won the honorary award for flattest top.

But this award will either go to The Imitation Game or Whiplash. The Imitation Game is generally seen as the strongest bet here: it has been an awards darling, but isn't really seen as a likely winner in any of the categories, so if the Academy wants to honor it, this is kind of its only chance to do so. Plus, it won the Writer's Guild Award, so that's a fairly nice feather in its cap as it enters the Oscar race. But, my money is on Whiplash. Now, Whiplash's nomination here is a bit odd, as in every other awards ceremony (including the Writer's Guild) it has been nominated as an Original Screenplay. Due to a really stupid technicality, the Oscars decided to put it in the Adapted category. Basically, writer and director Damien Chazelle, wanted to raise money to finance the film, and since a thriller about jazz drumming is not exactly a recognizable genre, Chazelle shot a single scene of the film to show to potential producers. It happened to be a really good scene, so he entered it as a short film at Sundance where it won awards. Producers signed on to make the film and, voila, now it's nominated for Best Picture. The Academy decided that, even though these are original characters and an original story and the screenplay for the feature film was written BEFORE Chazelle filmed this one scene, this qualified Whiplash as an adapted screenplay (adapted from the short film). The whole thing is stupid and does not fairly represent Whiplash's originality, but it might actually work out in Whiplash's favor. It has by far the best screenplay out of these five. And while The Imitation Game has been racking up writing awards, it hasn't had to compete against Whiplash yet, since Whiplash has been entered as an original screenplay everywhere else. So, going into Oscar night, it's kind of unknown what exactly will happen. One of these two will win, but which one? I'm going with Whiplash. Call it a gut feeling.

Lucky you! You get this picture of J.K. Simmons twice in the same post!

As for who should have been nominated, while I really wish that I could say Guardians of the Galaxy (whose fantastic screenplay was a surprise Writer's Guild nominee) the clear choice is Gone Girl. How Gillian Flynn did not get a nomination for her screenplay is beyond me--it was one of the best written films of the year by far. Gone Girl deserved much more from the Academy than what it got, but its snub in this category is by far the biggest injustice.

Will Win: Whiplash
Should Win: Whiplash
Should Have Been Nominated: Gone Girl

 

Maybe if Flynn had called the bar in the film something more creative than "The Bar" she'd have been nominated...

Okay, so, I've already written a lot. You probably need a breather. These are the major awards, so...let's take a break. You can read the second part of my predictions here. I promise I won't write quite as much about each of those categories. In the meantime, share your thoughts on these awards in the comments. Who will win? Who should win? Who should have been nominated? What do you think?

Oscars 2015: The Rest of the "Best"

It's a good thing Bradley Cooper won that teddy bear because he won't be winning any Oscars this year. Zing!

With such a strong year for film last year, I found the nominations for the upcoming Oscars rather disappointing. So much good work seemed to be passed up in favor of mediocrity. I wrote my own disgruntled post responding to the nominees (one which ended up talking a surprising amount about sound mixing...) but I was hardly the only one to find these nominations disappointing. Everyone thought they sucked.

Now that I've had some time to consider these nominations, I've moved through the grieving process and arrived at acceptance. Sure, Selma deserved more nominations, but you know what? It was nominated for Best Picture, and that's the BIG award that everyone wants. Years from now, no one will care about the number of nominations. But "Best Picture Nominee" will still carry a lot of weight. And ultimately, I should really be happy with the Best Picture nominees. Of the eight films nominated for Best Picture, five of them were included in my list of the best pictures of the year. You can read my in-depth write-ups on Selma, Whiplash, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, and Birdman by clicking on the titles. But that still leaves three Best Picture nominees. What of them? What are my thoughts on those? That's what I mean to examine in this post. What kept those other three films, deemed worthy by the Academy, from making my own list of acclaim? Well, I've already discussed The Imitation Game briefly. To recap, it's a very well-made movie that simply doesn't ever feel extraordinary. It's a very by-the-books biopic, which glosses over the more tragic parts of Alan Turing's story which actually need to be told, and tells its story in a flashy and well-crafted, but ultimately fleeting way. But it's not a bad film. The other two nominees, however, The Theory of Everything  and American Sniper, are. So let's talk about those.

"Wait, so you..."
"No."
"You don't want to talk about my movie?"
"No, Benedict, just go home."

We'll start with The Theory of Everything which, like The Imitation Game, is a stylish and pretty biopic about a British genius. The genius in this case is Stephen Hawking, portrayed by Eddie Redmayne. And, yes, Redmayne is fabulous. He does not just do an impression, he creates a fully realized character that Hawking himself has praised. He has been racking up awards all season and it's not hard to see why. So it's a shame that he has such a weak script to work with. It's not that Stephen Hawking is not deserving of a biopic, but The Theory of Everything goes about telling this story all wrong. It is sometimes said that one should never make a biopic about someone who is still alive, and this film demonstrates why. Perhaps because Hawking is so revered and was so present behind the scenes, the film can never really provide an objective view of its subject. Combined with just how clearly and desperately the film longs for acclaim and accolades, the film and its story become incredibly watered down. Because this is a film that could have really examined a more complete and non-biased view of Stephen Hawking than the one that we know, and missed the opportunity. It is bland beyond belief. Even the things done well--like the score and the production design--feel bland because they feel so typical and generic.

So generic that he even has those two and a half kids that the average family always has. If you count the soccer ball as a half kid, of course. Which I do.

It was not until after I watched the film that I realized it was not adapted from a Stephen Hawking biography, but from the memoirs of his ex-wife Jane Wilde Hawking, played by Felicity Jones in the film. I have a feeling that when this film was first pitched, she was meant to be the main character--what was it like to be the wife of such an esteemed figure? They had a troubled marriage which, of course, ended in divorce, and that perspective could have made a great movie. But, I bet in developing this script, the filmmakers realized something. As interesting as Jane is, Stephen Hawking is infinitely more fascinating. Jane is intelligent and wonderful in her own way, but she is not Stephen Hawking (let us all think back on the film Julie & Julia where, despite having the effortlessly charming Amy Adams playing her, the titular Julie was aggressively uninteresting when contrasted with a presence like Julia Child). And so somewhere along the way, the attention shifted, and it became a film about Stephen Hawking after all. While Jones is nominated in the leading actress category, there is no doubt that she is in a supporting role here. So the film became more of a traditional biopic about Hawking. But one that still partially felt stuck in Jane's story. The result is a muddled and confused film that's not really sure what it wants to do. This is a film that does not have a proper focus or understanding of its main character.

Stephen and Jane Wilde Hawking--the conflicting protagonists of The Theory of Everything

And so, despite being about one of the most fascinating figures of the century, and having a brilliant actor who seemed destined to play him, the film fails to bring said figure to life. It tells his story in the most uninteresting way. At some point Stephen is rushed to the hospital and the film spends a good deal of effort making us think he's going to die. That's all well and good, but we know he's not dead, so the suspense is gone. It's the same as when he's told he'll never walk again and that there's no hope for him, and everyone thinks that's the end. We know about how Stephen can communicate, so despite Redmayne's emoting, the situation never feels as hopeless as the film is relying on it to be.

But the biggest disappointment about the film is that it somehow fails to actually talk about science when telling the story of Stephen Hawking. The science is glossed over. The movie finds it uninteresting, and so the audience cannot truly grasp Stephen's fascination with it, or the true momentous nature of his discoveries.

See? Look how blurry that science on the chalkboard is. Point proven.

My problems with the film can, in fact, be summed up in a single scene, where Stephen is presenting his theory to a group of professors and scientists and generally important smart people who are all old white men (which is probably why the Academy liked this film so much). He arrives at the building and is wheeled into the room. At this point, the scene changes, and cuts to the last minute of his presentation. The film had a perfect chance to explain directly to its audience what Stephen Hawking actually proposed, and chose to show us a hurried summary. The presentation now over without us having heard it, one of the generally important smart people gets up and says "Complete nonsense. Preposterous!" and he and a few others leave. Things are looking bad for Stephen. Will he ever gain respect as a scientist?!?! Yes. We know this. We are not worried. As luck would have it, at that moment, another Professor gets up and introduces himself as a Russian professor and says "As you know, I study the theory of black holes and to be honest, I came here today expecting to hear a lot of nonsense. I go home disappointed. I have to say, the little one here has done it!" Never minding that a bunch of other smart people clearly disagree, and never minding that somehow this professor immediately knows that this brand new theory that has never before been proposed must be correct, and never minding that most of the people in the room had never met Stephen before and were in no way invested in his failures or successes, everyone bursts into applause.

Why does that scene sum up my view of the film? Because it's all about the drama. The applause makes no sense, but it's there because it makes it a more dramatic moment. The filmmakers imagine the audience clapping along with them. According to the filmmakers, the science is not important--we don't need to know what Hawking's research was, we just need to know that he's super smart. These moments feel so manufactured, and so artificial, that the film ends up being little more than a soap opera. A bad soap opera.Without the self-awareness that makes actual soap operas so enjoyable.

"I have something to tell you, Jane. I am not Stephen. I am his twin cousin Salvatore Hawking. Yes, the one who died in that yacht fire three years ago!"

I couldn't think of a good segue to connect these films so...here's a picture from the movie Love is Strange which came out this year. It was good, not amazing, but definitely good. Certainly better than both The Theory of Everything and American Sniper.

Segue achieved!

I must admit that I did not have high expectations going in to see American Sniper and was ready to absolutely hate it. After seeing the film, I can't say that it was the worst film I'd ever seen, and in terms of objective quality, I'd rank it higher than The Theory of Everything when looking at this year's nominees. But the film is nonetheless deeply flawed. And, no, I'm not just referring to the incredibly fake baby, although that is indeed hilarious.

This is the best part of the film, to be honest.

I'll get to the film's faults in just a second, but first I'd like to discuss what American Sniper does well, because it is not without its merits. First, credit is due for Bradley Cooper, in his performance as the titular sniper Chris Kyle. His nomination for best leading actor came out of nowhere, and while I would not have chosen to nominate him, it is definitely a strong performance, and a very different performance from Cooper which shows his versatility. It would be a good performance coming from anyone, but coming from Cooper it was very unexpected--it's a quiet performance which shows a lot of restraint. He imbues Chris Kyle with a grounded strength. For a character who is written as somewhat annoyingly perfect, Cooper makes him feel very real, giving him sensitivity, pain, and dimension that a weaker actor would not have been able to accomplish.

Bradley Cooper as sniper Chris Kyle

Aside from Cooper, the film's greatest strength is that it serves as a very strong and thoughtful examination on the subject of war itself. From reading about American Sniper before going into it, I was ready for a shoot-em-up free-for-all flick glorifying the violence of war. But it was absolutely nothing like this, to the point that I'm rather amazed anyone could come out of the theater and not think that its message was profoundly anti-war. I shouldn't be too surprised, though; as with director Clint Eastwood's previous war films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima, his own well-documented anti-war stance assures that the acts of violence are never glorified. He doesn't condescend the soldiers, but also comments on how difficult the lifestyle is, and how the mentality soldiers are conditioned to develop can be harmful. When Chris is home from the war and clearly undergoing PTSD attacks, he never can acknowledge this reality. In one of the better scenes, a psychiatrist asks Chris whether killing 200 people might have taken a toll on him. Chris seems to not even understand the question. The best lesson to take away from American Sniper is the consistently subpar way that our veterans are treated, and how so many are completely unprepared for the harsh realities of war. Even Chris, who from purely a technical standpoint is an all-American supersoldier and epitome of a macho man, experiences what those of us who do not serve can only imagine. Eastwood admirably does not place blame on the soldiers themselves, but also does not shy away from displaying the harsh realities of what soldiers must do, and explores the mindset and the conditioning of the modern American soldier. When he does so, the film is at its strongest. And I wish he had explored these issues deeper than he did.

Bradley Cooper is thinking so hard right now.

But, as well and as tactfully as Eastwood presents the realities of war, he fails when it comes to depicting his Iraqi characters. And that is a flaw that simply cannot be overlooked--it is not just a flaw in terms of technical storytelling, but one which is simply inexcusable. The rest of the film could be the best movie ever, and would still be a failure based on this flaw. It would be a stretch to say that this is the worst portrayal of Iraqis I've seen, but in a world that is already rife with Islamophobia, the film's own use of it is wholly unnecessary. Not only is it hateful, but it makes the film feel useless and ireelevant. And while I get that it was depicting wartime the film seemed to go out of its way to portray all Iraqis as terrorists. The very first scene is of Kyle shooting an innocent-seeming woman and child once it becomes clear they are carrying a grenade. Then there's the family whose house is invaded by the U.S. soldiers and forcibly told they'll be using his house as their base. The head of the house seems friendly, and invites all of the soldiers to dinner, only for Chris to discover that (surprise) the family has lots of guns in its possession and is in league with the bad guys. The father gets shot later. There is one civilian who is non-violent and attempts to help them, but only does so when they pay him a hefty amount of money. He too gets shot later. They are not treated like characters, they are treated like targets. Especially for a film that touches on the impacts a soldier's job can have on them, the fact that anyone of Middle Eastern descent is treated in such a way is blatantly reprehensible. They are treated about as humanly as the deer that Chris shoots as a kid in an early scene. they are filmed in basically the same way as the paper targets that he practices on. It's disgusting. I mean, even in WWII films, you typically have that one nice Nazi who actually helps out. Not in American Sniper.

What I'm saying is, it's racist.

Mustafa, a potentially interesting character whose potential was wasted in exchange for more racism!

The potential for this film to not be racist is perhaps most wasted when it comes to a character known only as Mustafa (Sammy Sheik). Chris is not just a sniper, he is the best sniper in the history of the American military, and Mustafa is set up as very much a counterpart to him. He's a sniper for the Iraqi army and appears just as legendary and as deadly as Chris himself. Mustafa, by the way, is almost entirely a fictional character. He existed, sure, but Chris Kyle only devotes a sentence or to to Mustafa in his book--in the film, he becomes a major presence. Given that they were already taking creative liberties (more on that in a second) the filmmakers could have drawn a really interesting parallel here. Perhaps we could see that Mustafa is human too, and that he is dealing with the same things Chris is. Perhaps he has a family too? Perhaps he too is dealing with the struggles of being a killer for a living? Of the characters in the film, he is after all, the only one that we learn a little bit of backstory about. Of all of Chris' fellow soldiers, we don't ever learn any of their stories, and even his wife Taya (Sienna Miller) is left startlingly unexplained. We don't even know what her job is, if she has one at all. But with Mustafa, we're given the intriguing bit of information that he had previously been an Olympic gold medalist for Syria. So, unlike everyone except Chris, he has a backstory! He too is a national hero. But the film decides to do absolutely nothing with this information, and Mustafa is played primarily as a supervillain. He hops from roof to roof like a ninja, never speaking, simply shooting at soldiers. He becomes this silent enigma, meant only to further the idea of the savage, mysterious, and violent Muslim. He's cartoonishly absurd. I found the depiction of this character, frankly, hilarious, up until and including the moment where Chris fired a bullet and the movie went into Matrix-style slo-mo to show us the bullet for absolutely no reason. The moment where Chris shoots Mustafa is clearly meant to be important in his life. After the shooting, he for the first time says he wants to go home, and a friend of his (who, if he was given a name, it was completely lost on me) says "Mission Accomplished." Which always means one's work is done. But this doesn't feel momentous to those watching the film. A relationship between the two--whether it's rivalry or perverse respect--is never set up.

And this is the core of the film's problems as a piece of cinema--relationships are simply not defined. The only actual name I can think of for another character is Biggles, one of the soldiers whose face is partially blown off. He is meant to be Chris' friend, but we don't see any connection between them. Their relationship doesn't feel true, and I don't believe they've ever spent a day together, let alone gone through a war together. Other than Chris, no character is fleshed out at all including, as mentioned before, Chris' wife Taya. Their relationship too is rather briskly glossed over. They meet, and one phone call later, they suddenly get married. Poor Sienna Miller struggles to bring any characterization to Taya, but is unable to thanks to a weak script. At first, she is a rather clumsy characterization of the "independent woman" trope, who swears off men until Chris wins her over immediately. Then she is the devoted wife, who clearly cares about Chris, but we don't really understand why since we don't actually see a connection between them. Then, later in the film, they're fighting, but again, it feels unearned. We don't know their relationship well enough to believe it exists at all, or to believe it when it begins to sour.

Chris and Taya gaze at each other lovingly on their wedding day.

But the characters are not the only things that feel unrealistic. Many of the scenes themselves feel unrealistic. And do you know why? Because they're not real. They didn't happen. I haven't read the book so I don't know exactly how much is made up, but here's a video of a guy named Brett who goes over how much of the film is actually truthful. It's less than a minute long and you should watch it. And so, the things that seem incredibly over the top and unbelievable are that way because they are completely made up by screenwriter Jason Hall. The aforementioned sniper Mustafa? Made up. The fact that Chris talks to his wife on a cell phone WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF COMBAT which leads to her thinking he's died when he unsurprisingly gets fired on? Totally made up. The unrealistic Bond villainesque Iraqi general who likes to drill holes in kids' heads for fun? Made up AND racist. Even the one thing I liked in the film--Chris' difficulties with coming to terms with what he's done--was totally made up (follow that link, by the way, to read a more thorough rundown of everything the film gets wrong). American Sniper's fellow Best Picture nominees The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, and Selma are all based on true events and have similarly come under some fire for fictionalizing some true events. Here's the thing, one is never going to be able to depict events exactly as they happened in film. It's just not going to happen, in the interest of story and in the realm of reality. But the changes these films make, whether good or not, make sense. In American Sniper, the events are not only blatantly made up, but they're stupid. This whole screenplay is stupid, filled with many moments of unintentional comedy from its overly cheesy and machismo writing (such as Chris' father's idiotic speech about sheepdogs at the beginning) which paints a wholly unrealistic painting of the war and the work of a sniper.

As I said before, I did like the film more than I thought I would. It is technically well-made, and Cooper really does give a great performance. But, racism really does ruin the whole thing. And lest one say that it isn't that bad, or that it's unimportant, it is incredibly vital. Many have attacked comments made by Michael Moore and Seth Rogen as being unpatriotic after they criticized Chris Kyle, but there has been less coverage of some of the really horrible tweets made in response to the film. Since the film's popular release, the rate of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim threats has tripled. And, considering the tragic events in Chapel Hill this past week, this film is fueling an all-too present hatred in a way that is irresponsible. I can't help but think of the film Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's mostly a wonderful film, but Mickey Rooney's incredibly racist portrayal of a Japanese landlord will forever be a blight it cannot erase--the film may be a classic but it simply does not hold up. I can only imagine that American Sniper will face the same fate. History will not be kind to this film. Years from now, it will be looked on as the racist film which somehow was named one of the best pictures of the year. The Academy is certainly flawed. It makes mistakes. And nominating American Sniper is undoubtedly one of those mistakes.