The Misguided Whimsy of Jojo Rabbit

You thought my coverage of the films of 2019 was over. After all, what more is there to say? I've shared my own favorite films of the year, and did an in-depth analysis of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' favorite films of the year, and even went over how the Best Picture win for Parasite might affect films of THE FUTURE!

And honestly, I thought I was done too. But even though we're into our third month of 2020, I still felt like I had unfinished thoughts about one particular film from last year. Now, I was fairly vocal in expressing my disappointment in most of the films that dominated the last awards season, but in general I feel like a lot of my criticisms weren't all that controversial. You don't need me to tell you that The Irishman was too long, or that Joker didn't really actually say anything. And, frankly, in general I'd rather talk about films that I do like. I do have a reputation among some friends of mind as a bit of a film snob, but while I love to debate people about films I dislike, I'd ultimately rather champion films that I like than put down films that I don't.

But as 2020 has progressed I still cannot stop thinking about what an offensive pile of bullshit Jojo Rabbit was.

"Vat is dat you're say-ing?"

I've had to defend my stance on Jojo Rabbit far more than for any other film in 2019. When I've talked to fans of, say, Once Upon in Hollywood and mentioned I found the movie boring, they've disagreed but we've both been able to acknowledge each others' experiences watching the film and move on. When I've mentioned my thoughts on Jojo Rabbit, though, fans of the film have gotten rather contentious and flat out told me I was wrong (even though I am a Jewish person telling them, in each instance a non-Jewish person, that I found the film to be Anti-Semitic). In one baffling instance, this even happened when the person I was talking to had not even seen the film. And so my dislike of Jojo Rabbit was a lonely one. Many of the biggest fans of the film are people who I admire and who I usually align with in terms of tastes in movies. And while the film did receive its fair share of criticism (it had one of the lowest Rotten Tomatoes scores of all the Best Picture nominees, second only to Joker), most of that criticism focused on how the film was "cutesy" and didn't really say all that much. While I certainly agree with those criticisms (although I don't find cutesiness to be an inherently bad thing), my dislike of the film went much deeper, and I struggled to find opinion pieces about the film that seemed to acknowledge what I thought were fairly blatant flaws in the film. I began to feel like I had watched an altogether different movie than everyone else. Why was nobody talking about just how bad this movie was?!?!
So I felt like I needed to write this post. My dislike of the film was too specific and too personal for me to let things go unsaid.

For the uninitiated, Jojo Rabbit is set during WWII and tells the story of a Hitler Youth member named Jojo Betzler, whose imaginary friend is a wacky version of Hitler. Jojo's life gets upended when he discovers that his mother has been protecting and hiding a Jewish girl in their home, and he has to reconsider the things he has believed his whole life. The film is written and directed by Taika Waititi, the New Zealand director who is part Māori and part Jewish, and he also plays Hitler. I must admit that until this film I have always been a fan of Waititi's work. He's a delightful figure both on and off the camera, and his films have always had a good deal of charm and wit. And I was genuinely excited for this film when it was first announced. I don't think portraying Nazis, and particularly Hitler, as goofy is an inherently problematic thing. In fact, Nazis have been fodder for humor ever since their existence, often to great effect. Films like The Great Dictator and The Producers come to mind as movies where the scary images of Nazism are subverted and mocked and made silly. And this is not just a trope in film. There are countless examples of "goofy Nazis" being both funny and insightful across all media. There are honestly too many to name, but this "Are we the Baddies?" sketch from the British comedy duo Mitchell & Webb certainly comes to mind. When done well, poking fun at Nazis is both effective and part of a tradition.

Fun!

The problem is that it is not done well in Jojo Rabbit. Everything about the characterization of Nazis here is lazy. In interviews on the press circuit for Jojo, Waititi mentioned that he made a conscious effort to not do any research to play Hitler. "I didn't base him on anything I'd seen about Hitler before. I just made him a version of myself that happened to have a bad haircut and a shitty little mustache. And a mediocre German accent. It would just be too weird to play the actual Hitler, and I don't think people would enjoy the character as much. Because he was such a fucking c*nt, and everyone knows that as well. I think people have got to relate to enjoy the ride." The problem with this, though, is that storytelling relies on specificity. Waititi's strategy in both script and performance appears to have been to just act silly, but in doing so he removed any sense of authority and menace that Hitler undeniably had. I don't think this is offensive, but I do think it's lazy. Waititi is, of course, not playing the real Hitler, he's playing an imaginary friend who happens to be Hitler, essentially a child's version of Hitler. But in that case, I don't see how Waititi's version of the character makes any sense. This is a person that young Jojo looks up to and has tremendous respect for, so why does he imagine him as a complete buffoon? And as the film progresses and Jojo begins to question all the things he believes, Waititi's performance remains pretty much the same. I doubt I would have ever enjoyed this film, but I do think there would have been a massive improvement if there had been literally any moment of menace in Waititi's Hitler. Just a single scene where we see how much of a threat this person really was. Because without that, Waititi's performance, and the film as a whole, lacks any sort of bite. I frequently saw the film described as a satire but if so, I don't understand what the film was meant to be satirizing. As I've already mentioned, the idea of portraying Nazis as silly has been done again and again and again, and is quite simply not shocking any more. There has to be more to it than that. Especially at a time when Nazism is frighteningly on the rise again, you can't make a film about this subject matter and have it be so toothless. Despite good intentions, the idea of throwing such softballs is reckless and, yes, incredibly offensive to me especially as a Jewish person.

And it's not just Waititi's Hitler who's portrayed this way. There are multiple Nazis in this film and they are for the most part all portrayed as hapless goofs, with the most prominent being the Nazi instructors played by Rebel Wilson and Sam Rockwell. Stephen Merchant also turns in a far less over-the-top but nonetheless haplessly bumbling performance as a Gestapo agent. Their work is fine, but as with Waititi's performance, doesn't actually offer any commentary other than to look dopey. The closest the film comes to saying anything at all with any of its Nazi characters is with Rockwell's Captain Klenzendorf, who it is heavily implied is in a relationship with his second-in-command Finkel (played by Alfie Allen). Once again, I thought the writing of this subplot was frustratingly lazy. For one thing, the trope of "Oh this person is homophobic so they must be gay" is tired and, frankly, dangerous. But it also feels tacked on. If these characters are truly gay, why must it only be hinted at? There's a pivotal final battle scene at the end of the film which could have been a great opportunities for these characters to at the very least embrace. And we're given no additional backstory on Klenzendorf and his sexuality. We know that he was aware of Jojo's secretly anti-Nazi mother (Scarlett Johansson, in a bizarre performance that should have never received an Oscar nomination but I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO THAT HERE), and we know of at least a couple of major moments where he shows his own anti-Nazi sentiments. But it's unclear just how long those sentiments have existed. He's apparently a prominent member of the Nazi party, so has he always been hiding his own beliefs, or are they newfound? Has he always been trying to end the Nazis from the inside, or is this a newfound form of activism for him? It's never explained, and so Klenzendorf ends up being a cipher. As opposed to being an interesting layer to the character, it feels like a sloppy attempt at fleshing out a character. "Oh, we want to make this literal Nazi sympathetic? Okay, we'll make him gay and now he's a good guy!" Waititi certainly doesn't use the existence of Klenzendorf and Finkel to educate his audience on the ways gays were persecuted by the Nazis. The whole thing feels tacked on, and exploitative in its laziness.

Sam Rockwell as Captain Klenzendorf

But the most problematic of all the Nazis in the films is undoubtedly the title character himself, little Jojo. I get the sense that you're really supposed to be rooting for Jojo. The thesis of the film seems to be that he's a sweet kid who is nonetheless brainwashed and swept up in the propaganda of the time. But this is undeniably a character we're supposed to be rooting for. The entire beginning of the film (and, indeed, the title) is about how Jojo doesn't want to kill a rabbit at a training camp, showing his sensitivity. And actor Roman Griffin Davis does a genuinely lovely job of being precocious and cute and altogether innocent. Both Davis as a performer and Waititi as a writer and director draw upon numerous performances of child actors past to craft a familiar creation of pluckiness and heart. The problem is that Jojo is honestly a piece of shit. He is a Nazi through and through, and while of course that's necessary for the plot of the movie, it did make it uncomfortable for me to genuinely root for him. And despite him saving the rabbit at the beginning of the film, Jojo is shown to be capable of immense cruelty. After meeting Elsa, the Jewish girl hiding in his house (played by Thomasin McKenzie, who for the record, is not Jewish), he sets out to torture her. The closest Jojo comes to showing any kindness is when he feels bad after he has tortured her. Towards the end of the film when Jojo is most directly coming to terms with the facts that the Nazis might not be the force for good he initially believed, his response is LITERALLY to stab Elsa with a blunt knife. When this is done he cries and she has to comfort him. I genuinely ask what about Jojo is supposed to make him likable. Because when I look at Jojo Rabbit I see yet another film about the holocaust which includes a Jewish character but makes the protagonist a non-Jewish person. And it's frankly infuriating that this is still a thing. Waititi has stated already that he thinks Jojo Rabbit wouldn't have had as much backlash if more people knew he was Jewish. But whether or not he's Jewish doesn't take away from the fact that this movie is simply not told from a Jewish person's perspective. While we're told Elsa is Jewish, we don't actually see her do anything that would symbolize her as a Jew. At no point does she pray, at no point does she reminisce about anything specific to Jewish culture. No matter his background, Waititi doesn't seem interested in Elsa's Jewishness other than how it advances the character development of a Nazi. Elsa, as a Jewish person, doesn't even get to be the hero in the story. The most heroic character is Jojo's mother, Rosie the political revolutionary. Rosie gets to be portrayed as a hero and a martyr in a way that is not afforded to the one Jewish character in the film: a true goyim savior.

Is it offensive if I call her ScarJew?

Much of the promotion surrounding Jojo Rabbit is that it is a film about "anti-hate." Due to the lack of specificity I keep harping on about, that manifests itself as vague notions of ~tolerance~ that are unfortunately all too common in movies. With 2018's Best Picture winner Green Book, much of the controversy surrounding the film involved asking why we should applaud a character who takes a whole movie to learn he shouldn't be racist. I frankly don't see why Jojo Rabbit is any better than Green Book. In fact, I would argue that at the very least Green Book makes an attempt to say "racism is bad," no matter how misguided that was. I can't even say the same for Jojo Rabbit because by the end of the film Jojo has seemingly learned nothing. In the film's last moments, when Jojo has supposedly gone through his entire arc and learned all of his lessons about how he shouldn't be a Nazi anymore, he continues to exhibit the cruel behavior we've seen him display all film. He runs home and lies to Elsa to tell her Germany has won the war and she has to go into hiding in Paris. How absolutely terrifying must that have been for this poor girl?! She is a Jew who has lost everyone important to her who is now living in a home where she frequently must interact with a Nazi who attempts to torture her psychologically, who then is the only person she can rely on for salvation? It's a fucked up situation and Jojo's actions, which again come AFTER he supposedly would be reformed, are unconscionable. At the very least, when she steps outside and realizes that Germany has in fact lost the war and Jojo was playing a hilarious prank on her, she does get to slap him in the face. And then they do a funny little dance. I'll return to that dance in a couple paragraphs, but the takeaway is that I honestly found Jojo irredeemable as a character.

And it's worth expanding on this idea that the relationship between Jojo and Elsa is an incredibly problematic one. Waititi's portrayal of their relationship is often played for laughs, and he attempts to conjure the nostalgia of a childhood crush. Which...no. For one thing, it undermines any semblance of a redemption arc for Jojo. As he begins to realize that Elsa is not the monster his buddy Hitler tells him she is, is that a true indication of his personal and moral growth if it is rooted in the fact that he finds her cute? Would Jojo's actions have been the same if his mother had been protecting a Jewish boy, or a Jewish person who wasn't Jojo's age? Perhaps I wouldn't be so worried about Jojo's motivations involving Elsa if Waititi had afforded her more depth of character. Instead, we are treated to a portrayal of the only Jewish character in the movie that is as flat and one-note as Jojo's perception of her. And when she does show flashes of a personality, they don't jive with the reality of the stakes at play in the film. For example, when we first meet Elsa, she doesn't show the fear of Jojo one would expect. If anything, Jojo is afraid of her, as she physically overpowers him and threatens him when he considers turning her in. She ends up having the power in that scene. From a narrative sense this makes sense, as she's the obstacle for Jojo and he seems himself as a victim. But that narrative ignores the reality that Elsa is in far more danger than Jojo ever would be. Even if it's an act she's putting on to save face, it's an implausibly risky one. And even if it's supposed to be "subversive," any implication the film makes that Elsa could ever have power over Jojo is an irresponsible one.

Thomasin McKenzie as the girl from The Ring

I know a lot of fans of the film have tried to justify the characterization of Jojo by saying that he's brainwashed and conditioned to act this way, but I just can't buy that. Because Jojo does believe it so wholeheartedly and it frankly wouldn't have been too difficult for Waititi to have written a character who has genuine childlike innocence. I know that because HE ACTUALLY DID THAT IN THIS FILM. The saving grace of this mess of a movie is Yorki, Jojo's best friend played by Archie Yates. If Jojo had been a version of Yorki, this whole movie could have at least been salvageable. Yorki is as brainwashed as Jojo, but he is far less enthused about the whole thing than Jojo is. He seems to accept that Nazism is his life, but also isn't actively torturing Jews (a low bar, I know) and comes across as actually decent. In Yorki, we see the childlike innocence and compassion and enthusiasm that it feels like Jojo was supposed to have for the movie to justify its own existence. Unfortunately, rather than use Yorki to make a point, Waititi relegates him to bumbling sidekick status and utilizes him instead as comic relief (although far more effective comic relief than most of the film).

This kid is honestly an absolute star.

But I want to end this analysis by returning to the end of the film. Because I promised I'd talk more about the dance, and because it really encapsulates the level of bullheadedness this film exhibits. The film's screenplay was adapted by Waititi from the book Caging Skies by Christine Leunens. It's worth noting that the film and the book are almost completely different, with Waititi lifting plot elements from the book and nothing more. For one thing, imaginary friend Hitler isn't a character in Caging Skies, and more generally the book is a straight-up drama with none of the zaniness present in the film. As I've already stated, the film ends with Jojo lying to Elsa about the war ending, and then the two of them doing a little dance when she realizes he's lying. That's not what happens in the book. In the book, Jojo whisks Elsa away without her ever learning that he's lying. They live together, become adults, and even get married, all while Elsa hides away from Nazis believing that Jojo is shielding her from them. Many, many, MANY years later, Elsa learns the truth and immediately leaves him to live her own life. I haven't read the book, but this strikes me as a powerful ending, one which spells out plainly the corrupted foundation of their relationship, and gives Elsa agency to act as her own person out from under the control of both Jojo and Nazism in general. In allowing her this final act, it makes it her story and acknowledges the irreparable harm in Jojo's actions.

But in the movie, they do a funny dance.

Do the Nazi!

Again, Waititi has clearly read the book. And even if he didn't want to keep the same ending as the book (my guess is he wanted these characters to remain as children on the screen) it's telling that the new ending he chose so flagrantly misses the point of what the book is trying to say.

The dance implies that this is something for them BOTH to celebrate, that the win for the Allied powers is as much a win for Jojo as it is for Elsa. It implies that the film is really about childish sensibilities than about the danger and consequences of the war. Perhaps most upsettingly, the dance implies that Elsa forgives Jojo for his lie and his actions throughout the movie. It's a cute little button, a bow Waititi tied around his film and it's honestly infuriating to me. All the lack of substance, all the disregard for the stakes that this film should have possessed can be summed up in Waititi's choice of an ending for the film. Imagine if, instead of the dance, Elsa had simply run away. From Jojo, from her prison, and from everything that reminds her of what she lost. Like with practically every scene in the film, Waititi had the chance to truly say something meaningful. Instead, he sacrificed impact for flaccid charm. And, somehow, got rewarded for it.

Womp womp!

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on this film. It was good to get them all out. As I mentioned at the start of this post, it often felt lonely hating Jojo Rabbit so much. But, shortly before the Oscars, discussion of this film's flaws sort of blew up on Twitter and, for the first time, I saw that there were other people who felt the same way as me. Seeing that really encouraged me to try and clarify my thoughts and write this. It also encouraged me to ask my Jewish friends about their thoughts, and I learned that almost none of them had chosen to see the film because they had heard enough to know they weren't interested. I read a lot of great analysis of this film's problems, and one standout article was this one by Esther Rosenfield. I think that what I say here is different to what she's saying, but I do want to credit her article for helping me verbalize a lot of what I'd been feeling (and for introducing me to the real ending of the book Caging Skies). I've now read quite a few of her reviews and have found them all insightful.

What Parasite's Win Means

RESPECT!!!!

Even though I predicted that Parasite would win Best Picture...a huge part of me didn't think it actually would. Despite so much momentum going into the ceremony, I didn't want to let myself get too excited. After all, I remember the disappointment of last year when Roma seemed destined for Oscar glory, only to lose to the book that shall not be named. Even after Bong Joon-ho's surprise win over Sam Mendes in the Best Director category, I was skeptical. But...it happened. Parasite won the Academy Award for Best Picture. This is obviously a huge deal. In the 92 years that the Oscars have existed, it is the first film in a foreign language to win this prize. And this was a big night for Parasite even before it won Best Picture. It also took home more Oscars than any other film this year, winning 4 of the 6 categories it was nominated for. To put that in perspective, Joker was nominated for 11 awards, but only won 2. The Irishman, which had 10 nominations, didn't win any.

In many ways the story of this year's Oscars is in direct opposition to last year's. Last year, the nominees were very exciting, which made the winner so anticlimactic. Last year, Roma entered the ceremony as the frontrunner, but other Best Picture nominees included the likes of The Favourite, BlacKkKlansman, and Black Panther. This was a lineup that was truly unexpected. The nominees were more original, more out there, and more against the grain than most Best Picture nominees are. Even the harsher critics of Black Panther would need to admit that its nomination was a huge deal, and showed a sort of evolution in the Academy in terms of what sorts of films they would consider; the nominees felt like they wouldn't have been the nominees even five years earlier. When Green Book ended up winning, it took all the air out of what up until then had been a refreshing lineup.

This year it was the exact opposite. The nominees in general were blander. I've gone on record saying that I wasn't a fan of most of the nominations (for a look at some superior nominations, check out The 5th Annual Miles Awards) but this doesn't even have to do with my personal preferences. Even people who liked The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and 1917 much more than I did would have to admit that they were low-hanging fruit as far as the Oscars go. Even the more technically unconventional Oscar picks like Joker or Jojo Rabbit were fairly Academy-friendly fare. The exception was Parasite. Last year, we had great nominees and a disappointing winner. This year, there were disappointing nominees, but ultimately the best film of the year won.

Bong Joon-ho holding up just one of his four Oscars

It is worth noting that this observation probably had a lot to do with why Roma lost and why Parasite won. Last year, having so many atypical Best Picture nominees meant that they probably split the vote of the younger and more contemporary-leaning voting blocs. Those who wanted to use their vote to champion diversity and more original filmmaking had multiple options. The largely older white male members of the Academy, however, who still trend towards "classic" filmmaking and are opposed to streaming services and comic book films and profanity were able to rally behind Green Book, handing it the win. This year, voters who responded to Parasite really had it as the only option. All of those who gave Green Book the win last year were probably divided between 1917, The Irishman, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It is also worth saying that Parasite probably could not have won this had Roma not gotten so close last year. Roma came so close, and its loss felt so unexpected, that I think it opened up the idea that a foreign language film could win with more clarity than ever before. While it might not have removed the stigma against subtitles entirely, it erased the supposed common wisdom that such a win could NEVER happen. This is ultimately a really great look for the Oscars themselves. As critic Justin Chang wrote in this great article, the Oscars needed Parasite more than Parasite needed the Oscars. Parasite was already a phenomenon and will certainly be a classic. But by giving it the win, the Oscars have regained some credibility and clout it had been starting to lose.

So, what does Parasite's win mean? It certainly broadens the horizons of what a Best Picture winner can be. I expect we're going to be seeing more and more foreign language films enter the field each year, and be recognized in other categories more frequently as well (it's a trend that's already happening and will only get more prevalent). It is also going to change the way Oscar campaigns are run. Distributors who previously wouldn't put too much heft into campaigning for a foreign language film might be more willing to pursue awards with more vigor in the future. It's also going to affect theatrical distribution. Parasite has already been very successful theatrically, and after this win its box office is just going to continue to grow. Theaters are going to start looking for "the next Parasite" and will be turning to the international market to do so. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if Neon really leans into this as they promote the wonderful French film Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which competed against Parasite at Cannes and is getting a wider release in the U.S. in four days. After Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a big success with audiences and the Academy, it lead to a boom in the release of Chinese wuxia films, and I can only hope that Korean cinema (which has been some of the best in the world for a while now) will see a similar surge in popularity. And it's for things like this that the Oscars really do matter. Despite how easy it is to write off the Oscars as irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that they still can dictate trends. Movies are really expensive to make, and for the most part nobody's going to give someone money to make a film unless they think it's commercially viable. But if a producer wants to win an award, they're more likely to invest in something based on its artistic potential. Even though the Oscars rarely recognize the best films of the year, their existence allows the best films of the year to get made at all. It's one of the reasons I allow myself to spend so much time thinking about awards season each year despite its many problems, because it really does dictate the trends of the industry.

The cast of Parasite on the red carpet

Now, all of this doesn't mean that the Oscars are fixed and will be wonderful for all time. After all, many thought that the Best Picture win for Moonlight a few years ago signaled a turning point for the Oscars, but here we are three years later with just one actor of color receiving an Oscar nomination (for a movie that gave Harriet Tubman superpowers no less). When Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win an Oscar for Best Director many celebrated, but that was back in 2009, and only one woman has been nominated since (Greta Gerwig). 92 years in and still no black person has ever won Best Director, and we've only ever had one female nominee for Best Cinematography (which I think might be the most shocking Oscar statistic out there). Progress still needs to be happen. But that doesn't mean that Parasite's win isn't amazing. What's also refreshing about Parasite's win is that it doesn't feel like the result of politics and campaigning. While, like all the nominees, Parasite was part of a major awards campaign, it was hardly the best financed film in the game, and the combination of subtitles and its critical analysis of class dynamics meant it never had the easiest route to a Best Picture win. 1917's Oscar campaign was built on the technical difficulty of making the film. Joker's campaign leaned heavily on the film's popularity and tried to ride the coattails of its dynamic star. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had a baffling campaign which tried to imply that if you didn't vote for it you didn't love movies. But Parasite's campaign seemed to boil down to...vote for it because it's the best film. There wasn't an angle, and there wasn't a gimmick. Its win feels like it was based off of quality as opposed to tricky awards season nonsense. For once, it felt like the Best Picture award went to an actual best picture.

Now, onto the Oscars party which will surely go well...

NOTE: When I first started writing this, I expected it to be a rundown of the Oscars ceremony as a whole, but it obviously ended up just being about Parasite. And honestly...that kind of sums up this Oscars ceremony. The only thing that made it notable was those four awards for Parasite. Everything else about the ceremony was pretty much fine. None of the awards were major surprises: this might be the first year that I named all 24 winners as either a "will win" or a "could win" when I made my predictions. Which says more about the lack of upsets than my psychic powers. There were no amazing "water cooler" moments, nor were there any huge disasters. For example, Janelle Monae's opening number was great because of course it was because it was Janelle Monae, but it also wasn't a revelation, and felt strangely removed from the ceremony itself. The films most highlighted by the number were A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, which was snubbed by the Academy in all but one category, and even more bafflingly, Midsommar, which didn't score a signal Oscar nomination. Following that up with banter from former hosts Steve Martin and Chris Rock further highlighted, for me at least, why a host is really helpful for a ceremony like the Oscars. Even if you get good presenters, without a host, there can never be a defining tone to the Oscars. It becomes a series of awards as opposed to a general celebration.

That being said, there were some choices I liked about the ceremony. Namely, that the Oscars are starting to be made for fans of the Oscars again. Here's what I mean by that. Montages, for example, tend to be a hit with people who love movies and will watch the Oscars simply because it's the Oscars. But people who don't care as much and will only maybe watch the Oscars if nothing else is on tend to find the montages irritating and unnecessary. The same goes for a long runtime: fans of the Oscars will watch no matter the length, but those who don't care as much will get annoyed if it goes on too long. In the past few years, there has been an emphasis on keeping the ceremony to three hours, with producers even promising that it will be a shorter ceremony (a promise that is pretty much always broken). But it doesn't serve the ceremony well. Things like montages add to the overall celebration of the art of film. And I was glad to see that they actually let the winners had their moment and didn't cut Oscar winners off. There were a few times that multiple Oscar winners were on stage and only one got to speak before the camera pulled away, but the infamous Oscars exit music was never utilized. Even when certain people began to ramble and even when all of Bong Joon-ho's many wins went on longer because he utilized a translator (the phenomenal Sharon Choi, who is a director in her own right), nobody got "played off." These are probably not choices that everyone would agree with as being good, but I very much appreciated the sentiment behind these decisions. This year's Oscars thankfully didn't feel desperate to court viewers at the expense of the ceremony as a whole. It may not have been a rather blah ceremony over all, but I hope the Oscars continues in this direction. And maybe gets Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig to host.

 
And frankly who cares if the ceremony itself wasn't exciting because DID YOU HEAR THAT PARASITE WON BEST PICTURE?!?!?! I screamed when it happened. And it truly was an amazing capper that nearly salvaged this awards season. Here's to it being the shot of adrenaline needed to make next year's Oscars more consistently excellent.

We do not deserve Bong Joon-ho

Predictions for the 92nd Academy Awards

The Oscars are right around the corner, and so to am I here with my accompanying Oscar predictions. Although they're a little more begrudgingly put together than usual. If you've read my list of my favorite movies of 2019, you'll already know that I've been mostly unimpressed with the biggest titles of awards season. Apologies to fans of 1917, Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood but I think these are some rather laughable Best Picture contenders. And, honestly, let's throw in Marriage Story too. I enjoyed it more than the others I just mentioned, but while I can appreciate it's charms it is a heavily flawed film. How does Noah Baumbach have such a weak understanding of how the theater works? Was Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson's son supposed to be treated as if he was a different age in every scene? We might never know.

But my personal tastes are basically irrelevant here. These are not the Miles Awards after all (click here for a full list of winners and nominees at this year's Miles Awards), these are the Oscars! And whether I like it or not, these are the nominees we have to work with. And my fascination with awards seasons has never had anything to do with the quality of the nominees. Rather, the reason I love analyzing awards season odds is because it's about the story behind how various nominees can win. So, could Parasite become the first foreign language film to ever win Best Picture at the Oscars? Or will a bad movie win instead?! Read my thoughts and predictions for all 24 Oscars categories below!!!

BEST PICTURE:

Parasite, 1917, and  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Nominees: 1917, Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Little Women, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite
Will Win: Parasite
Could Win: 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 1917, The Irishman
Should Win: Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: An Elephant Sitting Still, Fast Color

If the quality of this year's Oscar nominations weren't so lackluster, then it would be one of the most exciting Best Picture races in years. Nearly half of the nominees are genuine contenders, with two frontrunners which appear to be neck and neck going into the ceremony. And those two are rather surprising picks for various reasons.. In other words, the blandness of the nominees has perhaps exacerbated how difficult forecasting the winner will be.

Let's start with the films that won't win. Ford v Ferrari is the exact sort of competently made also-ran which tends to get nominated here and then is quickly forgotten. It's not exactly a bad movie (although the choice to make The Ford Company an underdog certainly requires a suspension of disbelief) but it has certainly been lost among the numerous other Best Picture nominees this year about particularly manly, particularly white men. Marriage Story had a lot of buzz early on in the awards season, but as time went on it became clear that it was picking up a lot of nominations but very few wins; and Netflix is putting the majority of its Oscar campaigning heft behind The Irishman instead. And, of course, there's Little Women, which probably has the least chance of winning despite being, in my opinion, quite easily the second best film out of all the nominees.

Some good news about this Oscar season is that it is unlikely that Joker will win Best Picture. Its whole presence this awards season has been so surprising and upsetting that I don't feel comfortable counting it out entirely; it did receive the most nominations, and is one of only two Best Picture nominees to also receive crucial nominations for directing, screenplay, acting, and editing. But the backlash to the film has been too vocal and it has become clear all awards season that its divisive nature can score it plenty of nominations but very few wins. The same can be said of Jojo Rabbit. It was an early favorite for this award after winning the People's Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival, one of the most reliable Oscar bellwethers (last year's winner of said award was a then unheard of crowdpleaser called Green Book). But, again, it's a film with a wildly disparate support base that hasn't picked up the necessary major awards that Green Book needed to build momentum.

Which leaves 1917, The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and Parasite. One of these films will win Best Picture. For a while it seemed like it might be The Irishman, which has picked up various wins from assorted Critic's Choice Awards, and was named the best film of the year by the National Board of Review. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is also quite a contender, having stayed in the conversation despite being released several months earlier than the other nominees. And Oscar voters do always love a film that is in any way about the movie industry, which the film's Oscar campaign has been leaning into heavily. While both have been outpaced of late and slipped a bit in the Oscars rankings, I could see either of these two pulling off an upset. Of the two, I think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has by far the best chance of being a dark horse winner this year. Although it should be said that if The Irishman pulls off an upset then it shows that the Academy has really forgotten their Netflix bias (which prevented Roma from claiming its deserved title last year) a bit too quickly. And if one feels like being uncharitable, they'd say that might be because Oscar voters are more willing to accept films about old white men than ones about an indigenous Mexican woman.

It's me. I'm feeling uncharitable. I'm saying that.

But that leaves two movies that are the true frontrunners in this category: Sam Mendes' one-shot war epic 1917 and Bong Joon-ho's masterful social commentary Parasite. Both have managed to split the most defining Oscar forerunners down the middle. 1917 picked up the top prizes at the Director's Guild Awards and Producer's Guild Award. That last one is especially notable as it is the guild prize that most consistently overlaps with the Oscar for Best Picture. The fact that it received a somewhat surprising nomination for its screenplay shows that the Academy is willing to throw support behind it even in areas it wasn't campaigning for as strongly. As days go by it seems increasingly likely that its director, Sam Mendes, will take home Best Director (more on that in a minute) which also boosts its chances significantly. But 1917 is far from a sure bet for Best Picture. While it has had a strong showing in all the technical categories, it failed to receive a nomination for Best Editing. The last time a film to win Best Picture without a Best Editing nomination was Birdman five years ago, but when it won it had been over 30 years since a film had won without an editing nod. However, this isn't a complete disaster for 1917; like Birdman it was shot to look like it was filmed in one take, which the Academy seems to think doesn't require editing of any kind and might explain its exclusion here. Harder to ignore is that 1917 has yet to show it has support from actors, who make up the largest percentage of Oscar voters. The film was completely shut out of the SAG Awards, and only one Best Picture winner has ever won without a single SAG nomination (that would be Braveheart in 1995, which was shut out of the 2nd SAG Awards). The fact that it didn't receive any acting nominations at the Oscars themselves might be the single biggest clue that 1917's Best Picture hopes won't come to fruition.

To be fair, the other Best Picture frontrunner doesn't have any acting nominations either. That, of course, would be Parasite, although its lack of acting nominations is less worrying than it is for 1917. After all, the last time Best Picture went to a film with no acting nominations, it was Slumdog Millionaire, which also had an all Asian cast. More definitively, Parasite became the first foreign language film ever to win the top prize of Best Ensemble at the SAG Awards, which certainly shows that actors support the film as a whole. It also made history by becoming the first foreign language film to win the top prize at the WGA Awards. Parasite also has the helpful editing nomination that 1917 lacks. Honestly, had it won either the DGA or PGA top awards over 1917 there wouldn't even be a discussion: Parasite would be the frontrunner by a mile. And if we look away from the statistics and logic and quantitative reasons why Parasite could win, there's also something to be said for how much people just seem to like this movie. Unlike other nominees that are fairly controversial or divisive or just have a feeling of "meh" to them, there are no such knocks against Parasite. The fact it won at the SAG Awards is great, but the fact that the audience gave the cast a standing ovation and cheered every time the film was mentioned is really telling. Bong Joon-ho might be losing most Best Director races to Sam Mendes, but he's become an unlikely "it" figure on the red carpet. Even when 1917 has bested it this awards season, Parasite gets in the news. And this is particularly worth mentioning considering that the Academy uses ranked choice voting. If it was simply a case of "vote for one film, most votes wins," then this race would be wide open. But because of ranked choice, Parasite doesn't have to get the most votes, it just has to be the most liked by the most people. Even if people don't put it first, it seems unlikely to be put last by a lot of people, which can't be said for most of the other nominees on this list.

But, of course, the elephant in the room is that Parasite would be the first film in a foreign language to win Best Picture. A fact which demonstrates the Academy's prejudice such films, and an attitude that any film in another language belongs in the International Film category. That's a decent point, however, I think it might be surmountable. The fact that Roma came so close to winning last year introduced the idea of a film with subtitles taking home Best Picture, and hopefully removed some of the stigma surrounding the idea. If Parasite does win, it's fairly clear that its language is the unfortunate reason why. It also will highlight even further what should have already been obvious: that the Oscars are incredibly narrow-minded in their scope. A win for Parasite will not be a sign that the Academy has changed its ways (just like Moonlight's win didn't have lasting affect). But it would still be a huge turning point for the group. For more on this, I highly recommend Justin Chang's op-ed in the LA Times about how the Oscars need Parasite more than Parasite needs the Oscars.

As for what should have been nominated, anyone who read my list of the best films of 2019 knows that my favorite film of the year was An Elephant Sitting Still. But even I can acknowledge that it was unlikely the Academy would have never acknowledged a four hour-long bleak Chinese arthouse drama (no matter how incredible it is). They also would never nominate my #3 and #4 picks (a zany low budget meta zombie movie and an even zanier Brazilian revolutionary dystopian Western), but I do think my #5 pick could have been an awards contender in an alternate universe. My favorite American film of the year was Fast Color, and while it flew under the radar at the box office, had it been given the distribution plan it deserved and an awards campaign, the movie could and should have been both a Best Picture nominee and a cultural touchstone.

BEST DIRECTOR:

1917, The Irishman, and Parasite

Nominees: 1917, The Irishman, Joker, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite
Will Win: Sam Mendes, 1917
Could Win: Bong Joon-ho, Parasite
Should Win: Bong Joon-ho, Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: Hu Bo, An Elephant Sitting Still; Ash Mayfair, The Third Wife; Jennifer Kent, The Nightingale

It's perhaps a bit surprising that Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino are not even part of the conversation for this award. Scorsese, who with this nomination now has the second most nominations in this category ever, has only won once, and this alleged "return to form" for him is the sort of project the Academy usually likes to reward. Tarantino, meanwhile, is one of the industry's most recognizable directors yet has never won. One would think there'd be a sense that he's "overdue," but his wins in the screenplay category have probably lessened that feeling among Oscar voters. But the truth is that this category is a distinct mirror of the Best Picture race, with 1917 and Parasite leading the pack. This whole awards season, Bong Joon-ho has been an unlikely, meme-worthy superstar. Bong's direction of Parasite is, in my opinion, leagues above the other nominees; for a movie that blends genres and tones as disparately as Parasite, were it to have been overseen by a lesser director it would have felt completely jumbled. But every element of Parasite feels so perfectly in place. I do think Bong has a chance here, and I'd like to say that if he wins it means the Academy is taking a chance to reward the strongest work. But the truth is that if Bong wins it's probably more just an indication that they're trying to catch up by rewarding an acclaimed director who they've slept on for what they now realize is far too long.

But the likely winner here is Sam Mendes for 1917. His win at the Golden Globes was a bit of a surprise, but since that win he has picked up multiple wins, including the crucial DGA award, which has overlapped with the Oscars for 17 of the past 20 years. Funnily enough, 20 years ago the winner was...Sam Mendes for American Beauty, and if he wins this year it will be the longest break between a director's first and second Oscar in history. Mendes' win also makes sense given the winners of the past few years. While a decade ago, Best Director and Best Picture almost always went hand in hand, more recently we've seen the two categories break. Five of the past seven years, the Best Picture winning film didn't win Best Picture, and every single time, the Best Director category has favored a film that is more technically ambitious. So Life of Pi over Argo, Gravity over 12 Years a Slave, The Revenant over Spotlight, La La Land over Moonlight, and Roma over Green Book. As discussed above I do think that 1917 could take home best picture, but even if it loses to Parasite, Mendes beating out Bong here would certainly be on trend for the Academy.

My favorite direction of the year was that of Hu Bo for his first (and tragically, last) film An Elephant Sitting Still. But even if he'd been added to the nominees it would have been another year where every single one of the directors recognized by the Academy are men. Most list of Oscar snubs have mentioned Greta Gerwig first and foremost as a director who was excluded, but I think it's worth noting that there were many other fantastic examples of direction by women this year which deserved recognition, with my personal favorites being Ash Mayfair for The Third Wife, Jennifer Kent for The Nightingale, Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe for Greener Grass, Celine Sciamma for Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Annabelle Attanasio for Mickey and the Bear, Julia Hart for Fast Color, and Marielle Heller for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. The direction of these films was not only strong, but incredibly distinct; an example of what direction can be. DeBoer and Luebbe could have made Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but Tarantino wishes he could have made Greener Grass.

BEST ACTRESS:

Renee Zellweger, Scarlett Johansson, and Saoirse Ronan

Nominees: Cynthia Erivo in Harriet, Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story, Saoirse Ronan in Little Women, Charlize Theron in Bombshell, Renee Zellweger in Judy
Will Win: Renee Zellweger, Judy
Could Win: Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story
Should Win: Saoirse Ronan, Little Women
Should Have Been Nominated: Jessie Buckley, Wild Rose

I'm going to say something that will surely be a common refrain throughout these predictions: this is a really disappointing lineup. But this category is particularly disappointing when compared to last year, where the nominees were a stellar lineup of performances and also Glenn Close in The Wife. It's not that these are not talented actors. Every single one of them is talented, but all have done and will continue to do much better work than what they're being rewarded for here. Charlize Theron, who I think is one of the best actors working today, gives a rare misstep in her performance as Megyn Kelly, which fails to provide any perspective on the public figure and seems to be relying on makeup and a vocal pattern in place of interpretation. Cynthia Erivo's performance in Harriet is capable, but ultimately as unsurprising and one-note as the film as a whole. Saoirse Ronan I think does the most capable and interesting work out of these nominees. But the strength of the acting in Little Women for me lies in how well they worked together as an ensemble as opposed to being full of distinctive individual performances. This approach made the film better, but I think there were more challenging roles that really demonstrated an outstanding achievement. An example of such a role is the one Scarlett Johansson has in Marriage Story, although I must say I was less impressed with her work than I expected to be given the hype around her performance. I don't think Johansson does a bad job here, but I also felt she was a bit miscast, and she struggled to really leave her mark on the role. I am in the minority, though, and I do think that given the year she has had starring in (and getting nominated for) two Best Picture nominees, momentum might lead her to pull off an upset. But the champion all awards season has been Renee Zellweger for Judy. Is Judy a good film? No. Does Zellweger ever really capture the essence of Judy Garland? No. Does she or the film offer anything new to say about Garland that justifies the film being made? Definitely not. But so often, awards voters rely on "stories" rather than judging work on its own merits (hence actors winning for being "overdue" or previously overlooked), and Zellweger certainly has the best story of the nominees. Judy Garland is a comeback role for her, and I think people will vote for her to win simply because they're happy to see her back on the screen. And, to be honest, I can't fully begrudge that. And at least it's not the weakest performance of the five.

But there are many leading actresses who did work this year that was not only better, but simply more interesting than the nominees here. One such actress is Jessie Buckley in the criminally overlooked Wild Rose. I only became aware of Buckley last year for her excellent work in the film Beast, but given the little bit of her work I've seen so far I'm fairly certain she's going to be a HUGE name in this industry in a few years' time. When that happens, people are going to rediscover the film Wild Rose and wonder how she wasn't raking in the awards all season long. Her work as an aspiring country singer from Glasgow is the definition of a star-making performance.

BEST ACTOR:

Joaquin Phoenix, Adam Driver, and Antonio Banders

Nominees: Antonio Banderas in Pain and Glory, Leonardo DiCaprio in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Adam Driver in Marriage Story, Joaquin Phoenix in Joker, Jonathan Pryce in The Two Popes
Will Win: Joaquin Phoenix, Joker
Could Win: Adam Driver, Marriage Story
Should Win: Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory
Should Have Been Nominated: Eddie Murphy, Dolemite Is My Name

The best thing I can say about the fact that Joaquin Phoenix is almost definitely going to win Best Actor is that it means voters are content to not hand Joker Best Picture. I know so many people who, whether or not they liked the movie as a whole, were blown away by Phoenix's work, but I genuinely think this is the type of performance that is really dangerous for acting as an art form. Phoenix is certainly committed to his craft, but to single this performance out is to equate the most acting with the best acting. The actual quality of Phoenix's performance has been overshadowed by the mythos of his (frankly irritating) actions behind the scenes. He shows his work, every scene screaming in your face about the effort he's putting into his acting. It's the same strategy that his fellow nominee Leonardo DiCaprio utilized a few years ago when he won an Oscar for The Revenant. It means that Phoenix is likely to triumph over the far more nuanced and ultimately impactful performances given by some of his fellow nominees, like Adam Driver and Antonio Banderas. Driver I think is the actor most likely to pull off an upset; he has quickly become one of the most respected film actors working today, and I think has a lot of fans in the industry. But Banderas gives what I think is the best performance of the five. It's understated, deeply affecting, and it showcases how well-suited Banderas will be for this new stage in his career. Pain and Glory is a particularly personal film for Pedro Almodovar, and would not have worked had it not been anchored by the strength and restraint of Banderas' work.

The Academy, however, missed a chance to recognize the comeback performance of the year given by Eddie Murphy in Dolemite Is My Name. Murphy at one point had a good amount of buzz surrounding his work, but it feels like Netflix abandoned a campaign for the film in favor of pushing Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins in The Two Popes. That strategy paid off for them, I guess, but it's a shame it had to be at Murphy's expense. His performance as Rudy Ray Moore is absolute career-best work for him, and shows a more down-to-earth side of Murphy while not sacrificing his natural charisma.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Laura Dern, Kathy Bates, and Florence Pugh

Nominees: Kathy Bates in Richard Jewell, Laura Dern in Marriage Story, Scarlett Johansson in Jojo Rabbit, Florence Pugh in Little Women, Margot Robbie in Bombshell
Will Win: Laura Dern, Marriage Story
Could Win: Kathy Bates in Richard Jewell
Should Win: Florence Pugh, Little Women
Should Have Been Nominated: Lorraine Toussaint, Fast Color

Just as with the leading actress category, I find the supporting actress category really irritating this year. And again, it's not that these are not worthy performers, but these performances are simply not ones that I would have ever considered awards-worthy. The worst of the lot is Scarlett Johansson's work in Jojo Rabbit; a, frankly, bizarre performance which has absolutely no business being here. Giving an almost as puzzling performance as Johansson is Margot Robbie in Bombshell, playing a character who is meant to be the composite of multiple real people. Robbie seemingly demonstrated this by throwing out anything resembling continuity and portraying a different person in every single scene she's in. It's a truly frustrating performance to watch as an actor, although I will also admit that most of the blame belongs to the writers as opposed to Robbie herself. Then there's Kathy Bates and Laura Dern, the most accomplished performers of these nominees, but neither of them are doing work here that is particularly exceptional. Bates was pretty unmemorable for me in the altogether forgettable Richard Jewell and while Dern does good work in Marriage Story, her performance isn't all that surprising. Her character Nora Fanshaw is a bulldog of a lawyer who is intentionally a caricature, and while she serves a specific role in the film it's a character we've seen before, and a performance I never would have singled out as one which would be receiving such buzz. If she wins on Oscar night as she is expected to, it will be like a repeat of last year when Regina King won for If Beale Street Could Talk: I love the actress, but I don't understand what it is about this particular role that is being singled out for praise.

My favorite of the nominated performances, honestly by process of elimination more than anything, is Florence Pugh's in Little Women. Pugh does good work, but as I said when discussing her co-star Saoirse Ronan, the best thing about the acting in Little Women is the cohesive work as an ensemble rather than individual achievement. And while I've heard a lot of people praising Pugh for "redeeming" the character of Amy March, I think a lot of that has to do with Gerwig's smart reworking of the script as opposed to what Pugh is doing. But she does do solid work and, as a representative of the excellent ensemble, would be my personal pick of this underwhelming, very blonde group. And I must say I don't think I'm alone in thinking this. Compared to the other expected acting winners, there's not as much fervor and excitement surrounding Dern's performance. So while I don't think Dern is a sure shot to win...but I also don't think there's another nominee who's in a particularly great spot to overtake her. Maybe Bates, who has picked up a few critic's choice awards, but that's more of a shot in the dark than anything else.

Not that you'd know it from these nominees, but there were a lot of fantastic performances by supporting actresses this year which were absolutely worthy of praise: my favorite being Lorraine Toussaint as Bo in Fast Color. I've already said that this film shouldn't have been so overlooked, and the strong performances from Toussaint and Gugu Mbatha-Raw are why. Bo, as performed by Toussaint, is one of the most memorable characters of the year. A super-powered matriarch, Toussaint imbues her with authority and weariness, making her at once part of a grounded reality and a world more fantastical than ours.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, and Joe Pesci

Nominees: Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Anthony Hopkins in The Two Popes, Al Pacino in The Irishman, Joe Pesci in The Irishman, Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Will Win: Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Could Win: Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood; Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Should Win: Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Should Have Been Nominated: Liu Congxi, An Elephant Sitting Still; James Badge Dale, Mickey and the Bear; Song Kang-ho, Parasite

A lineup of familiar names, on paper this is the most solid of the acting categories. While this is not the lineup I would have chosen, it's the only category where I can at least understand why all five of these performances are receiving acclaim. And the names are certainly heavy-hitters. It's particularly notable that four of the five nominees this year are previous Oscar winners, with Brad Pitt being the only one who hasn't won before. Perhaps that's why he's been the clear frontrunner all awards season long, with his triumph at the SAG Awards all but clinching it for him. If anyone has a chance for an upset, it'll be Hanks or Pesci. Both have a bit of a comeback story to their nominations here which could give Pitt's "it's his time" narrative a run for its money. Pesci famously came out of retirement for the role, and does wonderful work. Even I, who didn't really care for The Irishman, was taken with his performance and I could see the older Academy voters wanting to recognize Pesci one last time. The other "comeback" story is Tom Hanks, a once Oscar stalwart who has not received a nomination since 2000. If either of them could capitalize on their industry goodwill, they might prove to be a dark horse in this category. I'm personally rooting for Hanks, who is truly masterful in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. Playing Fred Rogers is a tall order for anyone, and Hanks not only proves he's up to the task, but makes a case for being the only actor who could have pulled the role off. And of the 20 performances nominated for the Oscars this year, it's the only one that I also nominated at The Fifth Annual Miles Awards.

Speaking of the Miles Awards, I ranked three supporting actors ahead of Hanks. My pick for the best supporting actor of the year was Liu Congxi in An Elephant Sitting Still, but as with every other award where I mentioned that film's excellence, I can appreciate that it's not exactly typical Oscar fare. But another incredible performance that I think actually could have been recognized by the Oscars in another dimension is James Badge Dale in Mickey and the Bear. Dale's character Hank Peck is an abusive father, a veteran with PTSD, and a drug addict: all components of typical Oscar bait. But Dale also manages to subvert these traits; they don't feel like overdone tropes, but genuine human struggles. Mickey and the Bear got almost no attention, but had it been with a distributor who had supported it I think that both Dale and the film's lead Camila Morrone could have easily been in contention this awards season. But, despite me placing him behind Congxi and Dale at my own awards, the actor I most wish had been nominated is Song Kang-ho for Parasite. The acting in Parasite is so strong across the board that it's almost easy to take it for granted, which is one reason why it won Best Ensemble at the SAG Awards but didn't pick up any nominations for individual actors, and was similarly shut out of the acting categories here. But if any members of the cast could have cracked into the Oscars it would have been Song, a prolific actor who is finally getting some deserved recognition outside of Korea.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Marriage Story, and Parasite

Nominees: 1917, Knives Out, Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite
Will Win: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Could Win: Marriage Story, Parasite
Should Win: Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: One Cut of the Dead, Fast Color

While Quentin Tarantino has yet to win an Oscar for Best Director or Best Picture, he's had a good track record for his screenplays, and has won two Oscars already in this category. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is arguably his most Oscar-friendly film to date and while I would personally argue it's his most boring screenplay, it seems highly likely that he will win again this year, as he's been picking up wins for his screenplay all awards season long.

But the other screenplays here are strong, and I could theoretically see Marriage Story and Parasite pulling an upset, especially Parasite. It's my personal favorite of these nominees by a big margin, and its odds were certainly boosted when it won Best Original Screenplay at the WGA Awards (the only foreign language film to have ever won at that awards ceremony). Although it's worth noting that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood wasn't eligible for that award since Tarantino has never joined the Writer's Guild which does make that win trickier to analyze.

If there's a film with a screenplay that I wish could have been nominated here, it's the Japanese film One Cut of the Dead. The film, which was made on a budget of about $25,000 ultimately grossed over $30,000,000 in Japan, and a huge reason is because of how clever the script is. It's not only one of the best screenplays of the year, it's easily the most ORIGINAL screenplay of the year. A wonderful and bizarre zombie flick, it's so much fun that it can be easy to miss just how meticulously crafted the film actually is. There are lots of twists and turns and nearly every line gets called back to at a later point, while still leaving room for some industry commentary and even some surprising heart. Not to mention that it is quite possibly the funniest film I've seen in years. But despite how much I love it, I'm not sure if it even would have been eligible for the Oscars given how long it took to be released in the United States. I'm also not sure if my next favorite screenplays, Diamantino and Bacurau (also international films, also released at odd times) would be eligible. So that, again, leaves us with Fast Color. And if you think I'm a broken record for mentioning it again, you're right. But it's just THAT GOOD.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

The Irishman, Little Women, and Jojo Rabbit

Nominees: The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Little Women, The Two Popes
Will Win: Jojo Rabbit
Could Win: Little Women, The Irishman
Should Win: Little Women
Should Have Been Nominated: Greener Grass

This is another genuinely tough race, with paths to victory available for any of the five nominees. The Two Popes is definitely the underdog, being the only nominee not also nominated for Best Picture. I would say Joker is also more of a longshot, weirdly because it's likely to pick up other awards. The Academy likes to spread the love a bit, and The Irishman, Little Women, and Jojo Rabbit are all Best Picture nominees which aren't frontrunners in any other major categories. For this reason I think that voters who are fans of these films are going to want to rally behind them and award one of them a consolation prize of sorts here. With 10 nominations, The Irishman has by far the most nominations of the three, so it clearly has Academy support, and this is the only major award where it's still feasibly in the running. Any Oscar voted who was frustrated by Greta Gerwig's lack of a Best Director nomination might rally behind her exemplary screenplay here. I would argue it's the only screenplay that actively improves on its source material while still honoring it, and in my opinion should be the no-brainer winner on Oscar night. But the edge has to go to Jojo Rabbit, which had always been a contender and became the favorite after it won this award at the WGA Awards.


My personal favorite adapted screenplay this year, though, was Greener Grass. Jocelyn DeBoer and Dawn Luebbe's script, adapted from their short film of the same name, is a wild ride. It's a series of vignettes set in a nightmarish suburbia that might be the most relatable work of surrealism ever crafted. Yes, a human character turns into a golden retriever halfway through the movie, and yes, an entire community just pretends that a soccer ball is a real human baby, and yes, it features D'Arcy Carden as a teacher inexplicably named Miss Human whose father is a notorious serial killer. But it also derives sheer emotional terror from mundane things such as being perceived as impolite at a 4-way intersection. It's probably not a film for everybody, but whether or not you find yourself on the film's particular wavelength, it's undeniable that DeBoer and Luebbe clearly have valiantly set forth to make something utterly one-of-a-kind, and it's a brilliant thing to behold. And honestly, any script that includes this exchange deserves every single award.


BEST INTERNATIONAL FILM:

Parasite, Pain and Glory, and Les Miserables

Nominees: Corpus Christi (Poland), Honeyland (North Macedonia), Les Miserables (Frances), Pain and Glory (Spain), Parasite (South Korea)
Will Win: Parasite
Could Win: Gonna be Parasite
Should Win: Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: A Land Imagined

Well, this is a gimme. Parasite is going to win. There's just no way that it isn't going to. And the reasons why should be pretty obvious. What makes this particularly notable is that this not only will be the first win for a Korean film, this is the first time South Korea's entry has even been nominated in this category. Which is tragic because South Korea has been producing some of the best international cinema for years (with Park Chan-wook, Lee Chang-dong, and Na Hong-jin being some of my favorite Korean directors). Hopefully the reception for Parasite means that Korean films will start to gain more recognition with both the Oscars and audiences.

As is always the case when there's a runaway frontrunner in this category, it's unfortunate because it belies how strong the other nominees really are. In another year, Pain and Glory would have had a really good shot at winning this category, and France's entry Les Miserables (not the musical) is a promising debut film from director Ladj Ly. It's also really exciting to see a nomination for Honeyland, the first documentary to be nominated in this category.

I had a lot of foreign language films on my list of favorite films of the year. But many of my very top picks (One Cut of the Dead, Bacurau, Diamantino, and The Third Wife) were not submitted by their producing countries. Of the submitted films that were not nominated, my favorite would have to be Singapore's entry A Land Imagined. A beautiful and compelling noir film, it's equal parts David Lynch and David Fincher, while still being a singular vision for director Yeo Siew Hua.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

Nominees: American Factory, The Cave, The Edge of Democracy, For Sama, Honeyland
Will Win: American Factory
Could Win: For Sama, Honeyland
Should Win: Honeyland
Should Have Been Nominated: The Great Hack

Most years, there are at least a couple of documentaries which have gotten a bit more attention than the rest, making them frontrunners as well as audience favorites (such as recent winners Free Solo and Amy). That hasn't really happened this year, and the reason why is two-fold. For one thing, there isn't exactly a crowdpleaser in this lineup: most of these films are incredibly bleak, and when the film with the most populous appeal is a documentary about Macedonian beekeeping you know the Academy's not exactly catering to the masses here. Missing from this category this year are the usual celebrity profiles and inspirational pick-me-ups that tend to pick up votes from voters less familiar with documentaries.

The frontrunner for me, therefore, has to be American Factory for one simple reason: The Obamas. This is the first film produced by Barack and Michelle Obama through Netflix and, while the film is honestly excellent in its own right and would have been a worthy nominee on its own merits, it undoubtedly has a raised profile because of the team behind it. While a couple years ago the Oscars finally implemented a rule that voters needed to have seen all five nominees before voting (yup, only a couple years ago) I have a feeling a few Oscar voters who are on the fence will be swayed by their love of the Obamas. Combined with the money Netflix can put behind an Oscars campaign and American Factory is the safest choice for this award. Its closest competition has to be For Sama. This powerful Syrian documentary got an extra boost when it not only won Best Documentary at the BAFTA awards, but was nominated in four categories total (making it the most nominated documentary in BAFTA history). I do worry it might split votes with The Cave, which is also about Syria, but of the two For Sama has by far the best chance at a win: it's a more personal film which gives a more direct appeal to the heartstrings of voters.

The dark horse, though, could be Honeyland. The aforementioned Macedonian beekeeping documentary was a surprise hit. It feels the most removed from the other nominees in terms of both style and content. It's also a nominee in the International Film category, which might make voters pay a little bit more attention to it since they're considering it in more than one category. Of the five it also features the most stunning cinematography by a mile, which definitely helped push last year's winner Free Solo over the edge.

As with a lot of these categories, my personal favorite entry of the year didn't have a chance. That would be Cold Case Hammarskjold, a wonderfully odd documentary about conspiracy theories surrounding the death of United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, which is one of the most innovative films of the year. But despite my personal preference, the film I think truly deserved to be part of the Oscars conversation was another Netflix entry: The Great Hack. The film, about the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal which affected both the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's presidential election is absolutely chilling, and perhaps the most vital documentary of the year. It does a good job of explaining a newstory that most people only vaguely heard mention of, and will make you utterly paranoid and alert. So why didn't it get more buzz? After watching the film, you might just believe that social media platforms actively suppressed mentions of it.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE:

Toy Story 4, I Lost My Body, and Klaus

Nominees: How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, I Lost My Body, Klaus, Missing Link, Toy Story 4
Will Win: Toy Story 4
Could Win: I Lost My Body, Klaus
Should Win: Klaus
Should Have Been Nominated: Primal: Tales of Savagery

This is possibly the category I'm most intrigued by this year. Depending on who wins, this category will tell a story about the state of animation. And this story started the second that Frozen II was excluded from the nominations. Whether or not people thought the film was worthy of a nomination, everyone assumed it would get a nomination anyway simply because it was a Disney film. I also saw a lot of prognosticators guessing that the Dreamworks film Abominable would get a nomination despite mixed reviews, simply because of its wider release. Instead, some smaller titles like Missing Link and Klaus took their spots. The safest bet to win is still Toy Story 4; it's always a good idea to bet on Pixar here, and none of the other nominees have proven to be a consistent challenger to it the way Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was over Incredibles 2 last year. But, that being said, Toy Story 4 hasn't been particularly dominant either. A lot of critics instead gave the top prize to I Lost My Body, easily the weirdest and most artsy of these nominees. The Golden Globes, which usually go for the flashiest option, instead recognized Laika's underrated and overlooked Missing Link, which got a bit buried by its American distributor but is nice to see included here. But perhaps the biggest upset came at the Annie Awards, which went for Klaus in a big way. The film not only took home Best Animated Feature, it won all seven awards it was nominated for. It was a bit of a surprise (especially since few thought Klaus would get an Oscar nomination at all) but it makes sense that animators love this film. While for me the story needed some work, the animation is GORGEOUS and is genuinely groundbreaking in its approach to 2-D animation. It's very much an animator's animated movie (and features what I think is the best voiceover performance of the year with J.K. Simmons as Klaus, a wonderful interpretation of Santa Claus). It followed up its Annie Awards win with a BAFTA, which means momentum is on its side, and it might just pull of the biggest surprise of the night.

Despite all this, Toy Story 4 is still the frontrunner here. It's the most high profile and the most nostalgic and the most likely to appeal to all Oscar voters. If it wins it shows yet another area where the Oscars are a bit behind the curve. If another film pulls off an upset, though, it will be a step forward to the inevitability that the Oscars are stepping away from exclusively rewarding big studio films. And I for one welcome it. But that being said, the Oscars has a long way to go if they truly are going to embrace indie animation. When your most low-profile nominees are from Netflix and Aardman (which has won in this category before) there are certainly scrappier entries to recognize. There was a record 32 animated feature films up for consideration at the Oscars this year, and many of them were really interesting. My two favorites of the year were, potentially, the two least likely to ever get Oscars attention. My second favorite was This Magnificent Cake!, a surreal Belgian film that was only 44-minutes long and is never going to get a wide release but which featured what I think was the most beautiful and memorable animation of the year. But my favorite animated feature of the year was Primal: Tales of Savagery. The first season of this TV series from industry favorite Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack) was actually given a theatrical release and was the subject of Adult Swim's first ever Oscars campaign. The campaign was fairly half-hearted, but the series/film is glorious, and featured quite simply some of the best storytelling of the year.

And it's just so fucking awesome.

BEST FILM EDITING:

Parasite, The Irishman, and Ford v Ferrari

Nominees: Ford v Ferrari, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Parasite
Will Win: Parasite
Could Win: The Irishman, Ford v Ferrari, Joker
Should Win: Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: One Cut of the Dead

Another weird category, I could basically see any of these films winning except for Jojo Rabbit; it's also the only one that didn't get a nomination at The Eddies, given out by the American Cinema Editors (they nominated Marriage Story instead). This year, the Eddie went to Parasite which I certainly think has the best editing of the year (it would earn it for either the peach scene or the ram-don scene alone). It would be a big win for Parasite, and should it triumph in this category it would significantly boost its chances to win Best Picture later in the night. But, white the win at the Eddies makes it a de facto frontrunner, it faces some stiff competition from its other nominees.

I don't know what to make of Joker in the technical categories, because even though I don't see it as a frontrunner in any particular category, I think it's unlikely it won't pick up at least one technical award. And it might even overperform and prove surprisingly dominant, which means it shouldn't be counted out here. The fast-paced racing scenes of Ford v Ferrari is certainly the flashiest editing of the year, and the Oscars does like to recognize individual technical sequences like this. And then there's The Irishman. Oh, The Irishman. Its nomination here honestly feels like a practical joke. There are moments of true editing craft in The Irishman but if any film could have done with some editing it's the overstuffed three-and-a-half hour film that somehow feels like it's even longer. But if it wins, it's really a testament to the great Thelma Schoonmaker. Scorsese's editor of choice, they have been collaborating for more than 50 years, and she's as close to a film editing celebrity as you're going to find, and if she wins for The Irishman she will hold the record for most Oscar wins in this category. If the Academy wants to recognize The Irishman, it's going to be either here or in the screenplay category. It has by far the worst editing of these nominees, but I take at least a little bit of comfort in knowing that should it win, it is in recognition of Schoonmaker's prolific career rather than just her work here.

But my favorite editing of the year comes from a scrappy little film I've already mentioned here before: One Cut of the Dead. While I don't want to give too much away, the first part of the film is shot in one take, and the final part of the film is a recreation showing what was happening off camera during that one take. It's an ambitious task to pull off, and the editing has everything to do with making it believable. Also, it's one of those rare films that utilizes comedic timing in its editing, often to great effect. The film doesn't have the clout of these five nominees, and it doesn't have some of the bells and whistles some of these do, but it showcased better than any other film I saw this year just what an artform editing is.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:

1917, Joker, and The Lighthouse

Nominees: 1917, The Irishman, Joker, The Lighthouse, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Will Win: 1917
Could Win: Joker
Should Win: 1917
Should Have Been Nominated: Shadow

This is one of the easiest awards to predict this year: 1917 has it in the bag. The cinematography is not only technically impeccable, but 1917 is a rare film where the cinematography is kind of what it's all about. The cinematography is a part of the conversation in this film the way it simply isn't with the others. The closest competitor might be Joker, which adds a bit of a neon splash to the overall drabness of this category this year, but that would be a major upset. It's unclear whether 1917 will beat or fall short of expectations, but this is one award it's all but guaranteed. Of the nominees, it probably deserves it: cinematographer Roger Deakins is an undisputed titan of the industry, and it'll be nice to see the Oscars applaud him after sleeping on him for so long (he famously won for the first time two years ago after a whopping 13 winless nominations). But even though it's my favorite of these nominees and the technical best cinematography of these nominees, I wish I could love the cinematography in 1917 more. My thoughts on it are akin to my thoughts on the film as a whole: it's a technical marvel which fails to find real emotion. And considering that Deakins' work is typically defined by adding depth and texture to a film, I find it sad that his two wins will be for this and Blade Runner 2049, two of his weakest efforts in my opinion.

There are a lot of movies that I think had better cinematography than these offerings, but the one I'm most disappointed didn't make a dent at the Oscars is Shadow. Director Zhang Yimou is known for visually stunning films like Raise the Red Lantern, Hero, and House of Flying Daggers which utilize lush, bold colors to create a stunning aesthetic. In Shadow, however, Yimou and cinematographer Zhao Xiaoding completely abandon the colors they're known for using to make a film that, while not shot in black and white, exists almost entirely within a grey scale. The effect is gorgeous, ghostly, haunting, and utterly unlike anything I've seen in film before.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN:

1917, Parasite, and Jojo Rabbit

Nominees: 1917, The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite
Will Win: 1917
Could Win: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Should Win: Parasite
Should Have Been Nominated: Shadow
Really uninteresting. Midsommar, Greener Grass, Little Joe. Even Joker

Once again, I find these nominees really underwhelming. These are for the most part films which have very familiar looks, with the perceived frontrunners (1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and below them, The Irishman) all being period pieces which feel like period pieces. And while the production design is certainly effective in what it's trying to provoke, there's just not a lot of innovation among those three films. Still, the Academy has always liked when movies look like older movies, and the nominees this year reflects that fairly soundly. At least Jojo Rabbit has a distinct look adds some whimsy to its period design. And the reason Parasite's production design is the best of these five is the same reason it won't win: it's by far the subtlest. The film takes place in several different worlds and the production design is what marks a clear delineation between those worlds. Not to mention the house where much of the action takes place is one of the best set pieces of the year. But, never mind all that, the win will most likely go to 1917. And like with many of its wins on Oscar night, it will not be for artistic merit but for technical difficulty. The production design had to be very exacting to accommodate the challenges of the filming process. It's, again, impressive, but proves that just because something is challenging doesn't mean it's necessarily great.

Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy, but I just feel there was such a missed opportunity in this category. So many films had outstanding production design that wasn't just strong, but genuinely original. The technicolor sci-fi of Little Joe which found menace in neon, the Stepford Wives on steroids bubblegum camp of Greener Grass, the sheer audacity of shooting a horror film in bright daylight that made Midsommar so unique. Hell, for all of its undeserved nominations this year, this is the one category that Joker SHOULD have been considered for: the production design almost single-handedly fooled people into thinking Joker was a far better film than it actually is. It alluded to other (better) films while also crafting its own genuinely compelling aesthetic. But while any of these would have been worthy nominees in my mind, my favorite production design of the year belonged to the film that also had my favorite cinematography of the year: Shadow. Some of these set pieces are just extraordinary and, again, it just has a stunning aesthetic that seemingly breaks all the rules of design, yet still works in a visceral way. Shadow, and the other movies I mentioned, truly showcase the innovation that I feel most of these nominees lack.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:

The Irishman, The Lion King, and 1917

Nominees: 1917, Avengers: Endgame, The Irishman, The Lion King, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Will Win: 1917
Could Win: The Lion King
Should Win: 1917
Should Have Been Nominated: Fast Color

The MCU and Star Wars films tend do okay with nominations, but rarely (if ever) win. And neither Endgame or Rise of Skywalker provided anything new to what their predecessors contributed to justify why the Academy would want to recognize either of these films. The Irishman's visual effects campaign relies entirely on the de-aging technology used on its three main actors, but the effectiveness of such effects is its downfall. For people who found the de-aging seamless, it almost takes away from the skill of such an effect because it's not something they noticed. For those who found the de-aging distracting...well, they might have recognized the work involved but are going to be less likely to vote for it to win. So that leaves two nominees at the front of the pack: The Lion King and 1917. By all rights, The Lion King should win here; the animation here actually is groundbreaking, and this is work that couldn't have been possible even one year prior. It's probably the most impressive of the nominees and could win for its advancement in the field alone, but unfortunately for the film, it was hampered by some artistic choices. The visual effects team favored realism above all else, which infamously meant that the animal faces couldn't be very expressive, and occasionally the fact that these animals were speaking at all just felt baffling (Zazu was the biggest victim of that one). The groundbreaking nature of The Lion King might therefore be undermined by the fact that it just didn't all quite work. Which means the frontrunner for me has to be 1917. It's already going to be the default technical award winner for this year, and its reliance on practical effects, along with the visual effects needed to put together its one-take gimmick should give it a bit of an edge.

As for what should have been nominated, it has been too long since I mentioned Fast Color! On top of its great writing and screenplay, Fast Color features some excellent visual effects even with a fraction of the budget of the nominees listed above. These effects are believable, while still being creative, and are well-integrated into the story being told.

Fast Color

BEST COSTUME DESIGN:

Little Women, Joker, and Jojo Rabbit

Nominees: The Irishman, Jojo Rabbit, Joker, Little Women, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Will Win: Little Women
Could Win: Joker, Jojo Rabbit
Should Win: Little Women
Should Have Been Nominated: Dolemite Is My Name

Another close race, once again the relative blandness of these nominees means that there isn't really a single frontrunner. Most of the time, it's a safe bet to go with three-time Oscar winner Sandy Powell, but her work on The Irishman is the least flashy of the nominees. This is a category where bigger is better, which also might work against the design for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. This category also favors period accuracy over quirkiness in its winners, which hampers the chances of Jojo Rabbit. So for me the top contenders are Joker and Little Women. Joker certainly has one of the most distinct costume pieces of the year, with Arthur Fleck's rust jacket, which could help it be a contender in this race. But I do think that Little Women's chances are helped by the fact that of these five period pieces, it's the one set most distantly in the past. That tends to be where the Academy gravitates towards with this award, so I believe it might have a bit of an edge. When looking at the costumes in isolation, it's the one with the most standout pieces (with the costumes for Jo in particular being a great example of how costume design can help tell a character's story). But really this race is wide open, with most of these nominees on fairly equal footing.

Dolemite Is My Name

The landscape of these nominees makes it especially sad that Dolemite Is My Name wasn't recognized here. Designed by Ruth E. Carter, who won last year in this category for Black Panther, these costumes are period appropriate for the film, but also far more vibrant and interesting than anything the Academy chose to recognize. Its exclusion here feels especially noteworthy, as this is exactly the sort of design that usually does get a nod at the Oscars, so it's odd that this design was left off even though this was genuinely award-worthy work.

BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING:

Bombshell, Judy, and Joker

Nominees: 1917, Bombshell, Joker, Judy, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Will Win: Bombshell
Could Win: Joker, Judy
Should Win: Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Should Have Been Nominated: Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

When in doubt, the most reliable way to predict this category is to guess the movies that involve a physical transformation. 1917 may have realistic gore, and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil may feature innovative character creation, but give someone a fake nose and a fat suit and the Oscars just can't look away. This is what happened last year when Vice won over Border, and it's probably what will happen this year as well. The frontrunner is Bombshell, which made Charlize Theron absolutely unrecognizable. Whether they made her look like Megyn Kelly is irrelevant, she DIDN'T look like Charlize Theron, and that's an admittedly impressive feat. I do wish that they'd made ANY effort to disguise John Lithgow's face when turning him into Roger Ailes, but apparently as long as they made him fat they thought no one would care. Aside from Bombshell, the other notable "transformation" that's nominated here is in Judy. Again, I don't know how effective the transformation truly was in making Renee Zellweger look like Judy Garland, but that there was a transformation at all is usually enough to bring about an Oscars win.

Given how grumpy I'm sounding, I should clarify that obviously when a physical transformation is done well it is incredibly impressive, and can add a great deal to a film. But I do have a personal preference for when makeup and hairstyling can be used to make something unusual and artistic, as opposed to simply being for physical likeness. For that reason, I begrudgingly think Maleficent is my favorite makeup of these nominees. This is also one of the few categories where I'd actually be okay with Joker winning; the Joker makeup being a solid addition to the interpretations of what this iconic character would look like. But some of the best makeup and hairstyling for me was in the film Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. The adaptation of the classic children's horror series was mostly underwhelming, but the creature creation of the film's various monsters was top-notch: keeping a great balance in giving it a nostalgic, B-movie feel while not muting the scares.

BEST SOUND EDITING:

1917, Ford v Ferrari, and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

Nominees: 1917, Ford v Ferrari, Joker, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Will Win: 1917
Could Win: Ford v Ferrari
Should Win: 1917
Should Have Been Nominated: The Nightingale

This category tends to reward action sequences, as they're the types of scenes where the artistry of sound editing can most easily be recognized by an outside observer. That means that 1917 and Ford v Ferrari are the definite frontrunners here. And while Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which utilizes a lot of music, could maybe be a spoiler, it's essentially a two-horse race. It's tough to know which one has an edge. I feel like 1917 could just be the default winner in most technical categories, which is why I've given it a slight edge. But I could also see the fans of Ford v Ferrari wanting to champion it here, since it's unlikely to win in other categories.

But great sound editing doesn't just exist in war films and racing dramas. Some of the most striking sound editing of the year that I heard was in The Nightingale. I think at first glance it would be easy to think that sound isn't a huge portion of the film, but that's just because the sound editing is so seamlessly done. Anyone who has seen The Nightingale will tell you it's one of the most suspenseful and brutal films of the year, and that suspense and brutality has a lot to do with how effectively sound is utilized.


BEST SOUND MIXING:

1917, Ford v Ferrari, and Ad Astra

Nominees: 1917, Ad Astra, Ford v Ferrari, Joker, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Will Win: 1917
Could Win: Ford v Ferrari
Should Win: Ford v Ferrari
Should Have Been Nominated: The Lighthouse

I say it every year: sound editing and sound mixing are two VERY different categories which serve very different purposes. There's a reason they're distinct categories and it's frustrating when they're simply lumped together.

...but then I always end up having to say that my predictions are pretty much the same for both categories. Whether it's fair or not, the winner in this category does overlap with sound editing more often than not. It's certainly not a definite, and I could see 1917 taking one category and Ford v Ferrari taking the other. But I'm not sure how that breakdown would occur, so ultimately I'm putting 1917 as my prediction again, and for the same reasons I gave for sound editing. Even though I actually think Ford v Ferrari has the better sound mixing; the music and dialogue were incorporated perfectly even into the most intense sequences. Say what you will about Ford v Ferrari, but the moments of action were impeccably done, and sound was a huge reason why, especially the way that sound was mixed.

But my favorite sound mixing was in The Lighthouse. I was expecting a weird movie from Robert Eggers and honestly the film was a bit too weird for my liking (or, more specifically, too weird without purpose), but The Lighthouse nonetheless showcases that Eggers is a top-notch filmmaker who is a wizard at using the medium in innovative ways. And while it got its single nod at the Oscars for cinematography, it's the film's sound mixing that I think was the single most impressive element of the film. It's a movie that relies on appealing to its audience through emotions rather than through logic, and sound is one of the best ways to accomplish that.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:

Joker, Marriage Story, and 1917

Nominees: 1917, Joker, Little Women, Marriage Story, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Will Win: Joker
Could Win: 1917, Marriage Story
Should Win: Marriage Story
Should Have Been Nominated: Parasite

We can take Rise of Skywalker out of the running right away: the Star Wars franchise has always been defined by its score, but since the original trilogy, the scores have had to allude back to the influence of the original iconic score too closely to create a distinct identity of their own. That leaves two atmospheric scores (1917 and Joker) competing against two whimsical scores (Marriage Story and Little Women). The atmospheric scores sometimes struggle at the Oscars simply because they don't contain memorable melodies or themes. But in the case of both 1917 and Joker, the scores are placed a little bit more in the foreground of their respective films than atmospheric films usually are, and they both have a shot at the win. Joker's Icelandic composer Hildur Guonadottir is a rising star in the industry (and a protege of Oscar favorite Johann Johannsson) and has been picking up awards all season long for her cello-heavy score. 1917 also shouldn't be counted out based on who composed the score: this is Thomas Newman's 14th nomination in this category and he has yet to win, so some in the industry might think it's time to give him some recognition. Meanwhile, his arguably hokier and arguably better-known brother Randy is nominated both in this category for Marriage Story and also in the Best Original Song category, which might give him an awards season boost. When I first watched Marriage Story I have to admit I found the score rather cheesy, but as time has gone on I've really come to appreciate what Randy Newman was doing. His score evokes a certain emotion that not only works with the film, but is absolutely vital for Noah Baumbach to achieve what he is trying to achieve in that movie. That score did a lot of heavy lifting for Marriage Story, and I don't think it's getting enough credit for that. Rounding out the contenders is Alexandre Desplat's score for Little Women. Desplat's scores all tend to sound the same, but that isn't a bad thing: he has his own distinct sound, and it works well with Little Women. I do think it's unlikely to win after he won this award only two years prior for The Shape of Water, but it's never wise to discount one of the most well-regarded figures in the field.

None of these scores are bad, but one of the greatest mysteries this whole Oscar season for me is how on earth Jung Jaeil's score for Parasite has been completely overlooked all season long. Not only was it not nominated, but it never even seemed to be a part of the conversation. And I don't understand it. This score is incredible; not only does it work beautifully within the film, but it is gorgeous just as a piece of music on its own. There were several compositions for Parasite that I mistakenly just assumed were by Vivaldi while watching. It's eerie, memorable, and frequently riveting. Far and away the best score of the year.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG:

Rocketman, Frozen II, and Harriet

Nominees: "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away" from Toy Story 4, "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman, "I'm Standing with You" from Breakthrough, "Into the Unknown" from Frozen II, "Stand Up" from Harriet
Will Win: "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman
Could Win: "Into the Unknown" from Frozen II
Should Win:"Stand Up" from Harriet
Should Have Been Nominated: "Glasgow" from Wild Rose

Breakthrough is one of those aggressively Christian movies that got lucky enough to get an original song from the great Dianne Warren, but "I'm Standing with You" ends up feeling as schlocky as the film itself. "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away" is adequate, but is far from the best song in the Toy Story franchise and would be a surprising winner. "Into the Unknown" is similarly decent, but failed to reach the level of cultural pervasiveness that a certain Oscar-winning song from the first Frozen achieved, and seems unlikely to follow in its footsteps. And while "Stand Up" from Harriet is, I think, the best song of the nominees, it's also not really integrated into the film, and while it's suitably rousing, it's also a sort of song we've all heard before. I enjoyed listening to it the most but then forgot about it fairly soon afterwards. Which leaves us with "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again," from Rocketman. While Rocketman failed to achieve the Oscar glory of its supposed spiritual predecessor Bohemian Rhapsody, its one nomination in this category is a good one. The idea of an original song by Elton John in a movie about Elton John is a bit of a gimme for the Oscars. And while the song isn't among Elton's best, there isn't another major contender in the nominees, so it feels like Elton's star power is going to win out.

But despite mine and everyone's love of Sir Elton, none of these nominees even come close to matching what was undoubtedly the best original song in a movie this year: "Glasgow" from Wild Rose. Its snub here is infuriating. Not only is it a great song, one with a lot of emotional resonance, but it's also utilized wonderfully in Wild Rose. The film, follows Glaswegian country singer Rose-Lynn Harlan (should-have-been-nominated Jessie Buckley), who performs powerful covers the entire film, always not wanting to write her own material because she's not sure what she wants to say. When we finally here her first (and only) original song at the end of the film, it needs to be outstanding for the film to have any credibility whatsoever. Luckily, it is, and Buckley's performance of this song is one of the best musical moments of the year. To have overlooked the song, and the movie as a whole, is a tragic oversight on the part of the Academy.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT:

Memorable, Hair Love, and Kitbull

Nominees: Dcera (Daughter), Hair Love, Kitbull, Memorable, Sister
Will Win: Hair Love
Could Win: Kitbull
Should Win: Memorable
Should Have Been Nominated: Guaxuma

Of the three short film categories at the Oscars, the Animated Shorts are ones that tend to attract the most interest. This is because unlike in the other categories, major studios like Disney and Pixar will have films in the running. Contrary to popular belief, the big studio films don't automatically win, and, in fact, they frequently get nominations but don't win. However, occasionally there will be a major studio-produced short film that gains significant acclaim will before Oscar nominations are announced, and when that happens, those films do have an edge at the Oscars strictly due to people forming attachments before even seeing the other nominees. That happened this year, with Sony Pictures Animations' Hair Love. The film was screened before, of all things, The Angry Birds Movie 2, but immediately became the subject of a lot of hype. It was even adapted into a childrens' book! The love for the film makes a lot of sense; the adorable film about a dad attempting to help with his daughters' hairstyle request, is both cute and important. Many viewers responded to the film simply because it addressed a subject they had never seen in a film before, proving how necessary it is to tell stories from a wide variety of voices.

The other film with a large studio backing is Kitbull. Kitbull was created as a part of Pixar's new SparkShorts series, where animators are given a limited budget and limited time to create short films. Of the five shorts from this program that were released in 2019, Kitbull is easily the best, but all of them prove why it's worthwhile for the studio to invest in talented animators, and some voters may want to acknowledge Kitbull as a vote of confidence in the project. But even without Pixar's involvement, this would be a cute film. The story of the unlikely friendship between a stray cat and an abused pitbull is heartwarming, and will undoubtedly appeal to any animal lovers in particular.

But while both Hair Love and Kitbull are strong films, their ties to major studios is all-too apparent. While the topics addressed by these films are worthwhile and have clearly resonated with people due to their popularity, the storytelling itself feels very sanitized to me in both films. The familiar formulas that accompany a film from a bigger studio are all at play, and I just don't think that's what this category should be about. So frequently in animated short films, you get to see animators tackle styles that might be too ambitious for a feature. Every year, there's an animated short film that does something I genuinely haven't seen before, and from a visual standpoint alone, Hair Love and Kitbull are the least interesting to me by a mile. Both Dcera (Daughter) is really interesting, and when I first saw Sister I assumed it would easily be my favorite animated short of the year. But then I saw Memorable. This French film is far and away the best use of animation out of any of the nominees this year, using the possibilities that animation can bring to put the audience inside the mind of a person with Alzheimer's. And while the film doesn't shy away from the sadness of the topic, it finds genuine beauty in the subject of loss. Fittingly, given the film's title, there are images from Memorable which will stay with me for a very long time.

There are many animated short films which made the Academy's shortlist which I haven't gotten to see but which look fascinating (including Mind My Mind, The Physics of Sorrow, and He Can't Live Without Cosmos which is the sequel to one of the best Oscar-nominated animated short films of the past few years). But the best animated short film I've seen all year failed to even qualify for that shortlist. That would be Guaxuma, Nara Normande's memoir-esque film about a childhood friendship. Over the course of Guaxuma, Normande plays with multiple different animation styles, many of them involving sand in some capacity, and the result is a collage of a film that is both viscerally tragic and charmingly nostalgic. Guaxuma picked up multiple awards at film festivals all year long due to its innovative animation and lyrical storytelling, but unfortunately and unfairly, somehow failed to get on the Academy's radar.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT:

The Neighbors' Window, Brotherhood, and Nefta Football Club

Nominees: Brotherhood, Nefta Football Club, The Neighbors' Window, Saria, A Sister
Will Win: Brotherhood
Could Win: The Neighbors' Window
Should Win: Nefta Football Club
Should Have Been Nominated: In Full Bloom

This year's live action shorts, in my opinion, are an example of competency above all else. None of these five films are bad by any means, but also none of them truly wowed me the way that nominees in this category sometimes do. Which means picking a winner is difficult because none of them struck me as a runaway frontrunner while watching. I, and a lot of prognosticators, don't think the winner is likely to be Saria; the simplest of the nominees, it features some great performances but is the most familiar-feeling of the five and I imagine will probably land in the middle of the pack for most voters. I also don't think it will be A Sister, a Belgian thriller which relies on an interesting gimmick which, while effective, has been utilized better in other films (including previous nominees in this category in the past two years Madre and DeKalb Elementary). I weirdly think my least favorite of the nominees, The Neighbors' Window, has one of the best chances of winning. The film, about a complacent NYC mom (Maria Dizzia) whose daily routine is altered when she begins spying on the young couple who live directly across from her (and who conveniently never buy curtains), just didn't work for me. It felt very predictable, weirdly saccharine, and the whole rhythm of the film just seemed off. The most potentially interesting beats just never landed. But I seem to be in the minority. There's a lot of buzz surrounding this film, and this category actually goes to the most Hallmark-y entry quite frequently (The Silent Child which won two years ago is a good example). It's the only film with an American cast, and the lack of subtitles combined with Dizzia's strong performance could give it an edge and make it stand out in voters' minds. If it wins, I'll be rather disappointed, but I won't be surprised.

Despite this, the frontrunner is the Canadian film Brotherhood. The film has been building momentum since it won Best Short Film at the Toronto International Film Festival (beating out Fauve, which was nominated for an Oscar last year) and, as the longest nominee, also feels the most substantial. It's a poignant story with many twists and turns, and even if not all of them are as effective, there are moments in Brotherhood which are bound to stick out to voters. Also, while I don't know if it had the highest budget of these nominees, it FEELS like it did. The production values are high and the cinematography is beautiful. On paper, at least, this is the film to beat.

But who knows? Maybe the Academy is a bunch of weirdos and, like me, their favorite of these nominees will be Nefta Football Club. While a bit uneven, it was certainly the most surprising of the nominees, and I found it to be unexpectedly delightful. After all, how many comedies about the Tunisian drug trade have you seen? And how many of those include a donkey who loves the music of Adele? This movie is fucking great. I hope it wins.

My personal favorite live action film of the year, though, is probably Maegan Houang's In Full Bloom. This film, about a grieving hermit whose life is up-ended by some mischievous worms is a marvelous little oddity. The story is simple but beautifully told, and thoughts of this movie lingered with me far more than with any of this year's nominees. Actress Kieu Chinh does wonderful work as the only human actor in the film, crafting a character who is endearing even though we know very little about her. Her co-stars, a troupe of stop-motion worms, manage to be both whimsical and horrifying, giving Houang's film a really interesting vibe. And you can watch it here!

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:

Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl), St. Louis Superman, and Walk Run Cha-Cha

Nominees: In the Absence, Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl), Life Overtakes Me, St. Louis Superman, Walk Run Cha-Cha
Will Win: Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl)
Could Win: St. Louis Superman, Walk Run Cha-Cha
Should Win: Walk Run Cha-Cha
Should Have Been Nominated: Ghosts of Sugar Land

This is a really strong category, and frankly, is probably the best field of nominees in the entire Oscars race. All five of these have their merits, but I think that three are more likely to win than others. In the Absence is a grim disaster film about a Korean ferry that sunk, killing more than 300 people, and Life Overtakes Me is about the terrifying phenomenon where children facing deportation will lapse into comas due to the anxiety. Both are good and powerful in their own way, but both are also incredibly depressing to watch, and this category tends to reward films that deal with difficult issues in a more palatable way. A great example of this is Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl), which has been raking in awards all season long and is the frontrunner to win. The film follows the students of Skateistan, a school in Afghanistan that teaches young girls how to skateboard, despite this being an activity that many would deem inappropriate in that society. The school is a wonderful subject for a documentary, and provides a narrative filter for a broader discussion on the education of women in the country, and perseverance even in the face of regular bombings. If there's a film in a good position to overtake Learning to Skateboard it's St. Louis Superman, a profile of Bruce Franks Jr., a state representative from St. Louis. A battle rapper and prominent Ferguson activist, Franks won his seat in a district known for being both very white and very Republican, and is truly deserving of the nickname "Superman." He's a powerful figure who, despite all odds, gives one hope for the future of politics in the United States. And that emphasis on American politics might just give St. Louis Superman a bit of an edge in the Oscar voting. Should either of these films win, it would be deserved: both have fascinating subjects at their centers, and artfully use them as a framing device to explore larger and more complex issues.

But my personal favorite of the documentary shorts is Walk, Run, Cha-Cha. The film follows Millie and Paul Cao, immigrants from Vietnam who in addition to their day jobs are accomplished ballroom dancers. The film sneaks up on you; its quirkiness masks the fact that it offers useful and empathetic commentary on the issues such as immigration, funding of the arts, and more. But no matter how smart this film is, the real reason it succeeds is because of Millie and Paul. These two people are genuinely delightful and their story is truly touching. The film ends with a beautifully-shot dance that we have seen them working on throughout the film, and it's hands down one of the best and most memorable film scenes of the year. This is the type of film which reminds me why I look forward to seeing the nominated shorts each year: it tells a story elegantly and simply, but more effectively than some feature films almost ten times its duration. It's certainly a charming film, and might prove to be a sentimental favorite among Oscar voters as well.

Netflix has been doing well in this category in recent years, and managed to get another nomination this year with Life Overtakes Me. But their best short documentary from this year shockingly failed to get a nomination. I'm not really sure why Ghosts of Sugar Land didn't make the cut for this lineup. The film, about a group of childhood friends struggling to understand how a friend and classmate of theirs turned to radical Islamic extremism, is haunting and vital. It tackles a hot button issue on an admirably small scale, and in doing so, shines a light on the distinct and awful ways that Muslims in America are affected by this sort of betrayal on a personal and social level. It also shows some real creativity and artistry from director Bassam Tariq; a stylistic choice to disguise his subjects' identities not by blurring their faces, but by having them don cheap Halloween store masks, primarily of superheroes, is a fascinating one. It helps Ghosts of Sugar Land feel like a truly unusual and original short film, one which easily should have earned a place in this already formidable lineup.

Ghosts of Sugar Land

WHEW! We made it! Those are my predictions for all 24 categories. Who do you think will win? Do you think I'm underestimating Joker? Or maybe overestimating Parasite? Who do you want to win? Have you also seen Fast Color? Let me know, and be sure to tune in to the Oscars on February 9th to see if the Academy can save a disastrous awards season by giving the top prize to Parasite!