The time has come once again! Here are my predictions for the winners in all 23 categories at the 96th Academy Awards. I’ve selected which film I think will win, which I think could win, which I think SHOULD win, and for fun throw in which film I think should have been nominated. As always, I just hope to get more correct than I get incorrect, and hope I can provide somewhat interesting analysis as to why I’ve picked what I have. Will Oppenheimer truly dominate the ceremony? Why is Documentary Feature the most interesting category in the ceremony for me? Which nominated film do I say “suuuuuuuuuucks” and further describe as a “fucking mess?” Can I convince you to watch a French thriller that ISN’T Anatomy of a Fall? Only time will tell!!!
If you want more of my thoughts on films outside of Oscar-talk, feel free to read my analysis of my 30 Favorite Films of the Year, and my picks for my 100 Favorite Performances of the Year. And if you can’t be bothered with the Oscars at all, feel free to check out The Miles Awards: a perfect awards ceremony that EVERYONE agrees with.
And now, here’s what you can expect when the Oscars air next week!
.jpg)
Nominees:
American Fiction
Anatomy of a Fall
Barbie
The Holdovers
Killers of the Flower Moon
Maestro
Oppenheimer
Past Lives
Poor Things
The Zone of Interest
Will Win: Oppenheimer
Could Win: The Zone of Interest
Might Win: The Holdovers
Should Win: Past Lives
Should Have Been Nominated: The Boy and the Heron
In a long awards season, one film has clearly held its place as the perceived frontrunner here: Oppenheimer. After becoming one half of the biggest theatergoing sensation in recent movie history, it has managed to hold strong as the de facto Best Picture frontrunner as its perceived rivals have slipped away. None of the one-time Best Picture heavyweights (Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, Poor Things, and American Fiction) have the awards season track record that Oppenheimer has, and for some prognosticators, its win is all but guaranteed. Its win at the PGA Awards (where the 10 nominees lined up EXACTLY with the Oscars this year) all but sealed the deal.
But IF there were to be an upset for Best Picture, what would that look like? If there is a crack in Oppenheimer’s armor, it’s that it has been the obvious frontrunner for so long that it’s almost competing against itself. Its frontrunner status means that voters torn between it and other films are going to potentially rank other films higher to “help them out.” This, arguably, is what happened just a couple of years ago when The Power of the Dog went into Oscar night with easily the best report card out of any film competing, and ended up losing to the scrappy sentimental favorite CODA, which became the Best Picture winner with the fewest nominations since 1932. Essentially, Oppenheimer has proven it will win out over the more traditional competition. So if it’s going to lose, the Best Picture winner has to be a film operating on a much smaller scale. I wish I could say that Past Lives had a shot—it’s my favorite of the nominees by a decent margin, and I do think has a great deal of industry support. But if it had enough support to win, I do think this would have been reflected in the nominations. Its only other nomination outside of Best Picture is for Best Original Screenplay, and I think for it to have been a true contender it would have needed something else to keep it in voters’ minds (such as Best Director, Best Editing, or Best Actress for Greta Lee). A much better case can be made for The Holdovers. It doesn’t have a TON of nominations, but it has a good shot of winning most of the ones it’s up for. Paul Giamatti and Da’Vine Joy Randolph are both genuine contenders for their respective acting awards (with Randolph being the surest acting winner of the night) and while Best Original Screenplay is very competitive, The Holdovers has a solid chance of winning. While it’s not likely to win its only other nomination, Best Editing, the fact that it’s nominated there is a huge boost for its chances—Best Picture winners have been nominated for Best Editing more than in any other category. And while Alexander Payne did not get a Best Director nomination, he DID receive one at the DGA Awards, which shows that the Directors’ Branch is still a fan of this movie. Essentially, the nominations reflect that The Holdovers has a lot of support from the Academy, and if it has enough support to win the few nominations its up for, Best Picture could follow (just like with CODA). An argument could be made for Anatomy of a Fall—it has crucial nominations where it counts in Directing, Editing, Screenplay, and Acting. But I think that its losing some momentum to a different International Film: The Zone of Interest. I would have at one point felt that The Zone of Interest was too experimental to take home Best Picture, but it now looks like Oppenheimer’s closest competition. It was the last of the Best Picture nominees to receive a wide release into theaters, and the last to be put on streaming. That means it’s arguably the freshest in Oscar voters’ minds—and the late release means it will potentially be more competitive at the Oscars than it was at any other ceremony. And while this can’t be quantified, reports are that it simply has the most “buzz” right now amongst people within the industry, which might allow it to overtake Oppenheimer for the win. It’s the sort of buzz that gave an indication that CODA would win two years ago, which I somewhat ignored at the time. Ultimately, if it does truly come down to a battle between Oppenheimer and The Zone of Interest, I think there’s a potentially interesting comparison to be made between the two films. Both are films centered around the events of WWII. Both are films focused on horrible atrocities, and both focus on the perpetrators of said atrocities, with the perspective of the victims noticeably absent. With Oppenheimer, that lack of the Japanese perspective has been one of the main criticisms of the film—one which I think is deserved and which ultimately made the film feel pretty hollow for me. In The Zone of Interest, the lack of screentime for the victims is far more purposeful, and the film never shies away from acknowledging the gravity of the main characters’ actions: which they may not be seen, the identity of the victims is keenly both felt and heard. This gives it, in my opinion, much more of an impact, and makes it more frighteningly relevant to current events. In other words, the things that Oppenheimer fails to do, The Zone of Interest does. That doesn’t mean The Zone of Interest will win—my money is still on Oppenheimer—but whichever film ultimately wins, it will represent a different narrative of where the Oscar voters stand. And whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see how this year’s Best Picture winner holds up with the benefit of hindsight years down the line.
There were several phenomenal films which I would have loved to have seen recognized in Best Picture, but my single favorite feature film of the year was The Boy and the Heron. Hayao Miyazaki’s masterpiece (and possibly final film) would have been a more than worthy inclusion this year, and I think it might have had a chance if Japan had selected it as its International Film submission. After both Up and Toy Story 3 received Best Picture nominations several years ago, it felt like perhaps an animated film could be seen as a serious contender, but no other animated film has managed to be recognized since, and I’m ready to see animation return to the main competition again. The storytelling and artistry in The Boy and the Heron would have made it a more than worthy contender.
.jpg)
Nominees:
Justine Triet—Anatomy of a Fall
Martin Scorsese—Killers of the Flower Moon
Christopher Nolan—Oppenheimer
Yorgos Lanthimos—Poor Things
Jonathan Glazer—The Zone of Interest
Will Win: Christopher Nolan—Oppenheimer
Could Win: Jonathan Glazer—The Zone of Interest
Should Win: Jonathan Glazer—The Zone of Interest
Should Have Been Nominated: Thomas Hardiman—Medusa Deluxe
This reasoning behind this award is pretty much the same as Best Picture—will the inevitability of a Christopher Nolan win for Oppenheimer be able to withstand a last minute challenge from the innovation of Jonathan Glazer for The Zone of Interest? Much like with Best Picture, as much as I’m intrigued by the argument for The Zone of Interest, I think the smart money is on Nolan—even if Oppenheimer somehow doesn’t take home Best Picture, he’s far and away the frontrunner here. His direction is flashy, with Oppenheimer up for numerous technical awards, and as a beloved figure in the industry, an award here would be as much for his career achievements as a whole than for just his work on this one film. He’s the favorite by a considerable degree. But, again, just like in Best Picture, if there’s any challenger here it’s The Zone of Interest. It feels like a miracle that The Zone of Interest works as well as it does, and it’s entirely because of Glazer’s work. If Glazer can win here, it will be a big upset, and will make the Best Picture race even more suspenseful.
This was a year of some particularly great directorial efforts from those making their feature film debut: including Celine Song and Cord Jefferson for Best Picture nominees Past Lives and American Fiction. But my single favorite directorial debut this year was from Thomas Hardiman from the criminally underrated Medusa Deluxe. Shot to look like it’s mostly one long take, Medusa Deluxe is a confident artistic statement—a dreamlike murder mystery and technical marvel that blew me away. This film wasn’t really on anyone’s radar this awards season, but if Hardiman keeps making movies like this, I have no doubt that he’ll start to gain more recognition. I already eagerly await anything he does next.
Nominees:
Annette Bening as Diana Nyad—Nyad
Lily Gladstone as Mollie Burkhart—Killers of the Flower Moon
Sandra Hüller as Sandra Voyter—Anatomy of a Fall
Carey Mulligan as Felicia Montealegre—Maestro
Emma Stone as Bella Baxter—Poor Things
Will Win: Lily Gladstone—Killers of the Flower Moon
Could Win: Emma Stone—Poor Things
Dark Horse: Sandra Hüller—Anatomy of a Fall
Should Win: Emma Stone as Bella Baxter—Poor Things
Should Have Been Nominated: Babetida Sadjo as Marie Cisse—Our Father, The Devil, Greta Lee as Nora Moon—Past Lives
With (at least) two viable contenders for the trophy, Best Actress is widely and rightly considered the most up-for-grabs of this year’s acting nominees. All awards season long, the momentum has seemed to sway between Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone, and going into Oscar night, it feels like a true toss-up between the two. Stone’s performance is more comedic and “wacky,” which is usually not the Academy’s vibe, but it’s also an undeniable tour de force—Stone is doing career-best work with one of the most intriguing Oscar-nominated performances in recent memory. Gladstone was initially seen as a frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress, and likely would be the frontrunner there if she had campaigned in that category, but early on in the awards season, she announced she would be campaigning as a lead. Her relatively smaller screentime is the most significant ding against her chances, but she has been a true breakout star, and gives a commanding performance even for someone like myself who overall didn’t really care much for Killers of the Flower Moon. Ultimately, if Stone had not won for La La Land, I think this would be her year hands down. But given that she’s won before at a relatively young age, I don’t see the Academy specifically recognizing her tremendous efforts this year. I was already leaning towards Gladstone, and her win at the SAG Awards clinched it for me. But are Gladstone and Stone truly the only nominees with a chance? It would be an upset, but I’m not ready to completely discount Sandra Hüller. The Academy’s much larger international voting body will only do Hüller favors, and with voters seemingly so divided between the perceived frontrunners, there’s definitely a chance that she’ll pull off an upset. Hüller famously is in both Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest, but is only nominated here, so voters who want to recognize her great work across both films will only be able to throw a vote her way here.
Hüller is incredible in Anatomy of a Fall, but it wasn’t even my favorite performance this year by a leading actress in a French thriller where a woman’s morality is called into question. That performance would have to be the one given Babetida Sadjo in Our Father, The Devil. This film is one of the most criminally-overlooked gems of the year, and its success is due in large part to Sadjo’s incredible work. As a caretaker confronted by what she believes to be a surprising and menacing figure from her past, Sadjo’s performance is vicious and fascinating—a powerful portrayal of vengeance which always hints at further complexities hiding just below the surface. While Sadjo is my pick for who should have been nominated, I would be remiss to not also mention Greta Lee. Our Father, The Devil never had a chance of Oscar recognition given its release and promotion, but Past Lives is a different story. The film has widen its wave of critical appeal all the way to a deserved Best Picture nomination, and I’m incredibly disappointed that Lee (and, for that matter, co-star Teo Yoo) hasn’t even been a part of the conversation for much of the season. Lee is effortless in this role, and it doesn’t make sense to me that people can be so taken with this wonderful film and not recognize how much her work in front of the camera had to do with it. In an admittedly crowded field, room should have absolutely been made to include Lee in the discussion.
Nominees:
Bradley Cooper as Leonard Bernstein—Maestro
Colman Domingo as Bayard Rustin—Rustin
Paul Giamatti as Paul Hunham—The Holdovers
Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer—Oppenheimer
Jeffrey Wright as Thelonious “Monk” Ellison—American Fiction
Will Win: Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer—Oppenheimer
Could Win: Paul Giamatti as Paul Hunham—The Holdovers
Should Win: Jeffrey Wright as Thelonious “Monk” Ellison—American Fiction
Should Have Been Nominated: Gael García Bernal as Saul Armendáriz—Cassandro
Another two-horse race, admittedly one where the odds feel a little bit more in favor of one specific nominee. At the start of the season, many felt that this race would be a fight between Cillian Murphy and Bradley Cooper, but as time has gone on Cooper’s odds have significantly faded while Paul Giamatti has emerged as Murphy’s biggest competitor of the year. Both Murphy and Giamatti have picked up their share of accolades this season, and for a while it looked like the momentum was on Giamatti’s side, but with Murphy’s win at both the BAFTAs and the SAG Awards, he’s definitely been cemented as the frontrunner. Giamatti could still take it, although anyone else would be a surprise.
In general, I find this to be a somewhat weak field. Murphy is a wonderful actor—one who I’ve long hoped would receive an Oscar, and whose very presence on screen is almost always compelling. And I say “almost” because I’m one of the very small group of people who just didn’t care for his performance here. I didn’t think Murphy was bad by any means, but I do think this is the most boring he’s ever been on screen—both he and Nolan being so intent on letting us know Oppenheimer was a #misunderstoodgenius that there was no room for anything but the broadest strokes of what that title might look like. As for Giamatti, it’s a very likable performance, but not one which ever transcended its own eccentricities and stylization for me personally. Much has been made of Cooper’s performance in Maestro, and I again don’t think he’s necessarily bad, but was underwhelming here—when Cooper talks about creating Maestro he goes to great lengths to discuss his fixation on the smallest details. I would argue that as much as research and attention to detail is important in any artform, the details in Maestro overshadowed the whole, and we’re left with a technically accurate performance that feels mostly unfinished to me. Of the three nominated performances where actors are playing historical figures, Colman Domingo is definitely my standout—there’s a true passion to his portrayal of Bayard Rustin which elevates the surrounding film to quite some degree. But my standout is very easily Jeffrey Wright in American Fiction. I’m perhaps biased, as Wright has been one of my favorite actors ever since I saw him in Angels in America, but he’s truly incredible here. Out of this year’s nominees, Wright’s portrayal of Monk Ellison is by far the most varied, the most nuanced, the most surprising, and the most deserving of recognition. I’d even say it was the performance out of this year’s nominees that most consistently felt like an actual person.
But despite my disappointment in this lineup, there was plenty of great work that could have been recognized. Looking at this year’s Oscar-nominated films, where’s the love for Past Lives’ Teo Yoo? Or the great Kōji Yakusho in International Film nominee Perfect Days? Both deliver some phenomenal performances which more than deserved a place in this lineup, but my single pick for who should have been nominated is Gael García Bernal in Cassandro. Cassandro tells the true story of Saul Armendáriz, a gay luchador who revolutionized the world of Lucha Libre and changed the landscape of what a fighter in that community could be. As you may have guessed from my analysis of this year’s nominees, I’m often skeptical of biopics, but Bernal shows what a great biopic performance can be. He is both respectful and accurate to the subject he’s portraying, while still crafting a compelling and fully realized character. It’s the year’s best biopic, and the best performance in a biopic of 2023.
Nominees:
Emily Blunt as Katherine Oppenheimer—Oppenheimer
Danielle Brooks as Sofia Johnson—The Color Purple
America Ferrera as Gloria—Barbie
Jodie Foster as Bonnie Stoll—Nyad
Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Mary Lamb—The Holdovers
Will Win: Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Mary Lamb—The Holdovers
Should Win: Da’Vine Joy Randolph as Mary Lamb—The Holdovers
Should Have Been Nominated: Clare Perkins as Cleve—Medusa Deluxe
It’s Da’Vine Joy Randolph. Nobody else is taking this one. It’s Randolph. Honestly, not much more to say. She’s won everything. She will win the Oscar. I am very happy for her.
As for who should have been nominated, I’ve already talked about Medusa Deluxe in the Best Director category. More people need to see this film, and it features hands down one of the best ensemble casts of 2023. It has, I believe, 11 principal characters, and every time an actor is speaking, you become convinced they’re the most interesting person in the whole film. But if there’s a single standout in the cast, it is undeniably Clare Perkins, who opens the whole film up with a ferocious monologue, and continues to explode on screen as the unrelenting and rage-filled Cleve—a hairdresser who may or may not be a murderer, but is certainly bloody well capable of it. It’s a dynamic, scene-stealing performance, and one that would surely have brought in awards if only Medusa Deluxe had gotten its due.
Nominees:
Sterling K. Brown as Cliff Ellison—American Fiction
Robert De Niro as William King Hale—Killers of the Flower Moon
Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss—Oppenheimer
Ryan Gosling as Ken—Barbie
Mark Ruffalo as Duncan Wedderburn—Poor Things
Will Win: Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss—Oppenheimer
Could Win: Ryan Gosling as Ken—Barbie
Should Win: Ryan Gosling as Ken—Barbie
Should Have Been Nominated: Souleymane Sy Savane as Father Patrick—Our Father, The Devil
Another acting category that has a clear frontrunner: Robert Downey Jr. in Oppenheimer. If you’ve read this far, you know I’m not the biggest fan of Oppenheimer as a whole. While I don’t think Downey Jr. gave a particularly incredible performance, it was certainly the best performance in the movie, and the he was the only actor who I felt really put together an interesting character. As a beloved fixture in the industry who has never won before, his win here feels appropriate and more or less inevitable. If he faces any competition at all it’s from Ryan Gosling—another multi-nominee who has never won—who undeniably gave one of the most memorable performances of the year in Barbie. I still see a way Gosling wins on the power of his Kenergy alone, but whether it’s because the Academy doesn’t like comedy, or because of backlash to Margot Robbie not getting nominated, or quite simply because more voters simply preferred Downey Jr.’s work, I think Gosling’s chances are slim. Downey Jr. is easily the smart bet here.
I already sung the praises of Babetida Sadjo in Our Father, The Devil when I discussed Best Actress. I also feel the need to shoutout her co-star Souleymane Sy Savane now. Our Father, The Devil is a beautifully crafted cat-and-mouse game, and Savane’s Father Patrick is a particularly formidable metaphorical mouse. As a beloved priest suspected of being a warlord in hiding, Savane never gives too much away, showcasing vulnerability that never excludes the possibility of danger. It’s a true supporting performance of note; paired with Sadjo, each of these wonderful performances plays off of the strength of the other one. Trust me: watch this movie. And then join me in wishing that the two performances at its center had gained their deserved recognition.
Nominees:
Anatomy of a Fall
The Holdovers
Maestro
May December
Past Lives
Will Win: Anatomy of a Fall
Could Win: The Holdovers, Past Lives
Should Win: Past Lives
Should Have Been Nominated: Our Father, The Devil
The screenplay categories are some of the most exciting ones of the year, with no completely clear winner having emerged thus far. The only film completely out of the running here is May December—the once perceived Best Picture contender received its sole nomination in this category, and it really needed more Academy attention if it was going to be able to compete. I also think a win for Maestro is fairly unlikely—it’s standard biopic fare, which just doesn’t stand out when compared to the other nominees. The other three films are, as far as I’m concerned, all very much in the running. I don’t think that my love of Past Lives is the only reason I think it stands a chance here—the fact that this is the film’s only nomination outside of Best Picture means that the film’s significant fanbase will ONLY be able to vote for it here. It’s the same situation that Women Talking was in last year, and it was able to emerge victorious. But Past Lives faces some undeniably stiff competition. Both Anatomy of a Fall and The Holdovers overperformed with the nominations, implying that both have a tremendous amount of support behind them, and both are films where the screenplay has been singled out by fans of the film many a time. If I’m honest, right up until publishing this post, I had The Holdovers as my pick, and I definitely think it has a great chance of taking this home (and if it does, it will fuel my “The Holdovers Can Win” conspiracy theory even further) but at the last minute I’m changing it to Anatomy of a Fall. The fact that this film is not eligible at the WGAs could have been seen as a mark against its chances, but the fact that the WGAs are taking place AFTER the Oscars this year means that expected winner The Holdovers has no chance to grab that needed last boost of momentum right before voting ends. Instead, Anatomy of a Fall somewhat surprisingly won the BAFTAs, meaning it went into Oscar voting with favor on its side. Plus, of the film’s many nominations, this is the one it feels most competitive in, so fans of the film who are spreading out their votes might throw some extra weight behind it here.
If you’ve read this far, you already know what a fan I am of Our Father, The Devil. It’s screenplay is also great. People need to watch this movie!
Nominees:
American Fiction
Barbie
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
The Zone of Interest
Will Win: Barbie
Could Win: Literally any of these films
Should Win: American Fiction
Should Have Been Nominated: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
In another year, Poor Things would feel like a frontrunner. A stylized and inventive Best Picture-nominated epic from a previously nominated screenwriter? How could it NOT win. But in a year like this, Poor Things has somehow found itself of the least likely path to win out of these nominees (although, hey, you never know what’ll happen). The eventual Best Picture winner has won an Oscar for its screenplay 8 of the last 10 years, so the fact that Oppenheimer is such a clear Best Picture favorite means it has very good odds here. But its screenplay is not as buzzed-about as the technical achievements of the film, and lately it feels like this is one of the weakest categories in its Oscar arsenal. For the same reasons as Oppenheimer, I’m not ready to exclude The Zone of Interest from consideration here—if it does pull off a major Best Picture upset, winning in this category is going to be crucial. For many, the frontrunner is American Fiction—which has one of the most decorated screenplays of the year. Crucially, American Fiction won this category at the BAFTAs, beating out Oppenheimer, Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest there. This is particularly significant considering that American Fiction was not as much of a presence at the BAFTAs; Best Adapted Screenplay was its only nomination compared to Oppenheimer’s 13, for example. If it can win this award with a voting branch that otherwise didn’t recognize the film, it has great odds to win at the far friendlier Oscars. It’s a great argument to make, but there’s just one things standing in its way: Barbie. You see, Barbie has spent the entire awards season competing as an original screenplay. But, as they have done before, the Academy ignored the filmmakers’ wishes and insisted on categorizing Barbie in the adapted category, meaning we have no reference for how Barbie will compete against this already crowded field. As you can see, I’m betting it will do very well here. Considering the vocal backlash to Greta Gerwig’s exclusion from the Best Director category, I think the film’s fans are going to throw their weight here. And while the screenplay was slightly inconsistent for me, overall it was a marvel, and truly one of the most original screenplays of the year. On a personal level, my favorite screenplay out of this group is the one for American Fiction, but I’d be more than happy if Barbie takes it. It would, in many ways, feel appropriate.
I’m still waiting for the day when animated films can get recognized in more categories outside of Best Animated Feature, and I think Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is a great example of why. There’s absolutely no reason why this screenplay couldn’t compete with its live-action counterparts: it an ambitious juggling act of numerous characters and universes, one which not only weaves a complicated and satisfying story, but offers some truly brilliant interpretation of its source material.
Nominees:
Io Capitano (Italy)
Perfect Days (Japan)
Society of the Snow (Spain)
The Teachers’ Lounge (Germany)
The Zone of Interest (United Kingdom)
Will Win: The Zone of Interest
Should Win: Perfect Days
Should Have Been Nominated: I Have Electric Dreams
I’ve been really happy to see international films get more recognition in Best Picture in recent years. Truly the only downside I see is that it has made Best International Feature feel predictable every single year. This year is the first time in Oscars history that we have two international films in the Best Picture lineup, but France notoriously did not submit Anatomy of a Fall as its representative, meaning it was ineligible here. That leaves The Zone of Interest as the only option here. It will be a worthy winner—it’s an absolutely brilliant film—but this is an excellent lineup. The only flop in my eyes is Io Capitano; Matteo Garrone’s film about two young boys who leave Senegal looking to be refugees in Italy has been well-received, but at no point in watching it did I forget for a second that this was being made by a director who is not from Africa. The others in this lineup are great. In another year, the excellent The Teachers’ Lounge would have had a shot at winning. Society of the Snow didn’t get much of an awards season push until late in the season, but if it had, I could see a world where it replicated the performance of All Quiet on the Western Front last year, thanks to its technical achievements. My personal favorite of the nominees, though, is Perfect Days. I worried this film might be too quiet to gain a nomination, but I’m so glad it did. Kōji Yakusho’s performance as a toilet cleaner in Tokyo is a real marvel—often feeling downright poetic.
My hope is that in time, the inevitable predictability of this category forces the Academy to make changes in how the nominees are decided. The “one film from one country” has many problems, and while it has definitely helped some films gain recognition, it has prevented far more worthy entries from even being in the conversation. There were several international films I loved this year, but if I’m selecting only from the list of films eligible for this category, I’m picking Costa Rica’s I Have Electric Dreams for what should have been nominated. Valentina Maurel’s drama about a teenager reestablishing a relationship with her troubled estranged father was not an easy film to watch by any means, but it was an exceptionally well-made one which features some excellent central performances, and marks Maurel as a filmmaker to watch.
Nominees:
The Boy and the Heron
Elemental
Nimona
Robot Dreams
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
Will Win: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
Could Win: The Boy and the Heron
Should Win: The Boy and the Heron
Should Have Been Nominated: Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman
This is the best lineup this category has seen in years! With the exception of Elemental (a perfectly competent film that nonetheless falls in the category of “lesser Pixar”) I could see myself rooting for any of the other nominees in any given year. The nominees here showcase just how exciting animation can be, and how versatile it is as a genre. Despite the strong lineup, there are two clear frontrunners: The Boy and the Heron and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse have been sweeping the awards, and it truly does feel neck and neck between the two. Both have received wide critical acclaim, and there’s a compelling narrative behind either of them winning. Hayao Miyazaki has been nominated a few times but only won this award once (for Spirited Away, in only the second year this award was given out). There’s been a lot of speculation that this might be Miyazaki’s last film, and it is one of his best. A win here—in a rare year that Pixar isn’t competitive and Disney is not even nominated—would be a fitting tribute to not only this masterpiece of a film, but to Miyazaki’s career as a whole. There’s also a compelling case to be made for Across the Spider-Verse. Like its predecessor Into the Spider-Verse (which won in this category a few years ago), the animation is a marvel, and the storytelling here is high-octane and incredibly ambitious. There were multiple reports about poor conditions for the animators, but the movie has mostly escaped that backlash, and what remains is a brilliant and wholly innovative film. My hope is that Oscar voters will remember that Across the Spider-Verse is not a complete film—they will have another chance to award this film in a few years when the next installment of the series comes out, and they might not have a chance to award Miyazaki again. But my instinct tells me that Across the Spider-Verse will win simply by virtue of being the “bigger” option. As much of an artistic achievement as it is, Spider-Verse is still a Marvel property and has the money behind it. That’s enough to give it the edge.
As I mentioned, this is a great lineup which I’m very happy with, but I still would have loved to have seen some love for Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman. Haruki Murakami’s work has been notoriously difficult to translate to film, but this adaptation of his short stories made the case that animation is the PERFECT medium for his distinct voice and perspective. It’s one of the year’s true underrated gems.
Nominees:
Bobi Wine: The People’s President
The Eternal Memory
Four Daughters
To Kill a Tiger
20 Days in Mariupol
Will Win: 20 Days in Mariupol
Could Win: The Eternal Memory, Four Daughters
Should Win: Four Daughters
Should Have Been Nominated: Kokomo City
Before we even get into the analysis of who will win, if you’ll indulge me, I’m going to talk a bit about why this category is the most fascinating out of this year’s Oscars. Documentary has had an interest few years. For most of the Oscars’ history, Academy members had to show proof that they had seen all five of the nominees in the category before casting their vote, since documentaries were less widely seen than nominees in other categories. That changed in 2013, when Oscar voters could vote regardless of how many nominees they’d seen, or even if they had not seen any at all. It was a move that was speculated to drastically change what this category would look like, and the change was immediately visible. That year, presumed winner The Act of Killing, a brilliant reflection on the Cambodian genocide, lost to the far more audience-friendly 20 Feet from Stardom, about backup singers in the music industry. Since then, there have been some great winners and some not so great winners (My Octopus Teacher really is one of the most shameful Oscar picks of all time), but it’s undeniable that recent Oscar winners have a much more populist feel. Documentaries that are more experimental or offbeat struggle to find recognition. This, sadly, means that it becomes harder for such documentaries to find distribution. Documentaries aren’t exactly cash cows for the film industry, and so the potential for awards recognition has sadly been one of the main reasons documentarians would receive any funding. Documentary filmmakers have spoken at length about how much harsher the industry has been to them in recent years, and it was particularly noticeable at Sundance this year—the festival was once THE PLACE to find the next big documentary, and this year there were no notable bidding wars for even the buzziest titles. For the Oscars this year, the two perceived frontrunners before nominations were announced were American Symphony and Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie. Both are good, but both are also fairly standard celebrity profiles which aren’t exactly stretching the ideas of what documentary can be. To see these films as the frontrunners was, to me, a clear indication of the way the choices of the Oscars truly affect the film industry.
But neither of those films received any nominations. For the first time in the Academy’s history, all five of the nominees for Best Documentary Feature are not in the English language. While it might be a fluke, this year’s lineup feels like a rejection of the state of the American documentary. It’s a bit of a sad turn of events—especially when there were some phenomenal American documentaries this year (like the marvelous Kokomo City, pictured above, one of my favorite films of the year, which didn’t even make the Academy’s shortlist). But it also means that this lineup is probably the best one, or at least the most interesting one, we’ve seen in years. It feels like a throwback to the Documentary category of old, and any of them would be a worthy winner. The presumed winner is 20 Days in Mariupol, about the 20 days director Mstyslav Chernov spent in the city of Mariupol during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s a brutal watch—urgent and grim—but undeniably important and unpretentious. Its win at the BAFTA awards (where it was the only Oscar nominee in contention) cemented its status as a frontrunner. There’s also a case to be made for Four Daughters which, along with 20 Days in Mariupol, was on the shortlist for Best International Feature as well. Four Daughters follows Tunisian woman Olfa Hamrouni, whose life was affected when the two eldest of her four daughters fled the country to join ISIS in Libya. Director Kaouther Ben Hania allows Olfa and her two remaining daughters to reenact moments from their life, using actors to stand in for the missing daughters (and, occasionally, an actor to stand in for Olfa herself). It’s easily the most experimental of the nominees, and is a very personal film that deserves the acclaim it has received. I also am not willing to count out The Eternal Memory—a tender examination of how Alzheimer’s has affected the relationship of a prominent Chilean couple. This is the least political of the nominees by a good margin (although not without its share of commentary) and is an absolute tearjerker. I wouldn’t be wholly surprised if voters who might have previously flocked to the more traditional nominees in this category respond well to this film and, if they do, it might pull off a major upset.
Nominees:
Anatomy of a Fall
The Holdovers
Killers of the Flower Moon
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Will Win: Oppenheimer
Could Win: Poor Things
Should Win: Poor Things
Should Have Been Nominated: Talk to Me
Film Editing is one of the most crucial categories for Oscars prognosticators. Best Picture winners have been nominated for Best Film Editing more than in any other category (including Best Director). But that doesn’t mean the Best Picture winner will always win here, but if the Best Picture frontrunner is also acclaimed for its technical achievements, it definitely has a leg up here. That’s why I feel pretty comfortable predicting Oppenheimer to win—it should perform well with voters based on both its storytelling and its more technical sequences. If it has any competition, it would be Poor Things. The film’s extravagant aesthetic is sure to earn it both fans and detractors, and it’s a film I could see walking away with a lot of awards, or empty-handed. If it overperforms, this is one of the categories it could easily take. But this is definitely Oppenheimer’s category to lose.
The Oscars are infamous for not having a great track record with horror films, which are frequently overlooked. While this category can sometimes recognize films outside of the typical Best Picture fare—such as action or sci-fi films—horror still tends to remain elusive. But I really wish there’d been any chance of Talk to Me being recognized. A24’s hit horror film is incredibly well made, and the editing is particularly astonishing. Some of the possession sequences in this film are edited to feel almost balletic—based on difficulty alone, Talk to Me deserved a mention here that it sadly never had a chance to achieve.
.jpg)
Nominees:
El Conde
Killers of the Flower Moon
Maestro
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Will Win: Oppenheimer
Could Win: Poor Things
Should Win: Poor Things
Should Have Been Nominated: Godland
If you’ve read this far, you’ve probably gathered I’m not the biggest fan of Oppenheimer. It’s not that I HATE this film—there have certainly been worst Best Picture winners—but I think part of my dislike of it comes from the fact that I feel like it had many missed opportunities. Perhaps the biggest letdown of Oppenheimer for me was the cinematography. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema is undeniably excellent, and has had a phenomenal career up until this point. Oppenheimer is well-shot and certainly looks expensive, but…I just don’t get the acclaim for this film’s visuals. I run a social media account all about visuals in film, and this movie just looked boring to me. There was no image that I found particularly striking or interesting or memorable. Compare that to truly any of these other nominees and I just don’t see how it compares. Sure, I know some people hated the fisheye lenses used on Poor Things, but THAT’S a movie with a real look and an ability to use cinematography to tell a story in an intriguing way. I’m hoping it can somehow take the win here, but it’s very clear I’m in the minority with a lot of my opinions on Oppenheimer. It’s certainly the favorite.
There are so many films with a fraction of the budget of Oppenheimer that to me were more striking to look at than any of these nominees. Robrecht Heyvaert’s cinematography in the war drama Rebel gave us some of the most alive-feeling musical sequences in recent memory. Oona Menges’ cinematography for LOLA makes the film feel like it was shot on a camcorder Cai Tao’s cinematography turned Chinese thriller Hidden Blade into one of the most visually striking films of the year. Robbie Ryan, who is nominated for Poor Things, did just as captivating work in Medusa Deluxe, where his camera brought the colorful and dangerous world of the film to life while convincingly making it feel like it was shot in one take. Director D. Smith shot the documentary Kokomo City on a single camera while she was homeless and still came out with one of the most visually inventive films of the year. So many films would have been worthy entrants here, but if I had to pick one, I would go with Godland. Iceland’s entry to Oscars this year (which made the International Feature shortlist) is an offbeat historical drama about a 19th century Danish priest sent to Iceland to oversee the construction of a new church. It’s absolutely gorgeous, and cinematography Maria von Hausswolff’s work elevates the film and gives it a wonderful quirky charm. It’s a beautiful showcase of the Icelandic coast, only made possible by von Hausswolff’s keen understanding of light.
.jpg)
Nominees:
Barbie
Killers of the Flower Moon
Napoleon
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Will Win: Poor Things
Could Win: Barbie
Should Win: Barbie
Should Have Been Nominated: Moon Garden
In any year that they weren’t competing against each other, either Poor Things or Barbie would win this handily. Both films are visual feasts, and both would be deserving winners. The fake sets made to resemble surreal versions of famous cities are absolutely ingenious, and the production design is integral to crafting the wondrous world that Bella Baxter seeks out to discover. No less wondrous is the world of Barbieland—a world that is immediately recognizable and familiar to those who know Barbie, but is still inventive, refreshing, and new. Barbieland is one of my favorite fantasy worlds in recent cinematic history, and the bright, eye-popping colors and wild architecture are a huge reason why the film was able to be so successful. Either are worthy winners. Personally, I’m rooting for Barbie—as incredible as Poor Things is, the fact that the design team of Barbie accomplished what they did is nothing short of a miracle. And yet, I feel like Poor Things has a slight edge here. While not always, this category tends to prefer period films to fantasy films. Barbie is aggressively contemporary in its feels, and while Poor Things might be far from your by-the-books period look, its stylistic choices should appeal to the more traditional Oscar trends in this category.
One of the most fascinating films of the year, for me, was Moon Garden. Ryan Steven Harris’ dark fantasy drama is about a young girl (Haven Lee Harris, the directors’ daughter) who, while in a coma, enters a nightmare fantasy world. Think Alice in Wonderland, but Goth. I’m conflicted on the film as a whole—the idea of a child being in peril is always going to be a difficult watch—but was absolutely blown away by the design elements of this film, and hope it can find a wider audience and perhaps gain a cult classic status. This is one of the most visually inventive films of the year, and creates a gorgeous and dangerous fantasy world as strong as the ones seen in Barbie or Poor Things, all on a fraction of those films’ budgets.
.jpg)
Nominees:
Barbie
Killers of the Flower Moon
Napoleon
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Will Win: Barbie
Could Win: Poor Things
Should Win: Barbie
Should Have Been Nominated: Cassandro
Just like with Production Design, this is going to be a showdown between Barbie and Poor Things. And once again, either film probably would win this award in a year where they were not competing against each other. This time, however, I’m giving the edge to Barbie. As wonderful as the costumes in Poor Things are, this is designer Holly Waddington’s first-ever nomination. Costume Design is a particularly rough category for newbies. You’d have to go all the way back to the year 2000 to find a time when someone won this category on their first nomination (that would be Janty Yates for Gladiator, nominated again this year for Napoleon). Barbie’s costumes, on the other hand, are done by Jacqueline Durran, who is on her 9th nomination and who has previously won twice. She’s an industry stalwart, and will benefit from being in a category that’s typically more willing to think outside the box. This is probably one of Barbie’s surest wins of the night.
There were several films with great costumes this year, but one of the standouts for me was Cassandro, which I already spoke about when discussing Best Actor. Costume designer Maríestela Fernández had to design several colorful costumes fit for the world of Lucha Libre—meaning they had to be both functional and fantastic—and her work is crucial in bringing the world of the film to life. Through the extravagance of his costumes as the film goes on, we can clearly see the evolution of Cassandro as he rises in popularity. They’re very well done, and on a piece by piece level, Cassandro contains some of the most eye-catching costumes of any film this year.
Nominees:
Golda
Maestro
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Society of the Snow
Will Win: Maestro
Could Win: Poor Things
Should Win: Poor Things
Should Have Been Nominated: Medusa Deluxe, Mami Wata, Onyx the Fortuitous and the Talisman of Souls, When Evil Lurks
Of the many things to celebrate about this year’s Oscar nominations, there is one thing that made me particularly happy: unlike the last six years, this year’s winner for Best Makeup & Hairstyling will NOT primarily feature a fat suit. I’ve said for a few years that this category might as well be called Best Fat Suit, and it’s genuinely such a relief to know that trend will be broken this year (perhaps after infuriatingly giving this win to The Whale last year the Academy decided it simply couldn’t possibly award a fat suit even more than that one). Despite that, this is a category which continues to lean into awarding “transformation” more than specific artistry. Of the five nominees, only Poor Things features makeup that’s creative and outside the box, and I would personally love to see it win on the strength of the makeup for Willem Dafoe’s Dr. Godwin Baxter alone. But it’s far more likely that this will go to Maestro. The makeup—particularly Bradley Cooper’s nose—has for better or for worse been a central talking point surrounding this film since before it was released, and the fact that it comes from beloved industry stalwart Kazu Hiro (who recently won Oscars for the fat suits for both Darkest Hour and Bombshell) makes this far and away the frontrunner, despite the controversy surrounding it. As far as said controversy goes, I don’t think there was any ill intent when giving Cooper a larger nose to play Leonard Bernstein. But I also don’t think there was any ill intent with the many fat suits that Hiro has made throughout his decorated career. And just like with the fat suits, when crafting a large nose for Bradley Cooper to play a Jewish character, I simply question why this was actually necessary, and defer to The Onion for my favorite coverage on why this was such a baffling and insensitive choice. Controversy aside, it will win, and will make me far less mad than any of the wins for the six years prior.
There was plenty of creativity on display in film this year outside of mere physical transformation. Enough so that I’ve picked three films to highlight. I’ve already talked quite a bit about Medusa Deluxe, but for a film that takes place at a hairdressing competition, the hairstyles are exactly as incredible as you’d expect. Nigerian film Mami Wata is a fantasy thriller which used bright white paint to make a makeup that pops against the backdrop of its wonderfully dark cinematography—one of the most inventive and memorable makeup choices of the year. The delightfully named Onyx the Fortuitous and the Talisman of Souls beautifully married contemporary makeup techniques with old school B-movie monster makeup aesthetics, which helped build the distinct horror fantasy world of the film. Argentinian horror film When Evil Lurks is a great example of phenomenal gory supernatural makeup—very icky and disturbing and a great example of the sort of creativity that I consistently find lacking in this category. None of these would have ever been on the nominating branch’s radar, but all deserved to be.
.jpg)
Nominees:
The Creator
Godzilla Minus One
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One
Napoleon
Will Win: Godzilla Minus One
Could Win: The Creator
Should Win: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
Should Have Been Nominated: The Secret Kingdom
This category has turned into one of my favorites of the Oscars season, because it’s always fun when an underdog becomes the frontrunner! Following Oppenheimer’s surprising snub from the category shortlist, most assumed that the perceived frontrunner here would be The Creator—Gareth Edwards’ sci-fi action film has impressive effects which seemed to give it an edge over its competition. It still could win, but as time has gone on there’s been a lot of momentum shifting towards Godzilla Minus One: the first movie in the vast Godzilla franchise to ever receive an Oscar nomination. It’s important to note just how much of an underdog this film really is. It had a budget of between 10 and 12 million dollars. That’s NOTHING. The Creator’s budget was 80 million. The other nominees in the category had budgets of over 200 million. Before its release, nobody had Godzilla Minus One on its Oscars radar at all. But then something amazing happened: this film was really, really good. The effects are impressive no matter what, but are particularly impressive given the film’s meager budget to work with. Notably, the effects were largely done by Takashi Yamazaki, the film’s director, and if he wins, he’d be only the second director of a film to win in this category in Oscars history (following Stanley Kubrick for 2001: A Space Odyssey). That accomplishment, and the film’s warm critical reception as a whole, have made it a sentimental favorite, which easily could win. Does it have the best visual effects out of these nominees? That’s at the very least debatable—personally, I think that the effects in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 were absolutely gorgeous and a new high for the MCU’s effects in terms of creativity and execution. But it’s hard not to root for Godzilla Minus One regardless. It features great effects in an excellent movie, and shows what can be accomplished with a fraction of the budget that its fellow competitors got to work with.
And speaking of smaller films with great effects…I’m not entirely surprised that nobody seems to remember The Secret Kingdom. This Australian film about two children who are transported into a fantasy world just never really came together, and made less than half a million dollars at the box office worldwide. It doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. But while the story might feel generic, it featured some absolutely incredible and creative effects! During their journey, the young heroes of The Secret Kingdom encounter a variety of creatures—some mythical, some mechanical, and some real animals beautifully rendered (like an army of pangolin soldiers)—which truly come to life on the screen. It might have felt like an Alice in Wonderland knockoff, but it was a gorgeous one to watch, which offered plenty of effects worthy of consideration.
.jpg)
Nominees:
The Creator
Maestro
Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One
Oppenheimer
The Zone of Interest
Will Win: The Zone of Interest
Could Win: Oppenheimer
Should Win: The Zone of Interest
Should Have Been Nominated: 32 Sounds
This might be one of my riskiest predictions, but it’s one I’m increasingly hopeful that The Zone of Interest will prevail in this category. Its use of sound is not the sort of work that the Academy typically recognizes, but that’s partly because no film has used sound in quite the way that The Zone of Interest has. Because the film takes primarily right outside of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its presence is felt almost entirely through sound. While Mica Levi’s drone-heavy score is used at choice moments of the film, there’s no musical scoring throughout most of it—instead, a soundscape is used that is both technically precise and incredibly powerful. It’s some of the best storytelling through sound I’ve ever heard in film. I for a long time thought the work might be too subtle to get noticed by the Academy, but I’ve been happy to see that the sound design has been central to the awards campaign for The Zone of Interest, in the way that it was for previous winners such as Sound of Metal. I’m hoping it wins, and think it has a real chance to. If not The Zone of Interest, this award will likely go to Oppenheimer, which has campaigned heavily for this award, centering the sound made for the film’s Trinity test explosion simulation. I have a lengthy history of hating Nolan’s sound design choices, and while at the very least the dialogue Oppenheimer is at least a little more understandable than some of his previous efforts, the highlights of the Oppenheimer Best Sound awards campaign still seem to equate “loud” with “good.” As a sound design, it’s clunky, showy, and ineffective: everything that The Zone of Interest sound design is not. Of all of the two-film races in this year’s Oscar lineup, it’s the one that feels most to me like it has a single correct answer. We’ll see if my prediction is right.
As for what should have been nominated, I’m guessing most people haven’t heard of the documentary 32 Sounds. This film, which made the Best Documentary Feature shortlist, is described as “an immersive documentary and profound sensory experience…that explores the elemental phenomenon of sound.” It’s a documentary ABOUT sound. So you best believe that the sound is really good. Not only is the use of sound purposeful and well-executed, it’s one of the few films that consciously makes you focus on how sound is being used in every moment. It’s a true celebration of sound, and absolutely deserved recognition here.
.jpg)
Nominees:
American Fiction
Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
Killers of the Flower Moon
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Will Win: Oppenheimer
Could Win: Killers of the Flower Moon, Poor Things
Should Win: American Fiction
Should Have Been Nominated: The Boy and the Heron
With the exception of Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, this is a really strong lineup—I think even John Williams’ biggest fans would acknowledge that this isn’t his strongest work, and he earned this nomination off of his name recognition alone. The other four scores here are strong. My personal favorite is Laura Karpman’s jazzy score for American Fiction—it’s delightful to listen to, and it captures the spirit of the movie perfectly. Jerskin Fendrix’s score for Poor Things is undeniably the weirdest of the nominees, and I think it’s a bit of a dark horse. I think its unusual nature means a lot of people are underestimating it, but it’s a truly unforgettable score, and is a HUGE reason for why Poor Things works as well as it does. If the Academy has responded to this strange film as a whole, why can’t they respond to its strange score as well? So I’m not willing to count it out—and would genuinely love to see it pull off an upset—but most prognosticators agree that this is a two-horse race between Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. Oppenheimer is once again the favorite. Ludwig Göransson’s strings-heavy score is distinct and memorable. Even I, noted critic of Oppenheimer, like this score, and definitely think it’s the frontrunner. But it does face some competition from Killers of the Flower Moon, which could win not just based on the quality of the score, but as a way to honor veteran composer Robbie Robertson. Robertson, Scorsese’s longtime collaborator, passed away this year. He had never been nominated for an Oscar before, and Scorsese has campaigned hard on Robertson’s behalf. To be clear—I don’t think that this will win solely because of Robertson’s passing. It’s a wonderful film score which would have been a contender no matter what. But I do think the chance to honor Robertson might sway a few voters who otherwise might have been on the fence in such a competitive category.
Robertson is not the only prolific and beloved film composer to have never been nominated for an Oscar…it is absolutely criminal that Joe Hisaishi has still never received an Oscar nomination. As a longtime collaborator of Hayao Miyazaki, Hisaishi has created some of film’s most iconic scores, and has truly topped himself with The Boy and the Heron. It’s rousing and epic and extraordinary, and not selecting it for a nomination is a sad oversight despite the overall strength of this category.
.jpg)
Nominees:
“The Fire Inside” from Flamin’ Hot
“I’m Just Ken” from Barbie
“It Never Went Away” from American Symphony
“Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” from Killers of the Flower Moon
“What Was I Made For?” from Barbie
Will Win: “What Was I Made For?” from Barbie
Could Win: “I’m Just Ken” from Barbie
Should Win: “I’m Just Ken” from Barbie
Should Have Been Nominated: “The Sound of Marching Feet” from LOLA
Go ahead and call it now—Barbie is winning this award. The only question is for which song? Billie Eilish’s “What Was I Made For?” is a beautiful ballad, which perfectly captures the sense of human melancholy that makes Barbie more than just a “toy movie.” It’s a great song, the perceived frontrunner, and would be a worthy winner. Its only real competition comes from “I’m Just Ken,” the hilarious and catchy himbo anthem that everyone left Barbie singing. When you compare the two songs, I think most people would agree that “What Was I Made For?” is the better song—“I’m Just Ken” is perfect for what it is, but isn’t operating on the same emotional level. But I would argue that this category isn’t just about which is the best song—the criteria for the category is supposed to be about how the song is used in the film. “What Was I Made For?” plays at a crucial time in Barbie and is used perfectly, but only a little bit of the song plays at all, to the point that you could easily miss it. Compare that to “I’m Just Ken,” which gets an elaborate musical number and is easily the more popular audience choice. For that reason alone, I think “I’m Just Ken” technically deserves this award more, and I could see it pulling off a win. But for now, I’m sticking with the more common pick and giving the edge to Billie Eilish’s disembodied voice.
LOLA isn’t a time travel film, but it’s about time manipulation,
and how changing certain events can change the course of the future. One of the
ways it does this is by examining and imagining how culture would be shockingly
different should certain events not transpire. After the protagonists meddle
with the course of WWII, they’re surprised to learn that David Bowie ceases to
exist, and in his place there is the far less talented and far more fascist
Reginald Watson. We get to hear two of Watson’s songs in their entirety—“The Sound of Marching
Feet” and “To the Gallows,” and both are absolutely
brilliant, capturing the sound of the era while completely changing the
cultural context. “The Sound of Marching Feet” in particular is a catchy bop
which you want to sing along to, until you realize how dystopian the lyrics actually
are.
Put this record on
Learn all of the lyrics
If your friends don’t sing along
Call the police
It’s menacing and memorable, and in a single song perfectly encapsulates the point the film is trying to make.
.jpg)
Nominees:
The After
Invincible
Knight of Fortune
Red, White and Blue
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
Will Win: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
Could Win: The After
Should Win: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
Should Have Been Nominated: The Swan
If you read my picks for the best films of the year, you will know that I’m a fan of The Wonderful Story of
Henry Sugar. The most prominent of the four short films Wes Anderson made
this year adapted from short stories by Roald Dahl, it’s a marvelous cinematic
achievement, and the most high-profile nominee in this category in many years.
I’m a champion of short films, and love discovering new talent by taking note
of my favorite of the nominees. In the past, if a film from a famous director
had been the frontrunner here, I probably would have been upset that they were
taking the win from a deserving up-and-coming director. But I genuinely can’t
feel upset at the idea of a Henry Sugar win. These films are made with
so much love, and Anderson (as well as the film’s distributor, Netflix) has
been a champion of short films for many years. Instead of feeling like he’s
taking a spot away, it actually feels like Anderson is drawing attention to the
often overlooked category. In fact my only complaint with The Wonderful
Story of Henry Sugar winning is that I wish more of Anderson’s short films
this year could have been recognized. As great as Henry Sugar is, my
personal favorite was The Swan. This depiction of childhood bullying is
a brutal story, and one that should never have been possible to adapt to film.
The fact that Anderson succeeds in telling this story in a way that is
accessible, yet doesn’t lose the story’s inherent ferocity, is nothing short of
a miracle. If it hadn’t been competing against the more elaborate Henry
Sugar, I think it would have been a shoo-in for this category.
So can any film compete against The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar? The only other nominee with any attention is The After, which is also distributed by Netflix and which stars David Oyelowo as a man grieving after losing his wife and daughter in a brutal attack. Oyelowo’s presence on screen has certainly brought the film a lot of attention, and he has been campaigning hard for it. While The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is an exemplary showcase of craft, it’s not exactly a heavy-hitting story, so if voters respond to the more emotional story at the center of The After, it has a chance to win. There’s only one problem with that narrative: gosh this movie suuuuuuuuuucks. I’m sorry, David Oyelowo is a wonderful actor and this film has the best intentions, but oh wow it is a fucking mess. The attach on the main character’s wife and daughter is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen on film—it’s confusing and bizarre and ineffective. And the whole movie is melodramatic to the point of being downright comical. That doesn’t mean it can’t win—in fact, I’ve often felt underwhelmed by the winners in this category in particular. If anything, the fact that I hate The After might help its chances—I’ve felt similarly about several of this category’s recent winners. There was a 5-year run from 2016 to 2021 where all of the winners (Sing, The Silent Child, The Neighbors’ Window, and Two Distant Strangers) were all pretty terrible. But I’m hoping that the star power being The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is enough to allow the most deserving film to actually win this category for a change.
Nominees:
Letter to a Pig
Ninety-Five Senses
Our Uniform
Pachyderme
War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John and Yoko
Will Win: War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John and Yoko
Could Win: Ninety-Five Senses, Letter to a Pig
Should Win: Letter to a Pig
Should Have Been Nominated: A Kind of Testament
It's a nice lineup this year, with all of these films at least being "good." Without any exceptionally notable entries, it means that I'll have to rely on knowledge of Oscar voters' tastes to make my predictions. Like all of the shorts categories, the nominees here tend to be refreshingly international, but the winners tend to be disappointingly in English. There are absolutely exceptions, but the vast majority of winners here are either in English or have no dialogue at all. It's not a guarantee but it does lower the chances for the non-American entries. That includes Our Unform (an Iranian film commenting on the practice of mandating hijabs in all-girls schools, which projects its animations directly onto fabric), Pachyderme (a gorgeously animated story whose tranquil tone belies its much darker themes), and Letter to a Pig which is the only one of these three I'm not willing to count out of the race entirely. The film, about a nightmare a young girl experiences after hearing the story of a Holocaust survivor, features the most intriguing animation of the five nominees, and quite simply packs the biggest punch out of all of the nominated films. It had won numerous awards at festivals prior to the Oscars, and undoubtedly stands out as the most thought-provoking of the nominated films. That might not be to its favor, however, as just like with the corresponding Animated Feature category, Oscar voters tend to respond to accessibility over innovation. That's why the perceived frontrunner is War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John and Yoko, a film about two soldiers on competing sides of a war who play chess against one another by passing notes on a pigeon back and forth despite having never met before. The film, like the song that inspired it, is an admirable call for pacifism; a message that is very nice, but also incredibly simplistic. Listen, it's not that this is a bad movie, but when one considers current events, the resounding lyric of "War is over if you want it," feels a bit toothless and outdated. It's nonetheless going to be the crowdpleaser of the nominees, and has the most prestigious team behind it, being produced by Yoko Ono herself as well as her son Sean Ono Lennon, and being directed by Pixar alum Dave Mullins. The power of the names behind it means it's War Is Over!'s award to lose. Still, if voters split the difference between the heaviness of Letter to a Pig and the accessibility of War Is Over!, then the final nominee here might be a dark horse with genuine win equity. From filmmaking couple Jared and Jerusha Hess, Ninety-Five Senses is about a convict who reflects on the five senses of the human body and how they relate to his memories. It's a film that has a distinct charm to it: incredibly likeable but not without a resonant message at its core. Plus, Tim Blake Nelson gives a pretty masterful voiceover performance as the nameless protagonist, imbuing the entire short with a sense of gravitas. I think a lot of prognosticators are underestimating its chances, and I almost went with it as my choice...but if I'm honest, the Oscars get the shorts categories wrong way more than they get them right. Considering that I think both Live Action and Documentary short categories are going to go to some really strong films, I don't see this year's Academy going three for three. War Is Over! is the frontrunner for several reasons. The fact that it's clearly the worst of the five nominees might just be the strongest thing it has going for it.
But the most compelling animated short film that I saw this year didn't even receive a nomination. The shortlisted A Kind of Testament is a trippy piece of technological horror which fascinated me and definitely got under my skin. The film follows a woman who discovers a series of animations made of her likeness, but made by a person she's never met before. As she investigate the source of the animations, she gets some answers, but also descends down a twisted rabbit hole that makes one question the nature of identity in the digital age. It's like if David Lynch animated a Black Mirror episode. It was probably too weird for the Academy, but has undeniably stayed with me and is worth checking out if you're willing to immerse yourself in the strange world director Stephen Vuillemin has created.
Nominees:
The ABCs of Book Banning
The Barber of Little Rock
Island in Between
The Last Repair Shop
Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó
Will Win: Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó
Could Win: The Last Repair Shop
Should Win: Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó
Should Have Been Nominated: If Dreams Were Lightning: Rural Healthcare Crisis
This is another great lineup. The filmmaking of The ABCs of Book Banning feels a little PSA-ish, but otherwise you have some really solid films which showcase why I look forward to the short films so much every year. Because there’s not as much precedent for these awards, you have to rely on instinct to predict them, and given how this category usually pans out, I see two major contenders here: The Last Repair Shop and Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó. The Last Repair Shop profiles a warehouse in L.A. where various craftspeople repair musical instruments for public school students around the country. Using the instrument repairs as a framing device, we learn about the lives of these craftspeople, and see the impact that their work is doing firsthand. It’s an inspiring film, and the exact sort of fare that often triumphs here. But the frontrunner simply has got to be Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó. Filmmaker Sean Wang (whose debut feature film Didi just did very well at the Sundance Film Festival and is set to be released this year) profiles his two grandmothers—one from his mothers’ and one from his fathers’ side—who now live together as lifelong friends. They’re adorable, and their clear connection to Sean behind the camera makes this undeniably the most delightful and heartwarming entry in a largely delightful and heartwarming group of nominees. You can’t help but love both of the women at the film’s center (who I’m looking forward to seeing on the Oscars red carpet). It’s a film that’s impossible to dislike. It simply FEELS like the winner.
In general, this is a bit of a happier lineup than this category sometimes sees. While all of these films touch on serious and important issues, and some are not without their share of upsetting moments, these films all feel personal and palatable—they’re films that I would largely recommend even for people who don’t typically watch documentaries. That isn’t always the case—many years the nominees are much more grim, albeit undeniably important. I wonder if the bleak nature of the news at the moment means that voters selecting the nominees were naturally gravitating towards these films with a more optimistic tone. It makes sense, but if they had not bypassed more heavy-hitting subject matter, I think they would have certainly nominated If Dreams Were Lightning: Rural Healthcare Crisis. From Oscar-nominee Ramin Bahrani, it’s an examination of the state of healthcare in the poorest parts of the United States, where hospitals are closing en masse, leaving communities to adapt to a life without access to healthcare of any kind. This is a depressing watch, but a truly important one—even as someone who does try to stay informed about issues like this, it was incredibly informative. It’s an urgent and devastating plea for change, which I wish could have been amplified by an Oscar nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment