Oscar Predictions 2015 Part I

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Behind the scenes of filming Birdman

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

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

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

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


Best Actor:

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

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

Pictured: a great actor

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

David Oyelowo, snubbed for his performance in Selma

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

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

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

This face will haunt your nightmares with his acting talent.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Well, that's settled.

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

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

Chris Pine. More like Chris Divine.

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

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



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

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

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

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

Emma Stone in Birdman.

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

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

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

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

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

Tilda Swinton's brilliant and bizarre character in Snowpiercer

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

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


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

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

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

Chris Rock and friends in Top Five

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Oscars 2015: Reaction to the Nominations

The Oscar nominations were announced this morning and, like every year, there were some snubs and surprises. But, I must say, this year felt especially surprising. Considering what a great year it was for film, a lot of the nominees struck me as being generally unimpressive, while far more deserving work was passed over. Not only were the notable omissions surprising, they felt very unjust. When one makes predictions about awards ceremonies, it's important to keep personal opinions out of it or you will always be disappointed. But, nonetheless, a lot of these nominations just feel wrong. So, today, I really feel like a bit of an Oscar grouch.

Pictured: me right now

As the Oscars draw closer (they air on February 22^nd) I will offer a more in-depth analysis and make predictions in all of the categories, but for now, here are my first thoughts on today’s nominations. You can find the whole list of nominees here.

BEST PICTURE:

Every year the Oscars has a couple of wildcard films that might break their way into the field. This year, it was American Sniper, which had a slow start in terms of building awards buzz due to a very late release, but started doing well at the later guild awards. It proved to be the major surprise this year. I had not predicted it to be a best picture nominee but after it started picking up a bunch of technical awards, it became clear it was going to be on the list. And it beat out deserving contenders like Foxcatcher, Gone Girl, and Nightcrawler. Nightcrawler had only an outside chance of making it so I’m not too surprised by this, but Gone Girl was seen as a definite contender and got snubbed not just here, but in multiple categories. The worst snub for me, though, was the absence of Foxcatcher because is actually did perform well with the nominations. It picked up two acting nominations, a directing nomination, and a screenplay nomination (and, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo’s nomination, none of those were guaranteed). So, when all of these elements are so strong, how is the film not recognized as a best picture of the year? On the plus side, Selma got a nomination, which I was starting to think would not happen seeing as how it got snubbed in every other category other than Best Song. I’m also glad to see Whiplash, once seen as a long shot in this category, get recognized. That’s the type of film that makes a case for having the extended field of Best Picture nominees—a really great movie that otherwise might not have gotten recognition. Also, we can pretty much just agree now that Boyhood is going to win Best Picture, right? It's pretty much guaranteed at this point, and it is certainly worthy of the trophy.

DIRECTOR:

I’m glad to see Wes Anderson get his first ever director nomination for The Grand Budapest Hotel. And Richard Linklater and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu are, deservedly, the frontrunners to take home this award. But the other two nominations were surprising. I for one am really glad that Bennett Miller got recognized for Foxcatcher—he does such amazing work, especially with his ensemble. But the other award leaves me scratching my head. Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game? Really? What about that directing was extraordinary? Like everything about that movie, it was decidedly good to average, and his inclusion here over the more deserving contenders like Ava DuVernay and David Fincher is frustrating.

ACTOR:

My shock at the warm reception for American Sniper continues here. With such a competitive category, Bradley Cooper is a definite upset, beating out much more deserving candidates such as David Oyelowo, Ralph Fiennes, Timothy Spall, and Jake Gyllenhaal. Especially Jake Gyllenhaal. After being nominated for pretty much every other award out there, how does Gyllenhaal, who gave by far one of the best performances of the year, not get the Oscar nomination he so richly deserved?

ACTRESS:

The big surprise here is the always deserving Marion Cotillard, who delivers what is supposed to be an incredible performance in Two Days, One Night, but who has been mostly out of the running at most major Oscar ceremonies. Who did she beat out? Jennifer Aniston for Cake. Was Aniston ever a real contender to win? No. Everyone’s going to lose to Julianne Moore. But Aniston really did deserve it with a career-defining performance. I’d hoped to see her work recognized, and after all of her accolades up until now, it’s surprising that it is not.

SUPPORTING ACTOR:

No huge surprises here, but…Robert Duvall for The Judge? Really? I mean, he has gotten a bunch of nominations for this, including a SAG and Golden Globe nomination, but…really? The Judge is so generic and his performance so solid but ordinary that a nomination for Duvall honestly seemed unlikely to me. I thought he’d be bested by Josh Brolin for Inherent Vice, but no. Duvall is probably the most surprising not surprising nomination this year.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

Patricia Arquette, Keira Knightley, Emma Stone, and Meryl Streep were all locks. But with a fifth nomination up in the air, everyone wondered who would sneak in! Would it be Jessica Chastain for A Most Violent Year? How about Naomi Watts for St. Vincent? It even looked like longshot Tilda Swinton, who gave what I thought was the best performance of the year in Snowpiercer would actually make it into the running. But, no. The fifth nomination went to Laura Dern for Wild. Dern is undeniably a talented actress, but her role in Wild is…I don’t know. Her nomination feels mostly settled on rather than earned. Like when Mitt Romney got the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

These are good nominees. I like these nominees. Good job, Oscars. You did a good. I am still mad at you, but, for this category at least, you did a very good. Nightcrawler gets its only nomination here and, while it deserved more, at least its something.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

The huge upset here is Gone Girl, which I thought had a shot at outright winning this category. The screenplay was masterful and, in what was widely considered a fairly weak field to choose from, its snub here is especially shameful. Especially over a group of fairly unimpressive nominees, seemingly chosen for the film’s overall prestige as opposed to actual writing talent. I wasn’t nuts about Inherent Vice or its screenplay, but can certainly understand why it was nominated based on ambition alone. I’m hoping Whiplash pulls off a win—after a strange decision by the academy to classify it as an adapted screenplay instead of an original one, it stands out as by far the most deserving of these candidates.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:

Oh wow. Oh wow wow wow. This is probably the biggest upset of the day with The Lego Movie failing to get a nomination. I’m pretty sure everyone is scratching their heads over this one. But it does blow the field wide open. Instead of The Lego Movie, the academy honored three films from smaller, independent studios—The Boxtrolls, Song of the Sea and Studio Ghibli’s The Tale of Princess Kaguya. The award will probably go to one of the higher-profile competitors. How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Big Hero 6 are worthy frontrunners.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE FILM:

Often one of the most difficult categories to predict, it’s hard to be too surprised by anything…but it is nonetheless surprising that the film about Roger Ebert, Life Itself, which was very well-received and beloved by the film community, failed to make it. Look for Edward Snowden doc CitizenFour to take home the title.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Not much to say about these—the biggest snub in this category is the Belgian film Two Days, One Night for which Marion Cotillard got an acting nomination, BUT that film was snubbed a while ago when it failed to even make the shortlist for the nominations. The winner will be either Poland’s Ida or Russia’s Leviathan.

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Not much to say here. Some great choices, really. I’m glad Mr. Turner got nominated. That was some gorgeous cinematography, to be sure.

COSTUME DESIGN:

This is a neat category for me as it features some really creative costumes, in a category that typically goes to those who simply make the best period piece costumes. Even the two period pieces had some really interesting things going on—Inherent Vice’s biggest success was that it really captured an era and the costumes were a big part of that. And while Mr. Turner had the standard “gorgeous period piece costumes” there was a lot more quirkiness going on than in most. It’ll be interesting to see which route the academy goes down in terms of actual voting—will the showboaty pieces of Into the Woods and Maleficent  win out over the more realistic—but still pretty wacky—costumes of the other nominees? Time will tell.

SCORE:

The biggest surprise here is that the spooky underscoring from Gone Girl’s Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross—who previously won in this category for The Social Network—fails to score a nomination. Once again, Gone Girl gets snubbed. But the snub that hurts me most is Antonio Sanchez not getting recognized for his percussive score for Birdman, which was very distinct, unique, and which served the film beautifully. Compare that to the very nice, but pretty typical scores you find in Mr. Turner and The Theory of Everything and it’s clear to me which score is more truly original.

SONG:

While the songs “Grateful” and “I’m Not Going to Miss You” were not expected, the other three nominees were the big ones that everyone was ready to see announced. So, there are no huge surprises in this category. I love Begin Again, and the tune “Lost Stars” is lovely, but look for Selma’s powerful closing anthem “Glory” to be the frontrunner on Oscar night.

FILM EDITING:

I’m at a loss as to how Birdman was not nominated here, considering that the editing work convincingly made the film seem like a single take. How does that not get recognition? In a just world, this award will go to Whiplash for its final scene alone—an epic, nine minute drum solo that was cut together from, I believe, 23 hours of footage.

SOUND EDITING:

I don’t really know much about sound editing. So I default to wanting Birdman to win because I want Birdman to win most awards. I’m sure that the producers of Unbroken—once seen as a legitimate Oscar contender and potential Best Picture nominee, are glad that their film walks away with a sound editing nomination.

SOUND MIXING:

THIS CATEGORY ENRAGES ME. HOW. THE. FUCK. DID. INTERSTELLAR. GET. A NOMINATION. FOR SOUND MIXING. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT SOUND MIXING IS. WELL, YOU KNOW HOW IN MOST FILMS, YOU CAN HEAR THE ACTORS TALK OVER THE BACKGROUND NOISE? THAT’S DUE TO SOUND MIXING. THAT IS, IN FACT, SOUND MIXING 101. AND INTERSTELLAR FAILED MISERABLY. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. The film has been widely criticized for its atrocious sound mixing (enough so that Christopher Nolan had to actually make a statement to clarify that the sound mixing job was not a mistake). Its nomination here is appalling—for me, of all the disappointing surprises at this morning’s nomination, this one is by far the worst. While Gyllenhaal, for example, deserved a nomination, I wouldn’t say those that were nominated instead of him are undeserving. Here, with Interstellar’s sound mixing nomination, actively bad work is being rewarded. And that is horrifying to me. Fuck you, Academy. Seriously. I hated the movie. But even if I had liked it, the sound mixing would have been terrible. That is, simply, a fact.

I’m really angry about this.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING:

The shortest list of nominees on this list, there weren’t any super big makeup jobs this year apparently. Steve Carell’s prosthetic nose and Tilda Swinton’s old age makeup will probably ultimately lose out to The Guardians of the Galaxy. You know Drax the Destroyer? No CGI. That look was all makeup. You know Groot? Not animation, that was all makeup. Okay, that one was a lie.

VISUAL EFFECTS:

The award for which film makes the biggest explosions is thankfully free of Michael Bay this year and showcases the above-average offering of big blockbuster films. Which is why I’m sad that Interstellar will probably beat out the other, good films which are nominated here. I know the effects were good, but…I just really hated the movie. And you know what else I hated? THE SOUND MIXING IN THAT MOVIE?! HOW THE FUCK WAS THAT NOMINATED?! I’M STILL NOT OVER IT!

PRODUCTION DESIGN:

The sophisticated sounding award for “which film looks the best” offers us an interesting array of nominees this year. The pretty period piece look for The Imitation Game versus the much darker and surreal period piece look for Mr. Turner. The whimsical signaturely Wes Anderson look of The Grand Budapest Hotel versus the grand, dark, fairy tale world of Into the Woods. And then there’s the poorly mixed sound look of Interstellar.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT, BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT, AND BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT:

I love the short films. These are highly competitive awards and, every year, offer some pretty outstanding nominees. Now that the nominees have been announced, see if you can find a chance to view these films (for my fellow New York residents, the IFC Center offers screenings of all the Oscar-nominated shorts every year). The only well-known nominee this year is the animated short film Feast, which preceded Big Hero 6. It was good—very sweet, but I will admit I wasn’t blown away by it as many were. I’m excited to see what the other nominees have to offer and I hope that you are too.

And those are all of the categories! One last thing, I was very pleased with how the nominees were announced. Most years, they only announce a few major categories (best picture, best director, the acting categories, etc.) and then release the rest of the nominations online. But for the first time, they actually announced all 24 categories this year. And I think it’s about time. Every category is important, and every category is there to honor outstanding work in the field of film. And I’m glad that sound editing, for example, was given the same revered treatment as best picture.

Share your thoughts on the nominations below! Which nomination pleased you? Which nomination/snub pissed you off the most?

The correct answer is Interstellar's nomination for sound mixing. And before you ask, yes, I am already doing a writeup on why I hate Interstellar so much. Stay tuned, and get pumped.

On a personal note, it's exciting to announce that I started this blog pretty much one year ago-- the first post here was my reaction to LAST year's Oscar nominees. Thanks to those who have read and enjoyed the blog! There are many more cinematic and other cultural endeavors to come!

BEST FILMS OF 2014--#4: "Boyhood" Transcends Cinema

This is the eighth in a series of eleven posts counting down my favorite films of the year. Be sure to read about my #5 pick, #6 pick, #7 pick, #8 pick, #9 pick, #10 pick,  #11 pick, and about the honorable mentions too.

Mason Evans Jr. through the years

There are a lot of flaws with the movie Boyhood. The writing is typically unmemorable, and despite some noteworthy performances by the lead actors, the acting for some minor roles is downright bad. The film is aimless-- it doesn't seem to have a story and at times gets wrapped up in its own cleverness. It is fairly unremarkable on a scene by scene level. If you were to watch a single scene out of context, you probably would not be impressed or intrigued to want to watch the film.

But none of that matters, because Boyhood is one of the most powerful things I've ever witnessed. And it's a rare case where the process of making the film actually factors into the experience of watching the film. It's that rare film that will actually leave one awestruck upon exiting the theater. I felt exhausted after watching it-- so complete and fulfilling is the journey that you embark upon with the cast and crew of this film.

For those who somehow are reading this and don't know about Boyhood, the film follows Mason Evans Jr., a young boy as he grows from age six to age eighteen, and examines how he changes over the course of his childhood. Writer and director Richard Linklater decided to tell this story by actually filming over the course of twelve years, with the same actor (Ellar Coltrane) playing young Mason, and the same cast playing the recurring characters in his lives. Every so often over twelve years, the cast and crew would meet up and film a couple of scenes. And while things similar to this have been done before (we watch the same cast grow up during the Harry Potter series of films, and there's the acclaimed "Up Series" of documentary films by Michael Apted) such a project has never before been attempted in the making of a solitary film. The film's few critics (and I'll get to them in a minute) have often been quick to refer to this as a gimmick...but what a gimmick it is. It really is incredible to watch as not only Mason grows up, but as Ellar Coltrane grows up as well, maturing as an actor and an individual. It's obviously necessary in most films to have a different actors play characters in their youth and adulthood, but I nonetheless often find it distracting, and the characters feel separate from the younger selves that we see in flashbacks. Boyhood finds pretty much the only way to circumvent this, and the effect is even more striking than I would have thought. Watching Mason grow up, you can't help but feel like you know him intimately. But while the changes in Mason have been much touted, I was struck by how noticeable the aging process was with the adult actors too. Mason's parents-- played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke--show physical changes over the twelve year process just as Mason does. When the Evans family gathers to take a family photo after Mason's high school graduation, I remember tearing up, realizing how far all of these characters had come since the film's beginning.

I'M NOT CRYING, I'M JUST ALLERGIC TO QUALITY MOVIES. WHICH IS A PROBLEM CONSIDERING MY INTERESTS IN LIFE.

 
On top of the power of watching the actors age with their characters, one has to be aware of how difficult this movie must have been to make. On top of the patience required on behalf of all involved, just consider the way this script must have been pieced together. So much changes in twelve years. A story arc that might have seemed strong at the time might seem inappropriate or cliched or commonplace down the line. Or, as the film went on, perhaps Linklater would want to change the ending, but didn't have the luxury of being able to go back for reshoots should he want to change something about a previous scene. So the screenplay had to be written basically in the moment, leaving the film open-ended. But, rather than feeling aimless and lacking in direction, Linklater embraced this and allowed it to set the tone--it felt freeing, it felt calm, and it felt exciting. Since the filmmakers were not sure what was going to happen in the future scenes, neither did we.

And that alone is praiseworthy. As people, we desire control. We want to know that we have a handle on our own circumstances. And in any artistic project I think this is particularly true. Linklater was able to put his ego aside and simply be patient. He was able to trust those working with him to be able to make it all make sense. And, it should be noted, the cast did this as well. Arquette, Coltrane, and Hawke (and Lorelei Linklater, Richard's daughter who plays Mason's sister in the film) had to agree to play these roles without a complete script in front of them. That's huge. They had no idea where these characters would go, or what would happen. But they trusted in Richard Linklater to serve them well and find a path for their characters that made sense. So, there was a lot of trust. It was an ego-free project, and one about which all involved had to be incredibly passionate and that shines through in the filmmaking.

Mason in one of the more fun-filled moments of his childhood.

And the filmmaking itself similarly shows a lot of restraint and discretion. For example, as the years pass on by, Linklater draws attention to the time period artfully; a lesser filmmaker would have most likely put up a title card stating the arrival of a new year, but Linklater trusts that we will notice the changes in Mason on our own (the most obvious and humorous is probably the year that his voice drops). He also provides hints just using things from the time. The image of kids lining up to receive the latest Harry Potter book at midnight certainly brought back memories, and was very much a phenomenon that has not quite been matched to this date, allowing the film to achieve the same nostalgic experience of opening up a time capsule. Linklater also uses soundtrack beautifully-- with signature songs from the year nicely underscoring establishing scenes (If hearing Soulja Boy doesn't immediately bring you back to 2007 then nothing will). We are never confused, and never lost. Since Linklater could not know what would happen in his film's future, he made sure that the present was very well-defined-- a series of perfectly composed snapshots.

Just as the plot had to be left open-ended, so too did the characters, ESPECIALLY Mason. At the start of the film, there was no indication of the adult that Ellar Coltrane would turn into. Looking at the boy lying winsomely on the grass, he could have grown up to be a nerd, or a jock, or anything in between. So, unlike in other films where the ending is foreshadowed, Boyhood really becomes about the journey-- the film meanders towards an ending that they couldn't have anticipated (which makes the moments of callbacks even more impressive-- like an implied romantic relationship between Mason and a girl named Nicole, who is most likely the same Nicole who passed him a kind note in school when he got a forced haircut years earlier). But, Ellar grew up to have a sort of cool and alternative look (all of his piercings are Ellar's, by the way, and were used to inform the character. To allow for this sort of openness in regards to the character, they had to leave Mason mostly vague. Which means that he might be the single best and most realistic interpretation of an introvert ever put to film. His indecisiveness becomes a theme throughout. From one of the very first scenes, it is mentioned that Mason doesn't really know how to apply himself, and throughout, people ask him what he wants to do and he replies that he doesn't know. This trait of indecisiveness is probably the only thing about Mason that remains consistent at every single age. The probably unintended result here is that Mason becomes, in my opinion, the best and least caricaturey portrayal of an introvert ever put on film. He, of course, never figures out exactly where he is headed, and that's because he doesn't have to. So often, kids are told to figure out their plan (the classic "What do you want to be when you grow up," question) and seeing Mason coping with simply figuring things out is a refreshing take.

Mason, in a moment of introspection.

Boyhood, like a lot of coming of age movies, is framed as a series of moments, but what's fascinating is that the typical milestones are all missing. We don't see Mason's first kiss. He's just...suddenly kissing people. We don't see him lose his virginity, we just at one point find out he's sexually active. His breakup with his first girlfriend occurs offscreen and is only casually mentioned. In one scene, he's given an inspiring speech by his photography teacher, who clearly believes in Mason. In another film, this guy would be a major character, but we never see him before or since. Same with one of Mason's best friends from high school--one who goes with Mason to his graduation party-- but who we only saw in one scene before and never see afterwards. Rather than focusing on what we typically think are "important" moments, Boyhood concerns itself only with quieter moments of Mason's life. The effect is that it feels more real. Nothing feels manufactured. You simply feel like a fly on a wall--getting a peak at Mason's day to day life as opposed to what one would pick as the "highlights." The characters become more defined and more personal--they feel as if they really exist outside the world of the film. While writing this, in fact, I keep having to remind myself that the actor's name is Ellar and not Mason

And that is due, in large part, to Coltrane's performance. He's great, and so is Lorelei Linklater (although she, believably, fades out of the film a bit as Mason grows older and his sister becomes a less active presence in his life). Both are yet another example of how child actors can turn in sophisticated performances. Despite Boyhood's critical acclaim and awards clout (Oscar nominations haven't been announced yet, but it seems to be the absolute frontrunner to win Best Picture) Coltrane is not getting any Best Actor buzz. And, to be fair, it's a very competitive category, and his quieter portrayal does not stand out as much as some of the larger characters who will most likely make up that category this year. But, for me, I almost feel like Coltrane should be nominated--or at least be a part of the conversation-- just on principal--how could Boyhood be the best picture of the year without its boy? Without the subject who is so integral to every frame and every shot?

Mason at the end of his boyhood. Hey, that's the name of the movie!

But the cast members who are getting nominations are Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke as his parents. Of the two, Arquette has a most definite shot of winning the Oscar this year, and she has already picked up multiple awards for her performance as Olivia Evans. Hawke, meanwhile, certainly got acclaim for his work as Mason Evans Sr., but seems to be playing second fiddle to J.K. Simmons in Whiplash when it comes to actual wins. But, to me, this seems incredibly backwards. I have to admit that I found Arquette's performance...fairly weak. Arquette is one of those actors who gives the same performance in every role she takes on, and I actually do not mean that as a criticism-- a lot of actors could be accused of this, but that isn't always a bad thing. Consider Jack Nicholson or Christopher Walken, who has certain trademark styles of acting, but who can nonetheless make a role their own. But, with Arquette, he go-to style seems to be to recite everything with a certain drowsy quality.  It's certainly very natural and fits with the style of the film, and moments where she breaks her more emotionless and soft delivery stand out (I wonder if she'd be such an awards powerhouse if not for one scene where she says goodbye to Mason as he goes off to college). But, in general, I wanted a lot more to her instead of what we've seen from Arquette time after time. 

Patricia Arquette, seen as the favorite to win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Hawke, meanwhile, excels in the role for me, and finds nuance in his character that Arquette simply didn't. The primary challenge in tackling a role in a film that is made over twelve years is to keep your performance consistent. We have to believe that this character is the same person and, across the board for all cast members, this goal is accomplished (even by Arquette-- who I really am sure is a lovely person and who I should clarify does not do bad work here by any means, just not Oscar-worthy work in my book). But the secondary challenge in tackling a role in such a film is to find growth in that character--in no film do you want a major character to feel like the same person as when the film started. And this is where Hawke's performance becomes brilliant. At the beginning of the film, Mason Sr. is a kind of a screw-up. Much like his son, he has a lot of growing up to do over the course of the film, and by the end has become a much more straight-and-narrow kind of guy. His journey feels almost as complete as Mason's--we see his dreams get dashed, we then see new dreams form, and new dreams be achieved. And all the while, Hawke makes this character feel like the same person. He matures at a believable pace, but even though he has grown another year in each scene, we can still see the progression of Mason Sr. Considering how long of a break there was between the shooting of each scene, this is no small task. And that, to me, is what puts Hawke over the edge here (and, honestly, I might have liked Arquette's performance more if Hawke had not overshadowed her). For me, the Olivia that we see at the end of the film feels pretty similar to the Olivia we saw at the beginning, even though she has been through quite a lot of hardship in that time. But the Mason Sr. is a totally new person, while still maintaining the qualities he possessed when we first met him. It's absolutely brilliant, and is another in a long line of credits that cement Hawke's place as one of the most underrated actors of our time. Seriously, he and Sam Rockwell should play brothers sometime. It'll be the best movie that nobody sees.

Ethan Hawke is brilliant as Mason's father, seen here sharing a family moment with his son.

But, having gone on about what I like about the film, I'd like to now address what others did not like about the film. When a film gets as warm a reception as Boyhood did, there is bound to be backlash. It started with an article by Kenneth Turan which began making the rounds on social media. I was actually eager to read it--I actually love reading criticism of movies that I enjoy, as it speaks to the wonderful subjective nature of art, and I find that hearing a critical perspective often enhances my own love for the film. But I was disappointed to find that it ended up being a ludicrous article that isn't even a real review--he hardly talks about the film at all and makes the article all about himself. The only criticism he brings up is that he found the gimmick of filming over twelve years to be a watered-down version of the aforementioned "Up Series" of documentaries (where a group of people--all well into adulthood now-- have been interviewed every seven years, starting when they were seven years old). I can only say that I disagree wholeheartedly. To say that the gimmick of watching people age was done better in the Up Series shows a profound misunderstanding of both works. They accomplish something different. The documentary series is about an extended period of time, but Boyhood specifically examines the effect in a consolidated period of time, and the time lapse in a single feature film brings out a powerful effect that the Up Series does not attempt to achieve. Both projects are worthwhile for their own reasons, and both approaches have distinct pros and cons.

A more serious accusation came up in articles questioning the film's use of gender and race. One article raises the question of why race doesn't play any factor in Boyhood. I see this point, absolutely, and the article is worth reading and assessing for yourself. As a white guy with a lot of privilege, I cannot, should not, and would not attempt to address the points in this article from a racial standpoint. But, I will address them from a perspective where I feel I have considerably more clout: as a film buff. I'd ask one to consider how this film was made. Consider how far race relations have come in the past twelve years (and how different we can imagine they will be twelve years from now). Social issues are always going to be changing, and so I question how realistically this film could have tackled such a topic. Especially considering that the few times it does attempt to talk about race are not handled the best. When Mason comes across a bigoted Republican who refuses to vote for Obama, the whole thing feels clunky and shoehorned in. But, far worse, is the subplot where Mason's mother acts as a white savior for a Hispanic man when she inspires him to find his full potential. It's PAINFULLY awkward, and I really should have included that scene when I was listing the film's faults at the beginning of this write-up. And while this subplot was never a good idea to begin with, a few years ago it would have been far less uncomfortable. But, my question is, would one have preferred that Boyhood include more awkward moments like this? As I said, Boyhood's strength is that it remains flexible. It simply couldn't have done so if it ever hoped to take a stance on any issue as large as race.


The article I linked to above brought up the idea that the film is supposed to be relatable. And it argues that having a white male protagonist prevents it from being so (a similar argument has been made but dealing with the subject of gender, which I think is addressed fairly well in this article). But, the people I see calling the film "relatable" are the critics, not the filmmakers. I don't think Boyhood was meant to primarily be relatable, I think it was meant to be accessible, and Linklater achieves accessibility through the clarity of the characters and the storytelling. It is not meant to reflect our own experiences, it is meant to tell the story of Mason's. And that story is truly told beautifully.

Although, to be fair, bowling is one of the whitest sports out there. Right behind badminton.

Perhaps Boyhood should have taken on more issues, but I simply don't know if Linklater--a straight white male like myself-- would be the one who should tackle them. That's simply not where his strengths lie (as the awkward white savior subplot with Olivia shows). But I also know that this film would not have been possible without Linklater at the helm. He directs it with such a steady hand, and shows confidence in the face of a very uncertain experiment. More than that, he makes it feel effortless. It is such a personal project, and so very quintessential of everything Linklater does that the film could simply not exist without him. So, it's a catch-22. You can take Linklater's flaws with the film, but you have to also give him credit for the film's overwhelming successes. Despite its flaws, Boyhood is a truly remarkable experience. Unlike any film made before, and unlike any film I imagine will be made in the future. That is why it has drummed up such emotion in its audiences. That is why it is still remembered so many months after its release. It may not have been my absolute #1 pick for my favorite film of the year, but I still would name it "Film of the Year." It's the film from this year that I think has the best chance of being remembered for years to come. It's a film that will exist on "Best movies ever made" lists many years into the future. If you watch it, you will understand why.

Richard Linklater and a grown-up Ellar Coltrane share a hug on the last day of filming Boyhood.