2015 Oscars: Final Thoughts

And so it ends. After what I felt was one of the most impressive years for film in recent history, after all the analysis, after all the speculation, after all the predictions, the 87th Annual Academy Awards are complete. And here I share my final thoughts on the ceremony. Feel free to read and comment with your own thoughts of how it all went.

I like how in the end it seemed like a montage of Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu just winning a bunch of awards.

I didn't do amazingly in terms of my predictions. I got 16 out of 24, which isn't terrible, but is a step down from how I usually do. But, in fairness to myself, I expected not to do well this year. There were so many unpredictable awards. And so while there was nothing that came entirely out of left field, there were plenty of awards that had me on the edge of my seat. Even though, considering how many other awards it won, Birdman's Best Picture award shouldn't have seemed surprising, I still was wondering if Boyhood would eke out a sentimental win. In my own predictions, I discussed that I was torn over whether Birdman (my favorite film of the year) should win, or if it would be Boyhood (which I think has a broader appeal and makes a stronger case for its own longevity), but ultimately I'm really glad the award went to Birdman. I obviously think it's an incredible film, but more than that, it's a remarkably well-made film. Every component of this film is so beautifully done. I've spoken to a few people who did not like it, but their complaints have always come down to problems with thematic elements. It's impossible to deny how technically incredible this film is--from the cinematography, the score, the use of sound and light and space is just beautiful. Piece by piece, Birdman is not just my favorite film of the year, I believe it truly is the best film of the year. And the Academy honored it rightly.

But it is an unconventional Best Picture winner. It's message is more introspective than momentous, and it feels incredibly experimental and unOscary, and I kind of love that. It's also the first film to win Best Picture without a Best Editing nomination since Ordinary People way back in 1980. I'm not sure what that means, but it's something. That's not the only thing that's momentous. Last year, Alfonso Cuaron became the first Mexican filmmaker to win Best Director. Now, just one year later, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu becomes the second, and bodes well for more international films to gain recognition. It's also why Sean Penn's green card "joke" before presenting the Best Picture film was really in poor taste. That unnecessary comment kind of soured the moment for me.

Here are some other awards that stood out. Ida became the first ever film from Poland to win Best Foreign Language Film, which is great. Composer Alexandre Desplat, who is probably my favorite film scorer working today and always creates quirky and fun scores, won his first ever Oscar for The Grand Budapest Hotel after eight nominations. Whiplash did really well--a relatively low budget film won deserved awards for sound mixing and for editing (the famous nine-minute drum solo at the end of the film was cut together from, reportedly, 23 hours of footage, and yet works as a seamless piece. That's all due to the editing and the sound). A lot of people had been calling the editing award for Boyhood, and while I think Boyhood arguably deserved more than the one Oscar it received, that would have been wrong. Its champions pointed out "They had to edit a movie down from twelve years of footage!" No they didn't. It was not twelve continuous years of footage--it was the same footage as any other film, and while it was certainly put together well, Whiplash was a much more impressive feat. While we're on the subject of sound, American Sniper won the sound editing award which I'm okay with. After the film performed surprisingly well in terms of nominations, and had been gaining momentum due to its impressive box office haul, some had been calling it as a potential upset to win more major awards like Best Actor and Best Picture. Given my less-than-impressed thoughts on the film as a whole, that it took home only one award, and that was for sound editing, is perfectly fine by me. I was also very pleased with Big Hero 6 taking home the award for Best Animated Feature, in a bit of an upset over How to Train Your Dragon 2. I loved that film and it absolutely deserved its win. I was also glad to see The Phone Call triumph in the Best Live Action Short category. Even though I predicted it would win, it was not a sure thing at all, so seeing such a deserving film win was very satisfying. Featuring an amazing performance by Sally Hawkins (who gave one of the best performances of the year--if short films were eligible for acting awards she should have been nominated) it is one of the most emotional 20 minutes I've ever experienced. Which is why it was so funny to see how quirky, aloof, and seemingly unserious the filmmakers were in their acceptance speech.

I was less pleased with Feast's win for Best Animated Short. Of the nominees, it's the one the most people saw since it was before Big Hero 6, and it certainly is cute and I know it has a lot of fans. But, when seen side by side with the other nominees, for me it was pretty clearly the least impressive. The others tell much more complex stories and feature much more impressive and evocative animation. It didn't win because of its quality, it won because it's a Disney film and was the only nominee with brand recognition. Considering that last year, the more deserving film, Mr. Hublot, beat out the Disney nominee everyone expected to win, Get a Horse!, I was sad to see that pattern not repeated this year. Another award I wasn't thrilled about was the win for The Grand Budapest Hotel in the makeup and hairstyling category. A lot of people thought it would win, and yes, the old age makeup on Tilda Swinton was good, but Guardians of the Galaxy certainly achieved a lot more with its makeup on a wide number of characters. In terms of design, execution, and sheer scope, it should have run away with this award hands down, and its failure to do so demonstrates the Oscar's unfortunate aversion to comic book films--even those which were critically acclaimed. But, that being said, no other award really left a bad taste in my mouth. The ones I didn't agree with were not entirely unexpected, and there was no great injustice. If Interstellar had won for sound mixing, for instance, I was ready to swear I'd never watch a movie again, so I'm glad that never happened. Looking over the awards themselves there is very little to complain about.

And the speeches were pretty great. It's common amongst acceptance speeches to mention fellow nominees, and say how they are just as deserving of the award, but I thought Inarritu's directing acceptance speech said this more concisely than any other speech I've ever heard. He didn't just say "you all deserve this," he made the point to say that it is impossible to compare the work of him and the fellow nominees. And it's true. Inarritu's directing in Birdman was absolutely incredible, and he won due to his signature technical achievement, story-weaving, and style. But he lacked the ambition and audacity of Richard Linklater, the sheer distinct vision of Wes Anderson, the emotional intimacy of Bennett Miller, or the high-fastening pants of Morten Tyldum. It's not that they all deserved to win, it's that they all deserved to win for different reasons. And Inarritu expressed that in a way I've never heard in an acceptance speech before. Well done. There were really no speeches that stood out to me in a bad way, as there often are in other years. Acceptance speeches can lead to awkward moments, but everyone was very gracious and charming and wonderful (although, Julianne Moore's seemed a bit rehearsed--I have a feeling she started writing that speech four nominations ago). And it was nice to see an emphasis on social justice. It used to be the trend that Oscar winners would mention a certain cause in their speech, and while that still happens, it's not as common as it used to be. But this time, many worthy causes were championed. Inarritu also implored America to show immigrants more respect during his speech when Birdman won best picture (his third speech of the night). From the winners of Best Documentary Short Subject imploring us to talk about suicide, to Patricia Arquette calling for us to pay more attention to women's rights, it was a politically charged Oscars to be sure. The best speech of the night was, by far, the one given by John Legend and Common when they won for their song "Glory" in the film Selma. It was the frontrunner going into the ceremony, but after the live performance, it would have been criminal for it not to win. It blew the other nominees (and it was a good batch of songs this year) out of the water with its sheer power and importance. The tears-inducing reception it received was a wonderful reminder of how the arts can affect us on such a personal level. It also made me consider Selma as a whole, and what its place in history will be. Many felt it was snubbed by the Oscars, and it was. But, remember, Selma is still a Best Picture nominee. And that is a pretty big deal. You know what other film was a Best Picture nominee but didn't get any nominations in other major categories like acting, directing, or screenwriting? The Wizard of Oz. And that film is doing okay. Who knows how history will judge this current batch of films. Looking through old Best Picture nominees is a fascinating experiment--some films have stood the test of time, and some have not. They may have taken home the same number of awards tonight, but I cannot help but feel that people will be talking about Selma long after they've stopped talking about American Sniper. Sure, it would have been nice for Ava DuVernay to have been the first woman of color nominated for Best Director. And the Academy definitely has some major problems with diversity. But Selma is going to be okay. And, I can't help but mention that Birdman's awards dominance meant that many awards went to Latinos, so the award-winners were surprisingly non-white, all things considered.


Of the acceptance speeches, there was only one that left me a little bit annoyed. And that was Graham Moore's speech after he won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Imitation Game. As many people loved that speech, please hear me out. The speech on its own was fantastic. It was another speech that brought in a political cause, specifically LGBTQ rights. Moore mentioned how, when he was young and depressed, he contemplated suicide because he felt "weird and different" and that he "did not belong." His speech called out to everyone who felt weird or different, and encouraged them to hang on, because one day they might make it where he is. It's a beautiful and important sentiment, and a powerful one. He prefaced all of this by pointing out that Alan Turing, The Imitation Game's subject, never got to stand on such a stage, and he did. Turing was, infamously, unrecognized for his accomplishments and that is forever a stain on our historical record, considering this man's contribution towards winning the war (and, you know, basically inventing the computer), and that the reason he was unrecognized for so long was because he was persecuted for his sexuality is simply despicable. Moore's speech was powerful, and it was timely, and it pointed out how Turing's story related to the present, and why it's important that his story be told, because honoring and remembering Turing can actually save lives. And THAT is why his speech annoyed me: because it did everything that the screenplay for The Imitation Game did not. The film shows how instrumental Turing was in winning the war, yes, but it glosses over his sexuality. We never actually see him engaged in any sexual activity, or any relation with a man whatsoever. The takeaway from the film is that Turing was not recognized for his work during his lifetime, but it never makes it clear just how much his accomplishments were buried SPECIFICALLY because of his sexuality. At the end of Turing's life, his health had deteriorated rapidly due to dangerous medication and treatment he was forced to take to cure him of his homosexuality. This is shown in exactly one scene, and the actual symptoms he demonstrates are much softer than what Turing actually went through. In the film, it seems as if Turing has just come down with a bit of a cold. In reality, it was much worse. His persecution--the very thing that makes Turing so tragic and what makes it especially important that we celebrate his accomplishments now that we are aware of them--is basically glossed over and tampered down. And that is the fault of director Morten Tyldum, that is the fault of the producers, and it is very much the fault of Moore. It's possible that more of this existed in Moore's earlier drafts, I don't know. But regardless, his speech showed the potential of how great The Imitation Game could have been and simply wasn't. I loved Graham Moore's speech. But it reminded me of how absolutely lackluster and disappointing the film that he won the award for truly was.

The other thing that really rubbed me the wrong was was the exclusion of Joan Rivers in the In Memoriam montage. Overall, I liked the montage--the decision to cut out the live sound feed was a great one. It always bothers me when people applaud during this section. Not only does it feel like people are going "Gee, I'm glad HE'S dead," but the loudness of the applause tends to place an uncomfortable imbalance on the weight of those who died. In previous years, the more recognizable names get thunderous applause, but the death of a prolific cinematographer, for example, would not. It always feels like "Yeah, we're honoring those we lost, but these are the people who are REALLY important." And so having the audience's sound cut out during the broadcast pleased me. But to not include Rivers? Shameful. She is a controversial figure, to be sure, but was incredibly influential in the entertainment industry as a whole. Although best known for her stand-up and for her work on television, her wikipedia page credits her with involvement in 27 films (more than some of the other actors nominated, such as Misty Upham, who died tragically young last year) including the fantastic documentary about her life from a few years ago. Anyone who doesn't think Rivers is deserving of respect should watch this film, which certainly does not paint her as a saint, but showcases the truly groundbreaking work she did. More than that, though, Rivers' red carpet presence connected her very personally with the Oscars themselves. Rivers is widely credited with making the red carpet ceremony so popular, and while the red carpet feels increasingly inane year after year, to not honor someone who so significantly impacted the ceremony's telecast is truly baffling. She absolutely deserved mention. Excluding her was a clear slap in the face.

I also didn't love the Sound of Music tribute. I know a lot of people loved it, so again, hear me out. I thought Lady Gaga was great--she admirably left her signature weirdness at home and demonstrated what those who pay attention already know: that she is an incredible singer. When Julie Andrews came out, visibly overcome with emotion, it was a pretty magical moment. So, why did I not love this? Because the entire time I was thinking "This is great, but why am I watching this?!" Considering the ceremony ended after midnight, a random medley of songs from The Sound of Music came completely out of nowhere. Sure, it's a great film, but we don't honor every classic film on its 50th anniversary with a speech, a movie montage, and a rather long musical performance. What was it doing there? The segment itself was great, but this was really not the place.

Last but not least, we have the host. Neil Patrick Harris has, by hosting the Oscars for the first time, seemingly hosted every single awards show ever now. And he proved once again that it's a role he's really good at. He's a man of many talents and infinite affability. It's just hard not to like him (and only he could have made the Witherspoon with-her-spoon joke work). The opening number was strong and a great way to start off the show (although I wish that instead of talking about movies in general, more focus had been paid to the actual nominees that night, which felt very much lost in the shuffle). Harris popped up from time to time and while some of his jokes hit harder than other, many landed really strongly. The writing overall was good, and Harris' performance was great. He had less to do as the ceremony went on, as is often the case, but what he did he did well. That being said, he didn't really make his mark on the ceremony the way last year's host Ellen DeGeneres did. With taking selfies and ordering pizzas, DeGeneres really made the show feel like hers, which Harris didn't. He was very game (loved the Birdman reference where he presented in his underwear) and competent, but not extraordinary. The closest he came to really putting his individuality into the ceremony was with the briefcase containing his predictions. This was, of course, a magic trick, where when he opened the briefcase, he could display detailed predictions about the proceedings (like the Ida director getting played off, only to keep talking, and having to get played off AGAIN). Harris has always been a magic enthusiast, and is a more than competent magician in his own right, and it was clear that this moment was meant to be the big reveal-- a magic trick where the untouched briefcase contained impossible predictions! Versions of this trick have been done before, and always gets a great reaction at magic shows. But...this was not a magic show. We were not an audience who were there to be amazed, we were an audience that wanted to hear who had won awards. So, that Harris' "big reveal" came at the very end of an already too-long ceremony, with just one award left to give out, rather than being amazed, I just felt impatient. About halfway through the ceremony I had predicted that something like this was going to happen, but I was really hoping that all of Harris' predictions which go through everything that happened in the ceremony were going to be in song or rap form. For those who don't know, Harris has closed the Tony's the past few times he has hosted with a song composed throughout the ceremony which goes over everything that happened. If the briefcase had contained lyrics to such a song and Harris had sung it. When he's done that at the Tony's it has always been incredible, and is a signature thing of his which could have been carried over to this ceremony and made the whole thing much more incredible. Instead, it was a nice effort that just kind of fell flat. That being said, it's impossible not to like Harris. His hosting was not as outstanding as it could have been, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. All in all, I left the Oscars feeling happy and contended. This awards ceremony that I love so much--a ceremony that continues to honor achievement in the arts, and which continues to inspire those future Oscar nominees and winners out there, had a really great showing tonight. And I couldn't be more pleased.

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-- #11: "Selma" Lives Up To Its Large Shadow

This is the first in a series of eleven posts counting down my favorite films of the year. To read about the honorable mentions, feel free to read this post here.

It seems incredible to me that, until Selma, there has not been a film about Martin Luther King Jr. There have, of course been documentaries, and there was a made-for-TV movie that I have not seen but has an incredible cast. There was also this movie made for children that HAS to not be as racist as it looks. Because it looks really, really racist. But, when it comes to major films with a theatrical release, we have not before seen one that really focuses on him. I can't be the only person who was surprised to realize this. Martin Luther King Jr. is such a prominent and important figure, you would think that he would have been the subject of multiple films by now.

But, watching Selma, I realized why this lack of films is the case. There are certain people throughout history who are not just important figures, but who are important presences. Their presence has managed to surpass the figure themselves, and trying to capture such a presence on screen is such a daunting task, that you can't blame people for not trying. It's the same reason we didn't get a film about Abraham Lincoln until 2012's Lincoln which surely would not have even been attempted if not for the people behind it: Steven Spielberg as the director, Tony Kushner as the writer, Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln himself-- if anyone could truly hope to make a film about Lincoln then it would be this pedigreed lot. But, despite the film's acclaim, I don't think that even that film managed to fully succeed. As much as I liked the film, Lincoln remains a cipher, and the film is at its best when dealing with the politics of the Congress as opposed to Lincoln himself. Despite Day-Lewis' Oscar-winning performance, and despite Day-Lewis probably coming closer to embodying Lincoln than any other actor ever will, Abraham Lincoln just comes across as utterly unportrayable. His mark on history is just too large.

Here, he looms over a young union soldier named Martin Luther King Jr.  #history

Which of course, brings us back to Selma and Martin Luther King Jr. and, unfortunately, I can't say that it doesn't suffer from the same problem. David Oyelowo (who, as you can see in the picture above, actually has a small role in Lincoln where he plays one of the only black characters...awkward) is a wonderful actor who seems to be popping up in everything recently. This year, aside from starring in Selma, he also had a small role in Interstellar and a more prominent one in A Most Violent Year. He's a very careful actor-- one who is adept at conveying his character's intellect and thought process-- you can see what the character is thinking. He's a wonderful listener. You get the sense in every performance that no decision Oyelowo makes is accidental. And he, unsurprisingly, does very good work in Selma. He captures King's cadence and tone and accent. At one point at the end, the film played a recording of what I think was the real King's voice, but I'm actually not sure. It could have been Oyelowo. That's how good his performance is. He has moments of great power, and at times is truly remarkable. But he undeniably suffers from trying play an unplayable role. He can never accurately play Martin Luther King Jr. because the role itself casts too large of a shadow. He is not just a historical figure-- he has transcended that role as a mere individual, and one cannot hope to ever match or encapsulate that. It doesn't make Oyelowo's a bad performance. It's a good performance-- a great performance even-- but we never believe that he is Martin Luther King Jr.

Oyelowo gives an impassioned speech.

But, while I didn't feel Oyelowo managed to overcome King's shadow, the film itself did, which is an incredibly impressive task. Unlike Lincoln which draws attention to its central character, Selma--through its narrative, and even through its title--manages to circumvent this problem. The film may have King as its main character, but it's not about King. It's about the events that took place in Selma, Alabama in 1965. In depicting these events, the film undeniably succeeds, and that is why it is one of the best films of the year. Director and writer Ava DuVernay, along with cinematographer Bradford Young create a remarkably unique aesthetic. Some scenes are intensely stylized; the lighting, the camera angles, the costumes all come together to create an artistic portrait of the time and the people. It's a very aware filmmaking-- the beauty of it and the careful arrangement are put at the forefront and we are conscious of the composition of the shot. But then (and here's the beautiful part) in the very next scene, the style will suddenly become more realistic. All of a sudden, the underscoring is gone. The camera is shaky. The editing is less polished, the colors are less sharply contrasting. Our awareness of the filmmaking disappears and all at once we feel like we are there in the moment-- much more so than we would have without this distinction in filmmaking, and it's used masterfully here.

Determined protestors in Selma

It is in these moments where the filmmaking shifts that the film succeeds most. Even though the film is not all that violent, the moments of violence that it does have stand out because of the contrast. When we see, for example, a shot of a line of cops standing on a bridge, we feel like we are there with the marchers standing them down. This is what makes the film so powerful. It transports us to these moments.

Another way the film stays out of King's shadow is because...and here's the secret...it's not really about King himself! He may be the main character, but the central thesis of Selma seems to be that while King was obviously a crucial figure in the civil rights movement, he could not have accomplished everything alone. As much as he has become the face of the movement, the film keeps the focus elsewhere. When King meets with Lyndon B. Johnson, Johnson often asks him why he does not stop protesting. As Johnson says, King could call off the protests in Selma and stop violence. King, of course, counters and says that if Johnson makes an executive order to give black people the unrestricted vote then that will also stop the protests. It's an important distinction-- King prompted change, but did not directly enact it, as he didn't have the power to. King doesn't actually change over the course of the film and, under Aristotelian rules of drama (sorry, is my liberal arts drama major showing?), that means that he's not the central character of the film-- Johnson is. And Johnson, as played by Tom Wilkinson, is not really a defined presence in the film. When it was announced that the usually-wonderful Wilkinson was playing LBJ-- a fascinating historical figure, there was significant Oscar buzz. Ever since the film was viewed, though, this buzz died down considerably, and I'm not surprised. For such a charismatic figure who plays such a pivotal role in the film, the usually wonderful Wilkinson doesn't really do much of anything in the film. It's never clear if he's meant to be a sympathetic presence, or an antagonistic one (more on that later).

MLK and LBJ meet in Selma

Luckily, the other supporting characters are more clearly defined as, once again, Selma excels when focusing on the protests and the protestors. Selma surrounds Oyelowo with an enormous ensemble, and they are key to this film's success. There are numerous characters whose names are mentioned only once, or never at all. Those whose names are mentioned are usually not given a full backstory (I was shocked at how little was actually said about James Bevel (played by Common) one of the main organizers of the Selma Voting Rights Movement. He welcomes King to Selma, and then he is mostly in the background. But this strategy actually proved remarkably effective in getting us interested in these characters, all of whom are based on real people. DuVernay constantly focuses on the crowd, and when you see the same faces focused on over and over, you become invested in them simply for their presence. What DuVernay is saying by focusing on the characters this way is that, as individuals, they were less important than the movement they helped to bring about. For example, Lorraine Toussaint played Amelia Boynton Robinson, and she has one of the most prominent roles in the film. She is always there. It felt like in every crowd shot, she was there. At one point she gives some sage advice to Coretta Scott King, and delivers one of the only speeches that is not delivered by MLK himself. So, she's definitely a presence in the film. But, and I could be wrong here, I don't think her name is ever mentioned in the movie. If it is, then I missed it and it couldn't have been said more than once or twice. The message is clear: even if Amelia Boynton Robinson is not as famous as Martin Luther King Jr., it doesn't mean she's not important (and, seeing her name in the credits made me read up on Robinson after seeing the film). While most of these small ensemble roles are played by character actors who, while possibly familiar, are not anything close to household names (such as Toussaint, Colman Domingo, and Wendell Pierce to name a few standouts), one ensemble role is played by a famous person. A very famous person. A really super famous person. The most famous person.

Oprah. It's Oprah. The famous person is Oprah. As in Oprah.

Oprah Winfrey plays Annie Cooper and you would be forgiven for thinking she must play a huge part. At the very beginning, she has a scene all to herself, and does have a somewhat pivotal role that occurs early in the film, she is mostly relegated to the background. She's in the crowd with the protestors, she has maybe two lines after the first ten minutes of the film (and that's a generous estimate). But...it's Oprah. So she's clearly important. By making her just another member of the crowd, DuVernay is once again emphasizing the importance of the film's ensemble. This is also highlighted in the film's epilogue-- one of the most powerful movie epilogues I've ever seen. While Martin Luther King Jr. gives a speech, the fates and accomplishments of various members of that speech's audience are revealed. Some of these are prominent characters who we've focused on throughout the film. But some are incredibly minor characters. One of the most striking examples of this, and how effective this approach was involved Viola Liuzzo. Viola is a character who we had seen exactly once before. She had one line, and then disappeared, not to be seen again until the epilogue. But, her epilogue line was that she was murdered just a few minutes after the speech we were hearing was given. Despite her being such a non-entity in this movie, the audience gasped. DuVernay takes every opportunity to remind us of the importance of everyone who history does not remember in the way that they remember the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon B. Johnsons.

The only reason Selma is not higher on my list is that I wished the most prominent supporting characters were treated as well as the background characters. I've already mentioned that the portrayal of Johnson felt undefined, but I also felt that Coretta Scott King, played by Carmen Ejogo, was not well served. I actually liked Ejogo's work, but the relationship between Martin and Coretta felt very tacked on and irrelevant. With so much that the film was doing well, it severely dragged with focusing on their lives. It's a pretty well-known fact that Martin cheated on Coretta, and I think it's important to bring this up and don't object to it being included in the film, but the way that information is treated felt very tacked on. It felt irrelevant. After all, the film didn't seem to be about King, so details on his personal life felt distracting more than anything. And Oyelowo and Ejogo didn't have much chemistry. At one point, Coretta and Martin were reunited after not seeing each other in a long time and...neither seems all that emotional about this. It was a relationship that simply didn't need to be there.

Martin and Coretta

I also wish there had been more of an antagonistic presence in the film. Which...seems weird considering that racists tend to make really good antagonists, but hear me out. One possible antagonist was LBJ, but he never seemed to really be in opposition to King and, perhaps because we know he will eventually side with King and give blacks the vote, he never comes across as a clear bad guy. That would have been a really interesting choice, though-- to actually paint him as a villain at first, and then show how he turns into a good guy when he changes his mind. As I mentioned earlier, Johnson is the one who changes the most over the course of the film, so this would have made sense. But, without Johnson as a major antagonistic force, that role fell to the police force in Selma, led by Sheriff Jim Clark (Stan Houston). Clark is a bigot and a bully who is portrayed in a manner not unlike an angry boar. He's certainly an antagonist, and a dangerous and despicable one, but he never feels like a threat. He's simply not smart enough. Which leaves us with one character who I wish had been given a more prominent role in the film, and that's George Wallace. Wallace is portrayed by Tim Roth, and Roth is simply incredible. Roth's Wallace brings a level of menace and competence that is terrifying, and which Clark simply doesn't have. He's slimy. He's smart. He's cruel. He fully acknowledges his own bigotry, and it's chilling. Unfortunately, Roth only had a few scenes, but he steals every scene he's in. And it's in Roth's moments on screen that you realize what these protestors were up against. As dangerous and physically violent as the police were (and seriously, the scenes of police brutality are fittingly brutal), people like Wallace were arguably the most dangerous. King himself says at the beginning of the film that no progress could be made until black people had the vote and could get rid of people like Wallace. Roth's performance as Wallace helps us see why. Had he been given more screentime, the film would have had a more gripping antagonist, and Roth would be a contender for an Oscar nomination.

But, despite these faults, Selma is remarkable because it is simply so powerful. Usually, "best of the year" lists have ten entries. In this case, I made it eleven to be able to include this wonderful and all-too-timely film. Unlike the other biopics this year, Selma makes a distinct case for why it's important to hear this story now. It's a rare historical film that immediately asserts its own relevancy in any age, and I imagine it will be as poignant a few years from now as it does today. At the end of the film, we get a fantastic credits sequence which combines historical photos of the real Selma protestors with stills from the movie itself. The whole thing is set to the original song "Glory," which will surely be getting an Oscar-nomination, and has already been nominated for multiple awards. The song's lyrics bring up everything from Selma to Ferguson, and the entire sequence weaves together the events of the past and the events of the present, and made me reassess everything I had just seen on the screen. Selma is not just a biopic. It is not just a presentation of what happened in Selma, Alabama in 1965. It is a film about what is happening right now. And I imagine it will continue to be relevant for the rest of my lifetime.