#all i mean by deserved is that if we accept the premise of the oscars as an award then imo he fulfilled the qualifications

[fandomshatepeopleofcolor]

thinking about it now, Charles Melton should've been nominated for best supporting actor instead of Ryan Gosling as Ken

This might be a hot take here on tumblr dot com buuuuuuuuut

I think Ryan’s nomination is actually deserved.

If we accept the premise of the Oscars, and accept the existence of the Barbie movie, Ryan as Ken could have come off as ridiculous and try-hard but it didn't. My one quibble is that he is too old to play Ken opposite Margot as Barbie (there is ten years difference between them, and there's only so much that makeup and moisturizer can do) but other than that, Ryan Gosling absolutely has the comedy chops and by my count he delivered an adequately charming performance.

This is an aside but something that's getting lost in the hashtag white feminism conversation is that it is narratively absurd that the film industry has rewarded the less important guy but not the literal lead girl from the feminism 101 movie. It feels intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge how on the nose this is. We can talk more about this on @fandomshatewomen if people wanna get into it.

Back to your message though, if we’re exploring hypotheticals, how about we look at the rest of the list of noms:

Mark Ruffalo for Poor Things

Robert Downey Jr for Oppenheimer

Ryan Gosling for Barbie

Robert De Niro for Killers of the Flower Moon

Sterling K Brown for American Fiction

If we are swapping out someone on this list, my personal choice would be Robert De Niro, backup option Robert Downey Jr.

Both of these men are already household names, and this was not either of their best work or tbh even like among their better work. Also, neither of them “needs” this nomination, it does nothing for their careers.

But for an actor like Charles Melton who is good at his job but very much at the beginning of his career, it could mean a meaningful increase to the money his agents can negotiate for him on subsequent projects. Like yes, numbers vary, but the “awards bump” is a thing, and proportionally speaking it would mean WAY more for his career than one of the Roberts.

• mod dyr

#awards season #academy awards #oscars 2024 #charles melton #also just to like complete the list #mark ruffalo did a really good job in his role i thought the movie sucked but his role was compelling #sterling k brown also did fantastic he was captivating but like understated???? idk it was a really interesting experience #but yeah one of the Roberts really really really coulda sat out this round the academy is tiresome lmao #also just in case it needs saying ‘deserved’ does not mean ‘entitled to’ re ryan gosling… #all i mean by deserved is that if we accept the premise of the oscars as an award then imo he fulfilled the qualifications #and another thing deserved the nomination does not mean deserves to win #i wouldnt be surprised if he does (because capitalism) but in terms of The Art Of It All im personally rooting for ruffalo

[bloodpen-to-paper]

The Issue With the Emmy Awards

So I think its a surprise to no one by now how biased the Emmys are (and the Oscars but that’s for a different time)

Superhero/action shows sometimes get nominations, and if they do they rarely if ever win an award (think Stranger Things, Marvel/DC, etc). Action shows are usually able to win stunt choreography and sound mixing-type awards, but these are categories that are literally impossible to win without action/fight sequences or some very unique use of audio mixing that you couldn’t really find in a period drama or reality show.

Not to mention animated works are restricted to the awards meant for animation, and are typically never granted so much as a nomination in the other categories (Hollywood still has a huge bias against animation and it shows).

Don’t even get me started on the fact that I scrolled through literally every category nominations page and could probably count the number of POC on my hands amidst the endless sea of white actors, directors, etc (I’m still unsure if I was able to spot even one Latin American on the roster, and the only Asian actors that I remember seeing were the ones from Squid Game, and Sandra Oh)

I mean for fucks sake this 

won for the goddamn Title Design award when there were so many other shows with much more creative editing that weren’t even nominated. 

I think the main issue with this year’s Emmys is the fact that they have certain key shows (Ted Lasso, Severance, and Succession just to name the ones I saw pop up the most) that keep getting nominated for every category that they fit into while there were thousands of other unique and *cough cough* diverse *cough* shows that didn’t get so much as one nomination. Some of these key shows even got nominated for the same category more than once. Though I haven’t seen the shows I listed, I highly doubt they were so good that they deserved multiple nomination per category while popular and well written shows like Our Flag Means Death, Heartstopper, Reservation Dogs, Minx, and many more weren’t even mentioned.

All in all, award shows are kinda ass. I used to love viewing the ceremonies cause of the variety of shows that the audience were bound to have see which we could excitedly root for, or to discover new shows that gave an interesting premise based on what they were nominated for, but I watched barely any of the shows that were listed on this years roster, and I felt no motivation to watch the ones I hadn’t seen. I’m not sure if its cause of the way the registration process works or if the staff at the Emmys are too lazy to watch past the five shows that consistently got nominated, but going through the roster was boring and from now on I will only accept show recommendations from the trending tab on Tumblr (y’all convinced me to watch The Sandman and I love you so much for it).

#hopefully the oscars will be more fun #might even make a post on it #emmys #emmy awards #emmys 2022 #emmy awards 2022

[thirdmagic]

anyway now that i'm finally back on browser and can write long posts, full spoilery thoughts on rise of skywalker

i had a lot of time to think about it and honestly the more i did the more i went from 'i liked and was ok with most of it until the ending' and now the more i actually thought about it the more it progressed to 'actually, i kind of hate it, and there are individual moments that are very good that i love and then the ending ruins that too and now it rings horribly hollow and now i'm just sad and disappointed and also baffled at this whole movie'

first of all, the good part is: REYLO REYLO REYLO REYLO REYLO REYLO REYLO R E Y L O

i admit i had a very embarrassing reaction of pure unfiltered joy when they kissed because it was such a perfect moment, but also, in general? all the bits involving these two were easily the strongest and the most compelling. a lot of other very stupid bad moments tangled in between, but on the whole, when it was just them, their dynamic, their force bond, it was really intense and spicy and so resonant and beautiful all at one. i love them so so so much. their dynamic is SO juicy and good, their fights were amazing and gorgeous and also spicy and intense, and then the bits of palpatine fight where they interact without any words and just look at each other and you can just tell exactly what's going on without them even needing to say anything, the way they smile at each other and the love in their eyes, the tenderness in every motion, the encouragement when they see each other through the force bond in the middle of the ritual and rey just knows.... these moments are some of the best filmmaking in this whole movie.

unfortunately that was also when we got the bizzare exposition dump on her dumb backstory retcon that's very very delicately done so as to still be consistent with tlj and and this brings me to rey palpatine, which, on the one hand, is kind of the only rey heritage theory i'd ever accept and (ironically) the lesser of several evils that the heritage theories are, but also the undoing of what was really, really compelling in tlj about rey nobody and the horrible waste of potential that came from rey being a Nobody McNothing, her search for identity and ultimately accepting that it doesn't actually make her lesser as a human being, the potential that this movie is when she'll face her insecurities and emptiness and accept herself and find and forge her own path.... and also honestly it's dumb. it's really really dumb. if it had been built up to in any way in any of these movies, that would be one thing, and i actually find a lot of rey's struggles really interesting in concept but just awful and messy and forced in execution, and the idea of rey struggling with being good against an evil legacy and her own darkness is really compelling too, but rey doesn't need to be a palpatine or to want revenge on her actually good parents when being abandoned and alone her whole life is a very very good reason for her to have anger and hatred and darkness to struggle with. it also implies that she's evil because her great grandpa who she never met is evil and because genetics as opposed to like....... again, being abandoned and sold by two asshole jerk parents and having to repress the awful trauma of that her whole life and being unable to come to terms with it, which was interesting, and powerful, and very very real, and then it just throws away a really compelling set up for something really boring and bad. and then an ending for her that has no impact or emotional resonance and makes no sense and isn't in the least bit satisfying.

i will say though that i love love LOVE the dark rey fight, it was a vision but in the exact right Symbolic way, i loved rey struggling with her darkness in theory and it was the one and only part that was executed well, it was truly something that felt like it belonged here, it was eerie and intense and good. and unfortunately not properly followed on in any interesting way.

there were a few jokes that i liked and found funny! the way c3po says 'irony, sir' when poe asks him 'why can you not talk when we NEED you to' has me losing my shit, that was great, and also poe lighting the flashlight when rey uses her lightsaber as one was also hilarious. in general there were definitely a few actually purposefully funny moments that i liked.

ben's whole storyline up til the end was the only thing that really felt consistent and on track imo, a few missteps but mostly stayed solid, and I was very happy to get my bendemption. i can't describe how emotional i got at the scene with han and him throwing away his evil red saber and him calling han 'dad', and the force awakens callback-- i don't know why han is back as a ghost or if that's just a symbolic illusion or whatever, i don't care. adam driver is magnificent, and seeing him as ben again, seeing him comfortable with himself, and happy, on the light side, being playful while fighting and messing with the knights of ren because he’s so powerful and confident in his power, was worth everything. if there's one thing this movie really did right is that it made me suddenly realize that i actually love kylo-ben and also made me realize that i was so much more invested in his happiness than i thought, and unfortunately it made me realize this right as the story gave him maybe a few minutes or seconds of real joy and a beautiful sincere happy smile and then killed him off, and that's when i felt my soul being crushed.

look, i don't have tragic endings, okay, i don't hate even bittersweet endings, the purpose of an ending is to be satisfying and wrap up and tie together all the story strands in a way that makes sense for the story. that's not what this was. i would be willing to forgive the fact that the rest of the movie was a big stupid mess if it had just given the whole saga a proper ending, if it had been like umineko episode 8 which is also a big mess but with a perfect, beautiful, satisfying ending for the entire vn. but instead this just ruined everything, and made me feel miserable, hollow, and sad. this specific story, and trilogy, and nine part saga, did not need that kind of ending. we had a tragic and bittersweet ending for the first two, a happy ending to redeem all the misery of the skywalkers would have felt sincere instead of saccharine because you feel that they fought for it. and it would be a good complement to the rest of the movies and the message. instead we have two people who have both been lonely and emotionally isolated their entire lives finding solace and happiness and comfort in each other, finally finding a true connection and someone who understands them, but only getting to be together for all five minutes before the story rips them apart. and for what? what is this trying to say? what is the point? what is the point of doing that to either of them? how does this serve the story? what is the purpose of this? the tragedy and the depressing ending of the prequels is purposeful and intended and is done to make a point, because it's the story of a fall from the very start, by design, by its very premise. the tragedy of umineko is purposeful and done to make a point because it is about how these tragedies happen, and why, and the human behaviors that lead to them. how is it a good ending and how does it serve and complement anything in the rest of the saga to have one tragedy and one happy story with a bittersweet ending be concluded with a hollow pretension of a happy ending where one main character is miserable his entire life and dies when he’s still young after only a taste of the happiness that’s been denied to him, and the other loses her soulmate and is alone and surrounded by people who she herself said don't really know and understand her? taking on the name of a more famous family as if that's the only way she can forge and identity and meaning for herself?

ben's death actually had me so down and so sad i can't even be angry, honestly. the rest of the movie was full of dumb shit, it's like 80% mcguffin chasing with barley any actual character development or any substance and meat to it, rey-finn-poe have no chemistry because they were never supposed to have because they were never meant to be the trio of the movies until oscar isaac convinced jj to let poe live and that messed everything up because the thematic trio of these movies is finn-rey-ben, rose being sidelined because we need to please the racists who are threatened by her existence i guess and her relationship to finn ignored, the absolute waste of all the new characters and the incredibly stupid hux reveal that's also for naught right afterwards, rey's force lightning, the chewie death fakeout, the entire final battle being a big mess, finn not doing anything interesting or meaningful, the general weird bizarre baffling writing and dialogue choices and how it reads and plays out like something completely disconnected from not just the rest of the trilogy but the entire 9 movies and feels like a messy rough draft that a completed screenplay, and the all over the place pacing and everything... i would have accepted this is a weird, entertaining, fun movie if it weren't for the horribly depressing ending that makes what the creators apparently thinks is a happy ending ring terribly hollow and make me unable to find any joy in it. it's just so depressing i don't have the energy to even be fired up about hating it and i sincerely cannot for the life of me understand why it went this way. how is 'if you're miserable your entire life and make bad choices because of it your only way to redeem yourself is to sacrifice your life and have your one chance at happiness taken away from you because you don't deserve to live past your attempts to fix your mistakes and don't get to have a better life for your efforts'? how is that supposed to mesh with the rest of the story? how is that hopeful or uplifting or anything this saga is supposed to be? what even is this movie about other than the old and tried and redone ten million times 'believe in yourself and the friends you made along the way' message that means nothing at this point?

so yeah. thing bad. and i don’t even have the energy to be salty or angry. i’m just sad and disappointed and depressed about it all. and you know, coming from me, i’m very lenient and can find the good in nearly anything and can appreciate a lot of flawed and otherwise messy media for what it tries to do and for the good it does have. i love all the movies in the saga and i’m still a prequel fan. and the fact that i found this to be so disappointing and unsalvageable and tried to be positive about it and failed should tell you something. 

anyway i'm going to go get a warm blanket, some ice cream or other comfort food while i go watch tlj again to cleanse myself and remember what good movies made by people who understand what's important are like, and maybe go watch marriage story and whatever other stuff adam driver is in, and find a way to watch knives out again, and then binge on the most self indulgent reylo fanfic i can find and a lot of fix-its to heal my soul. i'm not going to stop liking or caring about star wars, or this trilogy, which had one very pleasant solid movie and one excellent and fantastic one, and plenty of other good content out there, just because the last movie dropped the ball so hard, but i am going to stew in my sadness and angst about it for a good long while.

#tl;dr [deep sigh] #textpost

[miscellaneous-oxy]

rambling: wok of love, ep1-8

Here’s the thing.  I have just finished watching the 8th episode for the second time, and I am so pleased and excited in terms of the plot development but totally distracted by Seo Poong’s sexiness – he looked so good, excessively good in that black shirt: I’m confused.  So, I’m just going to ramble tonight.  Yes, this is my excuse for being rather aggressive in this post.  Please beware.  This might be unsettling and even displeasing to some, but I just have to let it out for the peace of my mind.  Before watching tonight’s episodes, and reading some of the reactions to them, I was planning on posting a follow-up to my SP analysis, but now it seems impossible for me to be as efficient and persuasive as I aim to be.  I guess I need to set it aside for a bit till I’m calmer.

I had been a bit concerned about the delay in the development of love line between SP and SW because so many people seemed to have been shipping CS and SW already from the beginning – no, actually, they were doing it even before the drama started.  I was also wondering why some people are so willing to dismiss all signs of SP’s characterisation and consequently choosing to believe that the OTP is (or should be) the CS-SW pair, as if SP did not deserve SW.  (By the way, believe it or not, I myself is actually open on this matter.  I don’t mind whichever or no character is chosen by SW in the end, as long as the character developments through the love lines are substantial and her final choice a valid one.  Furthermore, to be honest, I must admit I would most likely find the SP-CS pairing at the end of the story more amusing.)  

I’ve read online more than a couple of viewers complaining the non-likability of SP’s character, mainly because of his arrogance.  Some of them don’t even forget to add that another actor would be likable in whatever kind of character he may be playing, however arrogant, implying that Junho could be the one to blame for making the character unlikable. (Absurd!)  First of all, as it happens, and I’m sure everybody who has watched more than a couple of dramas or read a dozen stories is perfectly aware, that the leading character is often supposed to be arrogant at the beginning, for that gives him the necessary room for improvement.  Second, and this is essentially my point that I have been discussing in my previous post, SP’s show of arrogance is otherwise a manifestation of his vulnerability: His arrogance is even given a premise for the viewers to be sympathetic towards him.  He needs to be arrogant to keep on going with his life: Arrogance is his armour.  It’s his way of dealing with his crushed identity.  Indeed, it may be an immature course to take, but that’s the very reason he needs to grow up in the story.  Having his self-esteem brutally impaired by SDH, he needed to find something he can hold on to. When he felt his whole being – his past, his present profession, and his future plan – totally denied, he had nothing left but what he can do – to cook delicious dishes.  He needs to feel accepted in the world again, and the only place where he could get the recognition and appreciation that he needed had been The Finishing Touch.  The vulnerability in his eyes is the key to understand this character.  Once you see his weakness, it’s impossible not to root for him, if not love him yet.  Those people who feel distant or indifferent to SP seem to be missing out on the details that show the depth of his emotions, quite possibly because they are so focused elsewhere.  (And I know it’s quite easy to fall into that trap.)

Some more viewers persist that, while admitting SP would be the writer’s preferred choice for SW, they do not understand why SP was so suddenly interested in SW at the end of the 8th episode.  This, to me, seems to show that there’s this really firm preconceived refusal to accept SP as a leading character.  They are tenaciously ignoring the detailed portrayal of SP, and the lack of understanding in his character thereof leads to a further undermining of the significance of SP’s behaviours.  What a spiral.  I do realise that this may be the case of either the character is portrayed poorly –script-wise, direction-wise, or acting-wise, or, simply the viewers are blind to see the subtleties that are composing the character.  Most viewers who claim SP’s sudden interest in SW to be incomprehensible also mention that SP’s character is difficult to sympathise with.  Obviously, they are entitled to their own opinion and all, but that does not make them entitled to degrade other characters.  It is really frustrating to see some viewers boasting their views as the only sensible ones, just because they have no idea that they may be blinded by their love for their bias or by some preconceived notions that have derived from that love.  How can anyone miss all those signs that indicate SP is yet to learn that his feelings towards SDH might not have been true love but a sense of obligation that had been grown out of youthful infatuation and his mentor’s death?  Of course, both young SP and SDH must have believed that they were in love, but they did not succeed in cultivating the true thing.

Furthermore, there were so many signs, from the first episode, that point SW as a trigger for SP’s character development and even as the answer to his quest (and questions; here, I’m thinking about George’s question mark in A Room with a View).  Remember how SP was repeating every other things SW chatted away?  SW was literally giving keys and answers to SP’s question: Is the love between SP and SDH true?  SP’s interest in SW is already there, even though he tries to act indifferently.  He notices SW in a crowded dining hall, remembers SW’s words and needs, feels compassion, and even identifies with her hunger and despair.  It’s not sudden but a gradual process.  He is certainly a bit slow to notice his own feelings; which is made a contrast with CS’s instant crush on SW, but that is the whole point of his story.  SP is going to learn the deficiencies in his character and his life through his interactions with the new people around him. He will learn the true meaning of humility, friendship, and love.  Therefore, the development in SP-SW love line is sure to make the story so much more profound and entertaining!  

 As much as I enjoy watching those charming scenes between CS and SW (and I really do, as I have been a fan of Jang Hyuk for ever so longer than I’ve been fangirling Junho; I have watched most of his dramas since Thank You, even including the cameos in webdramas solely for his sake), I still maintain that it is SP’s potential emotional journey that gives depth to the story, where CS’s comedy gives the necessary relief from the strain.  That’s the supposed balance of the drama.  It wouldn’t work or it’s not of the writer’s intention if the story focused too much on CS’s character development.  It may be hard for some to accept it, but the writer seems to want Jang Hyuk to play the comic relief to some extent and he took the job.  He admitted when he guested a radio programme that the writer had asked him to play the “entertainment.”  He is doing a perfect job at that, and I can see people rooting for him, but the fact of the matter is, I don’t think we should expect much portrayal of his character development in this particular drama.

One last detail I’d like to defend has to do with how some people are trying to make the possible SP-SW love line sound like an old classic cliché and thus boring. On the other hand, they seem to believe a love story between a gangster and a chaebol daughter as something new and refreshing, but that’s where I can confidently say they are in the wrong.  Frank Capra’s It Happened One Night (1934), the first romantic comedy film to win an Oscar instantly comes to my mind, and a long list of films, dramas, novels and comic books follows.  (I must say there are tons of romance novels and Japanese girls’ mangas, in particular, with a gangster – princess type pairing.)  Of course, Clark Gable is not exactly a gangster in the film, but he sure looks like one – coincidentally, he even has a moustache and suspenders on in this film, and he does fit in the stereotypical pattern.  I mean, it’s basically the classic Beauty and the Beast concept in the first place.  But please do not misunderstand me.  I am not saying that the cliché settings and characters are boring.  At the end of the day, what matters is how the characters themselves are idiosyncratically refreshing and how all the elements are executed in an enjoyable and satisfying way.  Whether it is a fallen chef or a sweet gangster, any character can be a cliché and simultaneously not boring.  The reason I believe they are not watching with clear eyes is how they say SP-SW is a cliché and CS-SW is not.  This is the proof of their biased views.

OK, I think I’m calmed down now.  Hope I can now focus on writing up something more convincing.  Thank you for reading, if any of you have come thus far.  I really appreciate it.

#wok of love #greasy melo #기름진멜로 #서풍 #이준호 #준호 #seo poong #junho #lee joon ho #katteni #ramblings #ep8 #love line

[aclockworkfilmsnob]

Why do you believe Oscars are not that important? Genuinely curious.

Because it's just an awards show that means nothing. Members of the academy already go in with a huge bias towards films about show business in one form or another, it also doesn't help that there's a history of bribery with the films. Mainly though, their decisions almost always mean nothing. Even if you hate everything else about it, you can't deny that The Neon Demon is easily some of the best cinematography of the year. So where's the nomination? And you can argue "If they thought the rest of the movie was terrible, then there's no point in nominating it for anything." Which is stupid logic, but I've heard it before. And it wouldn't make a lick of sense when Suicide Squad was nominated for Best Makeup, and Fifty Shades of Grey was nominated for best original song last year. Some of the other great movies of the year, like Elle, The Nice Guys, and The Witch, also got snubbed in categories they easily deserved. The way I see it, the academy doesn't nominate the best movies of the year, they nominate the best movies that everybody saw. They can't risk giving best cinematography to The Neon Demon or even nominating The Nice Guys (an absolutely excellent comedy) for anything at all, because those movies didn't make any money. No, we have to nominate movies people actually saw, so more people will watch. And you can just call me salty that my favorite movie of the year didn't get the recognition I felt it deserves (I'm not mad that The Neon Demon got snubbed in every other category, I understand why it wouldn't get nominated for anything else, but having excellent cinematography is almost unanimously accepted) but there's more to it. Let's take a look at history for a second. 1998, we had some great films come out. Both The Big Lebowski and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas broke new grounds in the genre of dark comedy, they're excellent films that we celebrate and study to this day. But hey, of course they didn't get any recognition, but that's fair. After all, we got the clearly deserving best picture winner, Saving Private Ryan. A compelling, tragic, thoughtful, and brilliantly made film. Easily one of Spielberg's best, and one of the greatest war films (just films in general) ever made. Oh wait… that didn't win best picture, did it? No… so was it those other two great films I mentioned? Haha no, of course it wasn't. It was Shakespeare in Love. Yep, best picture of 1998, Shakespeare in Love. Oh how that excellent film with its gimmicky premise and overall okay presentation has just become such a staple in film history. Give me a fucking break. 1971, A Clockwork Orange is nominated for best adapted screenplay, best editing, best cinematography, best director, and best picture (not best actor, despite the fact that McDowell knocked it Out of the park) Okay, a classic such as that has to have at least one of those in the bag. I mean come on, best director, Stanley Kubrick? It's an obvious pick. Well that's too bad because The French Connection won every Oscar that Clockwork was nominated for. Every single one. And, it won best actor for Gene Hackman too. Now French Connection is a great film, but in what universe is it better directed, better acted, and just an overall better movie than ACO?? It's not. Also, Dirty Harry got no recognition. I don't know, I think that movie does a few things better than French Connection as well. The Shining got no Oscar recognition whatsoever, in fact none of Kubrick's films have ever won best picture, assuming some of them were even lucky enough to be nominated. The same thing can be said about Alfred Hitchcock. Two of the greatest filmmakers of all time. No love. No best picture awards, for what we clearly consider to be deserving of such an award. And it clearly hasn't ended. Even considering all of that stuff I said about The Neon Demon, The Nice Guys, Elle and The Witch (apparently Swiss Army Man was pretty great too, and got nothing as well) we can look at last year alone to further prove my point. Spotlight won best picture. Do we even talk about Spotlight anymore? It's only been one year and we've just stopped talking about it. We sure as hell still discuss The Revenant and Mad Max Fury Road, but Spotlight… I could be wrong, but I don't see that coming up in any film dissection conversations. Look, the Oscars recognize plenty of deserving talent, but as a whole it's just a corporate awards show that determines nothing. Those little stamps of approval help in selling movie tickets and Blu Ray/on demand sales for a little while and that's it. Only time decides a classic, not an award show.

[thenicedolphin]

Oscars Analysis With Biting Commentary: 2018 Edition!

We are BACK. And earlier than ever (I don’t know if that’s true, but compared to last year) with the 6th annual Oscars post from The Nice Dolphin (see links here for 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013), where Matt provides eye-opening, awe-inspiring commentary while Alex stumbles in, rambling about how Deadpool deserves all the Oscars even though it came out two years ago. As always, Matt is in regular font, and Alex comes in with the BOLD.

 Best Picture: “Call Me by Your Name” “Darkest Hour” “Dunkirk” “Get Out” “Lady Bird” “Phantom Thread” “The Post” “The Shape of Water” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

 It’s been an unconventional year for nominees. The Shape of Water and Three Billboards are surprising leading contenders, as both are divisive. A lot of my friends loved one and disliked the other. I’m pro-Shape and anti-Billboards.

 So unconventional. For me, the movies fall into two distinct tiers: Get Out and Not Get Out. We need more nuance than that? Okay, here’s how it breaks down:

Simply the best: Get Out Some level of greatness: Lady Bird, The Shape of Water, Phantom Thread Good, but not great: Call Me by Your Name, Dunkirk Shitty, yet inoffensive: The Post Makes Crash look like Do the Right Thing: Three Billboards (I’m not typing out the whole title)

I didn’t see Darkest Hour. In fact, I just learned that it’s not called “The Darkest Hours.” Faithful TND readers will know that I appreciate some economy when it comes to naming shit, but if I wanted to see a great Churchill impression, I’d just watch old YouTube clips of Jay Pharoah.

 The Shape of Water is a really beautiful film. The lead characters are all really memorable, and the look of the film had me in awe at different moments. The filmmaking and storytelling took a premise that was almost predictable and majorly elevated it. I preferred Shape of Water to Del Toro’s previous major-nominated film, Pan’s Labyrinth. Shape of Water is probably my third favorite film of the nominees, behind Get Out and Lady Bird.

 Yooooooo she fucked a fish! More than once! I loved how everyone was so nonchalant about it too. Like, when she first sees the fish, she IMMEDIATELY starts seducing it. When Octavia Spencer hears about it, instead of being horrified, she’s all “ayo, how’s his dick work?” I’m not even exaggerating.

The movie was a bit off-putting at first, but once you realize it’s more of a fairy tale than a grounded, sci-fi film, the wacky elements really come together to tell a nice little story. Watching this, I was like “damn, why does Matt love this movie so much?” Then I saw the fish doin a little Broadway shuffle in black and white. “All. The pieces. Fit.” - Lester Freamon

Also, those pies looked disgusting. I’m glad it turned out they were supposed to be gross, because I was seriously doubting my ability to judge a pie for a minute there.

 Get Out is basically a perfect story. I’ve seen it twice and the second time helped to reinforce that. The story is so clever, the references and nuances so plentiful, the genre-bending and mix of humor and horror so well-played. The race elements are incredible - every element of a black boyfriend meeting his white girlfriend’s family are played perfectly. Every line that hints at the underlying horror of this super-white community play as both funny and horrifying satire. There are so many layers included in the lines about black male stereotypes of virility and athletic ability.

 Get Out is super fun too. Lil Rel Howery has an amazing role - that dude cracked me up. Daniel Kaluuya handles his role really well, and Allison Williams does a good job leaning into her Girls role. And Bradley Whitford… nothing like TWO obnoxious white guy performances (douchey board member in The Post) to offset his West Wing persona.

 It won’t win (the Academy hates ball-jiggling), but Get Out is the best film of 2017, assuming Deadpool really came out in 2016. Like Matt said, it’s equal parts hilarious and horrifying, while still getting its point across in a way that feels natural and never forced. Get Out holds up on a re-watch as well. If anything, it’s a totally different experience, as so much of what you see/what is said takes on a new meaning.

 Lady Bird is near perfect too. While I love Moonlight, Get Out and Lady Bird are both films that are a lot more enjoyable for me to rewatch and enjoy the depths of. They are also both not Oscar-conventional films, which unfortunately leads them not to have much of a shot at winning Best Picture. A shame, considering both were basically the best reviewed of 2017.

 Lady Bird is a great film. I loathe coming-of-age movies, but Lady Bird manages to keep things realistic and for the most part avoids caricatures, tropes, and plot beats common to the genre. As someone who went to Catholic high school, I was prepared for the hackiest of jokes, but aside from the awful “abortion assembly” scene (which was still necessary to move the plot forward), I wasn’t even mad.

HAVING SAID THAT, it’s no Get Out and it’s certainly no Moonlight. No shit it’s easier to re-watch. Let’s Be Cops is easier to re-watch than Moonlight too, but does that mean it’s better? No! Lady Bird tells a small story and tells it well, but it’s not a life-spanning epic where a boy, a teen, and a man who looks like 50 Cent discover truths about themselves, the people in their lives, and their environments in a beautiful, heart-rending way.

 You’d think Lady Bird would be another Juno (and I love Juno!), but it is less cute and better written. And better acted too… Saiorse Ronan’s acting goes way beyond Ellen Page’s. Lady Bird, like Get Out, has no wasted scenes. Callback lines at a plethora. A perfect grasp of its era (2002-2003 school year) that definitely connected for a 2005 high school graduate like myself. The brilliance of Lady Bird is that it takes all its characters seriously while being a really funny movie, such as the nun/Lady Bird’s advisor who isn’t played for a stereotype. Lady Bird’s various love interests and friends are well-acted, full personalities. I think about the cool girl she gets to know, who could have just been treated as a bimbo, but definitely isn’t treated as such.

 I did think this was going to be another Juno. Not that I’ve seen Juno, but man that movie looked awful.

 Lady Bird is a confident story. It’ll make you laugh, knowing that in like 10 seconds you’ll want to cry and feel emotional.

 Matt cried several times.

 The acting is all great… Saiorse is a star, and Laurie Metcalf is awesome as her mom. Supporting characters all crush it, whether her brother, brother’s girlfriend, her lovable dad, or her classmates.

 Let’s contrast that with Three Billboards. Three Billboards is the third film of longtime playwright Martin McDonagh. I love his first film, In Bruges. McDonagh makes films that are dark, dark comedies. While this worked well with In Bruges, I found that Billboards was far too jarring tonally and too ambitious for its own good.

 Let’s call Three Billboards what it is: a steaming pile of crap. This was the worst movie I’ve seen in a long time -- and I’ve seen All the Money in the World! And La La Land!

The movie Matt lovingly referred to as “Three Shitstains” was starting to get some backlash for the tone-deaf way it took on race in America, but that was only like, the fifth worst thing about it. The tone was terrible. It wasn’t a “dark comedy,” but a bunch of dark shit with some awful slapstick thrown in the mix. At least the Three Stooges have DIGNITY.

 The acting is great, and Billboards has gotten many acting nominations as a result.

 This movie was so poorly written, I can’t even tell if the acting was good. It wasn’t enough for Rockwell to be a typical racist, angry, small town momma’s boy; he had to be Forrest Gump on top of that. McDormand was written as this tough-as-nails badass, but that’s not who she was at all. The billboards were pathetic, not some masterstroke. Woody lets the air out of that shit five minutes into the movie when he reveals that they legit worked on the case and nothing turned up. The rest of the characters were so 2-D they wouldn’t have passed muster in The Lego Movie (more on that later).

 The movie is far too uneven. It’s possibly the least rewatchable Best Picture movie as a result, though I do wonder if a second viewing will go better.

 It won’t.

 Billboards is about a mother whose daughter was raped and murdered, angry that the local police haven’t found the killer yet, leading her to call out the police chief in the titular billboards. Within the story, we have a temperamental, racist cop played by Rockwell, who the police chief thinks can become a better person. We have themes of race and violence. We have an abusive ex-husband. And we have clashing tones that don’t work, almost saved by excellent acting. Almost.

 (It wasn’t that close.)

 In Bruges had themes about depression and acts of violence that were really well thought out, where the character’s darkness was respected while there were still hilarious scenes throughout. Three Billboards bites off more than it can chew with the racist, violent cop (who, before the movie’s story takes place, was infamous for torturing a black guy in the jail), attempting a redemption arc that fails to satisfy. In the end, I felt like I just had to accept that the movie was treating his arc as redemption and ignoring several unforgivable things he did that weren’t given the full  attention they deserved. It gave me flashbacks to the racist white cop story in Crash. Can redemption work? Yes. Can it work if you write your story poorly? Nah dawg.

 Billboards gets too cute with its humor clashing with violence… I think of a scene of spousal abuse cutting to a joke mid-scene. It is also unclear and lacking in confidence on how much we’re supposed to like or dislike the main characters - I could not tell if McDonagh wanted us to like or dislike Frances McDormand’s motives or tell-off speeches in various scenes. And the movie is worse for it.

 This is the ultimate “fake deep” movie. It’s got bullshit posing as poignancy with enough stupidity thrown in (McDormand kicking kids in the crotch, midget jokes) so dumbasses can latch onto it to feel smart.

 Lastly, a common note I’ve seen is how McDonagh, who has lived in Ireland/England most of his life, wrote this script in 2010, prior to the Black Lives Matter movement, prior to Ferguson/Trayvon Martin. And.. it definitely shows in the script.

 Beyond that, McDonagh wants to show us “real” America, but nothing about the movie is remotely realistic or has even the faintest whiff of consequence.

 One more gripe: Woody Harrelson’s character’s wife is played by an Australian actress who seems just to be a casting favorite of McDonagh’s. And she keeps her Australian accent… despite being the wife of a police chief in rural Missouri. What? How does that make sense?

 It doesn’t.

They should’ve gotten the bear from Paddington 2 to play Chief Willoughby, if only because we’d get the line “You got a real nice cock, Mr. Paddington.”

 After my top tier of Get Out, Lady Bird, and The Shape of Water, I dug Phantom Thread, Dunkirk, and Call Me By Your Name next.

 I’d bump Phantom Thread up into that top tier, but I ain’t mad. (I’m a little mad).

 Phantom Thread surprised me. It didn’t have much buzz because it was released late, and the trailer didn’t really intrigue me. I shouldn’t have second-guessed Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson. Phantom Thread is well-acted (anchored by three great performances), and PTA is a master of filmmaking. This film is darkly comical at times (and in that weird PTA way where most of the audience I was with did not get that aspect), and it is delightful. DDL… what a legend.

 Every time I think about Phantom Thread I like it more. Shit is HILARIOUS. Once you realize it’s a rom-com with some fancy trappings, it gets a lot more enjoyable. Some of the most biting insults of the year are in here, and if you’ve never seen someone use asparagus to humiliate their significant other, you owe it to yourself to watch Phantom Thread.

I was in a theater with two other people, one of whom looked borderline homeless, so he might’ve just been there to chill. Still, I was the only one cracking up, which made me feel alone, but smart.

Personal note: When I saw Phantom Thread, I was initially at the theater to see The Post, but the projector broke. Now my MoviePass history has The Post listed twice and Phantom Thread not at all, which is completely inaccurate. I just want this known, so if I die or something and my MoviePass app gets made public, please don’t think I liked The Post that much (or at all). PLEASE BELIEVE ME

 Dunkirk was breathtaking in IMAX and a “big” film marvel. It looks incredible, and the action is spectacular, intense, and visceral. Of course, Nolan puts a twist on the storytelling with his structure, and it makes the plot super dramatic and unique. I thought it was a really fun, intense movie, but it loses points for being less memorable afterward. The characters aren’t as impactful (though well-acted), and this is lower in my Nolan films (TDK, Inception, Memento, Batman Begins, Interstellar, and then let’s start considering Dunkirk).

After sifting through indie flicks like Call Me Maybe by Your Name, Lady Bird, and Three Billboards, you really start to appreciate Hollywood production values. Dunkirk looks fantastic. The wide shots, the desolation of the beach, the aerial shots with the ocean in the background -- all beautiful.

 Beyond the visuals, each individual scene contains great tension, as the soldiers are put into scenario after scenario of terror. However, when you start to stack those scenes up, the larger story never really comes together.

 Spoilers

 The story of Dunkirk is basically “We can’t get out! Oh wait...we can get out now.” The actual rescue scenes are so easily done that it kind of undercuts much of the drama preceding it. Also, my man Georgie...what are you even doing??? His is the most pathetic on-screen death in recent memory. Even the soldiers are mocking him! Had to re-watch The Killing of a Sacred Deer just to get the taste of laughter out of my mouth.

 Spoilers over

 Call Me By Your Name was anchored by a great romance story and a beautiful atmosphere. I wanted to live in that Italian town and eat dinners and read by the lake. The Sufjan songs are typically excellent, and really fit the tone of the movie. Timothée Chalamet as Elio anchors the film, and he nails it as an adolescent teen trying to sort out his sexuality. Armie Hammer is good too, and Michael Stuhlbarg is wonderful as Elio’s compassionate father.

 Big year for people fucking fruit in the movies! When dude starts fingering that peach I’m like “this is kinda sexual…” Little did I know, right? Decent crowd in the theater and only one other person laughed at this and when Elio puts Oliver’s stanky-ass swimming trunks on his head like a horny Dumbo.

Disappointed in myself because I enjoyed a Sufjan Stevens song. “Visions of Gideon” is a certified banger. I was jamming out over the ending credits when it slowly dawned on me that I was listening to Sufjan. Cried myself to sleep that night.

Feels weird to say, but this movie needed to show pipe. How you gonna have a movie about a dude discovering his sexuality with another dude and cut away to a tree branch when they finally do the dew? What a cop-out! Matt helpfully reminded me that they can’t show hard D without getting an NC-17 rating, but still. There were enough shots of them peeing, etc to where we could’ve gotten a peek. The hypocrisy was on full display during the one male/female sex scene when of course they show the tittays.

 Last we have The Post and Darkest Hour, which are in my last tier with Three Billboards. Both are solid flicks that I’m cool with getting Best Picture nominations, though I would have preferred seeing Mudbound or The Florida Project get some love here (I, Tonya was also good, but I’m fine with it not making it).

 I, Tonya was far better than The Post and Three Billboards (I avoided seeing Dankest Hour in favor of getting a head start on the 2019 Oscar post). Also, I wanna give some love to Detroit! It came out forever ago to no fanfare, but it’s a great flick that everyone should see. Brutal, heartbreaking, poignant, and sadly all-too-relevant in today’s times.

 The Post has two main stories, and I much preferred the story of these reporters looking for the Pentagon Papers and researching/writing things vs the Kay Graham story. While I think that Kay Graham was a legend who held a great influence throughout her career, I’m not sure how deftly her story was handled. The Post feels like if someone chose to do a movie telling the story of SNL in the mid-2000s and the movie focused on 1. The cast working to satirize George W. Bush and other political figures and 2. A subplot where women kept approaching Tina Fey to tell her how brave she was for becoming the first female headwriter of the show. Throwing two separate stories like that together? Not a great combo.

 You might say it’s “the Cyclops of white movies.”

 Also, The Post chooses to play up Kay’s story in ways that I didn’t enjoy. Spielberg made this film quickly and wanted it out by the end of 2017 because of the current political atmosphere, and the script overplays it. I didn’t need the movie emphasizing her influence on women as much as it did. (Spoilers: scenes like the government counsel’s staffer recognizing her and commending her at SCOTUS, or her being ignored by the press while leaving, as a crowd of women fawn over her walking by).

 The Post takes some fascinating source material and tells it in the boringest way possible. Kay Graham’s involvement in this seriously the least interesting thing about it. Literally anything else would’ve made a better movie: them writing the Pentagon Papers, them acquiring the papers, the Post vs. the Times, writing the stories, the ensuing legal battle/victory. Who gives a shit about some wrinkly old white woman suddenly deciding to grow a spine?

Unfortunately, this was the ONLY thing Spielberg cared about. The rest of the film was embarrassingly low-quality. That war scene in the beginning? Shit looked like something out of a sitcom flashback. Tom Hanks’ character was insufferable and his Tim-Allen-as-Batman accent did not help. I think they got the protest rally shots from an old That 70s Show B-roll. The trifecta of Tom Hanks’ wife literally having to state the thesis of the movie (“It’s hard being a woman!”), a young woman of color getting chewed out by her old, white boss (like we didn’t just spend two hours watching Hanks say way worse things to his staff), and Meryl’s “angel from Heaven” descent down the courthouse steps was awful. Also Carrie Coon announcing the court decision only to get interrupted by some fat white guy we’ve never seen before was the final bizarre decision in a movie full of them.

 The Post felt like a pretty safe Oscar film that had some good parts and some mixed parts. It had some on-the-nose scenes and some inexplicable scenes. It also had one of the cornier last scenes that I’ve seen in recent years…

 Darkest Hour is similar. Solid, safe film with flaws. Oldman is awesome as Winston Churchill, and the political behind-the-scenes leading up to and during Dunkirk are really intriguing. And that’s most of the film, so it works really well. The film fails to have many good supporting characters, such as Lily James in a thankless role as Churchill’s assistant, being given plot/backstory whenever it’s relevant to Churchill’s storyline. The movie also suffers from some meandering towards the end.

 Darkest Hour? Gary Old Man? Yeah, I’m good.

 I really enjoyed Mudbound, which may have lost some buzz by being a Netflix film. Netflix has gotta work on that. It’s still not a pitch-perfect film with some boring parts in the first half, but man, that last quarter of the film really hits hard. Meanwhile, The Florida Project aimed higher and had higher highs (how many times can I write high (CAN WE GET MUCH HIGHER)). Though it struggles when there were too many scenes of the kids playing around, the themes and its unique subject matter are so, so good. Its creativity and boldness were refreshing too. I gotta check out Tangerine by the same director, Sean Baker.

 Tangerine is great! Donut Time is closed down though :(

 Director: “Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan “Get Out,” Jordan Peele “Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig “Phantom Thread,” Paul Thomas Anderson “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro

 It looks like del Toro should win it, and he would be worthy. His vision and execution were marvelous. It’s such a visual treat, from the design of the monster, to the fashion and decor, to the feel of the scenes.

 What a visual treat it was to see a fish gettin it in! I wouldn’t be mad at a GDT win here. Solid economy of storytelling, and the overall vision, themes, and motifs all worked together to create a great sense of feeling and wonderment, which you need when you’re making a movie about fish love.

 Nolan was awesome per usual, with some amazing action and jaw-dropping uses of real stunts and IMAX cameras. I’m glad he got his first directing nod.

 Typical Nolan: dope visuals and a lot of overwrought music drowning out boring characters and a weak story.

 Gerwig and Peele are both amazing talents who made brilliant first feature films. I guess Best Director doesn’t usually go to simpler films (see: Inarritu’s dumb back-to-back wins for spectacle films). But man they were good at their craft.

 If I had my druthers, I’d give it to my man Jordan Peele. His was a truly singular vision helped along by deft world-building and a perfect tonal balance. The exact opposite of Martin McDonagh’s work on Three Billboards. Greta Gerwig did a nice job, but she’s no Peele.

 PTA is awesome too. He apparently also worked on the cinematography with the rest of his crew, which is cool.

 PTA did his thing on ‘em, bringing his unique flavor of dark humor mixed with some heavy emotional content.

 Mainly, I’m just glad Martin McDonagh didn’t get a nod here.

 Lead Actor: Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name” Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread” Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out” Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour” Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

 Oldman is the favorite, both for a notable impersonation and his entire body of work. Oldman is a great actor, and I can’t fault him getting the award. I did enjoy his performance and the movie’s flaws are not because of it. One note: I haven't seen The Queen yet to see if he’s that much better as Churchill than John Lithgow, but cmon, how impressive is it when a bunch of dudes are able to play Churchill?

 Oldman is just that -- an old man. Maybe die already and let some youngbloods get their shine??? Just kidding, I have nothing against Commissioner Gordon. I’m sure he did great here and now has a go-to Halloween costume for later this year to boot.

 I prefer Chalamet’s detailed and nuanced in his portrayal of Elio. Chalamet just nails all the facial tics and body language, along with crushing scenes when asked (the film literally relies on his facial reactions during portions of the film).

 Chalamet was great! Him crying into the camera as the credits rolled could’ve nuked the entire movie, but it didn’t. So much of the context and depth in “Call Me by Your Name, Daddy” is internal, and the fact that Chalamet was able to get that across to the audience is a real testament to his performance. Also, he banged a peach in real life! That was some method acting!

 I love me some Daniel Day, and if this is his actual last role, then bravo. He is brilliant as a fashion designer who is super picky and unique. He’s such a prick at times, he’s such a baby at times, and he’s so funny all the way through. I get that they want to reward someone else. But man… DDL is the best.

 If they ever cross paths, I hope DDL and Chalamet compare notes. DDL: “I learned how to create 1950s-style women’s dresses by hand and actually made a few dozen which I then sold to wealthy aristocrats.” Chalamet: “I put my thing in some fresh fruit and sniffed a guy’s butthole!”

Also, shoutout to the casting director who tapped DDL to play Reynolds Woodcock. How fuggin easy was her job? “Ya know, we really should get DDL to play this part.” “Great job! He fit the role perfectly!”

 Kaluuya is really good in Get Out, though I prefer Chalamet/DDL over him. I’m glad that he got a nod for what might normally just be viewed as a horror movie role. Kaluuya’s emotional backstory is key to the film, and he does a great job showing the pain of his past and how it helps form his character’s decisions. Otherwise, Get Out is less an acting showcase than the other films, so less of a ceiling.

 It really is great to see a horror movie get this level of love and legitimization. Between Get Out and It, I hope Hollywood production companies realize that actually investing in the horror genre is a profitable move and as a consequence, we continue to see more (and better) horror flicks.

 I didn’t see Denzel’s performance. But I think it’s funny that he got this random nod sorta like how Meryl Streep gets nods for just about any role. People just love Denzel at this point. Franco might have deserved the nod for The Disaster Artist, where he was both hilariously weird yet held gravitas as the crazy Tommy Wiseau.

 *nods*

No Hugh Jackman (Logan)??? No anyone from Detroit??? Yuck.

 Lead Actress: Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water” Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya” Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird” Meryl Streep, “The Post”

 First, I think it’s a shame that Vicky Krieps didn’t get nominated for anchoring Phantom Thread with her role as tortured love interest, Alma. Krieps fills Alma’s personality with timidity, daring, ambition, and man, she’s good. She’s more of a main character than DDL at times, and she holds her own. Krieps went from an unknown to American audiences to having to spar with one of the greatest actors of all time. And she crushed it! I wonder if she was hurt by the film being released late. More people should be talking about this performance.

 Vicky Krieps is fantastic. Like Matt said, she went toe-to-toe with DDL and matched him in every scene, never getting lost in the shuffle. She’s gotta be amused with everyone treating her like a no-name newcomer though, since she’s apparently already a star in Poland or wherever the fuck she’s from.

 McDormand appears to be the frontrunner, and I thought she was really good. I prefer Saoirse Ronan and Sally Hawkins though. McDormand has a super showy role, and I’m guessing her win was clinched by her various speeches and rants throughout the film. She’s really good. I just don’t like the character due to the writing.

 Ugh, McDormand. I guess she was fine. Like I mentioned earlier, her character was so poorly constructed and written, I have no idea if the acting’s any good. Besides Meryl Streep, she’s definitely the worst on here. Streep actually suffered from some of the same issues as McDormand. Her character’s arc is such a drag that the movie came to a screeching halt every time she popped up on screen. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Streep and Hanks filmed that breakfast convo on separate coasts.

 Ronan is a huge talent, and she’s perfect as Lady Bird. She’s funny, emotional, and a fully-realized teenager. Lady Bird will go down as one of the most famous heroines - I have no doubt.

 Since my girl Vicky Krieps didn’t even get a nom, I’ll be pulling for Ronan.

 Hawkins is magnetic as Elisa. She was limited as a mute character, but presented herself so well with body language, sign language, and charm. Hawkins imbues her character with such optimism and hope. She treats her friends with such warmth. And she has to portray her interest opposite an actor inside a costume, who also can’t speak. I mean, that’s carrying a lot, and she is brilliant.

 To Hawkins’ credit, you really do believe she wants to fuck that fish. Like, there is NO DOUBT. She must’ve been channeling her inner-Chalamet between takes.

 Margot Robbie is really good as Tonya Harding and the best part of the movie for me, moreso than Allison Janney (more on that below), though it’s laughable when she has to play a teenager. One scene of note is her preparing for a performance in front of a mirror. It’s one of those acting showcases that really impresses, and she does it well.

 Margot Robbie was great as Tonya Harding. I didn’t realize not only how hated Harding was back then, but how hated she is now! I brought this movie up to several people and each was like “UGH! Why would I want to see a movie about Tonya Harding -- she’s the devil! I hate her!” Why would anyone still be mad about this? First of all, it’s figure skating. Second of all, it happened twenty-five years ago, and third of all, Nancy Kerrigan was fine! Get over it, sheeple! Just don’t get me started on the tragedy of Michelle Kwan -- now THAT’S something to still be upset over.

 I would replace Streep with Krieps in a heartbeat. Yes, Streep is good as Kay Graham, but Krieps is better, and Streep is the worst of these 5. Honestly, if Kay Graham had been played by Frances McDormand, she would not have been nominated. Streep got the nomination because she’s Meryl Streep.

 This might be Matt’s hottest take and it’s 100% correct. /shocked emoji

 Supporting Actor: Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project” Woody Harrelson, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water” Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World” Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

 Rockwell is expected to win, and he’s pretty good. I can’t get over his character arc though. This character is just… it’s weird! It doesn’t make any sense. Rockwell is a great actor though, and he does the best he can. He’s awesome.

 /copy-and-pastes paragraph about Frances McDormand

 I love Dafoe’s performance more. The Florida Project’s cast was filled with new actors, and that was mostly good, but Dafoe was amazing. He’s got his scenes here and there, and he makes the screen pop whenever he shows up. Just a genuine good, imperfect dude, managing a hotel.

 This movie looked awful. I don’t know if I’m just bitter or I’m suffering from trailer fatigue, but with the exception of Mission Impossible: Fallout and Black Panther, I haven’t seen a single trailer where I didn’t think “this movie looks like trash.” Even for good movies! Step ya trailer game up, Hollywood.

 Woody Harrelson was good, but it’s a little silly that his role got in over Hammer or Stuhlbarg in Call Me By Your Name or Michael Shannon in Shape of Water. I didn’t catch Plummer in his role.

 I’m serious: replace Woody with Paddington and the movie is immediately 25% better. Woody was fine, but yeah what the shit. Also, Armie Hammer was...not great. Dude was two seconds away from doing a Tiger Woods fistpump after suckin’ Elio’s cannoli. Get it together, man.

 Plummer was good considering he’s like 90 (a true Old Man) and did all his shit in like a week in front of a green screen. You’d think him being a last-second replacement for Kevin Spacey would be distracting, but the movie’s so bad you don’t really care. Actually, we should go back and replace Spacey with Christopher Plummer in everything! Imagine Plummer bringing his elder statesman gravitas to American Beauty or Horrible Bosses.

 Jenkins was great in The Shape of Water. Really good supporting character and friend to Elisa. The supporting cast in Shape of Water was generally awesome.

 Supporting Actress: Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound” Allison Janney, “I, Tonya” Lesley Manville, “Phantom Thread” Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird” Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”

 Janney seems to be the frontrunner, though this seems like the only one of 4 categories where people think there may be an upset. Metcalf is so good in Lady Bird, varying from tough mom to loving mom.

 Truly great range.

 Janney got a lot of hype, and I ended up feeling underwhelmed by her performance. She disappears for a lot of the film after a showy start, and I ended up being much more into the performances of Robbie and Sebastian Stan.

 Man, GTFOOHWTMFBS. She “disappears” for a lot of the film because the story goes elsewhere; it’s not like she’s turning in a half-forgettable performance. Plus, that criticism is meaningless when Queen Elizabeth can win one for like 8 minutes of screen time. Janney is great in this film, giving a performance that’s far from one-note, more nuanced than she’s getting credit for, and 100% real.

 I preferred Manville’s role as the DDL’s sharp sister in Phantom Thread. She’s really good without ever being too showy.

 This is the one nominee I won’t be mad at for beating Janney (well, her and Mary J, because how could I ever be mad at Mary J?). Manville crushes it as Woodcock’s sister and business manager. She delivers scathing insults with that Woodcockian gumption and provides some humanity in the face of DDL’s artistic vanity without falling into the Jekyll/Hyde dichotomy. She keeps it as real as Reynolds, but is just wired a bit differently.

 Spencer is another key supporting role in The Shape of Water, and she’s another terrific friend to Elisa. I also enjoyed her calling out her husband - he needs to get his act together!

 Yeah, dude has to turn in his sack after that FBI agent ran roughshod over his household.

 Mary J is really solid in Mudbound, though I was much more into the roles of Jason Mitchell (Eazy-E!) and Garrett Hedlund, the main relationship of the film.

 Original Screenplay: “The Big Sick,” Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani “Get Out,” Jordan Peele “Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Martin McDonagh

 It’s so cool to see The Big Sick get a nomination here. My main gripe about the movie is that it gets a little long. But it’s a really good adaptation of a real-life story, filled with funny scenes mixed with good emotion. Big Sick is such a lovely film. It’s got great performances too by Ray Romano and Holly Hunter. And the cultural stuff is really neat to see on-screen.

 The Big Sick is the one movie I really regret not getting to. If only there was a way I could still watch it...

 Get Out’s script is amazing. I hope it wins. It seems like it’s between it and Billboards, which definitely doesn’t deserve a win.

 Get Out should get TWO wins here. One for Lil Rel’s dialogue and one for the rest of it. You aren’t getting this kind of quality anywhere else. A true original. If Three Billboards somehow wins this I’m gonna rent three billboards to talk about how shitty that movie is. “How Come Chief Paddington?”

 I’m bummed Lady Bird seems like it won’t get any wins (fingers crossed on Metcalf), and it’s second here for me after Get Out. Shape of Water is great, but the script isn’t what gets me the most.

 I don’t think I need to tell you what about The Shape of Water gets Matt the most.

 Adapted Screenplay: “Call Me by Your Name,” James Ivory “The Disaster Artist,” Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber “Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green “Molly’s Game,” Aaron Sorkin “Mudbound,” Virgil Williams and Dee Rees

 Shoutout to LOGAN! First major nod for a comic book movie I think. Awesome. It was a great sendoff for a famous pairing (Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart as Logan and Xavier). Here’s hoping we get some more nods next year for Black Panther (and hopefully if Infinity War is good).

 LOGAN! We made it, fam! Logan was a great flick. So happy to see Wolverine finally done right on the big screen. If they’d have tightened up the post-X23 battle portion of the movie, I’d be clamoring for it to get a Best Picture nom.

 Call Me by Your Name was really well-done. A cool tidbit is that Sufjan Stevens convinced the director to take out the narration from the book (though I guess that would be a knock on the screenplay, probably?).

 After Matt hit me with some details from the Call Me by Your Name and I Will Call You by My Name book, I’m even more thankful to Sufjan. Really didn’t need to see these guys taking massive dumps in front of each other while the camera pans to Elio’s dad crying, with his shirt pulled over his nose.

 Disaster Artist was a really fun movie about a really wacky story. It managed to get the right amount of comedy and emotion into it. From what I’ve read, Mudbound seems to have done some good work changing aspects of the book, including adding more viewpoints for the black family members. It’s still a bit shaky in the first half.

 Molly’s Game was a mixed bag. Sorkin seemed to have his usual strengths and minuses… and the minuses were big. I don’t get why he shoehorns a father-child relationship into all of his scripts. This one was particularly unnecessary and detracted from the storyline.

 I didn’t get to Disaster Artist or Molly’s Game. Sorkin’s scripts are more bloated than Bridge of Spies’ runtime.

 Film Editing: “Baby Driver,” Jonathan Amos, Paul Machliss “Dunkirk,” Lee Smith “I, Tonya,” Tatiana S. Riegel “The Shape of Water,” Sidney Wolinsky “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Jon Gregory

 Baby Driver! That’s a cool nomination right there. The film’s weakest part is the story, so I’m all for any movie-making nominations it gets, and the editing was crisp.

 Props to Baby Driver for being really cool and really dumb at the same time. That’s hard to do!

 Dunkirk is the win for me here. A lot of the movie relies on the jumping around of timelines, and the movie really nails it there.

 Does it though? There were three timelines/points of action, but Nolan did a slopfest of a job tying them together. Should’ve given Billy Walsh a truckload of fresh fruit and let him get a crack at the dailies.

 Cinematography: “Blade Runner 2049,” Roger Deakins “Darkest Hour,” Bruno Delbonnel “Dunkirk,” Hoyte van Hoytema “Mudbound,” Rachel Morrison “The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen

 Oh snap, that’s DEAKINS’ music. People think Deakins will finally win here after being nominated 14 times. Here’s some great footage of his best work. I still don’t completely understand cinematography, but it does seem like he lost a few times for movies that were more visual effects than cinematography (e.g. Life of Pi).

 Deak tha Freak! Didn’t see Blade Runner 2049 because I’m not a nerd, but I got love for Deakins, so sure, give it up for him. Don’t even talk to me about Life of Pi. Fuck Pissing Patel and fuck you too!

 As for this specific film, Blade Runner 2049 is beautiful, and he appears to have done some incredible work himself on the film (as opposed to other visual effects people). It looks amazing in some scenes, the lighting is great, and the world is fully-realized.

 Shape of Water and Dunkirk are my next favorites. Both look really good.

 Of the two I’ve seen, Dunkirk probably deserves this over The Shape of Water. Its visuals were the best thing it had going on. At least The Shape of Water has fish peen to fall back on.

 Animated Feature: “The Boss Baby,” Tom McGrath, Ramsey Ann Naito “The Breadwinner,” Nora Twomey, Anthony Leo “Coco,” Lee Unkrich, Darla K. Anderson “Ferdinand,” Carlos Saldanha “Loving Vincent,” Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman, Sean Bobbitt, Ivan Mactaggart, Hugh Welchman

 BOSS BABY. But nah I’ve only seen Coco. Coco is so good. It reminds me of Inside Out for how mature and emotional it is. Its themes of family and death and memory are on point. It’s also really fun and colorful, AND it’s got awesome culture with Dia de Las Muertas.

 Haven’t seen any of this shit. Maybe I’m racist, but Coco looks boring as hell. Just Moana but Mexican instead of Polynesian.

Also, how did The Lego Batman Movie not get ANY love? That was probably the third best Batman movie of all-time (Batman and Batman Begins being the top two)! I’m STILL mad at The Lego Movie not getting nominated for Best Animated Feature when it was a dark horse for Best Picture! The Lego Movie is the Michelle Kwan of animated movies.

Original Song: “Mighty River” from “Mudbound,” Mary J. Blige “Mystery of Love” from “Call Me by Your Name,” Sufjan Stevens “Remember Me” from “Coco,” Kristen Anderson-Lopez, Robert Lopez “Stand Up for Something” from “Marshall,” Diane Warren, Common “This Is Me” from “The Greatest Showman,” Benj Pasek, Justin Paul

 SUFJANNNNNNNNNN. When I first wrote this, I was bummed because I thought he wasn’t performing. You can imagine my joy when it was announced that he WAS.

 Can’t wait for Suf to walk onstage with a big butterfly outfit while a bunch of violinists run around him in heart-shaped outfits, while Chalamet and Hammer are biking around stage while eating gelato. Mystery of Love is amazing and very key to the movie (Visions of Gideon may be even better, but I’m cool with MoL getting the nod here).

 Visions of Gideon IS better, though that’s not saying much. IS IT A VIDEO SUFJAN????????

 Remember Me seems like the favorite, and it’s a really great song. I would be pretty happy with it getting the win. It’s cool that Gael Garcia Bernal is performing (unlike Gosling/Stone flaking last year for La La Land, smh).

 Remember Me has the issue of trying to live up to the standard set by Z-Ro for songs titled “Remember Me.”

Original Score: “Dunkirk,” Hans Zimmer “Phantom Thread,” Jonny Greenwood “The Shape of Water,” Alexandre Desplat “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” John Williams “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Carter Burwell

 I need to re-listen to Last Jedi’s score, but it’s hard for me to say that it had anything unique compared to the previous Star Wars movies… just feels like a nod for Johnny W.

 Not a big “score” guy, but let’s go ahead and crown Sicario 2 the winner in this category next year.

 Shape of Water was really lovely. I also think it’d be cool to see Greenwood get a win (Radiohead whaaa). Dunkirk is super intense. Billboards...nah.

 The Shape of Water was scored by a Radiohead guy? Makes sense because that fish was a CREEP.

Sound Editing: “Baby Driver,” Julian Slater “Blade Runner 2049,” Mark Mangini, Theo Green “Dunkirk,” Alex Gibson, Richard King “The Shape of Water,” Nathan Robitaille, Nelson Ferreira “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Ren Klyce, Matthew Wood

Sound Mixing: “Baby Driver,” Mary H. Ellis, Julian Slater, Tim Cavagin “Blade Runner 2049,” Mac Ruth, Ron Bartlett, Doug Hephill “Dunkirk,” Mark Weingarten, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo “The Shape of Water,” Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke, Brad Zoern “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” Stuart Wilson, Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick

 Baby Driver’s sound was critical to it, as was Dunkirk’s. I have trouble understanding the two (here’s one of many explainers) but based on what I read, I’d want Baby Driver for Sound Mixing (Edgar Wright had the actors listening to the same song simultaneously, so they could imagine how it would play on screen… which is awesome) and Dunkirk for Sound Editing.

 Can’t speak to the legitimacy of these nominees, but it’s a relief seeing the same five in both categories. Can you imagine the humiliation otherwise? “Oh this was MIXED really well, but the editing was TRASH.”

Visual Effects:

“Blade Runner 2049,” John Nelson, Paul Lambert, Richard R. Hoover, Gerd Nefzer “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” Christopher Townsend, Guy Williams, Jonathan Fawkner, Dan Sudick “Kong: Skull Island,” Stephen Rosenbaum, Jeff White, Scott Benza, Mike Meinardus “Star Wars: The Last Jedi,”  Ben Morris, Mike Mulholland, Chris Corbould, Neal Scanlan “War for the Planet of the Apes,” Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, Daniel Barrett, Joel Whist

Matt didn’t offer any analysis here, so I can only assume he worked on the visual effects for Kong or whatever and it’s a conflict of interest.

Production Design: “Beauty and the Beast,” Sarah Greenwood; Katie Spencer “Blade Runner 2049,” Dennis Gassner, Alessandra Querzola “Darkest Hour,” Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer “Dunkirk,” Nathan Crowley, Gary Fettis “The Shape of Water,” Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin, Shane Vieau

The Shape of Water looks cool? So does Blade Runner. So I want one of those.

Was Beauty and the Beast the most unnecessary movie of 2017? Probably. Really stoked for the human version of Song of the South. I wanna know who designed the pies in The Shape of Water. Damn those shits were ugly.

Makeup and Hair: “Darkest Hour,” Kazuhiro Tsuji, David Malinowski, Lucy Sibbick “Victoria and Abdul,” Daniel Phillips and Lou Sheppard “Wonder,” Arjen Tuiten

 I do think it’s random that this only has 3 nominees. That’s all I got. Oldman for Churchill, I imagine, should win.

 Doesn’t this category usually only have 3 noms? If only I was typing this on a machine that would let me look up the answer. Folks better get these famous-people roles while they can; another 5 years and biopics will be 50% holographic.

Costume Design: “Beauty and the Beast,” Jacqueline Durran “Darkest Hour,” Jacqueline Durran “Phantom Thread,” Mark Bridges “The Shape of Water,” Luis Sequeira “Victoria and Abdul,” Consolata Boyle

Phantom Thread should win, right? Shape looks cool too. The outfits for the monster were wild.

Ayo, that fish was buck naked! They really just subbed in my man Abe Sapien. If Phantom Thread doesn’t win this...it’s like, Mark Bridges, what the hell are you even doing?

Best Documentary Feature: “Abacus: Small Enough to Jail,” Steve James, Mark Mitten, Julie Goldman “Faces Places,” JR, Agnès Varda, Rosalie Varda “Icarus,” Bryan Fogel, Dan Cogan “Last Men in Aleppo,” Feras Fayyad, Kareem Abeed, Soren Steen Jepersen “Strong Island,” Yance Ford, Joslyn Barnes

 My friend Donna says Abacus is awesome, and it seems like a cool story. Jane didn’t get nominated here and that’s the only one I saw (good film).

 Didn’t see any of these. I watch movies to ESCAPE from real life, not wallow in it.

 Best Foreign Language Film: “A Fantastic Woman” (Chile) “The Insult” (Lebanon) “Loveless” (Russia) “On Body and Soul (Hungary) “The Square” (Sweden)

 I have seen the trailer for Loveless, and it looked intense. Otherwise, I gotta get to these… it’s tough when they aren’t really available in theaters.

Matt, you gotta move out of BFE. Loveless and “L’Insult” been in theaters here. Not that I’ve seen them, whoops.

 Animated Short: “Dear Basketball,” Glen Keane, Kobe Bryant “Garden Party,” Victor Caire, Gabriel Grapperon “Lou,” Dave Mullins, Dana Murray “Negative Space,” Max Porter, Ru Kuwahata “Revolting Rhymes,” Jakob Schuh, Jan Lachauer

 KOBE

 *ahem*

#KOBE

 Best Documentary Short Subject: “Edith+Eddie,” Laura Checkoway, Thomas Lee Wright “Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405,” Frank Stiefel “Heroin(e),” Elaine McMillion Sheldon, Kerrin Sheldon “Knife Skills,” Thomas Lennon “Traffic Stop,” Kate Davis, David Heilbroner

 Let me put my homie Matt on blast here. I told him I was going to check out a showing of these five shorts and he’s all like “Why? I’m not including them in the Oscar pool, loser.” I was STUNNED. I’m in it for the ART, meanwhile Matt only cares about nursing his gambling problem. Anyhow.

Traffic Stop is apparently the front-runner, but was probably the worst one. I’m totally on board with its message about cops being violent racists, but the situation here probably wasn’t the best one to exemplify that idea.

Edith+Eddie had some charming moments, but not much of a story. People treat old people like shit. Wow.

Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405 was the most poignant and touching of the five. The story of Mindy Alper, an artist who suffers from truly debilitating mental illness/depression, is both heartbreaking and uplifting. It’s amazing what she’s been able to accomplish while simultaneously waging a constant battle with herself.

Heroin(e) tells a gripping story of the heroin epidemic of Huntington, WV and what three strong women are doing to battle it. Nothing super-groundbreaking, but a very well-told story about a part of the country that often goes overlooked.

Knife Skills was my second-favorite behind Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405. At times hilarious, but always inspiring, we get a look at ex-cons getting a second chance by attending culinary school/working at an upscale French restaurant in Cleveland. The willingness to show some light-hearted moments made this doc feel a bit slighter than the other four, but that’s hardly a fair criticism. Great stuff, and it definitely left me wanting to see more. And hungry.

 Best Live Action Short Film: “DeKalb Elementary,” Reed Van Dyk “The Eleven O’Clock,” Derin Seale, Josh Lawson “My Nephew Emmett,” Kevin Wilson, Jr. “The Silent Child,” Chris Overton, Rachel Shenton “Watu Wote/All of Us,” Katja Benrath, Tobias Rosen

 DeKalb Elementary is about a local incident in Atlanta so I’ma be pulling for it.

 That’s all I got.

#by Alex and Matt #movies #Oscars #Get Out #Lady Bird #The Shape of Water #Phantom Thread #Fuck You Billboards #NOLAN like LOST

[njawaidofficial]

Race, Barriers and Battling Nerves: A Candid Conversation With Oscar's Only 4 African-American Directing Nominees in 90 Years

https://styleveryday.com/2018/02/23/race-barriers-and-battling-nerves-a-candid-conversation-with-oscars-only-4-african-american-directing-nominees-in-90-years/

Race, Barriers and Battling Nerves: A Candid Conversation With Oscar's Only 4 African-American Directing Nominees in 90 Years

Gathered for the first time, Lee Daniels, Barry Jenkins, Jordan Peele and John Singleton break down the politics of who can tell what story, the doors that didn’t open and the game-changing impact of ‘Black Panther’: “It almost feels like, ‘Are black people gonna go see white people’s movies now that we have our own?'”

In late January, Jordan Peele became just the fourth African-American filmmaker in the 90-year history of the Academy Awards to be nominated for best director. The 39-year-old behind Get Out follows John Singleton, who in 1992 was the category’s youngest-ever nominee at 24 when he was recognized for directing Boyz N the Hood, along with Lee Daniels, now 58 (Precious, 2009), and Barry Jenkins, 38 (Moonlight, 2016). If this elite group were expanded to include all black directors, it would add only Britain’s Steve McQueen, who earned his nomination in 2014 for helming 12 Years a Slave. None of these prior nominees ultimately took home the Oscar. With the March 4 ceremony looming and the racial makeup of the Academy and the industry at large under increased scrutiny, THR gathered the quartet for a candid conversation about how success can feel like failure, the doors Black Panther has opened and why not one of these guys was able to enjoy his big night.

John, take us back to 1992. You’re 24 years old, and you’re at the Oscars as the first African-American best director nominee ever. You’re up against Jonathan Demme, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone … what do you remember?

SINGLETON Well, first of all, I’m fuckin’ scared. (Laughs.)

Why is that?

SINGLETON Because I thought it meant my career was over. I thought, “That’s their way to get me out.” I was really very humbled by it, too. I was a year out of film school when it happened, and I just sat down and tried to write and study film even more than I already had so I was up to that honor. At the same time, as a black man in America, my other fear was not wanting to necessarily lose myself in the hype of Hollywood.

Lee and Barry, can you empathize with that feeling of fear?

DANIELS For sure.

JENKINS Definitely. For me, I didn’t make Moonlight for the awards conversation, and when it ended up there, I was shocked the whole way. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. And then with how things ultimately went in the end [with the mistaken announcement that La La Land had won best picture], because of how loud it was and all of that other stuff, I’ve never been as distraught as I was at the Vanity Fair party after the Oscars.

  Why, exactly?

JENKINS I mean, did you see the show? (Laughs.) It’s not the kind of thing where you go running off with pompoms. Something had changed. I wasn’t sure what that thing was. I wasn’t sure that thing was mine or who it belonged to because of how everything happened. And it made 2017 a very long year.

DANIELS When you come from the African-American experience, you don’t really think about doing anything to get an Oscar. You don’t even know whether the movie’s going to be seen, let alone be appreciated by your peers or accepted into the Oscar category. And so, I know exactly what he thought (looks at Singleton), and I know exactly what he’s going through (looks at Peele). You just don’t feel a part of the party.

You four are part of an exclusive club now. Which directors deserve to be in it who aren’t?

JENKINS The list is far too long. You’d have to include both men of color and women. But the fact that Spike [Lee] is not sitting in this room …

SINGLETON I always feel like I got nominated because Spike was passed over for Do the Right Thing [in 1990].

PEELE Both Do the Right Thing and Boyz N the Hood are masterpieces. For me, I always wanted to be a director. Since [I was] 12 years old, it was my dream. And I think one of the reasons I didn’t go into it was because I had John, I had Spike, we had the Hughes brothers and Mario Van Peebles at the time, and it felt like these geniuses were the exceptions to the rule. And I felt like, race aside, it’s the hardest thing to do to convince people to give you money to make your vision, and I think I was protecting myself and I moved away from that dream. I followed acting because it was this immediate response from the audience, and clearly my soul needed that kind of fortification. But then in recent times, seeing what Lee has done and what Steve and Barry have done and now it’s Ava [DuVernay], Dee [Rees], Ryan [Coogler], F. Gary Gray, it feels like this renaissance is happening where my favorite filmmakers are black, and it’s a beautiful club to feel a part of.

You certainly get that collegial feel from social media, where you all seem to promote one another’s work.

PEELE Part of the cultural learning curve with this, too, is tied up with this thing that every time a black achievement happens, it’s a black achievement. It’s like the first African-American to do this or that, and I think we’re all eager to get to that point where it’s not a first.

DANIELS To me, that’s the beauty of what is now. I grew up in a time when there could only be one.

SINGLETON Yeah, you were a special case, an anomaly. It was the Sidney Poitier equation for everything.

DANIELS I knew there was some change happening when I wasn’t nominated for The Butler [in 2014]. Before my agent or my publicist or even my mother called me, Steve McQueen [who was nominated that year for 12 Years a Slave] called me. He was like, “Bro, you should be here with me.” And I just said, “You’re there. Take it home.” It was that kind of camaraderie that’s really amazing and wasn’t there before.

PEELE I’ve met all these guys in the past couple of years, and the energy I get from all of them is this phalanx mentality where we all realize we’re exponentially stronger together than we are separately.

What were your personal inflection points when you guys realized that the game was rigged and not necessarily in your favor?

DANIELS When did I figure out the game was stacked against me? When I was born. Next question.

PEELE Yeah, it just is. That’s the thing, people are talking about this day and age we live in, and we hear so much about the racial climate and this idea of, “Where did this come from?” Black people know it’s the same damn world we’ve been living in all along. It’s louder and a little more emboldened now than it was a couple of years ago, but it’s all the exact same sentiments. So that’s it, man. Always.

I’m curious to hear what doors these nominations did and didn’t open up for you. Were you suddenly on the lists for big studio movies?

SINGLETON I wasn’t offered everything, but I also wasn’t sitting waiting to be offered everything. After I was nominated, Hollywood didn’t know what to do with me. I knew what I was going to do myself, though. I had my next movie [Poetic Justice] lined up with Janet Jackson and Tupac starring in it already. I learned from Francis Coppola, who had given me some advice. He said, “Try to write as many of your works as possible so that you have a singular voice.” So that’s what I was trying to do, be a writer-director. Then I got mired up in the drama where I wanted to actually explore different genres, but I felt there was a ceiling of what they wanted me to do. It’s interesting though, because I’m doing this [FX] show now, Snowfall. It’s a popular show, and I could have done it 20 years ago, but they said, “Who wants to see Boyz N the Hood on television every week?” Now, everybody wants to see Boyz N the Hood on television.

DANIELS If you really want to be real, we could only do “black” stories. And until recently, it was, “How can black movies make money?” I don’t know if you can call it racism, maybe it’s just the business and the naivete about who our audience was. People have learned through Empire and through Black Panther and through Get Out.

SINGLETON Even though there’s America and there’s black America, there’s a pluralism in entertainment right now. Jordan’s film is not a full black cast, but it’s a black movie and it’s also not a black movie. It’s a piece of popular culture.

JENKINS Jordan Peele is America. (Laughter.)

SINGLETON He can go do a movie with anybody. He can do a movie with a full cast of different types of people. 

DANIELS And that’s the door that he opened.

Jordan, how conscious was that decision to serve both a black and non-black audience?

PEELE Spike did that a lot, too. But I did feel like if this movie didn’t work, it would really not work. And because I come from comedy, my whole pedigree is standing onstage trying to get everybody to laugh — everybody, not just the smart people or the dumb people or the white people or the black people. So, the premise I gave myself was this airtight box that I had to work my way out of to figure out how you make a movie where a black man kills a white family at the end of the movie and white people are going to be cheering with black people. (Laughter.) And so a lot of that was this idea of subverting what people think is about to happen.

You’re all laughing.

SINGLETON I’m imagining Jordan pitching this shit. “I’m going to kill a lot of white people in the movie and everybody’s going to be happy and it’s going to make $300 million around the world.”

PEELE That was basically it, man. (Laughs.)

DANIELS But you couldn’t have known that it was going to be this big …

PEELE Oh, I didn’t know that they’d even make it. (Laughs.) So, when I finally got to “This movie’s getting made,” I was like, “OK, OK, well, if it ever gets released — which, we’ll see — it’s going to do something special.” But from a business standpoint, I knew if I gave the black audience the movie that they’ve been yelling for my whole life, that would be big. And I knew that if I gave the horror audience — another loyal fan base — a movie that they hadn’t seen in a while, a throwback piece to some of film lovers’ favorite horror movies, then that would be something. And then I just hoped everybody else would come together.

Lee, a few years ago, you said as part of a THR Roundtable that you hated when white people wrote for black people. Does this apply to directing as well? This is a subject that’s come up this season with Detroit, directed by Kathryn Bigelow.

DANIELS I loved Detroit and I love Kathryn Bigelow. Maybe that’s not the woke answer, but we are artists at the end of the day. Who tells us what we can and cannot do? The press? They plant this shit. We are artists, and if we fail, then we fail.

Do the rest of you agree? Or are there certain subjects that would be better left to white or black filmmakers?

JENKINS I have an interesting perspective on this now having made Moonlight. I debated if I should even make that film because I’m not gay.

DANIELS And yet he was able to tap into the human condition that transcended sexuality.

What was that process of getting to a “yes,” Barry?

JENKINS What’s interesting in the question for me is to be aware that the question exists at all. And then to do the work and to be responsible about it. I don’t have [author Tarell Alvin McCraney’s] experience; what do I have that’s relatable to his experience? Let me go knock on somebody’s door. Let me go to a friend or a loved one who has that experience and go, “Will you share with me? And if you share with me, I promise to take the things you share and try to translate them in a way that is responsible and respectful and meaningful.” And that was what I did with Moonlight. I sat down with Tarell because Tarell lived that experience. And as an artist, I had to really have a come-to-Jesus and go, “OK, I don’t know this better than him, so I have to really inject the things he tells me.” And then from that point, we’re artists, you take authorship over the piece and you go out and you create. I do remember the scene where the two kids meet on the beach. It was so difficult because as a director, especially as a writer-director, you know, everything. And I was like, “I don’t know this shit.” I had to be really open about what I didn’t know. But I agree with Lee, it’s not black and white. It can’t be.

SINGLETON There are two sides of this coin. The Last Emperor was a huge hit when it came out, and Bernardo Bertolucci is Italian, not Chinese. But he did his homework. Steven Spielberg did The Color Purple. Black people assailed against that when it came out, but it’s a classic among African-Americans now. But for every one of those films that was made by someone who was from another culture exploring something that they were interested in, there are these stacks of [films by non-black filmmakers] where black people have had to say, “OK, at least they tried.” And, see, I come from the standpoint of, “No, it’s not about fuckin’ trying.” There are enough people now that you can go to, to have a conference with or to say, “I don’t understand this world, can you help me?’’ So, I’m not assailing against anybody white trying to do a black story — try it, but get someone to help you. What’s interesting when you see Black Panther is you realize it couldn’t have been directed by anybody else but Ryan Coogler. It’s a great adventure movie and it works on all those different levels as entertainment, but it has this kind of cultural through-line that is so specific that it makes it universal.

PEELE I tend to feel the same way Lee does in terms of anybody can make any movie, they just gotta do their homework. That being said, when I was in the middle of writing the party scene in Get Out, where [these white people are] coming up to Chris [the black boyfriend of Allison Williams’ character] saying their black “in,” like, “I know Tiger [Woods],” it was this epiphany. I was like, “This has to be a black person directing it.” This experience, a white person won’t [get it]. I can tell them what it’s like, but there’s something else that is intrinsic to my experience. And so that’s the moment I realized I had to direct this movie because we don’t have the guys who are going to come down and do a $5 million horror movie that has this kind of risk. It’s a moment I looked back at and was like, “Shit, I have been training for this all my life. Not only in the industry but in life. I know this story.” And speaking to other directors, there’s a wide skill set needed, but nothing is more important than being the world’s foremost expert on that story and being able to impart that.

DANIELS When I was doing The Butler, we happened to be in the same edit bay as Spike and George Wolfe down in New York City. I was having a problem with a scene, a big scene, and I said, “Y’all gotta come in here because I’m freakin’ out.” And they came in and it was great because there is a specificity. Unless you know that the hot sauce goes on the collard greens with the right kind of garlic, you ain’t gonna know. You know what I mean? (Laughter.)

PEELE Exactly. Another phenomenon that this is all connected to, to me, is this idea of the white savior trope in films. There’s probably a lot going on there, but the way I’ve interpreted it is that it’s an olive branch for the white people in the audience in a racially charged movie to know, like, “You’re included in this story.” And there are beautiful films that do it. One of my favorites is Glory, where the Matthew Broderick character is in a lot of ways [director] Edward Zwick saying, “I don’t know the black experience, but I see through the eyes of this character who is empathizing with the black experience.” With Get Out, I wanted to make a movie that ripped the rug out of this idea of the one good white character [and make the character] evil and see what that would do. And that’s why, for me, watching that scene with an audience …

JENKINS The scene with the keys?

PEELE Yeah, when the keys come out, you hear white people in the audience go (gasp), shock, and then you hear black people go, “Mm-hmm.” (Laughter.) That’s that moment where it’s like, “OK, we’re watching two different movies, but we’re now on the same page. She’s evil.”

JENKINS I saw it at the ArcLight, I can testify to both those reactions. (Laughs.)

John mentioned Black Panther earlier. By the time this is published, that movie is likely to have made hundreds of millions of dollars. (The film opened with a record-breaking $242 million in the U.S. and Canada.)

SINGLETON It will. Trust me.

What will the impact of that be?

DANIELS Where’s mine? I gotta have one. Where’s mine?

Do you have a black superhero movie in your back pocket?

DANIELS We all have our own version of one, I’m sure. And he has paved the way now.

JENKINS One of the cool things is, if you do the work, you can make any film you want right now. You can manifest your own destiny. If Ryan Coogler wanted to, he’d be sitting in this room. He could’ve gone from Fruitvale [Station] to his version of Moonlight or Boyz N the Hood or whatever. But he saw his career. He saw it. And it went from Fruitvale to Creed to Panther. I remember I had dinner with him back in 2013 — I was living in Oakland at the time, and it was the month before Fruitvale premiered at Sundance, and it was me, him and this other filmmaker, Rashaad Ernesto Green, and Ryan’s wife. And he said, “I want this [career path], and I am going to create it.” And Rashaad and I just looked at him and we smiled because we could see it. And so, if he wanted to be here, he would be, but this is not the only game in town for someone who looks like us anymore.

DANIELS Yes, sir.

Have the studio executives caught up? You guys are still making many of these projects outside of the studio system …

PEELE The last piece of the excuse for this sort of systemic lack of inclusion that we’ve seen, with some exceptions, was the business part of it kicking in. For so long, you’d hear this notion that the international business is not there and that black people, we’ve always watched white movies, but white people don’t come to black movies. And there are other exceptions that have inched us forward, but when Straight Outta Compton came out, it was an international blockbuster.

SINGLETON 12 Years a Slave was an international blockbuster, too.

JENKINS Even Moonlight, not a blockbuster, but we made more money overseas than we did domestic.

DANIELS As did The Butler.

PEELE Right. And that’s why we’re in this renaissance right now, because you can’t make that excuse anymore. The genie is out of the bottle. And what I love about what Panther is doing is it almost feels like, “Are black people gonna go see white people’s movies now that we have our own?” (Laughs.)

DANIELS Hashtag How-you-doin’? (Laughter.)

We started with the 1992 Oscars, and I’d like to end with the 2018 awards. What advice do the three of you have for Jordan?

SINGLETON I already told you I didn’t enjoy it because I was nervous as hell, but you’re different. You had a career as a performer before you were a filmmaker. So, everything now is just gravy for you. It’s just gravy.

DANIELS And keep that smile on. The world will be watching every move on your face, so when they mention your name, smile, and keep that same smile even if you don’t win.

PEELE As the tear goes down the cheek …

DANIELS Yeah. (Laughs.) And John told me this when it was my turn, and I don’t know whether you will be able to, but embrace that you are talented and that you deserve to be at the table. Take it in. I didn’t.

JENKINS I have mixed emotions. It’s cool to be here now a year later because all the things I felt like I wanted to do heading into the ceremony, I did. We went and made Beale Street [based on the James Baldwin novel], and we’re making Underground Railroad at Amazon. Those were things that were going to happen whether we lost or won. And for two minutes, we lost. And in those two minutes, I was still self-satisfied because I knew I’m going to go off and do these things, you know? Winning or losing is not gonna take any of those things off the table. But it’s bittersweet because when that switch happened, I didn’t enjoy it. And I look back on that whole process, the process that you (looks to Jordan) have handled very well, my friend, and all that shit comes together at the end and because of how things went down, I didn’t enjoy it. And I’m never going to get the opportunity to enjoy that — because even if it happens again, it won’t be the same. Moonlight was a very special film for me. It was super-personal, as this film is for you, so, bro, I’m gonna have to say what he said: Smile, yeah, but enjoy that shit, man, ’cause you earned it.

This story also appears in the Feb. 28 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

PGM.createScriptTag("//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.6&appId=303838389949803");

[clubofinfo]

Expert: It was quite expected but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the US backed propaganda organization, the White Helmets, has effectively received an Oscar for the short documentary film about them.  Which, of course, indicates that it is not just acceptable to twist facts and call a group of people with documented criminal activities “heroes”, but it is acceptable to award them with cultural, artistic and humanistic recognition.  And it is all for the sake of waging a colonial war against a country that does not quite follow the imperial ways. How much does it cost to tell a lie that big?  What is the human price of making people complicit in a project of death and suffering?  What consequences do we pay in erasing facts and twisting history when we regard ourselves as cultural beings? But all these questions are perhaps trivial compared to the 500,000 deaths, displacements of half of the population, and all the destruction inflicted by the imperial assault against Syria so far. This is a huge operation involving many layers of the establishment and the society at large.  How can so many people claim to be blind to the facts and accept the lies and deceptions? The western governments lie about the power dynamics on the ground in Syria while supporting proxy terrorists.  The media parrot the official narratives and promote fabrications of facts and analyses. Artists contribute by making up stories to help people visualize the lies as a part of a manufactured “reality”. All these efforts are supported by the financial interests that profit from the war efforts and the subsequent neoliberal colonization of Syria.  And we must note that Syria is only an example among such nations as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nicaragua, Ukraine and many others. And I hate to criticize those people who are finally raising their voices against the US government after being silent for 8 years under President Obama — after all I didn’t know how “effective” President Obama was going to be in serving the corporate powers either.  I thought it was great that we had a black president for the first time too. But, thousands of drone assassinations and that includes the innocent civilians, huge banking bailout, jailing whistleblowers, seven wars, and global surveillance?  How could we close our eyes? But OK, that was that. But now, I must express my objection if suggesting we resist the whole system as it is keeps attracting such responses as “Trump supporter”, “Putin lover” or “Assad apologist” by those who wish to forward their political party agendas, agendas that stiflingly  operate within the imperial framework.  What sort of excuse do they have in supporting a corporate party state guided by spy agencies, Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex?  What authority do they have in determining an appropriate governance for the Syrian people? The question becomes very urgent when what they support for the Syrian people are Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist groups and their violent theocracies, when the majority of Syrians support President Assad’s secular governance. How could anyone be so suggestible as to be an apologist for the criminal empire?  And they claim to resist Trump and do away with discrimination of the immigrants, racism, gender discrimination and so on.  How? By relying on the establishment of corporatism, colonialism and militarism?  The corporate parties have been funding the massive war machine with 1000 military bases, 17 spy agencies, and over half of our taxes in order to colonize other nations to give profits to exploitative corporations that squeeze our lives back home. And attacks against immigrants, racism and gender discrimination are all tools, as well as results, of such exploitations BY THEM. So how? It’s so obvious.  We see the same people, who deplore how the immigrants are treated in the US, actively supporting the colonial war against Syria, violent US foreign policies against Latin American nations, demonization of Russia and so on.  How could they not see the dots being connected? People come to the States because the plunder of the imperial conquests are gathered in the US.  Those conquests have destroyed their communities, economies and cultures.  If any people deserve to enjoy the prosperity of the empire, the first priority should be given to the immigrants.  Let’s welcome them and let them take over the nation as it is as much theirs as it is ours.  If that is not happening, the US must stop interfering with other countries. I am sick of hearing the establishment trying to convince us that things are so complicated and hard to understand in order to blind us, silence us, exclude us, exploit us and subjugate us.  I mean, where do we even begin the conversation?  The premises are lies. Facts are lies.  History is a lie.  The conclusions, the policies, motives and results are all lies. I think we just have to come up with a functional system that works for all of us, and politely, in a civil matter, with proper due process, ask those war criminals, war profiteers and corrupt politicians to go stay in prisons.  The only legitimate reason for armed forces to exist is to help support such a democratic process for the people. http://clubof.info/

[jezfletcher]

Oscars 2017

It's Oscars time again, and before the great, grand anticlimax which is the actual ceremony, I'd like to take you through my regular wrap-up and count down of my favourite Oscar films of the year. Unlike recent years, where I've had ample opportunity to watch the best films periodically throughout the year, 2016 involved dedicating a large proportion of my spare time to helping keep a small human being alive. As a result, no I've not seen fewer films this year, but I have had to cram most of them into the space of the month between the end of Sydney Festival and the Oscars ceremony. In all, I saw 42 Oscar-nominated feature films this year, which is all but 5 of the total. Of those, I could have seen O.J.: Made In America, but its 4.5 hour running time made it a daunting prospect, and difficult to squeeze in amongst all the Keeping A Small Human Being Alive. So it's a pretty good hit-rate. Sadly, it means I'm missing out on some films with an excellent pedigree, though: Asghar Farhadi's films are always excellent, but The Salesman comes out in cinemas a couple of weeks after the Oscars. 20th Century Women is directed by Mike Mills, director of two very fine films I've seen—Beginners and Thumbsucker—and is up for Best Original Screenplay, one of my favourite categories. I'm also missing I Am Not Your Negro, another Best Documentary Feature nominee, and My Life As A Zucchini, up for Best Animated Feature. Anyway, without further preamble, here's my countdown of the films, from best to worst. My write-ups may well not be as detailed as previous years (due to, ahem, small human being alive keeping), but I'll try to dive more deeply into some of the ones which warrant it in particular.

1. 13th

A truly phenomenal, and utterly engaging documentary from Ava DuVernay (director of Selma), charting the fortunes of the black American population since the 13th Amendment to the constitution and the abolition of slavery. In it, she presents compelling arguments that, although the official abolition of slavery occurred a century and a half ago, the caste separation between the black and white populations continues. She charts this through various stages: the post civil-war continuation of slavery, which allowed slavery as a punishment for crime; the Jim Crow racial segregation laws; the war on drugs; and the present day practice of mass-incarceration. Through all of these, DuVernay shows how each of these disproportionately affects the black community, and posits persuasive arguments that these are merely a by-product of the exact same mentality that promoted slavery of black Americans in the first instance. Moreover, she promotes the theory that these laws are not just some kind of retribution, or covert racism, but an economic necessity for the white population to maintain its cultural advantages. Indeed, this is no different, DuVernay argues, than modern-day slavery itself. Disenfranchisment, subtle propaganda, racial stereotyping and profiling; these are all symptoms of the same illness. It was a truly remarkable documentary, and one which fortunately ended with a firm call to action, firmly rooted around the Black Lives Matter movement. It needed it, as a final note of optimism, because the argument she presents about how this has continues throughout history was utterly convincing.

2. Hell or High Water

A really fine film, with a great cast, and a sense of engagement throughout. You immediately empathise with everyone in this film, both the duo of bank-robbing brothers, and the law enforcement officers hunting them down. There's lovely bits of mystery to the tale that hook you from the start, and it makes for a really engaging film from start to finish. Jeff Bridges is great, and deserving of his Oscar Nomination, but the film wouldn't be successful without equally charismatic turns from Ben Foster and Chris Pine. They all work as an ensemble to tell this tale, and it's a rollicking ride. Definitely worth your time.

3. Land of Mine

After the second world war, Denmark's western coastline was filled with German landmines, left after a feared invasion via the country. The Danish army decided it would use its German prisoners of war to clear the mines. Enter Sergeant Rasmussen (Roland Møller), who commands a troop of around 20 young Germans, most not much out of adolescence, as they clear thousands of mines from a remote beach. This is a film filled with inherent tension. From very early in the piece, we're subjected to the heart-stopping thrill of defusing these mines, and it's made clear that the filmmakers are not shying away from the shock of them unexpectedly exploding. But the way this device is used in the film is where it gets its real power. Director Martin Zandvliet knows he can shock the audience at any point in the film. But he doesn't waste these opportunities. Instead, he plays on the anticipation, the stress and the audiences own fear to beautifully paint the situation these young men find themselves in. And from this, Zandvliet crafts a really quite emotional and human tale. There's a conflict inherent in the situation for these characters. Set at the time when the German's atrocities during the war were being discovered, there's the feeling punishment these German soldiers is warranted—they will face the crimes of their country. But we spend time with these boys (and they are boys), and we see the innocence and humanity in them. We see their simple dreams—one wants to be a bricklayer, one is going to work in a friend's factory, all dream of their mother's cooking—and are reminded that they too are victims of war. All of this is packaged into a film that's quite captivating and thrilling, due to that manipulation of its premise. It's a really well-constructed and very powerful film. I've not seen any other work by this director before, but I anticipate some fine things from Martin Zandvliet in the future.

4. The Lobster

(Written up in 2015 (!!)) I really loved Yorgos Lanthimos's breakthrough film Dogtooth, but was lukewarm to his follow-up effort Alps. Nevertheless, I was enthusiastic about seeing The Lobster, the director's first feature in (mostly) English. This film very much harks back to the aesthetic and devices of Dogtooth, however, which makes it a much more indulgent experience. David (Colin Farrell), is a recently single man, who arrives at the mysterious Hotel, where single people are ushered in order to force them to couple-up with other singles. They have forty-five days to do so, after which time, supposedly, they will get transformed instead into the animal of their choice. You have to accept the premise of the film, because it's Lanthimos, and he gives you no option otherwise. But once you do accept it, it's a really quite wonderful exploration of this near-future dystopia. Lanthimos explores this notion of singledom as a curse through the Hotel, and through the outcast Loners whom are routinely hunted by the Hotel's guests. Macabre but prosaic tableux are played out by Hotel staff illustrating the benefits of living life as a couple. Counterpointing this need to be coupled is the infeasibility of forming a perfect union—one in which your defining characteristic is shared by your partner: your limp, your near-sightedness, your singing voice. It makes the cruelty of this world plain in its beige reasonableness. Lanthimos has assembled an exceptional international cast here, filled with peripheral actors who provide comedy, tragedy and pathos. Besides Farrell, we have Rachel Weisz, Olivia Colman, Ashley Jensen, Léa Sedoux, Ben Whishaw, John C. Reilly and Angeliki Papoulia (probably best known for her work in Lanthimos's previous films, especially Dogtooth). This ensemble provides for an exceptional range of talent, from comic to heart-felt. It is indeed, very, very funny—despite the traumatic unreality of the piece. There's something very disturbing in the film, but in a way that twists it towards the surreal rather than the truly upsetting. this is not to say that Lanthimos shies away from his trademark brutal depiction of cruelty and violence. This is here, and it serves its purpose. You're never going to escape one of his films completely unscathed. But overall, it forms a really genuinely impressive piece of work. My only criticism of The Lobster compared to Dogtooth is that there almost felt as though there had been nothing like Dogtooth before it, and this is not true of The Lobster: The Lobster was rather like Dogtooth. But at least if one is labelling a film as derivative, it being derivative of one of the most unique and idiosyncratic films of the past 20 years is no bad thing.

5. Nocturnal Animals

Tom Ford, fashion designer-cum-director, made an exquisitely and painfully beautiful film in 2009 called A Single Man, which showed off his visual chops and his rapport with his cast, but also tended towards fussiness, and an over-reliance on laboured perfection. I enjoyed it a good deal, but it's nothing compared to his sophomore effort Nocturnal Animals, which ends up being a truly remarkable film. In it, we see two parallel stories. In the first, a wealthy gallery owner (Amy Adams) receives an unpublished manuscript of her ex-husband's first novel. She becomes obsessed with it, as her current marriage falls apart around her. The second follows the plot of the novel, in which a man (Jake Gyllenhaal) loses his wife and daughter to kidnappers during a roadtrip in rural Texas. As the second plot weaves through the investigation of the crime by Detective Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, in yet another incredible turn from one of my favourite actors), we start to perceive the connection between the novel and the lives intertwined in the real world—driven home by the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal also plays Amy Adams' ex-husband in reality. It's a conceit that's been down before in film, but it's done with such panache here, thanks to Tom Ford's not-insignificant talent as a director, and his flair for visual style. It makes for a really quite thrilling film, and one which engaged me throughout. It's also, in many ways, a much more ambitious film than his first: where A Single Man had to gleam with crystalline perfection, Nocturnal Animals is a rougher affair, and it's the better for it. Ford has a strong hand as a director, but here he knows when to let the story flail a little, and to let us see it in its unvarnished ugliness. It shows development and maturity. And so, much more than I felt with A Single Man, I'm now genuinely excited to see where Ford goes as a director. This film shows the true potential for future mastery, and maintains that sense of grand talent that was in his first film. Based on the current trajectory, his third film could be something utterly brilliant.

6. Arrival

This was the kind of film I was always going to like. From Denis Villeneuve, a director I've much admired in the past, It has the hard-edge of real science fiction to it. Alien spacecraft have appeared at various points around the world, and the film follows the efforts of a disaffected American linguist Louise Banks (Amy Adams, again) to decipher their language, and provide a way for communication. On top of this story of scientific discovery is the global political turmoil, which is woven together in such a way to provide the conflict and tension of the film. Villeneuve has a knack for picking exceptional scripts, and he carefully places them in such context to get maximal emotional engagement from the audience. He also manages here, as he has in other films like Incendies to contrive an exceptional plot twist towards the end, which is in plain sight throughout the film. By the end, everything is so neatly packaged together that it's utterly satisfying, and the twist is so beautifully wrought that it warrants a second viewing. But mostly, it was just an engaging film throughout its length. I was rapt, and that's because it was so well crafted. There was nothing out of place, nothing superfluous. It was just great film-making; you didn't see the craft, just the story.

7. Captain Fantastic

I missed this film at the Sydney Film Festival this year, but I'm very pleased it ended up with a nod come Oscars season because otherwise I might well have missed it. It follows the tale of Ben Cash (Viggo Mortensen) and his children, who live isolated in the wilderness, learning survival skills, philosophy, hard sciences, critical thinking and a code of atheist ethics. The film opens soon after the death of the children's mother, who recently left their encampment to get better treatment. In order to attend her funeral, the family has to travel to New Mexico, and reintegrate into society. There's an odd seduction to the world Ben creates for his family. In particular, the sense of first trying to divorce yourself from all of the trappings of societal norms, and once that's done, to raise your children in the best possible way. The film, then, becomes an exploration of how that philosophy is in direct conflict with the rest of the world. It's engaging as a road-trip movie, but it's more of a philosophical exploration. Each of the encounters and small events on the journey present another facet to this conflict. Maybe it's just me and my lefty-leaning ways, but it was very easy to take Cash's side in the conflict, even as you could see the difficulties this presents for his children interacting with the people of the “real" world. Mortensen is exceptionally good in the lead, but it's really an ensemble piece. George McKay as Bodevan, Ben's eldest son is another stand-out. And there's ample support in the later pieces from Frank Langella as Ben's father-in-law. Overall, it was a really engaging, and extremely thought-provoking film. It didn't make me immediately want to drive my wife and son to the hills to start living the Cashes' existence, but it did raise some interesting thoughts about instilling values in your children. A film that can affect your world-view is a powerful one.

8. Manchester By The Sea

I think I'm spending too long on these films, so I might take it easy here. This is a fine film, and in the best tradition of a film just telling a story in such a good way that it gets propelled to the Oscars. There's nothing particularly Oscar-baiting about this film, but it is undoubtedly the kind of film that often gets Oscar nods. Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is a custodian for a block of apartments in Boston, who gets called back to his hometown after his brother dies. Here he looks after his nephew (Lucas Hedges), and faces up to his past. It's a well-structured film, and everything is put in place very nicely. It's a good performance from Affleck (who I believe is still the front-runner to take out Best Actor), and Hedges provides a fine counterpoint. And the cinematography is particularly good: capturing very well the atmosphere of this seaside Massechusetts town. Definitely worth a look.

9. A Man Called Ove

I thought this film was going to be this year's bizarrely comic Scandinavian garbage (like The 100-Year Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window And Disappeared, which I hated). There is that sense of staid Swedish comic timing in the opening scenes, as we are introduced to Ove, a crotchety elderly resident of a Swedish housing estate. But while the film could have left him as an unsympathetic, blank mystery, it takes on the much more difficult task of showing us all the stories of his life that have brought him to this point. And in so doing, not only is there great empathy induced in us (to the point of great emotional upheaval), but the characterisation of the old man we see is perfectly wrought. Much of the success of the film comes from the performances, and both the old Ove (Rolf Lassgård) and the young Ove (Filip Berg) are excellent, with Berg putting in place all the sympathy we need for Lassgård's gravitas to drive home. It's a rare thing that a film so beautifully balances comedy and tragedy, but A Man Called Ove really manages it with finesse. Hannes Holm should take a bow.

10. Moonlight

A really great film, charting the life of a black man from childhood into early adulthood through three sections. In the first, the young Chiron (Alex Hibbert) is taken under the wing of a local drug dealer (Mahershala Ali), and provided with a kind of mentoring that has been missing from his life. In the second, the teenage Chiron (Ashton Sanders) struggles with bullying. And in the third, the now adult Chiron (Trevante Rhodes) reconnects with a friend from his past (Andre Holland). All of these vignettes are provided to explore an aspect of a young man's life, in particular highlighting the challenges faced by a person of colour. The fact that it doesn't go where you expect it to go, or where many genre films that look superficially the same would go, is where this film really stretches out into its own identity. It makes it feel warmly human and affecting in a way that many films fail. There are some elements of this film that I didn't like, however, which is why a film of this emotional power finds itself not at the very top of the list. For a start, the cinematography is done in the extremely offputting, shaky hand-held style, which proponents claim add immediacy, but which I think just makes for nausea and distraction. Indeed, in general there are a few things which seem to detract from the immersion of the film. Fortunately, it doesn't matter all that much due to the fact that the story is compelling enough in and of itself. So it's not without flaws, but it still stands tall as a truly excellent film. This must be seen as the front-runner to knock La La Land off for Best Picture, and while apparently the chances of this are sweet fuck-all, it is much, much more deserving of this honour.

11. Lion

A much more rigidly structured film than Moonlight, much more Oscar-baity, and nonetheless in some senses more enjoyable, Lion tells the remarkable true story of a young Indian boy separated from his family, who finds himself adopted by an Australian couple. The tale is told in two parts: first the young Saroo (Sunny Pawar) as he struggles to survive in Calcutta. Secondly, Saroo as a young man in Australia (Dev Patel) trying to search again for his birth family in India. Both parts are strong, but I found the first section particularly good, and the performance from young Sunny Pawar surprisingly mature. Patel is also good in the second part (and he does a surprisingly passable Australian accent), but the story of his life in Australia (especially his relationship with his girlfriend (Rooney Mara)) is less compelling, meaning that in the third quarter the film regresses to a simmer. I always find Nicole Kidman surprisingly inoffensive in film, given I don't think of her as an actress I particularly like, but I think here her Oscar nomination is a bit of a stretch. But in general, it's a very entertaining and genuinely crowd-pleasing film. It's in some ways a very safe film, which means that it never has the opportunities to really transcend its genesis. But it's a fine story, and it's put competently on screen by first-time director Garth Davis. A very long shot for Best Picture, but it would be a more worthy winner than others.

12. Hidden Figures

If there was an award for biggest Oscar-bait of the year, and La La Land wasn't for some reason in vogue, then Hidden Figures might well clean up. This is a very obviously structured film, but one with a great story to tell, and put together with enough verve to make up for its shortcomings. It tells the story of three black women working as mathematicians in NASA's offices in Virginia in the lead up to John Glenn's first orbit of Earth. This, at a time when racial segregation was still in place in the southern United States, Virginia included. The heart of this film lies in the performances from the three leads, Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monae and Octavia Spencer. Spencer is as good as always, and Henson competently provides a worthy central protagonist. But I found Janelle Monae to be the most compelling presence, and I think she can feel slighted not to get a nod for Best Supporting Actress. It's a fine film though, and it was thoroughly enjoyable throughout. Again, like Lion it was rather safe, but it did a good job with what it was attempting.

13. Sully

This should by all rights have been much lower on this list, but I genuinely found it enthralling, moving and very enjoyable, and a surprising return to form for Clint Eastwood, who has been in my bad books for his last few films. At the Oscars, it's only up for Best Sound Editing, however, but it's a good enough excuse to go watch what's a really good film anyway. It helps that, unlike a seemingly large swathe of film critics nowadays, I do rather like Tom Hanks, who is as solid and reassuring an actor as Chesley Sullenberger is a pilot. Here, he doesn't have to show the emotional range that he did in Captain Philips, but it's a very capable performance nonetheless, and no less entertaining for its subtlety. But the main attraction is the story: both Sully's amazing achievement in landing a plane in the Hudson River with no casualties, but the subsequent investigation. Both of these, Eastwood puts on the screen with consummate skill, in such a way that there's always tension and intrigue. It's something of a wonder to see, given I'd largely written off Eastwood after American Sniper. I'm pleased to see that he at least had a Sully left in him.

14. Zootopia

A very enjoyable animated film, with a solid political message under the surface. It follows the tale in the eponymous city of Zootopia of a young rabbit police officer (Ginnifer Goodwin) who teams up with a petty criminal fox (Jason Bateman) to unlock a city-wide conspiracy. The story is not the film's strength though, and neither is the visual style, which relies a little too much on a kind of jukebox/spin-the-wheel backdrop presto-chango that sees the protagonists traverse through a sequence of environments just as an excuse to give the latest snow or jungle foliage rendering a whirl. But where it is better is in the depiction of the threat of dictatorial tyrrany (sadly, something we need more than ever nowadays). The undertones of the film are much stronger than the colourful surface package, and that's the best part of the film. Where it has to rely on plot to progress the film though, it ends up being more of a disappointment.

15. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

A decent follow-up to the excellent Force Awakens, Rogue One details the events immediately preceding A New Hope, in particular, the efforts taken to obtain the stolen plans of the Death Star. This could easily have been done quite poorly in many ways, and could have felt superfluous or self-indulgent, so it's something of an achievement that it's as successful as it is. But the story is only so good, especially once you know where it's going (and you should, at least to some extent). There's a lot of tacked on plot-lines about the remnants of a Jedi subculture which perhaps broaden the canonical Star Wars universe, but which do little to help this particular film. But the ending had some clout, and adds additional gravitas to the original saga in a rather pleasing way. The characters are generally reasonably good, although the main character Jyn (Felicity Jones) is numbingly bland—to the extent that I honestly remember the film with a kind of blanked-out blind spot in the centre of it. Better is the support, in particular Diego Luna as Jyn's eventual offsider, and the always excellent Ben Mendelsohn. I didn't even mind Alan Tudyk's motion-capture turn as a reprogrammed Imperial droid, which others certainly did. The CGI Peter Cushing though is pure uncanny valley, and every moment he was on screen was slightly unnerving. Overall, I definitely enjoyed it. Moreover, it's a film with enough clout to ensure that the revamped Star Wars universe has momentum leading up to Episode VIII. And I'm certainly looking forward to that.

16. Doctor Strange

Another film that has absolutely no business being as high as this is Doctor Strange, which I found to be a really entertaining outing from the Marvel stable. The concept goes like this: a gifted but egotistical neurosurgeon (Benedict Cumberbatch) has a horrific (self-inflicted) car crash, and loses the ability to use his hands. In search of ever more esoteric cures for his injuries, he finds the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), who uses “magic" to protect the world from the non-physical threats, “in the same way the Avengers protect the world from physical threats". OK, nice way to weave this into the same universe at least. What this film is, first and foremost, is a visual spectacle. There's a reason this is up for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars. It's because the effects are genuinely a cut above almost everything else this year. Not only are they beautifully crafted, but they're visually inventive, in a way that makes you remember the spectacle of really good special effects before everything was just how many CPU cycles were used to render each strand of a character's hair. It helps as well that this film manages to assemble the likes of Cumberbatch, Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams and Mads Mikkelsen. It adds weight to a film that doesn't need it (and possibly doesn't warrant it), and yet you end up with this rare treat in having them all present for it. Overall, it's not a heavy-hitting film in terms of story or cultural impact, but it's hard to deny that it's a very successful one for a blockbuster comic book adaptation.

17. Toni Erdmann

Up for Best Foreign Language Film, Toni Erdmann revolves around a German woman Ines (Sandra Hüller) working as an executive in Romania, and the attempts by her estranged father (Peter Simonischek) to reconnect with her. When their initial time together is awkward and frosty, the father returns as his alter ego Toni Erdmann—complete with false overbite, bad wig and outgoing personality. Posing as a life coach for Ines's CEO boss, tacitly accepted as such by Ines, the two manage something of a shaky relationship as Ines struggles with the pressures of her job. It's an awkward film in many ways, but an intriguing one. Despite the rather comic premise, it's deeply depressing for large tracts of the film—and in particular, Ines's life is achingly unfulfilling. Early sequences between her and her father are also filled with that kind of teeth-clenching embarrassment that makes a film hard to sit through. Depending on which character you most identify with, it's likely either a similarly squirm-inducing experience, or a rollicking comic deconstruction of the business world. All of this is for a purpose though, and the ending is surprisingly and genuinely quite cathartic. It makes the rest of the film seem like it was worthwhile, even though I remembered the bulk of it as being rather unsettling to sit through. Due to the discomfort, I'm certainly less enthusiastic about the film as a whole, but by the end I could certainly see it as a worthwhile piece of cinema.

18. Allies

I'm going to skim this one. It wasn't a bad film, but it was done a deep disservice by the trailer, which gave away the major plot point of the film (which happens about 40m before the end, and sets up the great climax). The opening scenes were good though, but because we knew where it was going to end up, there's a little bit of “when are they going to get to the fireworks factory" to it. Marion Cotillard and Brad Pitt are serviceable enough to drive the film forward, and the production design and costuming is good (which is what it's up for at the Oscars). Not a huge standout though—it would have been better if I'd seen the trailer.

19. Fences

Denzel Washington's third film as director sees him square in front of the camera as well, as a blue-collar working man and the life he's carved out for himself and his wife (Viola Davis) in suburban Pittburgh. He seems a devoted husband and father, albeit one who drinks too much, and who seems to keep secrets. This film suffers severely from the fact that it's so obviously based on a stage play. It comes to the screen in such a way that's not nearly divorced enough from its genesis, so it feels rather like you're just watching a static stage from a series of different angles. Most of the action happens in the small, unfenced back yard of their home, and you can almost exactly see the way the set is constructed on the stage. It's also monumentally too long for what it is—running at well over two hours it feels every minute. And it's particularly galling at what's obviously the Act break in the stage production (where a nice drink in the lobby would have been very pleasant). But there's undeniably good things about this film. The two lead performances from Washington and Davis are superb, and they are both rightful nominees in their categories. Washington has a lot of dialogue in the film, and it's a hard-working effort even to put it on screen, but Viola Davis's character has a much better emotional journey, and she evokes a level of empathy that makes this really quite compelling. In the end, it's something of a product of its genesis. It's well done, but maybe it couldn't have really been done any differently without significantly changing the purpose and drive of the film. I'm not overly insulted that this has a Best Picture nomination, but I am a little surprised at it.

20. Kubo and the Two Strings

The studio that produced Kubo has done some good things recently, in particular Boxtrolls, which was my pick of Best Animated feature two years ago. And there's a reason why they're getting kudos, because films like that and Kubo and the Two Strings are good films which break out of the mould of the common animated fare. In Kubo, a young boy sets out on a mission to find his missing samurai father and defeat the evil spirit of the Moon King. It's all a bit Mystical Ethos for large parts, but it's a visual treat, both for the stop-motion animation and the fine integration of CG imagery. It's also inventive in a similar way to Doctor Strange, meaning that the visual effects are not just “a slightly better iteration of what we've seen before". With all of this, it can be something of a treat. While the main plot is not necessarily all that engaging, the emotional engagement of the characters is well-drawn, and it can be affecting at times. That's rare enough in this kind of film, and adds some much needed gravitas. Overall, it was decent enough as a film. I could easily believe that it might end up pipping Zootopia to my nod for Best Animated Feature (despite the fact it's lower on the list), due to its coherence as a package.

21. Star Trek Beyond

Eh. I'm going to skim review this one as well. It's another Star Trek film, but noticeably better than the second one at least. I feel this is at least partially due to the fact that Simon Pegg co-wrote this, and there's a level of knowing comedy that elevates this to some degree. It's entertaining, and there's something now comforting about this crew of the Enterprise in a way that the first one felt jarring and inappropriate.

22. Loving

Here's perhaps the first film on this list that was something of a disappointment to me. This is by no means a bad film, as it strings together the tale of Richard and Mildred Loving (Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga), and interracial couple who became the test case for mixed-race marriage in the United States. But it's also a film by Jeff Nichols, who has done phenomenal work in the past, and who doesn't match that with this rather staid and understated film. To some extent, however, Loving is specifically designed to be staid and understated. This is, after all, just a story of two regular people who are in love and who want to live, married, in peace. The film becomes a study in this regular life—there's nothing extraordinary about that. But once you get that message, it leaves the film itself underwhelming as well. Ruth Negga, however, is a real bright spot. Understated as the film demands, her portrayal of Mildred Loving is careful, particular and strong. Edgerton is serviceable, but can't match Negga, and it shows to some extent. But it's a good film all up. There's just something so flat about it that it has a hard time really attracting attention to itself, and by the end of the film I could say with absolute certainty “that was a good film". I just could muster much passion for doing so.

23. Moana

I'll skim this film, if you don't mind. It's a fine Disney film, and put together with really quite pleasing visuals. In particular, they've clearly put a lot of CPU cycles into the rendering of water, given the large proportion of this film is set on the ocean. And the songs are decent enough, composed as they are by Lin-Manuel Miranda. He may we get (and may well deserve) his EGOT for this film. Overall, it was only so good in the end, but it wasn't offensive or otherwise underwhelming.

24. Deepwater Horizon

I'm going to skim this one too, although it's not a bad film, encompassing the events leading up to the explosion and eventual leak of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform. There's something quite engaging about the early scenes as we watch with a sense of impending doom all of the complex, finely-tuned machinery, knowing what will eventually happen. It's less interesting later once the explosion happens and it becomes something like Titanic-but-with-more-oil-fires. But in the end, it's a relatively coherent tale, that's also interesting intrinsically.

25. The Jungle Book

A decent enough, but very lightweight excursion in turning Disney's classic animated feature into a green-screen affair. There's something a little bit bizarre about moving the canonically cartoonish animal characters into the realm of the hyper-real, especially as an outwardly convincing bear character starts crooning along to “The Bare Necessities". The lead actor is strong enough to largely carry the film at least. And the visual effects were relatively well done (at least to the extent that they didn't include a creepy CGI Peter Cushing), which is what it's up for. So kudos for that.

26. Passengers

By all rights, this should be well lower down on the list than this. Because this is a film with a deep, horrifically troubling flaw in its central concept. I'd heard the concept of this film, and had taken it this way: Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence awake from hibernation far too early on what should be a hundred year journey to another star system. As they try to work out what to do with themselves, and to discover why they were mistakenly awakened early it becomes clear that in fact Pratt's character woke up first, and then purposely awoke Lawrence's character thereby condemning her to a life of isolation as well. Indeed, the fact that I knew this made me feel as though I'd effectively been spoiled for the big plot twist. So much to my dismay and horror, I discovered that in fact, Pratt is the protagonist of the film, and we are meant to feel for him to such a degree that we empathise with his decision to destroy another life. It's a mind-bogglingly stupid conceit for the film, and it makes much of the main plot actively offensive. So why is it not lower? It's because so very many of the aspects of this film otherwise are extremely good. The world-building of the universe in which they live is done with extreme care, and to such an extent that it's thoroughly engaging. The production design is beautiful and incorporates little details so well to create a sense of immersive atmosphere. The score is brilliantly evocative, capturing both the isolation and the scope of being alone in space. It's as though some idiot came up with a plot, more idiots jumped on board to produce it, and get it an impressive budget, and then every single one of the creatives decided they were going to pour their heart and soul into the film, even though it didn't warrant it. This is the sort of film that a production designer should be proud to have on their resume, and the sort of film a producer might stare back on years later with bleary eyes and go “what was I thinking?".

27. Hacksaw Ridge

I'm actually pretty surprised that this is up for so many awards. I feel like it doesn't pleasantly fit into a niche, and not in the way that a transgressive film can push the boundaries. It's a war film, but it's also a film filled with religious zealotry. And it overdoses on both elements to such an extent that I can feel as though it alienates a large proportion of the people who might otherwise enjoy it. Because it's really quite gruesome, and shows the horrors of war to such an extent that it starts to feel exploitative. But it's also sancitmonious to such a degree that it almost makes you want to vomit. It tells of Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield), a conscientious objector in the Second World War, who refuses to carry a weapon due to his Seventh-Day Adventist faith, but manages to become a hero in the battle of Hacksaw Ridge nonetheless. Andrew Garfield is convincing in his role, but this largely just means that you're convinced you want to punch this guy in the head. I was put offside early enough that by the time he started his selfless attempts to rescue his wounded comrades, it felt more self-indulgent to me. Gibson's direction is partially to blame for all of this. There's a dichotomous nature to the film which is never reconciled, and it makes the whole film feel extremely awkward and unsettling. The fact that he's up for Best Director is perhaps one of the biggest reasons to raise an eyebrow this year. So, I'm not a fan, in short.

28. Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them

Yeah, I'll skim this one too. It was fine, and it had a nice sense of place, and a nice sense that it was expanding the Harry Potter universe, which I have no problem with. But I hate Eddie Redmayne, and this has him at his peak. It also had a little bit too much of J. K. Rowling's “oh This Thing feels like a cute concept so I'll put it in without at all thinking through any of the implications of This Thing existing in the wizarding universe". So… eh.

29. Elle

Elle tells the tale of a video game company executive (Isabelle Huppert), who, in the opening scene, we see brutally raped, and who then appears to just get on with her life as though nothing has happened. It's a hard sell as a film, but at the very least we know from the very beginning what we're getting ourselves in for. In this film, we see Paul Verhoeven (of Starship Troopers fame) in his very best impersonation of Michael Haneke, and falling very much short of a plausible caricature. Because there's something genuinely nasty in this film, in a way that feels a little bit like Verhoeven is getting his jollies from making us watch this. There's a severity and a satire to even the most exploitative elements of Haneke's oeuvre which is entirely absent here, and it makes the film feel deeply unpleasant. Huppert (up for Best Actress) is good enough in the role, but she feels very much as though she's just doing a reprisal of The Piano Teacher without the guidance of Haneke, and fails to sell this as a tale of transgressive sexuality. She does well to rein in her performance as much as she does, but not enough to warrant an Oscar nomination here. In the end, this was really just quite a mess, and it feels more like an ego trip for Verhoeven. Hi might be thinking he's doing a prestige film, but in reality, it's Basic Instinct with the chocks off, and guided into the realm of the unpleasantly perverse.

30. Florence Foster Jenkins

A solid-enough bio-pic, with enough of a surprising edge to give it some frank comedy. Telling the story of the titular wealthy patroness to the arts (Meryl Streep), and her oblivious attempts at performing opera, there's plenty of scope for a very reasonable period piece. And it delivers there. It's decent, and it does what it promises. There's some interesting ensemble support, in particular from Hugh Grant as Jenkins' husband-or-is-he, and Simon Helberg as her accompanist. Helberg in particular is great in a character role, and fits in beautifully into the film. But the film as a whole is almost exactly what you should expect. There's no corners at all, no unexpected digressions or characterisations, and as a result it feels a little bland as a whole. It's also getting tiresome that Meryl Streep gets an Oscar nomination for just showing up on time. Yes, she's a good actress. We get it. This particular performance from her though is nothing out of the ordinary. So overall, I'm mixed. It's not a bad film, but it's also not an exceptional film either. That seems to be what we get from Streep, nowadays.

31. Life, Animated

A thoroughly underwhelming documentary about a subject that genuinely could have been terribly engaging. It follows the story of Owen Suskind, diagnosed with severe autism at age 3, who learns to interact with the world through his love of Disney animated films. The main issue with this film is that it has almost no structure or drive to it. It picks up at a seemingly arbitrary point in Owen's life, as he's preparing to leave school and branch out into the wider world. But it also looks backwards at his story so far in a kind of haphazard way. The emotional impact of the film is lost to a large extent due to this lack of focus. It's a shame because there's considerable promise in the subject matter, and Owen himself is a fascinating and genuinely engaging character. I was more disappointed than anything in the fact that the film squanders its opportunities.

32. La La Land

Oh Damien Chazelle. I'm so disappointed in you. Whiplash was my very top film of 2014, and I honestly couldn't wait to see what he did next. And it's such a shame that what he chose to do with all the skill clearly at his disposal is a very weak attempt to revamp the classic Hollywood musical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't at all mind a good musical. But the thing about seeing someone like Gene Kelly or Ginger Rogers on screen is that they're good at what they do. They're singers, they're dancers, they're entertainers. Ryan Gosling is a fine actor, but he's no singer, and and even less a dancer. Emma Stone is a passable actor, marginally better at singing than Gosling, and severely hampered in her dancing by her partner. It doesn't matter what the story is (although it's weak), this is a film that must live and die on its musical numbers, and they are just not good enough (with the exception being the opening sequence on the LA highways—which, surprise surprise, Gosling and Stone are not part of). As a result, the whole film feels pointless—if you're going to revamp the musical, do it right. This was, honestly, just a waste of potential from all fronts. My only hope is that this pulls an American Hustle, and by the time the voting has been done, everyone in the Academy pulls their head out of their ass and realises what they've done wrong in nominating this for so many awards.

33. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

When I was sorting this list, I genuinely came up against the very difficult task of separating this film and Oscars frontrunner La La Land. That says much more about La La Land than it does about this film, which was always going to be something of a struggle. Telling the story of the attacks on the US Consulate and CIA base in Benghazi, Libya (a favoured topic of attack by Republicans against Hillary Clinton), and directed by noted Hollywood dildo Michael Bay, this was a firm candidate to be my worst film of the year. And yet here it is, dangling some 10 places above the bottom spot. How did it get up here? Mostly, it comes from the fact that there's a persistent sense of energy in this film. From the start to the end, if there's not action on screen, there's the tension of potential action. There's the feeling that something is about to happen—maybe it's a lull in the battle, maybe it's a feeling of electricity between the Libyan locals and the US security contractors, or maybe it's the tension between the C.I.A. operatives trying to do their jobs and the personnel trying to protect their safety. It makes for a visceral experience at the very least. However, it will never cease to amaze me how easy it seems to be for Michael Bay to make films exceptionally boring. While the action sequences are well handled, and the mood of impending doom is maintained throughout the picture, there's almost no sense of plot that takes hold at all. It means that I wasn't engaged in what was happening to these characters at all (indeed, it doesn't help that all of the muscle-bound security personnel are almost identical). So in the end, while this was probably better than I was expecting, there was also just too much of the bad elements to truly transcend its genesis.

34. Tanna

There isn't a huge amount to say or to unpack from this film. Set and filmed on a Vanuatuan island, and scripted in the native language, it follows the tale of two star-crossed lovers who are arranged to be married to others in different tribes. When they try to go against the traditions of their people it causes turmoil. It's an underwhelming film in many ways, and relies almost entirely on the fact that it's filmed with members of the native tribes and in the native language for its novelty. As such, it feels more like a gimmick than anything else, especially because there's not much to the story. I will say at least that it's novel to have an Australian film nominated for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars, but thats about as far as my love of Tanna goes.

35. Fire At Sea

An extremely underwhelming documentary, that loses focus due to attempting to conflate two prongs of a story that aren't all that connected in a narrative sense. It follows life on a small Italian island, and in particular, focuses on the young children who call it home, and contrasts this with the lives of refugees rescued from boats by the local authorities offshore. In theory it should be an interesting proposition, but the film is really lacking in substance, and showing the plight of the refugees, as terrible as it is, is not itself enough to carry the film. By contrast, the lives on the island seem banal, obviously intended as a poignant counterpoint—but given the film itself is already lacking in interest, it just feels as though these additional scenes drag out the film to longer and more extreme lengths of ennui. I didn't much enjoy this when I saw it at the Sydney Film Festival this year, and lo and behold, it's languishing near the bottom of the ratings in my Oscars write-up. The fact that it got to the Oscars at all is probably the thing that puzzles me.

36. Trolls

Meh. Going to skim this one for sure. An animated film, not up for Best Animated Feature, which is not a good sign. It's also rather cynically built around a line of toys, without the joy that came with the Lego Movie. It's up for Best Song, and perhaps only because the song was co-written by Justin Timberlake. But all the songs have a similar, over-produced pop vibe to them, which feels like the story stringing them all together is peripheral at best. Not a pick.

37. The Red Turtle

This one is up for Best Animated Feature, and it's genuinely pretty dull. It tells the tale of a shipwrecked sailor and the life he makes for himself on an island. It's produced by Studio Ghibli (although directed by a Dutch director), which of course means that it's beautifully animated. But in the tradition of certain Ghibli films, it can be excessively dull as well. The beauty doesn't save it, and the dialogue-free story has only enough interest to perhaps warrant a 20 minute short animation. Again, this is one that tested my patience to some degree.

38. Hail, Caesar!

This film was a monumental mess—a grab bag of different cast members and storylines that came together to make nothing more coherent than three different meals thrown in a pile on the floor. Ostensibly about the star of a Ben Hur-esque epic (George Clooney) being kidnapped and held for ransom to the studio, it's actually about 8 different interleaved plots of various value, and a wide-ranging cast that look like they don't much know what they're doing. The Coen brothers have done some good things in their career, but this is not one of them. I'll admit, however, that I'm often out of step with the consensus on Coen Brothers films. No Country For Old Men is also one of their weaker efforts as far as I'm concerned, and others I find certainly underrated (like Burn After Reading and Inside Llewyn Davis). So it's entirely possible that someone else found something to enjoy in this (beside Channing Tatum's dance sequence, which, while good, just further underlined the fact that the film as a whole was incoherent). For me, I'm deeply unimpressed, and I'll head to the next Coen Brothers film with a sense of trepidation. Fortunately, it's time for another darker turn from the duo, and that's often where the good stuff lies.

39. Silence

Monumentally too long, morally questionable and rife with glorification of Western imperialism, Silence was a genuinely pretty awful film. Running at almost three hours in length, we're treated to a hefty discourse on the barbarism of the Japanese meted out on the Portuguese missionaries proselytising Christianity in the 17th century. It follows two missionaries (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver), who attempt to find their former mentor and priest (Liam Neeson), who rumour has it has renounced Christianity and now lives as a Japanese. Along the way, we're treated to the honour in which Christian priests are bestowed by the (now hidden and secretive) Christian populations of Japan, in a bizarre sense of justifying what was in essence an attempt at cultural genocide. It's all to easy to try to read another meaning into Martin Scorsese's work here. To look for the parallels, perhaps, in the way Western countries are now spurning multiculturalism. But I think it's equally easy to see this as a film of faith for Scorsese, and in that way it becomes really quite troubling. The story, such that it is, is also not that good, and has about enough content for a 90 minute film. Indeed, much of the film, especially in the early segments, seems to underline the idea that this is a film vaunting Christianity, rather than questioning its presence in late feudal Japan. In all, I found this a genuinely unpleasant film in many ways, and not least because of the fact that it was 161 minutes of numbing boredom.

40. Jim: The James Foley Story

Another documentary, but this one up for the always wacky category of Best Song. Jim follows the story of James Foley, famous for being the first western journalist executed by Daesh/ISIS. It investigates his life leading to him becoming a freelance journalist, and the decisions he made in going to Syria that led to his eventual capture. It's an extremely partisan documentary—which here we can forgive to some extent because the other side is the world's leading terrorist organisation—that canonises Foley before we're given the chance to really form an opinion ourselves. It might be just me, but that really makes me resistant in the first place, but it becomes clear as the film continues that Foley was something of a fool, taking unnecessary risks and justifying them as some great necessity in the pursuit of journalistic truth. Part of this bias comes from the fact that most of the story is told by Foley's family members, who certainly put a sympathetic angle on the tale. This is followed up be fellow freelance journalists, who routinely take similar risks, and his fellow captors who ended up being released from an ISIS prison camp. Towards the end of the film, there's a half-hearted attempt to piece together an investigation into whether the US did enough to secure Foley's release—but the investigation, like the negotiations, it seems, stalled, leaving an unsatisfying number of unanswered questions. All up, it's not a good documentary by a long shot. And the song (which I note is only used over the credits) is mediocre fare from Sting. I'm disappointed on both fronts that it was nominated for an Oscar, both for the song, and for the fact that it meant I felt compelled to watch the documentary as a result.

41. Jackie

Honestly, this film was just utterly, utterly boring. And when it wasn't boring, it was only because there was a kind of horrified fascination with Natalie Portman's caricatured portrayal of Jackie Kennedy in the period following her husband assassination. Although, it's not just set in that period. It plays free with time, jumping around wherever it sees fit, loosely connected by a rather bizarre restaging of a television special Jackie Kennedy did showing the audience around the internals of the White House. It's structurally unsound, and there was always the feeling the whole superstructure could come crashing down at any moment. There were some good things in the film: the score was otherworldly on its own, and made for a really fine set of music that just had no place in this film. And the production design, costuming and the sense of time and place was well created. It's something that director Pablo Larraín has done to much better effect in his breakthrough film No, though. Now it feels a little like it's just been rehashed. But mostly, I just found the film to be excessively dull. I cared not a fig for anyone in the film, even as far as seeing them as interesting characters. They were dull cutouts, lacking in warmth and humanity, and even if there was a story, it was so completely fractured and sliced into pieces as to lack all coherence. A worthy spot in second bottom place.

42. Suicide Squad

I see a lot of films. Quite aside from my perennial Oscars binge, I make an effort to see a large volume of contemporary films, films from the cinema parthenon, classics and trash, the good and the bad. It's a hobby that I dive into with my trademark obsessive zeal. So keep all of this in mind when I say that of all the films I have ever seen in my entire life, Suicide Squad is the worst. That's hopefully quite a statement, and I intend it to be, but it requires some backing up. What is it that makes this film worse than any other? After all, I've seen abominations like Tommy Wiseau's anti-classic The Room. And the answer is manifold. For a start, it's an absolute train-wreck of a mess concept-wise. It lacks coherence in even its basic premise, which revolves around a group of criminals with superpowers somehow becoming the United States' first line of defense against Superman. Viola Davis (what the absolute shit is she doing in this movie?) plays a government something who convinces some other government something that this is a good idea. We're introduced, in slapdash, comic-book style, to about three of these criminals, and they're assembled, along with maybe two or three others who appear from nowhere without any explanation. Oh, and then there's a samurai woman who appears, and is meant to be keeping an eye on the criminals. But it's not really explained what she's doing there at all. All of the members of the squad (I don't think they're ever referred to by the title of the film, but I can imagine Harley Quinn doing a sneaky wink at the camera as she says the name of the film, so maybe they are) are kept in check by having an explosive planted in their brain, necessitating some dude following them into battle holding a laptop so he can blow them up if they get out of line. And then, for no apparent reason at all, there's the Joker. Famously played by a peak-Method Jared Leto (who reportedly spent the shoot sending used condoms to his fellow cast members), he's laughably un-sinister and incessantly banal. He's not part of any discernible plot at all, and seems to be merely a cynical exercise in setting up some future Affleck-fronted Batman film. Or something. Even that is perhaps putting too much credit on whoever vomited up the concept of this film. There's a weird sense that they made the film, realised it was too dark, and tried to lighten it up, with awkwardly delivered one-liners ejactulated onto the screen between scenes of utter banality. It made me laugh in incredulity, which is probably not what they were going for—although who knows what the producers of this film were going for. Certainly not the producers of this film. The fight scenes are utterly incoherent, and there's a weird obsession with filling them with a kind of strafing pink tracer fire which almost sent me into sensory shock (perhaps that would have been preferable to sitting through them). And they're so mind-numbingly over complicated that I honestly can't even recall what most of the characters superpowers were meant to be. Will Smith was in this film, and I think he was good at guns. Some other dude had a magical boomerang. One character could urinate lemonade or something. I swear this movie made me stupider. I could go on—but much as I want to dedicate my life to eviscerating this… thing… whatever it was, I've already wasted enough time and energy on it. Suffice it to say: what the absolute fuck were you thinking Everyone Involved In The Making Of This Film. There is absolutely no way anyone could have seen the finished product and said “Good, that's what we wanted". I can only believe they just got to the point where they were so completely sick of dealing with it any more that they just went “screw it: release it, do something to it, just get it the fuck away from me." But please keep it the fuck away from me as well.

For the record, Jackie, my second bottom film of the Oscars was at least 10 times better than Suicide Squad. In general, the standard was good this year. Or at least, good if you exclude Suicide Squad which has the unfortunate property of dragging everything else in its vicinity down with it. I also this year watched all but one of the short films. This is always a thoroughly worthwhile experience, and this year continued the trend. I'm not going to write them up, but in order, this is how they would rank for me:

Timecode (Live Action)

Pear Cider & Cigarettes (Animated)

Silent Nights (Live Action)

Pearl (Animated)

Joe's Violin (Documentary)

Mindenki (Sing) (Live Action)

Extremis (Documentary)

Piper (Animated)

Borrowed Time (Animated)

Enemies Within (Live Action)

The White Helmets (Documentary)

4.1 Miles (Documentary)

Le Femme et le TGV (Live Action)

All of these were worth watching, and I thoroughly recommend that you do. Watching the short films is honestly one of the most fulfilling parts of my Oscars project each year. All that's left now is for me to cast my ballot. Sadly, although I'm now a full voting member of the Academy, I believe I probably had to have these votes in a long time ago, and probably in a more official form than jezfletcher.tumblr.com. So it's likely that these votes won't count: Best Picture: Hell or High Water Best Director: Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) Best Actor: Casey Affleck (Manchester By The Sea) Best Actress: Ruth Negga (Loving) Best Supporting Actor: Michael Shannon (Nocturnal Animals) Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis (Fences) Best Original Screenplay: The Lobster Best Adapted Screenplay: Arrival Best Animated Feature: Kubo & The Two Strings Best Foreign Language Film: Land of Mine Best Documentary Feature: 13th Best Documentary Short: Joe's Violin Best Animated Short: Pear Cider & Cigarettes Best Live Action Short: Timecode Best Original Score: Jackie Best Original Song: "How Far I'll Go" from Moana Best Sound Editing: Arrival Best Sound Mixing: Arrival Best Production Design: Passengers Best Cinematography: Arrival Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Star Trek Beyond Best Costume Design: Jackie Best Film Editing: Hell or High Water Best Visual Effects: Doctor Strange And would you know my second bottom film gets two votes. How about that.

[circle111e-blog]

From Groundhog Day to Raging Bull? films to inspire and uplift

Supposedly inspirational films tend to leave our critic reaching for the sick bag. He finds defeated boxers, desperate weathermen and boozy, cantankerous widowers far more uplifting

Can films be inspirational? Well, the good ones all are. And, in a broader sense, going to the cinema is a narcotic, luxurious experience that makes you feel inspired, uplifted and stimulated. But when people talk about inspirational films underdogs achieving spectacular sporting success, charismatic teachers winning over pupils, people overcoming disabilities I am sometimes a bit agnostic. An inspirational film often feels soupy and syrupy, schematic and cliched, faintly coercive and reactionary. Inspirational means aspirational, no arguments and it brings out my ironic, grumpy Brit. When Im asked for my favourite inspirational scene, I nominate Tom Courtenays final, miserable act of defiance in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner.

One movie that was lauded as inspirational, The Blind Side, features Sandra Bullock in an Oscar-winning performance as a well-to-do Christian Republican mom in the Sarah Palin mould. She takes in a troubled African American teen and helps mould him into a top football player. This was a huge hit in 2009, with great swathes of America undoubtedly deeming it to be inspirational (perhaps the inspirational movie is itself an American genre). Personally, I felt it unwise to leave the sick bag beyond arms length. The same goes, incidentally, for Clint Eastwoods terrible Invictus, about the South African Springboks earnest battle for the 1995 Rugby World Cup, under the kindly eye of Nelson Mandela.

Keep the sick bag handy The Blind Side. Photograph: Allstar/Warner/Sportsphoto

I like Rocky as much as anyone, but Im quite sure Raging Bull, with its dark, mysterious poetry of defeat and survival, is in a different weight class. And there is something inspiring in the final audacious quotation from the Gospel of St John: All I know is this: once I was blind and now I can see.

Yet sometimes films are genuinely inspirational, specifically because they dont indulge irony or nuance (it could be that inspirational, like comedy or romcom, is a genre that isnt critically acceptable). I have a soft spot for that fierce heartwarmer, The Pursuit of Happyness, directed by the Italian master of dolce, Gabriele Muccino, and starring Will Smith. It is a true story about a guy called Chris Gardner who once faced poverty as a jobless single dad, got an unpaid internship at a prestigious firm, and had to keep up appearances alongside the pampered yuppies competing for a permanent job, while he and his son slept in hostels or even subway toilets.

Yes, its treacly and unashamedly premised on the idea of material success, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But its forthright and well made. It doesnt exactly inspire you, but it is touching and successful in its sentimental-euphoric inspirational mode. In this vein, I have to give credit to a sweet and good-natured movie based on a true story: October Sky, with Jake Gyllenhaal as a grim-faced coalminers son who is inspired by Russias Sputnik to go into rocket science when he leaves school.

The King of Inspirational Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. Photograph: Moviestore/Rex Shutterstock

As for the inspirational-teacher films such as Good Will Hunting and Dead Poets Society, again I am agnostic. They garnered a lot of awards-season euphoria, but I am not sure they have aged well. They certainly show that Robin Williams was the King of Inspirational, in the same way you might call Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly the King of Song and Dance. Something in his hyperactive funniness vulnerable, secretly wounded, dripping with empathy, morally strong made him the incarnation of inspirational: the teacher figure who wasnt distant or fierce, but often a kind of rocket-fuelled version of the class clown who was on the kids side. Williams did this so well that he was never quite convincing in the darker roles he tried at the end of his career.

Laurent Cantets Entre Les Murs (The Class) is a French film about a tough inner-city school. Maybe its too tough to count as inspirational, although its seriousness is inspiring in a way as is the final, enigmatically moving shot of the empty classroom. And a mention should go to Goodbye, Mr Chips, the 1939 version, with Robert Donat as the much-loved public schoolmaster who teaches generations of boys right in the decades leading up to the first world war; despite his own poignantly short and childless marriage, he thinks of all these boys as his children. Goodbye, Mr Chips is an example of how the inspirational movie is a cousin to the weepie.

Where inspirational triangulates with the weepie and the Christmas film James Stewart in Its a Wonderful Life

Its a Wonderful Life deserves a kind of peripheral inclusion here, for being where inspirational triangulates with the weepie and the Christmas film. Part of the agenda of the sentimental Christmas movie is to inspire characters and audience to lead better lives. That is very much the point of Frank Capras celebrated work, in which George Bailey is shown a vision (not dissimilar to those vouchsafed to Scrooge) of what his hometown would have been like if he had not sacrificed his own ambitions to help the community.

Just as inspirational and brilliant is Harold Ramiss Groundhog Day. Bill Murrays misanthropic weatherman is trapped in a repeating day, made to go through it again and again, and inspect his own life in all the detail he had arrogantly ignored, with an infinite amount of time to acquaint himself with every square millimetre of the hokey small town he had presumed to despise. He becomes a better person, but the films own comic miracle is that it doesnt labour this point, despite Murrays hilariously laborious ordeal, or even make it explicit. And I think that is inspirational.

Self-fulfilment We Are The Best!

But for me, the one genre I find really and truly inspirational without having to claim it as a guilty pleasure is any film about people forming bands at school. Movies such as John Carneys Sing Street and Lukas Moodysons We Are the Best! are genuinely inspirational because they are about self-betterment and self-fulfilment, in their way, but no one is telling the pupil musicians they have to do it to get good grades or be a more responsible person.

In fact, the grownup world is usually frowning at the whole idea of being in something as disreputable as a pop group. So there is something entrepreneurial, creative and rebellious about it. Under this heading, I would also include Good Vibrations, an excellent film about Terri Hooley, the record shop owner who nurtured Belfasts punk scene and brought the Undertones to the world.

Isolating a moment of inspiration in a film is an interesting challenge. Alexander Paynes About Schmidt is a relentlessly dark film on the painful theme of family dysfunction. Jack Nicholsons performance is dyspeptic and despairing: his face (like Paul Giamattis in Sideways or Bruce Derns in Nebraska) is on the point of becoming an immobile mask of disappointment or despair. Yet every time I see him burst into tears at his letter from the little African boy, I find the moment euphoric and, yes, sort of inspirational. There is something irresistible in the possibility of Schmidts redemption, even in its broad implausibility. So maybe About Schmidt is my favourite motivational film.

More uplifting culture for 2017

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/01/from-groundhog-day-to-raging-bull-films-to-inspire-and-uplift

The post From Groundhog Day to Raging Bull? films to inspire and uplift appeared first on The Indie Music Hub.

[circle111g-blog]

From Groundhog Day to Raging Bull? films to inspire and uplift

Supposedly inspirational films tend to leave our critic reaching for the sick bag. He finds defeated boxers, desperate weathermen and boozy, cantankerous widowers far more uplifting

Can films be inspirational? Well, the good ones all are. And, in a broader sense, going to the cinema is a narcotic, luxurious experience that makes you feel inspired, uplifted and stimulated. But when people talk about inspirational films underdogs achieving spectacular sporting success, charismatic teachers winning over pupils, people overcoming disabilities I am sometimes a bit agnostic. An inspirational film often feels soupy and syrupy, schematic and cliched, faintly coercive and reactionary. Inspirational means aspirational, no arguments and it brings out my ironic, grumpy Brit. When Im asked for my favourite inspirational scene, I nominate Tom Courtenays final, miserable act of defiance in The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner.

One movie that was lauded as inspirational, The Blind Side, features Sandra Bullock in an Oscar-winning performance as a well-to-do Christian Republican mom in the Sarah Palin mould. She takes in a troubled African American teen and helps mould him into a top football player. This was a huge hit in 2009, with great swathes of America undoubtedly deeming it to be inspirational (perhaps the inspirational movie is itself an American genre). Personally, I felt it unwise to leave the sick bag beyond arms length. The same goes, incidentally, for Clint Eastwoods terrible Invictus, about the South African Springboks earnest battle for the 1995 Rugby World Cup, under the kindly eye of Nelson Mandela.

Keep the sick bag handy The Blind Side. Photograph: Allstar/Warner/Sportsphoto

I like Rocky as much as anyone, but Im quite sure Raging Bull, with its dark, mysterious poetry of defeat and survival, is in a different weight class. And there is something inspiring in the final audacious quotation from the Gospel of St John: All I know is this: once I was blind and now I can see.

Yet sometimes films are genuinely inspirational, specifically because they dont indulge irony or nuance (it could be that inspirational, like comedy or romcom, is a genre that isnt critically acceptable). I have a soft spot for that fierce heartwarmer, The Pursuit of Happyness, directed by the Italian master of dolce, Gabriele Muccino, and starring Will Smith. It is a true story about a guy called Chris Gardner who once faced poverty as a jobless single dad, got an unpaid internship at a prestigious firm, and had to keep up appearances alongside the pampered yuppies competing for a permanent job, while he and his son slept in hostels or even subway toilets.

Yes, its treacly and unashamedly premised on the idea of material success, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But its forthright and well made. It doesnt exactly inspire you, but it is touching and successful in its sentimental-euphoric inspirational mode. In this vein, I have to give credit to a sweet and good-natured movie based on a true story: October Sky, with Jake Gyllenhaal as a grim-faced coalminers son who is inspired by Russias Sputnik to go into rocket science when he leaves school.

The King of Inspirational Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. Photograph: Moviestore/Rex Shutterstock

As for the inspirational-teacher films such as Good Will Hunting and Dead Poets Society, again I am agnostic. They garnered a lot of awards-season euphoria, but I am not sure they have aged well. They certainly show that Robin Williams was the King of Inspirational, in the same way you might call Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly the King of Song and Dance. Something in his hyperactive funniness vulnerable, secretly wounded, dripping with empathy, morally strong made him the incarnation of inspirational: the teacher figure who wasnt distant or fierce, but often a kind of rocket-fuelled version of the class clown who was on the kids side. Williams did this so well that he was never quite convincing in the darker roles he tried at the end of his career.

Laurent Cantets Entre Les Murs (The Class) is a French film about a tough inner-city school. Maybe its too tough to count as inspirational, although its seriousness is inspiring in a way as is the final, enigmatically moving shot of the empty classroom. And a mention should go to Goodbye, Mr Chips, the 1939 version, with Robert Donat as the much-loved public schoolmaster who teaches generations of boys right in the decades leading up to the first world war; despite his own poignantly short and childless marriage, he thinks of all these boys as his children. Goodbye, Mr Chips is an example of how the inspirational movie is a cousin to the weepie.

Where inspirational triangulates with the weepie and the Christmas film James Stewart in Its a Wonderful Life

Its a Wonderful Life deserves a kind of peripheral inclusion here, for being where inspirational triangulates with the weepie and the Christmas film. Part of the agenda of the sentimental Christmas movie is to inspire characters and audience to lead better lives. That is very much the point of Frank Capras celebrated work, in which George Bailey is shown a vision (not dissimilar to those vouchsafed to Scrooge) of what his hometown would have been like if he had not sacrificed his own ambitions to help the community.

Just as inspirational and brilliant is Harold Ramiss Groundhog Day. Bill Murrays misanthropic weatherman is trapped in a repeating day, made to go through it again and again, and inspect his own life in all the detail he had arrogantly ignored, with an infinite amount of time to acquaint himself with every square millimetre of the hokey small town he had presumed to despise. He becomes a better person, but the films own comic miracle is that it doesnt labour this point, despite Murrays hilariously laborious ordeal, or even make it explicit. And I think that is inspirational.

Self-fulfilment We Are The Best!

But for me, the one genre I find really and truly inspirational without having to claim it as a guilty pleasure is any film about people forming bands at school. Movies such as John Carneys Sing Street and Lukas Moodysons We Are the Best! are genuinely inspirational because they are about self-betterment and self-fulfilment, in their way, but no one is telling the pupil musicians they have to do it to get good grades or be a more responsible person.

In fact, the grownup world is usually frowning at the whole idea of being in something as disreputable as a pop group. So there is something entrepreneurial, creative and rebellious about it. Under this heading, I would also include Good Vibrations, an excellent film about Terri Hooley, the record shop owner who nurtured Belfasts punk scene and brought the Undertones to the world.

Isolating a moment of inspiration in a film is an interesting challenge. Alexander Paynes About Schmidt is a relentlessly dark film on the painful theme of family dysfunction. Jack Nicholsons performance is dyspeptic and despairing: his face (like Paul Giamattis in Sideways or Bruce Derns in Nebraska) is on the point of becoming an immobile mask of disappointment or despair. Yet every time I see him burst into tears at his letter from the little African boy, I find the moment euphoric and, yes, sort of inspirational. There is something irresistible in the possibility of Schmidts redemption, even in its broad implausibility. So maybe About Schmidt is my favourite motivational film.

More uplifting culture for 2017

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/01/from-groundhog-day-to-raging-bull-films-to-inspire-and-uplift

The post From Groundhog Day to Raging Bull? films to inspire and uplift appeared first on The Indie Music Hub.