#oscarpredictions2020

[ryanjdonovan]

Donovan's Oscar Prognostication 2020

Pablo Picasso said, "The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls." I'm sure all of this year's Academy Award nominees believe he was talking about them specifically. The same cannot be said, however, of this excruciatingly long and dull article. It'll put that dust right back all over your soul. So sit back, relax, pop some trucker pills, and prepared to be bored stiff with my 21st annual Oscar predictions.

BEST PICTURE:

SHOULD WIN: 1917 WILL WIN: 1917 GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Downton Abbey INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Knives Out

In a year when all the acting races were decided before New Year's, the Best Picture category may have one of the few chances for a surprise. At least three movies (or five, depending on who you ask) have a shot to win: 1917, Parasite, and Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood (plus The Irishman and Joker). But if you like to bet, the odds of 1917 taking the big prize are getting better by the day. It was in good position already, but its recent Producers Guild victory (which foretold somewhat-surprising Best Picture winners Green Book and The Shape Of Water) puts it over the top. 1917's chances are further buoyed by the preferential voting system in this category, which favors movies that are universally liked over movies that are loved by some and disliked by others. (This is how many pundits explain Green Book's surprise victory last year, which nobody seemed ecstatic about. And if you want to know the details on how the voting system works, buy me a beer sometime and I'll bore you to tears.) Oh, and 1917 may also win because it's an absolute masterpiece. So then, why might it lose? History, for one: No movie has ever won this award without having at least an acting OR editing nomination -- and 1917 has neither. Secondly, critic reviews like the one from the New Yorker: "1917, a film of patriotic bombast, has an imagination-free script filled with melodramatic coincidences that trivialize the life-and-death action by reducing it to sentiment." Wow, I bet he's a lot of fun at parties. And finally, the reason I've been hearing most often: It's a simple story of good old-fashioned bravery and triumph of the will, and in these sardonic times, people don't wanna hear that rah-rah sh#t. But ultimately, you can likely count on optimism prevailing and carrying the film to victory.

So if 1917 doesn't win, what will? Well, what kind of person are you? The cynics are picking Parasite (and I'm a cynic, so it's weird that I'm not picking it). If you want to feel like you are personally responsible for every socioeconomic injustice on the planet and at least partly accountable for several socially-motivated murders in South Korea, then this is the movie for you. The obstacles for it to overcome to win Best Picture are tough: No foreign-language film has ever won (remember Roma last year?); voters will rationalize that it's assured to take home at least one trophy anyway, for Best International Film; and the same voters that are passionate about Parasite are also passionate about Once Upon A Time, so the vote will get split. But on the other hand, in its favor: Parasite is a huge international box-office success, which Roma was not; it isn't facing the "Netflix backlash" that we all underestimated last year (i.e., "streaming movies are TV movies and TV movies shouldn’t win Oscars"); the Academy has reportedly increased its international membership to 20%; and finally, movie people friggin' LOVE it. The industry, especially actors (the largest group of voters), love the movie, love the cast, love the director. They made a movie that makes everyone feel horrified and confused and upset and exasperated, and people go bananas for them at every award ceremony. The movie has captured something unique in the zeitgeist, and that's a factor that makes things almost impossible to predict. (As for me, I liked it, but I don't know what the hell it's about or what it means. More on that later.)

The West Coasters, the hippies, and the delusional are picking Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood. But wait, what about the modern film snobs? (Hey, I'm one of those too. Very weird.) They're Quentin Tarantino's bread and butter -- aren't they picking it too? Well, they're split (and very conflicted), because they've found Parasite, which has the same kind of edge and wit that Tarantino provides, but with much more incisiveness. They quite frankly don't know what to do. Here's a hint: Whichever film the snobs say they're picking, they're lying, and are actually picking the other one. The big backers for Once Upon A Time will be the old-school, long-time, insider-y insiders. Hollywood incarnate. The Hollywood that loves to reward itself. I mean, "Hollywood" is literally in the title of the movie. In theory, that should take it far with voters. But in the end, the rollicking, intoxicating, revisionist fairy tale will probably fall just short. It's clear the actors' support of Once Upon A Time is getting funneled toward Brad Pitt. Ultimately, that means it won't be #1 on enough ballots to win Best Picture.

The old school film buffs are picking The Irishman. If you don't think any good movies have been made in the last 25 years, then this is your movie. I was as excited as anyone when this came out, and really want to love it, but it's… in a word, underwhelming. As a theater purist, I can't believe I'm saying this, but: I should have watched it on Netflix on my TV. I proudly bought tickets for a film festival screening, before they announced the run time. Three-and-a-half hours is just a long damn time (without an intermission -- what happened to those??) to sit in an uncomfortable theater. It's a marathon, literally -- many people can run 26.2 miles in less time. At home, I could have taken a break, hydrated, stretched, changed compression socks, etc. It also looks like it was filmed for TV viewing, not cinema screens, despite the staggering budget and Martin Scorsese's assertions to the contrary. The de-aging of Robert De Niro, blown up on a big screen, looks downright silly: He has the shape and movement of a very old man, with patchy, digitally smoothed areas around his eyes and black shoe polish in his hair; and the fake blue eyes just look creepy. And the scenes where the actors are obviously green-screened onto a location background are jarring and look cheap. The net effect of all that is that it distracted me enough to take me out of the movie. Honestly, on Netflix, I think I would have enjoyed and appreciated it more, and could have gotten absorbed into the story.

And like everyone anticipating The Irishman, I was salivating about finally getting the Pacino/De Niro pairing that the world has been wishing for since 1974 (not counting two scenes in Heat), and it's… sort of satisfying, I guess? (But wait… can't Disney get the Russo Brothers to make a new Godfather trilogy, where Pacino and De Niro both appear as badass Force ghosts? I'm just saying, let's not dismiss the idea out of hand until we've seen a treatment.) More than definitive opinions on The Irishman, I'm left with what-ifs: What if the movie had been made 20 years ago? What if the script had been tightened up? What if the digital effects looked good? What if John Cazale was still alive and made an appearance? What if I could have paused the movie for 60 damn seconds to make a Pop-Tart? It could have been the greatest movie of all time.

The genre fanatics and fanboys/girls (other than the Marvel acolytes) are picking Joker. It's not the obvious choice, but having the most overall nominations automatically puts Joker in the Best Picture race. It doesn't pose a realistic threat to win, but the sheer popularity of it will garner some votes. Did the world really need yet another movie about the Joker and the death of Bruce Wayne's parents? Probably not. (With Jared Leto, definitely not.) The world didn't ask for it, but we got it anyway, and it turned out to be pretty incredible. And from the least likely source: Todd Phillips, the middle-to-low-brow filmmaker behind broad comedies like Old School (one of my all-time favorites) and The Hangover. And Phillips took the most obvious but least likely approach: to tell it as an serious, realistic, dramatic origin story of a man, comprehensible but not sympathetic, unable to fit in anywhere and disturbed beyond his breaking point, set in a superpower-less world, without even a mention of Batman. The Dark Knight this ain't. I'm completely on board, but have some issues with the third act; and beyond that, I can't even formulate an opinion about the confounding yet entrancing ending. Weirdly, the film doesn't quite deliver the promise of the trailer, which is a shame. I'm not giving my Best Picture vote to Joker, but I would probably vote for the trailer for Best Short Film.

The East Coast literati are picking Marriage Story. Both Marriage Story and The Irishman are long shots, but being Netflix films makes their odds even longer. The streamer tried more a palatable release strategy than it had for Roma; it gave these films month-long theatrical runs before putting them online. But we know from experience that the Academy is wary of crowning a Netflix film as Best Picture. Marriage Story is a fantastic, brainy, wrenching film, to be sure (sprinkled with lighter notes of life's absurd realities to keep the weight of it bearable), but I have a big issue with it: believability. Not that the couple is getting divorced, but that Scarlett Johansson would marry that clown Adam Driver to begin with.

And don't get me started with the kid in Marriage Story. I'm still waiting for the movie that shows a home that looks like children actually live there. If you've ever been to planet Earth, you know that homes with kids look like they've been taken over by raccoons… who are hoarders… with unlimited access to Amazon Prime. If movies were realistic, you wouldn't be able to see counter tops, rugs, tops of dining room tables, or clear paths to children's closets. The homes would basically all look like Grey Gardens. Where are the stalagmites of spilled cereal calcified to the floor? Where are the brand new books that already look like they've been attacked by hyenas? Where are the single, unmatched socks tossed in every conceivable location except a hamper? Where is the rotten food buried under piles of Legos? Where are the magic marker doodles on the screen of the iPad? Where is the foul diaper stench that is obvious to everyone except the parents? Where is the tinkle sprayed everywhere EXCEPT the inside of the toilet? Where is the pacifier stuck in the chandelier? Where are the footprints on the INSIDE of the roof of the car? Where are the crumpled up art projects from school that nobody gives a damn about? If most families' homes were ransacked by the Home Alone robbers, the parents literally wouldn't notice the difference.

And come to think of it… what kind of kid doesn't bite, scratch, talk back, throw food, scream for no reason, call anyone an a-hole, melt down over Minecraft, or tell his parents in a sweet voice, "You're not on the Naughty List… because you're on the Stupid List"? This boy in Marriage Story never even once tells his mom or dad that they are ruining his life (even though they kind of are). So, is there anything in the movie I could relate to? Well, maybe arguing with your child about Halloween costumes? I mean, you come up with an amazing group Halloween costume, and you've gotten explicit agreement from your children, and then the kids change their minds the day before and refuse to participate and want to wear something dumb instead and totally ruin the whole thing, ruin the whole holiday, hell, ruin the whole year. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST STICK TO MY AMAZING PLAN?? Nope, nothing I can relate to.

As for the remaining nominees… The book clubs are picking Little Women. The comedy fans and Hitler impersonators are picking Jojo Rabbit. Gearheads (especially Ferrari Club members that don't own Ferraris) are picking Ford V Ferrari. None stand a chance in this category.

Everybody else is picking 1917. Here are my estimations for each of the contenders winning Best Picture: 1917 - 60%, Parasite - 25%, Once Upon A Time - 11%, Irishman - 2%, Joker - 2%. Bet on it.

BEST ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker) WILL WIN: Joaquin Phoenix (Joker) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Robert De Niro (The Irishman) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: George MacKay (1917)

I'm sorry, I need to get this out of the way right off the bat: Adam Driver is a total waste of time, in Marriage Story or anything else.

Joaquin Phoenix is going to win the Oscar, and I couldn't be more conflicted. His support is strong with the Academy, but it's not without some trepidation. From a career perspective, he makes a lot of sense for voters: With his fourth nomination (plus a couple of narrow misses), people feel he's due; it's one of Phoenix's most transformative and immersive roles; with the boffo box office and impact on popular culture (and potential sequels), it will remain in the consciousness for years; Leonardo DiCaprio already has an Oscar; and the other nominees are de facto also-rans. As much as it pains me to say it, Phoenix deserves it. With films like this, Walk The Line, and Her, I begrudgingly admit that he can be, on occasion, phenomenal; and other times, he makes I'm Still Here. As for his secretive process for the Joker, he dropped a big hint when he said, "My significant other right now is myself, which is what happens when you suffer from multiple personality disorder and self-obsession." That would do it.

And of course, there is the inevitable Heath Ledger vs. Joaquin Phoenix debate, which will annoyingly factor into voting. When Phoenix matches Ledger with an Oscar victory, what happens to the argument? It's an unsolvable puzzle that the Joker himself would love. Here's the real question: What if their situations were reversed? If Phoenix's performance was first and had died right after, while Ledger's portrayal came along 10 years later and he was still living? It's easy: Phoenix's performance would be considered superior, hands down. And I'm not so sure Ledger would have won the Oscar. (Cue the readership rage.)

It's a meme come true! The internet got its wish when Jonathan Pryce was cast as his papal doppelganger, Pope Francis, in The Two Popes. (Look up the comparisons from when Francis was elected in 2013.) He's the least likely nominee to win, but I was close to choosing him as my personal pick. He's mesmerizing as a soft-spoken yet opinionated cardinal (not yet the pope) at odds with Anthony Hopkins' Pope Benedict XVI, in the days leading up to Benedict's resignation. He's a man dealing with internal and external crises of character and church, but to his credit, Pryce does not externalize it into an emotional performance. It's measured, and funny, and feels real. (The Welshman's Argentinian accent, however, is… rough. And while he tried to learn some Spanish for the role, most of his Spanish dialogue was dubbed by a native speaker, and it's glaringly obvious.) After spending most of his career playing a slight variation on the same meek everyman (which made him the least-threatening Bond villain of all time), his roles recently have been the best, juiciest, and most versatile of his career. (By the way, how did I miss the fact that Phoenix played Jesus Christ in a movie in 2018? Get these Best Actor nominees together, and the casting for the inevitable Two Popes sequel is already done.)

Pryce and Antonio Banderas are two of the nicest surprises of the awards season. They're both a couple of prolific, reliable vets who have never really been Oscar-fare guys, and aren't exactly drawing the attention they once were. It's really refreshing to see them both get some career-validating recognition with their first nominations. Heading into nomination day, I assumed only one (or neither) would get nominated, so I was thrilled to see them both chosen over more conventional (and more decorated) nominees. (And, it freed up my Snubbed award.) Banderas's character in Pain And Glory is an understated, nuanced performance, as his recent Spanish roles tend to be, but not typical compared to the more bombastic roles we're used to seeing him play in the U.S. It's perfect for the film, itself an introspective, personal story from Pedro Almodóvar, uncharacteristically simpler than the films he's most known for. Decades after he should have racked up all the awards for the brilliant Desperado, Banderas is finally going to the Oscars. And Antonio… bring your guitar.

I'm getting soft. I'm becoming numb to my dislike of Leonardo DiCaprio. He almost doesn't single-handedly ruin movies for me anymore. He's been in enough great movies (and actually been decent in a few of them), that I hardly even roll my eyes in annoyance at the mere sight of him at this point. Case in point: Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood. He's there. He's fine. He has two commendable scenes, and several other dynamic ones with the rest of the cast. That's it. The movie is good, but I can't help but feel it would be better with someone else. (Ditto Brad Pitt.)

As blasphemous as it sounds, I'm going to say it: I think Robert De Niro needs to hang it up. It's almost getting too painful to watch. Between The Irishman and Joker, he managed to sweep my Gloriously Omitted awards this year, which is no easy feat. He just looks so inert in damn near every scene in The Irishman. He's misguidedly supposed to play a much younger man through most of the movie, and you want to picture Johnny Boy or Jake La Motta or even Jimmy Conway, but instead you're seeing… Abe Vigoda. I’m putting him in the same Time To Retire category as Harrison Ford (I mean, in his upcoming movie The Call Of The Wild, it looks like the only co-star they could get for Ford is a badly-CGI'd dog). I would have also put Nick Nolte in this category, but he's redeemed himself with The Mandalorian. I have spoken.

There are a lot of actors in the running for my Snubbed pick this year: Eddie Murphy in Dolemite Is My Name, Roman Griffin Davis in Jojo Rabbit, Himesh Patel in Yesterday, Paul Walter Hauser in Richard Jewell. But ultimately, I'm going with George MacKay in 1917. For all the talk of technical and directorial accomplishments, MacKay carries the film on his shoulders. The movie simply doesn't work if he's not fantastic.

BEST ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Renée Zellweger (Judy) WILL WIN: Renée Zellweger (Judy) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Taylor Swift (Cats) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Awkwafina (The Farewell)

Somewhere over the rainbow, Judy Davis is unimpressed… but Renée Zellweger is going to skip away with the Oscar for Judy. Every so often, a role comes along where the performer is so spot-on that they win the Oscar based on the movie's preview alone, before the movie even comes out, months before award season (like Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Mo'Nique in Precious, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour, or Jamie Foxx in Ray). When the Judy trailer debuted, everyone who matters (myself included) watched her clang-clang-clang with tipsy grandeur in a gilded pantsuit and half-inch eyelashes -- the Judy-est damned Judy Garland you ever saw -- and instantly said, "Yep, that's it." Throw in the fact that it's an emotional story about a beloved and tragic Hollywood icon, plus Zellweger's overexaggerated-yet-oddly-appealing comeback narrative, and the race was over before it began. The real question is whether it will break the record for Most Oscar Votes Submitted By People Who Didn't Even Watch The Movie. (The current record-holder is Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady.) In fact, I think the only Academy member who's actually watched the film is Liza Minnelli.

The only contender here that's going to pull any votes from Zellweger is Charlize Theron, for her universally lauded role in the divisively polarizing film Bombshell. Theron is riding a late-breaking wave of acclaim, has consistently matched Zellweger nomination-for-nomination, and has many critics trumpeting this as her best work. Further helping her cause, Zellweger already has an Oscar (for Cold Mountain), so she's not getting any lifetime-achievement votes. If Theron herself had not already won (for Monster), she might actually be in the running. But let's face it, even in her best hair and heels, Megyn Kelly just isn't going to compete with Judy Garland, whether it's on the screen, in a drag show, or at the Oscars.

It's almost a shame that Zellweger has been such a wire-to-wire favorite, because Scarlett Johansson is absolutely remarkable in Marriage Story. If I had a seat in the Academy, I would know that intellectually I needed to vote for Zellweger… but I would probably vote for Johansson anyway. I've never seen her so grounded, endearing, and, frankly, repellent. Her task is daunting: Beyond playing a woman slowly being torn apart at the seams during a divorce, she has to be flawed, supportive, tough, loving, conniving, sympathetic, perplexed, hurt, supportive, lovely, guarded, longing, angry, nurturing, vicious, unglamorous… and most of all, able to elicit empathy from the audience -- all without smiling, AND with shorter hair than Adam Driver. Johansson has long been considered a talented and strong screen presence, but as recently as Avengers last summer, nobody was touting her as an Oscar-caliber actress. And of course, now she has not one but two nominations (with her supporting turn in Jojo Rabbit). It's a nice payoff on the promise we saw early in her adult career, before the rom-coms and superhero flicks, boasting films like Ghost World, Lost In Translation, and Girl With A Pearl Earring. So, she won't win here, but there's always next year… Is it too much to hope that her upcoming Black Widow origin story, besides ass-kicking and acrobatics, includes a messy divorce, a nasty custody battle, World War II drama, and maybe even an imaginary Nazi?

I was glad to see Cynthia Erivo nominated for her titular role in Harriet, but I honestly thought she'd be more of a threat here. When this project about legendary heroine Harriet Tubman was announced, starring a Broadway headliner, it figured to be a favorite for Best Picture and a shoo-in for Best Actress. I penciled her in for my Nomination Locks immediately. The film debuted to strong buzz, but as the season went on, and other films and performances dominated the scene, the buzz quieted. The film missed out on most accolades, and while Erivo managed some key nominations, she missed out on a few others, casting her Oscar nomination in doubt. A lesser prognosticator may have been surprised when her name was called on Nomination Morn, but I never wavered. Am I just as confident that she will prevail at the ceremony? Well… If she does in fact win (for Actress or Original Song), the erstwhile Color Purple star will make some interesting history: the youngest person to achieve an EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony), and in the shortest amount of time (five years). And if she doesn't win, is it too soon to hope for another Harriet Tubman movie, based on the 30 Rock episode, directed by Tracy Morgan, starring a completely crazy Octavia Spencer?

Probably the least surprising name in the mix this year (or any year) is the one almost no Americans can pronounce: Saoirse Ronan. With her fourth nomination at the ripe old age of 25, we can pretty much count on an awards contender (or a Timothée Chalamet collaboration, or both) pretty much every year for the foreseeable future. Her nomination for Little Women seemed inevitable, even when she missed out on a Screen Actors Guild nod. This isn't her year, but when she hits nomination number five, it's going to start getting really hard not to give it to her… at the washed-up lifetime-achievement age of, you know, 26.

Awkwafina is my clear pick for Ingloriously Snubbed this year, for her surprising, powerful, and grounded turn in The Farewell. Other welcome inclusions would have been Lupita Nyong'o in Us, Alfre Woodard in Clemency, and Ana de Armas in Knives Out.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Anthony Hopkins (The Two Popes) WILL WIN: Brad Pitt (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Robert De Niro (Joker) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Willem Dafoe (The Lighthouse)

Well, my #AnybodyButBrad campaign is not going well. This is a category of absolute legends, and Brad Pitt is who we're picking?? It's frankly insulting. And you people (yes, you all!) are enabling this. I'm sorry, smiling is not acting. He had two good (okay, fantastic) scenes in Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood. But that was all. And we can agree, he's been a lot better in a lot of other movies. Part of the push is that he's the only nominee who hasn't won an Oscar for acting, so… we should reward him for being the least talented actor in the group? (By the way, he actually does have an Oscar, for producing 12 Years A Slave; but let's be honest, all he probably did was lend his name to secure meetings and woo financiers.) It's clear to me now that everyone is insane except me. You can make any argument you want for Once Upon A Time, but for me it comes down to this: I don't want to live in a world where Brad Pitt can beat up Bruce Lee.

The statistics and history with this group of nominated actors are fascinating (to me, but probably nobody else). The group (Tom Hanks, Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Pitt) collectively boasts 30 nominations and six wins. Aside from Pitt, the last time any of these heavyweights was nominated was 2001, and the last victory was Hanks in Forrest Gump a quarter of a century ago. (As I'm typing this, I’m painfully realizing that some younger readers have probably never heard of these actors.) Pacino achieved his ninth nomination this year (his first in 27 years), putting him in third place for most male acting nominations; only Jack Nicholson (12) and Laurence Olivier (10) scored more. And if he wins, he'll have won in both Lead and Supporting Actor categories, joining a short list of nobodies with names like Lemmon, Washington, Hackman, and De Niro. (And it's worth nothing, lest any of these young whippersnappers get too impressed with their haul of nominations, that 87-year-old composer John Williams has almost double the nominations that the group has combined, having notched his 52nd nomination -- the most for any living person -- for scoring the latest Star Wars movie.)

I'm casting my dissenting vote for Anthony Hopkins, the longest odds to actually win. We take his thespian prowess for granted, and as a result I think we forget how amazing he actually is. In The Two Popes, as Pope Benedict XVI, he's unequivocally at the top of his game. His accent is iffy, but his characterization and physicality are remarkable. And his papal odd-couple pairing with Jonathan Pryce is a match made in… well, you know. Their scenes together are absolutely electric, especially their initial sit-down scene in the garden. Ostensibly, it's just two old men talking, but really, it's so much more; we SEE them quarrelling, debating, poking, out-witting, insulting, joking, and one-upping, but we FEEL them jousting, swiping, dancing, circling, assessing, piercing, and wounding. It's an exhausting prize fight, and they literally never touch. Maybe it's because he knows he has no shot at winning, but Hopkins isn't exactly wooing voters by demystifying his acting technique: "I don't research. It wasn’t difficult for me to play old because I am old. Acting for me has become dead easy. It’s not brain surgery." Tips from the master.

My favorite nomination here belongs to Joe Pesci for The Irishman. Considering he came out of a 20-year retirement to do the film, and totally nails the character, it's a wonderful capper to his career. It's intriguing to look back at his career with some perspective. He became kind of ubiquitous for being Joe Pesci (or for the public's perception of Joe Pesci), but he was actually in a remarkably small number of movies. And despite his career not taking off until he was in his late 40s, he became one of the most impressive actors of his generation. Even if you discount Raging Bull in 1981, he had an astonishing run of movies from 1989 to 1995, which included: Lethal Weapon 2, Goodfellas, Home Alone, JFK, My Cousin Vinny, A Bronx Tale, and Casino. He literally made a classic every year. And Goodfellas and Home Alone, two of the most iconic films of all time, were released a mere month apart in 1990. Then, only nine years into his hot streak, after Lethal Weapon 4 in 1998, he retired. (Though honestly, EVERYONE involved in Lethal Weapon 4 probably should have retired.) It's nice to see him one more time, reunited with a legendary director, putting a new twist on the old Joe. The things you do for money (and Scorsese).

Al Pacino is nominated for playing Jimmy Hoffa in The Irishman, and for being Al Pacino. I wouldn't pick him to win, but I’m on board with the nomination. Given his age, he should be playing Hoffa's father, but at least he, unlike Robert De Niro, looks like he's having fun in the movie. For my money, Nicholson was more convincing in looks and demeanor in his (nomination-less) portrayal of the legendary teamster boss in the 1992 film Hoffa, but Pacino makes up for it in charisma. Though I suppose it could have used at least one "Hoo-AAAAH!"

Tom Hanks is back in the mix for A Beautiful Day In The Neighborhood, now that he only portrays real-life celebrities in movies. After playing Captain Sully and Walt Disney, I guess the only sunnier and squeakier role left was Mr. Rogers. I realize he's getting loads of acclaim for this part, but I have a hard time buying him in these non-fiction roles. He's become a person so famous for disappearing into characters that he can no longer disappear into the character of a famous person. I don’t know who he can possibly play after this; unless they make a movie about Tom Hanks, he might be forced to retire.

I'm sorry, how is Willem Dafoe not winning his first Oscar for his totally bonkers role in The Lighthouse? How is he not even nominated? He's crazy, the premise is crazy, the camerawork is crazy, the, uh, mermaid parts are crazy, the whole movie's crazy, you're crazy, I'm crazy, the entire world is crazy. A couple other roles I was cheering for (which were a lot less likely, but not much less crazy): Wesley Snipes for Dolemite Is My Name and Ray Liotta for Marriage Story. Both of them were borderline certifiable, and pretty much exactly how I would hope they would be in real life.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

SHOULD WIN: Kathy Bates (Richard Jewell) WILL WIN: Laura Dern (Marriage Story) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Anna Paquin (The Irishman) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Jennifer Lopez (Hustlers)

After sweeping the awards circuit, it's clear that Laura Dern will win by a landslide for her role in Marriage Story… but I'm still trying to figure out exactly why. There's no denying she's great -- it's a fun, sharp, duplicitous turn. Her character is a viper in stilettos, and she leans into it. But she just seemed like Laura Dern, if Laura Dern had a penchant for using legal jargon, manipulating old men, and putting the screws to soon-to-be-unmarried fathers. Basically, divorce lawyer Laura Dern looks and sounds a lot like talk-show guest Laura Dern. In her defense, I will say she complemented the other actors, and led a cast of spectacularly over-the-top supporting players, including Julie Hagerty, Merritt Wever, Alan Alda, Martha Kelly, and Ray Liotta. It helps that she's on a hot streak of prestige TV shows, Little Women, an upcoming return to the Jurassic Park franchise, and of course, Star Wars (I still don't understand why a droid couldn't have piloted her suicide mission; I mean, C-3PO was standing right there until he quietly backed away, but whatever). The only Oscar justification I've heard from insiders is, "It's her time." Compelling. But I guess this year that's good enough.

Why not Kathy Bates, for her role in Richard Jewell? It's possibly her best deep-south, wigged-out, overprotective mama bear role since The Waterboy. On second thought… can we just give her an honorary Oscar for The Waterboy?

While I’m stumping for Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story, I'm not quite as high on her nomination for Jojo Rabbit. It's a refreshing characterization to be sure, veering opposite the obvious saccharine choices she could have made for the role, portraying a mother trying to raise her son and make some sense (and jokes) out of life in wartime Nazi Germany. However, I can confidently say that her nomination is more for the pivotal impact her character has on the movie, rather than the performance itself. But all things considered, with two nominations, the highest grossing movie of all time, a Captain Marvel cameo, a trailer for her own superhero movie, and (yet another) engagement, she's had quite a year.

I thought Margot Robbie might have a tough time scoring a nomination this year; it seemed like strong campaigns for Bombshell and Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood might cannibalize each other and cancel each other out. (She actually managed to score BAFTA nominations for both, but Oscar rules preclude actors from being nominated multiple times in the same category.) The meatier role in Bombshell won out, but any role would lose to Dern overall.

You had to figure someone from the supporting cast of Little Women would get a nomination here, whether it was Florence Pugh, Emma Watson, or Meryl What's-her-face. Meryl never stood a chance.

The person I would probably vote for is the one person everyone expected to be here and is also the one person who isn't here. I am personally bummed for Jennifer Lopez. I think it's easy to forget what a fantastic, dynamic actress Lopez was, early in her career, before J.Lo and Jenny From The Block and celebrity marriages and pop-stardom and brutal rom-coms and Super Bowl halftime shows and all the Razzies (so many Razzie nominations - 10 of them!). Back in films like Selena and Out Of Sight, she was the real deal. And even through the Razzie years, she has always been a smart actress with abundant charisma. So a nomination for Hustlers would have been nice validation for a long, productive, far-from-dull (and far-from-over) career. And, by the way, she's outstanding in the film. It's exactly the right role (acting and producing) at the right time in her career (and it also helps that she's effectively ageless). The film was a bit of a gamble: a "gangster" film about female strippers that has more in common with Goodfellas than Showgirls. The film basically dares audiences to root for the "bad guys" when they are women, and dares critics to praise a movie as "cool" when it's driven by women committing crimes and manipulating people. (A quick scan of the 'greatest films of all time' reminds us that we've been doing both for men for a century.) And of course, the gamble paid off in spades. A nomination would have been icing on the cake. My gut tells me conspiracy… How many of her exes are voting members of the Academy, anyway? (Looking at you, Ben.)

Honorable mentions for the Snubbed Choice: Annette Bening for The Report and Lily James for Yesterday. I really thought Bening would challenge for the prize, which would have been her (overdue) first, but her campaign never really caught on. And James de-glammed (slightly) to play the heart (to Himesh Patel's soul) in the Beatles love letter.

BEST DIRECTOR:

SHOULD WIN: Sam Mendes (1917) WILL WIN: Sam Mendes (1917) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Tom Hooper (Cats) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Rian Johnson (Knives Out)

This category could be ripe for an upset… by pretty much anyone. All indictors point to Sam Mendes being a lock for 1917: He won the Director's Guild Award (the most accurate predictor of any award in any category), he also won all the other lead-up awards, and everyone pretty much agrees his film was the most technically challenging of the bunch. And I've got to say, the praise is warranted. It's an emotional, visceral, non-stop assault, in the best possible way. Of course, much of the credit goes to cinematographer Roger Deakins. But Mendes's meticulous planning of every single camera move and unbroken continuity thrusts the viewer, almost unwillingly, into the dizzying melee, physically and mentally. The Oscar is rightfully his. But still, there is some doubt. He's already got an Oscar (for American Beauty), and this is only his second directing nomination. Given the company in this category, is it right that he go two-for-two? Is he as great as Martin Scorsese or as influential as Quentin Tarantino? And he's only directed eight feature-length films in his entire career, so isn't he just plain lazy? On top of all that, he got to direct the James Bond films that Tarantino always wanted to. I mean, is any of that fair?

I think Bong Joon Ho stands the best chance of pulling off an upset, especially if there's a Picture/Director split. He was a long-shot early in the race, but he's quickly gaining ground, and there's an X-factor here that can't be quantified: He seems to have tapped into something that people keep talking about (the film shot up IMDB's all-time Top Rated Movies list almost instantly), his film is becoming more of a global phenomenon by the day, he and his cast have charmed at all the festivals and award shows, and people in the industry are flat-out rooting for him. And while Mendes, Tarantino, and Martin Scorsese already have Oscars, he's a first-time nominee who has been adored by critics for years (I mean, who doesn't love a good sledgehammer-shattering-a-frozen-arm scene?). But the big thing that will thwart his bid is the splitting of the "cool" vote: Many of the people that want to vote for Bong also want to vote for….

…Quentin Tarantino, who also has a real shot with Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, and it has more to do with legacy than his film. He has two Oscars, but they're both for screenwriting (and he may have a third before the night is over); he does not have a statuette for directing. The big question in everyone's mind is: Will history look favorably on the Academy if Tarantino -- thought by many to be one of the most influential (if not one of the flat-out greatest) directors of his generation -- never wins a Best Director Oscar? Tarantino has shrewdly said that he's only planning to make one more movie before he retires (and it may be a Star Trek flick). To voters, that means: The clock is ticking, and this might be the last chance to bestow the honor. While I don't think that sentiment will carry a victory, it will undoubtedly be a factor. For my personal choice, as is often the case, this comes down to Who Do I Think DESERVES To Win vs. Who Do I WANT To Win? No question, I think Mendes deserves to win… buuuuut, I'm rooting for Tarantino. If he had simply won for Pulp Fiction (which will likely hold up as his most revered film 50 years from now), we wouldn't be in this mess.

You also can't quite count out Martin Scorsese, for The Irishman. His ninth Best Director nomination pushes him past Billy Wilder for second-most all time (William Wyler leads with 12). A win would be shocking, but then again, if you took a poll of cinephiles and asked who is more deserving of two career Oscars, Scorsese or Mendes, the vote would probably be unanimous for Scorsese. Early on, it looked like the race was his to lose, when his film debuted for a short theatrical run, and critics and devotees rhapsodized about a definitive masterwork (well, those who stayed awake, anyway). But once the film hit the masses on Netflix, and every-day account leeches were less enthusiastic, Scorsese slipped back into the middle of the pack.

I can't help but wonder, will Scorsese's "controversial" comments about superhero movies not being cinema cost him votes? I mean, people really freaked out about that, and both the internet and legitimate Hollywood players clapped back loudly. Give me a break. I don't necessarily agree with him, but let the man talk. He was off-handedly asked his opinion about Marvel movies in an interview (along with a lot of other topics), and he simply replied. And people went bananas. It's not like he's out on Twitter trolling people or inserting his opinion where it's not invited. He is unquestionably one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and also one of the greatest film historians of all time. I'd be willing to say that no single person on the planet knows cinema better than he does, and perhaps nobody alive has left a bigger imprint on cinema than he has. I think the man has earned the right to have an opinion on the subject. If Scorsese wants to tell me that home videos of my kids on my phone lack substance, stakes, and three-dimensional characters, I'd say he's well within his right. So before writing an aggrieved blog post attacking him, I would think twice about whether I was even qualified to make the argument. (But since I'm ALSO one of the preeminent minds on cinema, I am certainly qualified to shout my opinion and slam anyone I want online. Oh, hey, look, I just wrote an article doing exactly that.)

And as far-fetched as it seems, Todd Phillips is also in the mix, for Joker. The film surprisingly has the most nominations, with 11. That momentum often carries over into unexpected categories. I never really thought of Phillips as a visual storyteller or a master of tone, but with Joker he's a revelation. In a year where the Joker is the hero, I guess anything is possible.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Rian Johnson (Knives Out) WILL WIN: Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Julian Fellowes (Downton Abbey) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: M. Night Shyamalan (Glass)

Might we see a tie for Original Screenplay? It looks like a dead heat between Quentin Tarantino (Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood) and Bong Joon Ho and Jin Won Han (Parasite). And we don't have the benefit of the Writers Guild Award to tip us off: Parasite won the trophy, but Tarantino famously does not belong to the WGA, and therefore is not eligible for their prize. In the last couple days, most of the respected pundits have switched their prediction to Parasite, but this disrespected pundit is sticking to Once Upon A Time. (And I already have a bad feeling about it.)

We're all in this together, and we're all screwed: That's what Parasite is saying. At least, that's what I think it's saying. Or could be saying. Or maybe, isn't saying. Okay, I have no idea. And anybody that says they know exactly what Parasite is about is lying. Nobody knows. I'm telling you, you don't know! And I think that may be part of the point, from the little I've been able to cobble together from writer/director Bong and co-writer Jin. What can we even call this thing that they have created? A parable? Metaphor? Satire? Allegory? All of the above? If there's a lesson, I have no idea what it is, and I'm not sure there is one. Bong gives us a hint in the final, pessimistic shot; but he's also said, somewhat paradoxically, that he prefers action to inaction. At face value, I think Bong is articulating in the film: I see difficult things in society, in the world, between people, and this story is figuratively how awful they make me feel -- the visual embodiment of the pathos. To me that's valid (if the story is not taken literally), and potentially powerful. The film certainly gives me anxiety, and makes me more anxious the more I think about it, especially because most of it could have been easily avoided by characters making different decisions. (In fact, I'm getting anxious right now just writing about it.) I'm also bothered by the fact that it's easier to point out problems than offer realistic solutions, and other than violence (which I don't think Bong is endorsing), there are no readily-identifiable solutions. Something I keep coming back to: The film seems to dare you to find guilt or choose a side, and by doing so, it seems you might actually be tricked into endorsing a guilty party and condemning yourself. If that's the case, what is this thing they've created? A trap.

Almost no readers get this far in my article, so I'm not too worried about giving away spoilers. But if by the grace of god you are still reading, and you haven't seen 1917, SPOILERS AHEAD: SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. Screenplay is widely considered the weakest element of 1917, and is the one award that the film definitely won't win. Its script is seen by many as a mere blueprint for the mechanics of the camera, and undoubtedly tells a simple story, but I honestly don't think Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns get enough credit for it. I can't help but wonder, is the story any better if my theory on the ending is correct? SPOILER: First of all, my theory is totally wrong. I've found absolutely no evidence supporting it online, from critics, or from people who have seen the movie, and my tweets to Mendes have gone sadly unanswered and un-re-tweeted. But I'm sticking to it! In the final shot, the soldier walks away from the army hospital, and sits down at a tree; the camera pans around 180 degrees to show his face and what's behind him… which is nothing. No army hospital anymore. Just an empty field. So… is he really there? Is he dead? Does he die when he encounters the sniper and the screen goes black, and never awakens from unconsciousness? Are all the remaining characters, who appear in a foggy, dream-like nightscape, just projections as he journeys to the afterlife? Are his wife and child also already dead? Is that what her inscription, "Come back to us," really suggests? Yes? Yes? No?? Ah, the hell with you people.

The script for Noah Baumbach's Marriage Story (a totally fictional "personal" story focused on a New York writer that is totally not at all based, like, at all, on his totally-coincidental divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh; again, no parallels whatsoever) is somewhat about the end of a marriage, but mostly about dialogue. The ostentatious wordiness is what makes it endearing and scathing and clever, but is at times also a hinderance and a little too clever. It's no surprise; after all, Baumbach is a graduate of the esteemed Wes Anderson School Of Stylized Dialogue. Don't writers know that writers don't talk the way they write? Half of it feels real, and the other half feels cutesy and New York writer-y. (I prefer Midwestern writer-y, where they take ten times as long as necessary to make a simple point. In other words, they make the same point again and again without adding anything valuable. Multiple times.)

It's hard not to watch Marriage Story without thinking Adam Driver is Kylo Ren without a helmet (he was just as whiny, self-absorbed, and immature as his Star Wars counterpart). Come to think of it, I think I'd rather see this movie with Driver as Kylo Ren and Scarlett Johansson as her Avengers character Black Widow. That dude would never stand a chance. Imagine it…

STAR WARS: EPISODE X - MARRIAGE ENDGAME Kylo Ren is sulking on a Star Destroyer, considering ending his marriage. The Avengers helicarrier lands. Black Widow jumps out. KYLO REN (tears in eyes): I know what I have to do, but I don't know if I have the strength to do it. Black Widow unsheathes a katana sword and swiftly cuts off Ren's head. She licks the blade. BLACK WIDOW: Consider that a divorce. FADE OUT.

(If you like that, you'll love my other Star Wars script, Millennial Falcon: It's the story of a spaceship that doesn't want to jump to hyperspace because that's not really its passion, expects to be able to make the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs without any hard work, and prefers to be called just "Falcon" because it doesn't believe in labels. "May the Force be with you." "Okay, boomer.")

Rian Johnson's Knives Out is the least likely to win, but is my personal favorite. Incredible movie, incredible cast, incredible direction, incredible cinematography… but most of all, incredible script. It's cool to see the accolades for Johnson after making slick, underappreciated films like Brick and Looper. (And it almost makes me want to forgive him for his mess of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Almost.)

With my snubbed choice, I'm going with a curveball… Glass, from M. Night Shyamalan. The capper in the Unbreakable Trilogy, the film is a lot better than the critical reviews and January dumping-ground release date would lead you to believe. It's a fascinating, slick, melancholy resolution to a film series that was ahead of its time. (Go back and watch Unbreakable, and see how much of the "reality-based" comic-book/superhero craze it presaged.) As smart as it is, it unfortunately lacks charisma and fun, so it's probably too heavy for what audiences expected from a PG-13 superhero flick. But I'm sticking up for it, all the way to the Oscars. (Other worthy original scripts include The Farewell by Lulu Wang, Us by Jordan Peele, and Yesterday by Jack Bart and Richard Curtis.)

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

SHOULD WIN: Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) WILL WIN: Taika Waititi (Jojo Rabbit) GLORIOUSLY OMITTED: Jeff Nathanson (The Lion King) INGLORIOUSLY SNUBBED: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (Avengers: Endgame)

With the top three candidates for Picture and Director duking it out in the Original Screenplay category, Adapted Screenplay is open for someone else to pick up a prize. But who? It's going to be close between Taika Waititi for Jojo Rabbit and Greta Gerwig for Little Women. Waititi's win at the Writers Guild Awards would seem to tip the scales heavily in his favor. However, the WGA was just voting on screenplay, while the Academy is notorious for compensating across categories, and will give Gerwig plenty of votes for her Best Director snub. A week ago, I would have predicted a win for Gerwig. But in a tight race like this, history tells us to follow the guilds. So I'll go with Waititi by a (Hitler) mustache.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Waititi is everywhere. Besides being a quadruple threat (writing, directing, co-starring, producing) for Jojo Rabbit, in the past year he directed and did a voice for Star Wars: The Mandalorian (which was arguably better than the actual Star Wars movie that came out), wrote/directed/produced the cult hit show What We Do In The Shadows, and was a significant contributor to a little movie called Avengers: Endgame. In his spare time, he's lined up creative roles in more Marvel movies and TV shows, the DC Universe, a new Time Bandits, and (if the rumors are to be believed) a new Star Wars movie. Oh, and he was nominated for a couple Oscars. (Fun fact: These are not his first; he was previously nominated for a short film called Two Cars, One Night in 2005.) He's got my vote for Adapted Screenplay for Jojo Rabbit. Gerwig deserves the praise for her updated take on Little Women, but that film has been re-made over a dozen times (as recently as 2018), so I'm going with Waititi's irreverently fresh, fun, gut-wrenching, and hopeful take on World War II.

Gerwig is in a long-term relationship with fellow nominee Noah Baumbach (Marriage Story) -- and of course, their relationship is also totally not at all an inspiration for his film. They are the latest in a surprisingly long list of couples who have both been nominated in the same year (names like Taylor & Burton, Hepburn & Tracy, Woodward & Newman, and Jolie & Pitt). In the cases where one of them won an Oscar, almost every time, it was a woman. If Baumbach values his career, he'll break up the night before the ceremony. Just imagine if they'd both been nominated for Best Director…

Only an a##hole would relentlessly compare The Irishman to Goodfellas. So here I go… Martin Scorsese (and co-writer Nicholas Pileggi) crafted a perfect ending (and one of the greatest movies of all time) with Goodfellas. Ray Liotta's character escapes with his life, only to spend the rest of it trapped in suburban purgatory, exiled into anonymity, powerless and castrated, complaining to an imaginary audience. The denouement is short, but his anguish is palpable. With The Irishman, Scorsese (and writer Steven Zaillian) unmoor us, letting the audience drift along for the listless (and seemingly endless) conclusion. Compounding that feeling is the fact that Robert De Niro's character is mostly passive throughout the film, so we're sort of forced along on the ride by other characters. Ultimately, we don't really know any more about him at the end than we did at the beginning. Maybe that's the point, but it doesn't really work for me. Overall, the script has a lot to offer, but it felt too loose to be compelling or poignant.

So, they make a movie called The Two Popes, and neither of them was John Paul II? JP2? The Deuce? Papa Due? The guy was a marketing monster in his day. He was so popular, they kept putting him on the Popener years after he died, because Benedict was so dull and not pulling in the sales. (And if you don't know what a Popener is, you need to stop reading this article right now, go to Rome, and buy a bottle opener and with the pope's face on it.) Aside from that transgression, the script by Anthony McCarten is a fantastic, crackling, metaphorical, even funny, piece of work. As a result, the film is engrossing, considering most of it is just two old men talking. You don't even need to know much about Catholicism to enjoy the sparring between these two headstrong leaders debating their ideals while trying to find forgiveness and peace. My one disappointment? No argument over who has the better Popener.

Todd Phillips and Scott Silver's script for Joker is hypnotic in a dread-inducing kind of way, and in the theater caused at least one grown man to grab my leg in fright (you know who you are). But I feel like the last act unraveled a little bit, and the ending, I mean, who the hell knows? Even now, I don't quite know what to make of the film or what it's trying to say. Maybe Charlie Chaplin captured it best, long before the Joker existed: "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in a long-shot."

#oscars #oscarpredictions #oscarpredictions2020 #oscarprognostication2020 #donovansoscarprognostication2020 #oscars2020 #academyawards #academyaward