Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - LA LA LAND

This modern take on the classic Hollywood musical is beautifully shot in a palette of primary colors. The dialogue is at times witty and fun, and the two leads are both very pretty.  Enthusiasts of the RomCom genre will enjoy the conventional romantic narrative, which hits all the traditional beats of that style, with one rather pedestrian “twist” near the end.

That’s about all the positive commentary I have for this film. Personally, I am a big fan of the movie musical, from classics like Top Hat and Singin’ in the Rain, to the starry-eyed sincerity of The Sound of Music, to modern fare like Cabaret, The Rocky Horror Picture Show or Chicago. Unfortunately, La La Land does not measure up to films of this ilk.

That is not to say that La La Land is a terrible film. It’s not—it’s a perfectly fine, pretty piece of fluff that has been rhapsodized quite undeservedly (it’s tied with two other films for the most Oscar nominations of all time).

The two main characters (and there aren’t really any supporting characters—just props that our protagonists navigate around) have nothing much to recommend them aside from the fact that they’re on screen, and therefore you should empathize with them. The primary conflict in both cases seems to be that the world won’t simply hand them fame and success based on the obvious moral superiority of their artistic purity, and Stone’s character, particularly, seems to have no attributes whatsoever outside of “wanting to be an actress”. The film’s pacing is also strange, stalling in the middle for a series of uninteresting montages, before deigning to pick up the narrative once more.

Setting all that aside, however, the film’s primary crime is that it’s a musical that doesn’t seem to care much about the music. Ironically, it feels soulless, with bland, churned-out musical numbers, and stars that obviously have no connection to (or experience in) the genre.

To begin with, the two lead actors, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, very obviously cannot sing or dance, on a technical level.

And before you give me the “it was intentional” crap, why on earth would that be intentional? The movie is not going for raw, gritty realism by any stretch of the imagination. Every moment shrieks to the high heavens of old Hollywood glamour, glitter and polish, which means everything is unrealistically gorgeous, no one ever misses a snappy rejoinder, and all of your dreams come true if you just believe hard enough. Cracking voices that strain to hit the high notes don’t fit into this picture.

The opening number is drab and forgettable, and the bland “City of Stars”, which is rehashed several times throughout the film, falls utterly flat.

People didn’t love watching Gene Kelly or Fred and Ginger because they happened to be on screen, they enjoyed the impressive spectacle created by their incredible skill, built with years of training and passion. La La Land has none of this, and as a result feels empty and trivial.

Verdict: Just watch Sing Street instead.

Prediction: Hollywood loves to fellate itself, so I’m betting that of its eleven nominations, for Best Picture, Directing, Actress in a Leading Role, Actor in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, two Original Songs, Original Score, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Original Screenplay, it will undeservedly take Best Picture, Directing, Actress in a Leading Role, Cinematography, Film Editing, Original Song (City of Stars), Original Score, Production Design, and Sound Mixing.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - MOONLIGHT

Only the second film from director Barry Jenkins, and his second collaboration with cinematographer James Laxton, Moonlight is an intensely personal, stunningly realized portrait of a man named Chiron, told in three segments that encapsulate three stages of his life. 

Like Fences, Moonlight is adapted from a play, albeit one that was never actually staged. However, in contrast to Washington’s film, Moonlight is well and truly translated to its medium, making masterful use of the visual language of cinema. To use the old cliché, every frame here truly is a painting, as Jenkins, Laxton and colorist Alex Bickle use, light, color and composition with a skillful intentionality reminiscent of Wong Kar Wai.

Although there isn’t much dialogue in the movie, the performances from all involved are excellent, so nuanced and genuine that a viewer might be tempted to believe it’s documentary. The combination of these performances and the profoundly personal direction makes the film feel so authentic and intimate that at times the act of watching feels transgressive.

The triptych structure of the film is interesting, highlighting the film’s refusal to “fill in the gaps” for the audience. It declines to provide any easy answers, or deliver a pre-packaged message for the viewer. Instead, it simply allows Chiron to exist in an intensely human way. Although he is both black and gay, and these attributes certainly inform his experiences and his character, the narrative is refreshingly not framed through the lens of race or sexuality. Chiron is not confined to the box of “black man” or “gay man”, and the story is not a “black story” or a “gay story”, but a fully realized human story.

All this being said, there are some issues with the film. The triptych structure, though interesting, does make the story feel somewhat incomplete at times, and the fact that Chiron is played by three very dissimilar (but all very skilled) actors is a bit jarring at first. Naomie Harris’ performance as Chiron’s mother is excellent, but her arc is the only thing in the film that feels a touch cliché.

Verdict: Moonlight is a masterclass in intimate visual storytelling, although the lack of any concrete answers or neat resolutions may leave the viewer feeling a bit unsatisfied. Everyone should see this movie, but especially anyone who has an interest in the craft of filmmaking.

Prediction: Along with Best Picture, Moonlight is nominated for Directing, Cinematography, Film Editing, Original Score, and Adapted Screenplay. Mahershala Ali and Naomi Harris are also both nominated in their respective Supporting Role categories. If Laxton doesn’t get the win for Cinematography, it will be a crime against film. However, I think he’ll unfortunately lose to La La Land’s Linus Sandgren. I’m betting that Barry Jenkins and Tarell Alvin McCraney will take Best Adapted Screenplay, and Mahershala Ali will doubtless win for Actor in a Supporting Role. There is a chance that Moonlight could take the richly-deserved Best Picture win, and even Directing is possible, if the Academy is concerned about shaking off last’s year’s #OscarsSoWhite controversy and making a statement in today’s tumultuous political climate. It would be the right choice for the wrong reasons, but I’m not betting on it.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - MANCHESTER BY THE SEA

All I knew about this movie going in was that it was written and directed by Kenneth Lonergan, and that it was apparently really, really, incredibly depressing. This characterisation does a great disservice to the film. It is certainly not “misery porn” like last year’s The Revenant, where more and more suffering and awfulness is heaped upon the protagonist to no real end but to garner the actor an Oscar.

Manchester by the Sea is certainly a heavy film. It explores profound questions on trauma, grief and guilt. But heaviness loses meaning without light, and Lonergan clearly understands this on an intrinsic level. The film has moments of levity, humor, even absurdity that move it forward and inform the narrative. At points the audience in my theater laughed out loud, which is more than can be said for some full-fledged comedies this year (I’m looking at you, Zoolander 2).

The characters are deeply authentic and deeply human, with all the complexity and contradictions that that implies.

The performances, particularly those from Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams and Lucas Hedges (all off whom are nominated) are phenomenal. Unlike in Fences, discussed above, the acting disappears entirely into the character, allowing the audience to transcend mere voyeurism and truly experience catharsis.

I haven’t touched on half of what I’d like to say about this movie, but time and space run short, so I’ll leave off with this – this is a near-perfect film. That is not to say that it is the greatest movie ever made – rather that it knows very clearly what it is and what it wants to be, and it uses each piece of itself elegantly towards that end.

Verdict: Definitely see this film.  But don’t make my mistake and plan a dinner with friends immediately after. This one takes a bit of time to work though, and they may end up thinking something’s gone horribly wrong in your life.

Prediction: Manchester by the Sea is nominated for Best Picture, Directing and Original Screenplay, while Casey Affleck is nominated for his Leading Role, and Lucas Hedges and Michelle Williams are both nominated in their respective Supporting Roles.  A win in any of these categories would be richly deserved, but I’m betting it will take home only Original Screenplay, beating out the (for some reason) frontrunner La La Land. William’s perfect 12 minutes of screen time in Manchester won’t overtake the full two hours of Acting from Viola Davis in Fences, and Hedges is in too competitive of a group to have a chance. Affleck could and should take the win, but I’m betting the Academy goes with Washington, although I would be ecstatic to be proved wrong in this case.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - ARRIVAL

The first big hitter on this list, with a total of seven nominations, this high-concept sci-fi film is expertly directed by Québec native Denis Villeneuve. Visually, the film is stunning and incredibly creative, and it’s a prodigious lesson on how tone and mood can transform a narrative.

Amy Adams’ performance (snubbed this year) is subtle and complex—made all the more impressive when you realize she was staring into green screens and nothingness for the majority of the shots. Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson’s phenomenal score (deemed ineligible for an Original Score nom due to the use of Max Richter piece ‘On the Nature of Daylight’ in the film) adds a haunting depth and otherworldliness to piece.

The movie aims high, raising grand questions about language, perception, and time, but doesn’t become ponderous or inaccessible. Its ambition and scope is admirable, which makes its not-insignificant flaws easier to forgive.

The credit for this films successes clearly goes to Villeneuve’s choices here, as the script, stripped of the director’s opaque stylization and eerie tone, is, in a word, bad. It is riddled with alien movie clichés (the suspicious, warmongering military, the dangerous and unstable foreign powers, the news media panic-cum-exposition), which are thankfully transformed into something greater by the direction. The dialogue is at times actually cringeworthy, and the whole resolution of the film is a messy and unfulfilling deus ex machina (aliena ex machina?).

There is something of a twist—or perhaps more accurately, a revelation, at the beginning of the film’s third act, which is done effectively and well. However, Villeneuve clearly had no confidence in the audience’s ability to “get it”, as he continues to hammer the twist home for the remaining thirty minutes or so of run time.

The whole conceit of the ending feels unearned and thrown together, but overall the film is ambitious and enjoyable. 

Verdict: A stylistically striking, thought-provoking, but ultimately flawed film that’s definitely worth seeing—probably twice.

Prediction: Nominated for Best Picture, Directing, Cinematography, Film Editing, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Adapted Screenplay, I’d be very happy to see it beat out frontrunner La La Land for Production Design, but unfortunately it’s more likely to get an entirely undeserved win for Adapted Screenplay (it took the Critic’s Choice Award in this category). However, I’m betting that Arrival will go home empty-handed on Sunday.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - HIDDEN FIGURES

Three biographical true stories rolled into one, this competently-made feel-good film highlights the work and experiences of three talented and driven African-American women who helped drive NASA towards success in the space race of the 1960s.

I am glad that this film was made, and glad that it was nominated. It tells an important and historically overlooked story, and does so in a pleasing, well-realized way.

However, the film suffers from being split into three narratives, each of which it covers only superficially. There is not much in the way of tension, as the movie moves stepwise through its plot points, easily setting up and resolving moments of conflict without much lasting impact.

That being said, all of the elements, from the direction to the cinematography to the costume design, are capably executed. Taraji P. Henson is at her subtle, evocative best (although she did not garner a nomination), and her co-stars, Janelle Monae and Octavia Spencer (who did manage to snag a Supporting nom) show their chops in equal measure.

Moonlight’s Mahershala Ali makes an appearance, with much less to do here than in his nominated role, as he drives a completely extraneous romantic subplot that has zero impact on the rest of the story.

Ultimately, the film gives interesting insight into the early days of NASA and the space race through a unique and important lens, but opts for popular appeal over any attempt to push artistic or social boundaries.

Verdict: If you’re interested in NASA or the early days of space exploration, or are looking for a heartwarming, family-friendy film, this is a good bet. If you’re looking for something more substantive, take a pass.

Prediction: Other than Best Picture and Octavia Spencer’s Actress in a Supporting Role, the film picked up a nomination for Adapted Screenplay. I wouldn’t put it in the top two contenders for any of these categories, but there’s an off chance it could turn things around in the Screenplay group. 

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - FENCES

This one’s not a true story, but still checks the Oscar boxes by being a period piece, being based on a Pulitzer-winning play, and tackling the subject of race.  

Denzel Washington (who also directs the piece) and Viola Davis both capital-A Act their asses off in the the two main roles (although Davis is strategically nominated for a supporting, rather than lead role Oscar), and both give sufficient proof of their mastery of the craft.

Unfortunately, Fences is less a translation than a transcription to the film medium – the source material is essentially unchanged, and as a result it feels like watching a filmed play. The capacity for visual storytelling—perhaps film’s most powerful tool—remains almost entirely untapped, and the piece ends up being essentially a long string of masterfully-acted exposition-heavy monologues.

The themes present in the film (sacrifice, duty, family, intergenerational trauma, race and the American dream) are powerful, and are explored effectively, if blatantly.

In the end, I was left feeling that I might’ve preferred the added layer of rawness and intimicy afforded by a live stage performance.

Verdict: Just search YouTube for Denzel’s opening monologue and Viola’s closing one. You’ll pretty much get the gist.

Prediction: The film is nominated for Best Picture, Actor in a Leading Role (Denzel Washington), Actress in a Supporting Role (Viola Davis) and Adapted Screenplay. The strategic choice is bound to pay off here, as Viola Davis will certainly take home the Actress in a Supporting Role win. Her only real competition is Michelle Williams from Manchester by the Sea, who is hamstrung by her very limited screen time in that film. Washington is also up against his Manchester by the Sea counterpart, Casey Affleck, although the race is much tighter here. Although Affleck deserves the win, I predict that the Academy will reward Washington’s very visible actorliness, as well as his more prestigious career, and he will take home the Actor in a Leading Role statue. August Wilson’s writing is excellent in the screenplay as in the play, but it’s not so much “adapted” as “filmed”, so no dice there.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - HACKSAW RIDGE

Shockingly for the Oscars, this is another true story – this time that of an American pacifist who became a war hero without ever touching a gun. But don’t worry, viewing audiences, this movie isn’t here to make you think, or challenge your preconceptions on war, morality, or anything else. Mel Gibson, returning to bloody form as the director of this paint-by-numbers war movie, goes out of his way to make it perfectly clear that while protagonist Desmond Doss won’t pick up a weapon himself, he’s A-Ok with everyone around him mowing down those evil Japs, who are variously referred to in the film as devils, animals, and unkillable monsters.

The first hour or so of the movie is a sweet, sometimes overly sentimental coming-of-age story set in rural Virgina. Andrew Garfield’s Oscar nominated portrayal of Doss certainly sells the character’s humble, wide-eyed sincerity, but there are some strange choices (Doss grins and chuckles continuously at incongruous moments throughout), and the character’s unnuanced moral certitude ends up playing as simple rather than determined.

As we move into act two, Doss enlists and heads to a Full Metal Jacket-style boot camp, where Vince Vaughn takes a laughably unbelieveable turn as the film’s “hard-assed” drill seargent, who will of course underestimate our hero and eventually learn the error of his ways. We also meet a slew of war-movie clichés masquerading as characters (Italian guy, guy who gambles, intellectual soldier, bully), the names of whom you will struggle to vaguely recall as they’re either tragically killed by the Japanese, or heroically saved by Doss in the third act.

The second hour of the movie is basically one interminable – but expertly executed—battle scene. From a technical standpoint, the action is incredibly impressive, but for a film about a professed pacifist, its treatment of violence is almost pornographic, with numerous slow-motion shots of Japanese soldiers being mowed down by flamethrowers, bullets and bayonets.

The ostensible message of the film, which basically boils down to “don’t judge a book by its cover” (I’d argue that the actual message is something more along the lines of “America is awesome, and you should probably join the army”) is rammed down the audience’s throat to the point where at least 3 characters literally just say it out loud.

Verdict: If the word “pacifist” in the beginning of this review made you roll your eyes in contempt, this unsubtle American propaganda piece is probably the film for you.

Prediction: Along with Best Picture, Hacksaw Ridge is nominated for Directing, Film Editing, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing, and Andrew Garfield is nominated for his Leading Role performance. It won’t get any of the three big ones, and Film Editing surely belongs to Arrival or La La Land, but I’m betting that the explosive and frenetic sounds of war will inch ahead of the movie musical for Sound Editing.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - HELL OR HIGH WATER

The ninth film from a director with a checkered filmography (David Mackenzie), Hell or High Water is a pitch-perfect modern spin on revenge Westerns and depression-era crime stories, à la Bonnie and Clyde. Visually and tonally, it draws an astute parallel between the very current circumstances of the protagonists and Dust Bowl-period desperation.

The script, only the second from former Sons of Anarchy actor Taylor Sheridan (he wrote last year’s Sicario), while built on fairly traditional lines, is taut and effective. Tension is skillfully built to a powerful climax, and the setting and characters feel incredibly authentic (it’s entirely unsurprising to learn that Sheridan grew up on a ranch in Texas, where the film is set).

The film is beautifully rendered, with excellent performances by Chris Pine, Ben Foster, and Jeff Bridges—although for Bridges, at least, this is well-trod territory, as he once again plays a curmudgeonly Southern lawman. 

There are clear socio-political tensions informing the backdrop here, but the film does not take a stance on them—or indeed, even explicitly identify them. There is no trite message or lesson to be taken from the film; rather these underpinnings are allowed to enrich the film subtly.

All this being said, there is nothing terribly novel or surprising about this movie. At times I felt it could’ve used something more—some quirkiness or edge, but in the end, it’s a compelling, straightforward take on the Western/heist film.

Verdict: A solidly crafted, if conventional, modern Western that succeeds in its aim to entertain.

Prediction: Other than Best Picture, Hell or High Water is nominated for Original Screeplay and Film Editing. Jeff Bridges also gets a Supporting Role nomination, although the fact that it’s a retread for him makes it more tokenistic than otherwise. The film will not likely to take home any gold, although the Original Screenplay category is still tough to call definitively at this point.

Oscars 2017 - Strongly Held Opinions, Weakly Held Predictions - LION

The first feature film from director Garth Davis, Lion is certainly an impressive debut, in more ways than one – the first third of the film is incredibly gorgeous, gripping, and original, with a truly astonishing performance from 8-year-old Sunny Pawar. Unfortunately, Lion falters at the halfway mark, and never quite regains its footing. Davis’ directing is strong throughout, but he’s limited by the fact that the film is a biographical true story. Much of the runtime is dedicated to making an extensive, months-long Google search seem like compelling narrative—which, to Davis’ credit, ends up being way less boring than it sounds. Unfortunately, after the gut-wrenching emotional roller coaster of the movie’s first 45 minutes, even the most engrossing Google search is bound to fall flat. By the time the fourth scene of protagonist Saroo and his girlfriend (a cardboard cutout whose only purpose is to spout wise-sounding banalities, and eventually provide some shoehorned-in drama) spooning in bed rolls around, you’ll be checking your watch and wondering where the bathrooms are.

Saroo’s girlfriend isn’t the only one-dimensional character. Although based on real people, each individual seems to have been distilled into a single defining trait, which serves as a substitute for personality. Even Saroo, whose internal struggle is masterfully portrayed by Dev Patel, doesn’t have much to define him beyond his single driving purpose. 

The ending brings the film home with an emotional punch, which does help it regain some of its earlier impact, but the piece doesn’t stand up as a cohesive whole.

Verdict: In the end, it’s a unique true story that was turned into 45 minutes of an incredible short film and an hour of an uneven—but very well acted—drama, capped off with an affecting and poignant ending.

Prediction: Of all the films, this is the one that Academy members most likely didn’t bother to see.

In addition to the Best Picture nod, Nicole Kidman and Dev Patel are both nominated for Supporting Roles (clearly a strategic move in Patel’s case, as he’s unquestionably the main character), and the film also garnered nominations for Cinematography, Original Score, and Adapted Screenplay. It’s unlikely to win in any category, strategy notwithstanding.