It’s that time again–my chance to rant about the films that shouldn’t have been nominated and moan about better films that weren’t. Next time, I’ll discuss Oscar nominees I loved or at least liked. But for this post, I’m going to embrace the snark.
Undeserving Nominations
Past Lives. If the little boy who used to chase me down after we raced on our big wheels and then kiss me were to re-enter my life 20 years later, would that have been a meaningful, maybe-romance? No. Neither was this.
Oppenheimer. This film has far less to say about our past than an episode of Drunk History. Here are the not-so-insightful themes I gleaned after three hours: dropping bombs leads to regret, and politicians are political. Calling a man a genius ten times in the first hour without showing a single scene of what made him so—or what made him charismatic, a leader or interesting—is not characterization. Jumping in time without reason is not artful; it’s confusing. Usually strong actors mimicking, but not inhabiting real-life characters is painful to watch (Robert Downey Jr. being the exception). Dismissing the reflective president who had to decide whether to drop the bomb in a five-minute, misleading scene is irresponsible. If this film wins, the producers better thank Barbie because that’s the only reason Academy voters viewed it. Give it a year, and none of them will remember watching it. Christopher Nolan is too talented to have created something this bad.
The Holdovers. Mediocre and an hour too long. Solid, but not standout acting? Yes. Occasional clever, funny moments? Yes. But generally lazy writing–a teacher who is a hard grader must be a jerk, all students hate their studies, a teacher has to be self-sacrificial to earn respect. Any of you heard all this nonsense before? Me too. Best moment: the kid barely thanks him. That scene was real and funny, capturing what it’s like to be a young, careless teen (tell me you don’t see your young self in that moment); I only wish there had been more moments like it.
Overlooked Gems & Performances
Air. The most entertaining film of the year. Perfect cast, great writing, smart editing. Every moment counted. Zero nominations. The lack of an editing nomination hurts most; three too-long movies are nominated for best editing. Academy voters apparently don’t appreciate the most difficult role of an editor: cutting.
Eileen. An eerie, truly original mystery. Strong performances from the two lead actresses, a memorable one from a supporting (always reliable) character actor and a brilliant one from a supporting actress. Great editing choices for the adaptation of the book, including some difficult cuts by the novel’s author and screenplay co-writer. Zero nominations.
Blackberry. Clever take on the difficulty of running a business with creative, nerdy types. Where is Glenn Howerton’s best supporting actor nomination, I ask you? He plays an amazing villain; his comic timing is unmatched, and his portrayal is nuanced, believable and always surprising. Oh, how much all those award-granting types underestimate anyone involved in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia….
,
Would Rather Pluck My Eyebrows than Watch
Maestro. I am done with movies more interested in artists’ romances than their work. (I’m looking at you, Walk the Line, Bohemian Rhapsody, Blonde.) John Carney, please direct a biopic so that I can again enjoy a film about an artist. Give me a Once (2007) or Begin Again (2013) based on a true story, please.
Poor Things. I can’t take this director anymore. My sister and I refer to his film The Lobster in verb form: Lobstering is when you recommend a film you can’t stand to someone as a joke. She lobstered me with The Judge (2014); I lobstered a mutual friend with The Shape of Water (2017). I didn’t despise The Lobster, as my sister did. The Favourite (2018) was alright (likely only because Nicholas Hoult excels in odd roles). But Yorgos Lanthimos has a knack for squandering a fascinating premise with meaningless grossness or weirdness, and Poor Things looks like he’s upped the ante on that trend. I’m out.
So there you have it. Stay tuned for next time, when I will be far less harsh, but no less opinionated.
You make an excellent point about Oppenheimer: “Calling a man a genius ten times in the first hour without showing a single scene of what made him so…” So true! I liked the movie, but it’s not what everyone pretends it is.
Am in complete agreement re: would rather pluck eyebrows than watch those films.
Yes, I can’t forgive a biopic for neglecting characterization. I did think the scene with the bomb was good, but it wasn’t enough to drudge through the rest. LOL. We both will be boycotting those two then!
I mostly agree with you on Oppenheimer. Less on the acting, but definitely agree about the jumps back and forth in time, to me it just broke up any kind of flow. The only section that had any narrative flow was the part leading up to and including the test of the bomb, the rest of it was just a chore to watch. I do think Cillian was quite good. It’s going to clean up at the Academy Awards, I think it has been decided for some reason that it is an important movie.
He was definitely better than his female leads. I’ve never seen Emily Blunt give such a poor performance. Only her courtroom scene was good. He was definitely much better in the second half. He seems a big sleepwalkery in the first, and I usually think him good. I agree that the testing of the bomb scenes were good–the only good ones–but I just kept thinking why not just watch a documentary then? If I’m not invested in these characters, I’d rather watch the real account. I ended up shutting the film off for a while and reading about it, which was far better.
I haven’t seen any of these that you mention yet. I am looking forward to The Holdovers though. I recommend the 1980 Oppenheimer miniseries, starring Sam Waterston. It spends much more time with the individuals involved and gets to tell the story in more detail than it seems the film does.
Maddy
Thank you for the recommendation! That sounds great.
You’re welcome. Hope you get to see it.
I look forward to reading about the movies you liked, Leah — meanwhile, I loved this post! I thought Oppenheimer was good, but no masterpiece, and I’m bummed that it’s probably going to win Best Picture, because I’d far rather it be won by Killers of the Flower Moon. Maestro was nearly unbearable. And I’m not looking at all forward to Poor Things (although I loved The Shape of Water)!
Thank you! I am curious about Flower Moon, which is one of two I haven’t seen that I still will before the Oscars. I loved the book, and am wondering whether the huge changes to the narrative that were made will pay off. Glad to hear I didn’t miss anything with Maestro! I do like both actors, but not worth it.