Countdown to the Oscars: What you can see

In past years, we have gone category by category when looking at the Academy Awards nominees, which was a fun but exhausting exercise for yours truly. This year, if you will allow, I would like to try something a little different: grouping the nominees by theme and examining them together.

To kick this off, I thought we would start with the crafts categories that make their presence known onscreen – in other words, what you can see.

In keeping with tradition, we will take a look at what nominee is likely to walk away with the win on Oscars night, what I would award, and what in a perfect world I would have liked to see on the shortlist.

It neither should escape our attention the Academy has announced the four categories it will not air live during the broadcast of the awards ceremony. Among them are Best Cinematography and Best Editing, to go with Best Makeup and Hairstyling and Best Live Action Short. You will note three of these categories discussed below, and while the entire affair is a travesty, the exclusion of Cinematography and Editing is particularly galling.

Roma director Alfonso Cuarón and reigning Best Director Guillermo del Toro have already weighed in with their displeasure, among many others, including the American Society of Cinematographers guild. ABC and the Academy seem unlike to waver on this point at this late date, so close to the show as we are, but here’s hoping a revolt among nominees – it would have to be led by the actors – can help correct this egregious error.

Best Cinematography

Nominees: Cold War; The Favourite; Never Look Away; Roma; A Star Is Born

Speaking of Cuarón, the director is the odds-on favorite to walk away with the prize here. He would be the first person to win for lensing a film he also directed. His guiding principle, he has said, was “What would Chivo do?” – a reference to longtime friend and collaborator Emmanuel Lubezski. Apart from the gorgeous lighting and lengthy tracking shots, a staple of Lubezski and Cuarón’s work together, Cuarón looks to be taking from Page 1 of the Chivo playbook: Win the Oscar. Lubezski is the only person to win this award three times in a row, taking home the award for Gravity (also directed by Cuarón), Birdman and The Revenant. Now his friend could be following in his footsteps.

The monkey wrench could be Cold War director of photography Lukasz Zal, who won the ASC guild award, though that could have been a group of cinematographers voting for one of their own over an outsider director. Zal’s square-framed, black-and-white work on Pawel Pawlikowsi’s daring romance would not be unworthy. My choice is probably running third here, Robbie Ryan’s daft, iconoclastic work on The Favourite, while six-time nominee Caleb Deschanel (Never Look Away) and twice-nominated Matthew Libatique (A Star Is Born) are probably also-rans, who both were surprise nominees to one degree or another.

This likely comes down to Roma vs. Cold War, and I expect the Academy as a whole will be less reluctant than the cinematographers to reward Cuarón for his lovely work.

Will win: Roma

Should win: The Favourite

Should have been here: First Man

Best Editing

Nominees: BlacKkKlansman; Bohemian Rhapsody; The Favourite; Green Book; Vice

An eclectic group to say the least, here we find a police procedural, a music biopic, a costume drama, a serio-comic road movie, and a political satire. The only thing missing is a war movie and we would have Best Editing BINGO.

Patrick J. Don Vito (Green Book) and Yorgos Mavropsaridis (The Favourite) do the least-flashy work here, though The Favourite features some spectacular dissolves, particularly during its end sequence. If Green Book maintains its cooling Best Picture heat, it is possible Don Vito scores here, but that is less likely by the day. Meanwhile, Barry Alexander Brown provides BlacKkKlansman with the kind of tight, crisp editing thrillers thrive on, and if the film picks up steam, he could be one to watch (or not, as again, this award will be presented during a commercial break).

In my estimation, however, it comes down to John Ottman for Bohemian Rhapsody and Hank Corwin for Vice. Both films traverse an expansive amount of time, incorporating flashbacks and flash forwards, and each is a feat of continuity. Corwin was previously nominated for The Big Short, while this is the first nomination for Ottman, who is the usual editor for disgraced director Bryan Singer, though Singer’s crimes should not be held against Ottman.

Many in the punditry are predicting a win for Vice here, but I do not see it. While that film’s buzz has cooled off the closer we have gotten to the ceremony, Bohemian Rhapsody remains at the forefront of the conversation amid a DVD release this week and lead actor Rami Malek’s ever-presence on the awards circuit. With all the whip-cracking cuts to the copious music and elegant blending of concert and studio footage, I will back Ottman’s work on the Queen biopic.

Will win: Bohemian Rhapsody

Should win: BlacKkKlansman

Should have been here: First Man

Best Production Design

Nominees: Black Panther; The Favourite; First Man; Mary Poppins Returns; Roma

Four period pieces and a fantasy, here is a group that is not exactly stepping outside its wheelhouse. At the same time, these nominees are as different as they are impressive, each bringing to vivid life the worlds they are eager to depict.

Fiona Crombie’s and Alice Felton’s work on The Favourite is the most traditional nominee among these, as a period piece set in the halls of British royalty, and it may very well be our winner. It would be hard to deny the film is a sumptuous feast for the eyes, though its most slam-dunk proposition may be the next category down.

Eugenio Cabellero and Barbara Enriquez recreated entire blocks of Mexico City for Roma, bringing a richness of detail and truth to the proceedings, while Nathan Crowley and Kathy Lucas brought the Apollo missions to life in First Man for a generation that barely remembers a time before “One small step.” John Myhre and Gordon Sim created a delightful world for Mary Poppins Returns, though the lengthy animated sequence at the film’s center may confuse the point for some voters.

Finally, Hannah Beachler and Jay Hart made the Wakanda of Black Panther a real place, as futuristic and fantastical as it may seem. It should also be said Beachler is the first African American to be nominated in this category, which should be considered an honor for her and a glaring oversight throughout the years by the Academy.

If you are asking me for a prediction, go with the clearly popular, heavily nominated period piece set mostly in the big, fancy castle, but watch out for a Black Panther-sized upset.

Will win: The Favourite

Should win: The Favourite

Should have been here: The Death of Stalin

Best Costume Design

Nominees: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs; Black Panther; The Favourite; Mary Poppins Returns; Mary Queen of Scots

Even more beholden to period work than the production designers, the costumers did not even bother nominating a worthy contemporary film such as Crazy Rich Asians. But if La La Land, which lost this award to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them two years ago, could not break the stranglehold – no contemporary film has won since The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert in 1993 (1994 ceremony) – this wasn’t going to be the year.

Academy favorite Sandy Powell (14 nominations, three wins) is a double nominee this year for The Favourite and Mary Poppins Returns, which also happen to be the two best designed films of the year. Don’t expect Powell to split her vote, as Academy members are likely to rally behind The Favourite and give it the deserved win here.

Alexandra Byrne’s costumes for Mary Queen of Scots are wading in the same territory as The Favourite but for the far less-acclaimed film. Mary Zophres’ The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is a bit of an outsider nominee, though not Zophres herself. She was previously nominated for the above-mentioned La La Land and the Coen Brothers’ other pure western, True Grit.

The spoiler could be Ruth E. Carter’s stunning Afro-futurist designs for Black Panther. Expect to read that a lot in this space, as Black Panther is a threat anywhere it is nominated, up to and including the big award. All it had to do was get to the dance, and the work will speak for itself.

Still, old habits die hard and Powell is a deserving and likely winner for the crazed, distressed rags of a monarchy in decline.

Will win: The Favourite

Should win: The Favourite

Should have been here: BlacKkKlansman

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

Nominees: Border; Mary Queen of Scots; Vice

It is a fascinating quirk of processes like these when for the third time in four years, an obscure (to Americans, at least) Swedish film is nominated in this category. The previous two times, it was the team of Love Larson and Eva von Bahr for The 100-year-old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared and A Man Called Ove. This time around, we have Göran Lundström and Pamela Goldammer for the strange and hypnotic Border. Like their countrymen, this team is the least likely winner, simply for the low profile of the film, but the work is tremendous and there is clearly something going right in the Swedish makeup and hairstyling community.

One need only look at the posters and other promotional materials to understand how Jenny Shircore, Marc Pilcher, and Jessica Brooks landed here for Mary Queen of Scots. The work on Margot Robbie alone likely would have been enough to score the nomination – though I actually found the prosthetic nose Robbie wore distracting. The film, however, is not held in high regard, and while their fellow craftsmen were always a strong bet to recognize this team, the Academy at large is less so.

That leaves Vice, the Best Picture nominee featuring showy prosthetics and hairstyling work throughout, supplementing another of Christian Bale’s miraculous – and disgusting, if you ask my wife – physical transformations. It has been written in this space before, but when there is a lone Best Picture nominee among this group, that is your winner almost every time. The last time that logic did not hold was 1997, when Titanic lost to Men in Black. Men in Black, however, was a showy, popular blockbuster. Vice faces no such competition.

Will win: Vice

Should win: Vice

Should have been here: Suspiria

Best Visual Effects

Nominees: Avengers: Infinity War; Christopher Robin; First Man; Ready Player One; Solo: A Stars Wars Story

Boy, the industry really held those kinda-funky rhinos against Black Panther this season. After the visual effects society most shied away from the Best Picture-nominated blockbuster, the Academy’s visual effects branch went a step further and failed even to nominate it. The snub seems a bit extreme when so much of the rest of the film was so brilliantly rendered, but here we are.

Avengers: Infinity War is holding down the Marvel Cinematic Universe spot this year, and while the MCU has been well represented among the past nominees, no Marvel film has won this award – not counting Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, which won in 2002, prior to the rise of the modern Marvel universe. This year, however, it feels as though Avengers: Infinity War is likely to win almost by default.

Solo: A Star Wars Story was always a good bet for a nomination, considering every Star Wars film but Episode III has been named in this category. The nominating committee clearly likes these films, but the Academy has cooled to them, and no film outside the original trilogy has taken home gold here. The least acclaimed of the new-generation Star Wars films is unlikely to break that streak.

Steven Spielberg’s not-well-loved Ready Player One adaptation certainly features a lot of effects work, but to my eyes, much of it was dingy and unpleasant. First Man would be a deserving winner, but one fears its effects are too seamlessly integrated into the film to be noticed for their wonder – an ironic fate, to be sure. Meanwhile, Christopher Robin’s fuzzy Hundred Acre Wood residents are brought to life with all the charm one would hope for. I cannot let the moment pass without saying the film is an unmitigated joy, a nostalgia-inducing pleasure from beginning to end, though that will do nothing to carry it to the win.

Unless we are looking at another year as strange as that time Ex Machina swooped in and snatched this award, it appears Marvel will finally find the winner’s circle. Of course, none of these would be as shocking as that Ex Machina victory, which remains unlikely to be topped in that regard.

Will win: Avengers: Infinity War

Should win: First Man

Should have been here: Black Panther

Next time on the Countdown to the Oscars, we tackle What You Can Hear.

Countdown to the Oscars: Welcome to 2019

Time for a confession that won’t come as a shock to anyone who has followed the site: I am a longtime Academy apologist. If you have read my reviews of past Oscar ceremonies, you know this. If you have listened to me argue for Crash as the superior film to Brokeback Mountain, you know this – though I would argue Capote was that year’s best nominated film. I enjoyed the ceremony where Anne Hathaway tried her best to host with a high-out-of-his-mind James Franco, fully understanding my friends and I might be the only ones.

The Oscars ceremony is an event I look forward to all year, every year. It is not an exaggeration to say my calendar year revolves more around the Academy Awards than New Year’s Day. I say all this so you will understand it is out of deep love that I say this: Bluntly, I fear this year’s ceremony will suck. I don’t know that there is a better, more elegant way to put it. Sometimes, simple is best, and simply, this year might suck.

The Academy and its host network, Disney-owned (isn’t everything?) ABC have tripped all over themselves throughout this awards cycle, making mistake after mistake, correcting some, leaving others, until the ceremony they are proposing has begun to sound not like a classical celebration of movies but a grinding chore.

Let’s take a look at some of what’s gone on so far:

The Best Popular Film category: This was a clear disaster from the start. Before we get into it, let’s keep in mind that the driving force behind all of this is ratings. Ratings equal money, and there is no decision that has been announced, at least initially, that is not brutally aware of the bottom line. Of course, we all know how well bottom-line thinking and art co-exist.

Clearly, this attempt at broadening the variety of films nominated was aimed at including blockbusters like Black Panther, which of course is a popcorn masterpiece that was recognized in the top category on merit. The thinking goes: Blockbusters equal viewers because people will tune in to see movies they know about and enjoyed. Supporters of this theory will point to years like 1997 (1998 ceremony), when Titanic won Best Picture and the awards received their highest viewership ever.

This is a juicy premise, and it is understandable why the money men and women would choose to believe it, but it does not hold up to scrutiny. The Titanic ceremony drew 55.25 million viewers, the most ever, but the most watched ceremony by audience percentage was in 1970, when Midnight Cowboy – the X-rated drama about a gigolo, which no one would confuse with a blockbuster – won the top award.

The telecast numbers have gone down every year since 2014, five years of declining ratings resulting in last year’s show being the least watched ever. The Best Picture winner: The Shape of Water, a weird Cold War fish-sex romantic drama, which happened also to be the best film of the year. Perhaps understandable that no one tuned in for that? But keep in mind, box-office-wise, The Shape of Water outperformed every Best Picture winner since the downturn began.

The Academy and ABC are under the misconception that the nominated films somehow are keeping people away. They are not. Let me suggest the obvious – meaning I will not have been the first to say this. It is simply choice. When Titanic was named Best Picture of the year in 1998, 55 million people tuned in because what else were they going to watch. Hell, The Sopranos had not even debuted. Last year, roughly 26 million people watched, nearly half of the Titanic numbers. That looks bad, but in a different light, that represents half as many viewers who had 100 times the choice.

No single similar event but the Super Bowl (which, by the way, suffered dramatically reduced viewership this year) will ever draw 55 million viewers again. It just doesn’t happen in an era when there are 800 channels to watch and infinite streaming options.

The hosting debacle: Let’s say this right off – Kevin Hart would have been a fine host, in the vein of a Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, or Chris Rock. He would not have been blatantly offensive like Seth McFarlane, and he would not have been overly milquetoast like Ellen DeGeneres or Neil Patrick Harris, both whose hosting gigs I genuinely enjoyed. He likely would have hit the sweet spot in his opening monologue of pointed political humor and general inside-Hollywood jocularity. It would have been fine.

That said, I cannot fault anyone for their reactions to his past homophobic material, and Hart did not help himself with his half-hearted non-apologies. The Academy then suffered the unfortunate look of no one wanting to host the show, which has led to a host-less ceremony, the first of its kind since 1989, when 42 million people tuned in to watch Rain Man win Best Picture. That is roughly equivalent to the 42 million who watched Rock host in 2005 (Million Dollar Baby) and the 43.7 million who watched DeGeneres host in 2014 (12 Years a Slave), the highest-rated ceremony of the new century.

A good host is a bonus. He or she makes the ceremony more fun, more enjoyable, perhaps more whimsical. It is not, however, a make-or-break proposition. No one tunes in to see the host, which is among the most thankless jobs in Hollywood. No one ever likes the show, so you do your best, you try to have fun, then you try to forget about it. This should not have mattered as much as it did, but welcome to the modern era.

The tyranny of the three-hour show: This is ABC’s latest scourge, which has been evident in all of its decision-making and was painfully obvious at the normally loose and fun Academy Awards luncheon, where producer Donna Gigliotti stressed repeatedly the importance of keeping speeches short and getting the ceremony in in under three hours.

As we discuss this, keep in mind the longest Academy Awards on record came in 2002, when A Beautiful Mind was named Best Picture. The show lasted four hours and 23 minutes. The number of viewers: 40.5 million. Don’t let anyone tell you length matters to the viewer, or more specifically, the viewership numbers.

This myth that a three-hour show will help revive viewership has led to all of the worst ideas to come out of this year’s proposed ceremony: the plan to perform just two of the five Best Original Song nominees (corrected by virtue of nominee solidarity); the limiting of speech time to 90 seconds, including walk time; and most offensive of all, the shunting off to commercial breaks those categories that might be considered less sexy or viewer friendly.

I must believe – for sanity’s sake if nothing else – that these ideas were proposed by ABC. Otherwise, I would have to reconcile the idea that Academy has no idea what it is or what makes its show tick.

Limiting the songs to two is such a jaw-dropping idea one wonders how it could ever have been pitched. Some of the show’s best moments come from those songs – Common and John Legend’s performance of “Glory” from Selma is a watershed moment in Academy history. The nominees rightfully revolted, and we will have a full complement of songs – if shortened and bastardized to fit into a pre-determined window of time.

On speech length – counting walking time is by far the pettiest thing the producers can do to cut down on show runtime – let’s do some math. With 24 categories, at 90 seconds each, that is 36 minutes of speeches. With the allotted – and ludicrous – seven minutes to perform five original songs, that is 42 minutes of show. Say – and this is a rough estimate – they have to fill two hours and 10 minutes, with 50 minutes of commercials in their dream three-hour show. What you are left with is 88 minutes of host-less banter between awards speeches.

Throw in the In Memorium sequence and we have roughly 80 minutes of free-flowing, unmoored nonsense. This is the Oscars. It is about the winners. Any other belief is misguided and wrong-headed. The speeches are why one tunes in. We do not need to see comedians and actors and the like performing stilted “witty” conversations in lieu of the honest emotion of an artist reacting to the most important moment of his or her life.

Which brings us to the idea of hiding certain categories during the commercial break – rumored to be five or six categories with no word on which as of yet. The very idea is disgusting, and the Academy should be ashamed for allowing such an idea to make it out of a brainstorm – and for not firing the person who brainstormed it.

The Oscars are about celebrating movie-making, and there is not one person nominated in any category who is less important than another in the art of filmmaking. The show is supposed to be about giving them their moment in the sun. Not to do so is a betrayal of what the Academy Awards stand for.

I know it is all about commerce, and the show is essentially one big commercial for the movie industry. Love us, buy tickets, see movies. I get that. But at the same time, when the legendary Roger Deakins wins Best Cinematography on his 14th nomination, that is a moment to cherish. When a documentary filmmaker calls out the presidential administration for its lies and falsehoods, that is a moment. The show is about moments, and the artists are the ones who give us those moments. And that means all the artists, not just the ones whose faces we recognize.

How to fix the Oscars

This year’s ceremony cannot be saved. We are in an expect-the-worst, hope-for-the-best scenario already. But what can be done in the future? I would make a single change that would address all of the current demons haunting the Academy Awards.

Make it pay-per-view.

The dwindling numbers are evidence that given the preponderance of entertainment options – be they on TV, the internet, your phone, or some combination of all of these – only hard-core fans are going to watch the ceremony. This is fine. In fact, in the age of new media, it is ideal. It is impossible to survive by trying to be all things to all people. By attempting to pull this off, the Academy is not drawing in new viewers, but it is alienating its core viewers. With an entire media world at everyone’s fingertips, it is important to fill a niche. The Oscars are a perfectly constructed niche. Those who desire to watch will pay – a la carte viewership is the current wave of television consumption anyway.

In addition, by divorcing itself of a network and of corporate demands, the Academy is free to be its true self. This will be offputting to some – even I, a fan, would describe that true self as elitist, leftist, and self-congratulatory – but they would not watch to begin with. Instead, the Academy would be free to form a deeper connection with those it appeals to most. This creates loyalty and repeat viewership.

As far as the actual effect on the show, as we said, length is not a problem for viewers who care to watch in the first place. Moreover, on pay-per-view, commercial breaks are eliminated. For breaks when those in attendance – or those at home – might want to hit the bar, visit the bathroom, or just mingle, there are the montages the Academy loves so much each year. But now, instead of taking up valuable network airtime, they are the breaks in action, entertaining but disposable and perfectly suited to this function.

Ironically, this elimination of commercial breaks would naturally bring the length of the show down to three hours or less, but of course, that is not something the pay-per-viewers would care about. However, perhaps the show could move to Saturday night, when the pay-per-view could air live the entirety of the ceremony. Then, a network could buy the rights to an edited version of the ceremony to air later the same night or the next night – the traditional Sunday. This increases revenue and decreases running time.

Of course, by airing a tape-delayed version the next night, everyone will already know the winners, but the primary function of the show at that point would simply be as a piece of entertainment. With countless big-name stars, big musical numbers from the Original Song nominees, and a smart opening with a talented, funny host, it would be the best show on TV and would still draw the 25 million or so viewers who are watching anyway.

***

So, there it is. I am only a fan, and maybe I am way off base – but certainly no more than the Academy and ABC. I look forward to Oscars night every year, but this is the first year a sense of dread has crept into the equation. If the Academy cannot figure out what makes those who love it and follow it want to love and follow, it will die. And that would be a shame.

Welcome to Last Cinema Standing’s Countdown to the Oscars, which will proceed a little differently this year. Keep checking back here at the site for more analysis and discussion of the year’s Academy Award-nominated films.