Showing posts with label Ford V Ferrari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ford V Ferrari. Show all posts

Saturday, February 8, 2020

Countdown to the Oscars: Best Picture


Welcome to the Last Cinema Standing Countdown to the Oscars for the 2019 movie season! Throughout this series, we will break down all 24 categories with predictions and hopes for the big night. The series concludes with the nine nominees for Best Picture.


This is the big one, the reason we are all here. This is Best Picture at the Academy Awards. There was much furor over the perfectly fine if bland choice of Green Book last year over Alfonso Cuaron’s masterwork, Roma. Keep in mind, however, there is that kind of upset every year. Every film nominated for Best Picture has passionate supporters – that is how you end up with a Best Picture nomination in the first place – and no matter what wins, someone is upset. You have to go back to 2007 and No Country for Old Men to find a winner that was nearly universally agreed upon, and even then, There Will Be Blood fans wondered where the Paul Thomas Anderson love was.

Some great films are nominated in the Academy’s top category this year. One of them will win Best Picture. Eight others will not. The announcement of a winner does not magically erase the others from existence. All of this is to say: Try not to get too worked up about it. I love this stuff. I genuinely jump for joy win films and people I respect win Academy Awards. When they do not win, it is upsetting, but then I go back and watch films I love and remember why I love them in the first place. It is not because they may win Oscars but because they are great works of art.

These are the nine films nominated for Best Picture of 2019 at the Academy Awards this year, in order of likelihood to win (from least likely to most):


Ford V. Ferrari, directed by James Mangold

I hate using the term “muscular” because it has become so gendered when talking about filmmaking. But we are talking about big, beefy engines, fast cars, and loud noises. I don’t care what gender you are. This is muscular filmmaking. Ford V. Ferrari is the kind of movie the Academy usually eats up. It is a classic tale of American exceptionalism that finds within that structure a critique of the capitalist system. It is about a couple Davids working for Goliath, trying to take down another Goliath. In the end, only the Goliaths win.

Mangold’s direction is tight, precise, and propulsive, Christian Bale and Matt Damon are excellent in the leading roles, and the film is a visual splendor. That said, with no directing nomination, no acting nominations, and no writing nomination, the love for this film appears to stop at its considerable crafts. It will not get many No. 1 votes among these nominees, and the prize will have to be the nomination.


Marriage Story, directed by Noah Baumbach

Despite what you may have heard, Marriage Story is much more than Kramer vs. Kramer 2.0. Baumbach’s film a fairer, more considered work than that earlier film to which it is so often compared. For those who cannot see both sides of this story, it says more about them than it does the film. Baumbach balances his audience’s loyalties and sympathies in a way you rarely see on screen. Marriage Story is evidence of a filmmaker working at the height of his considerable powers as both a writer and director.

It helps that at the center of film are two remarkable leading performances. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver. They battle and rage and scratch and claw and never given an inch, either as performers or characters. The beauty of the film lies in the way both characters come to realize they have entered a war that cannot be won. It may ultimately be too raw and too close to the bone for voters. It is a hard film to love, but it is worth the effort if you have the patience to meet the film on its level.


The Irishman, directed by Martin Scorsese

It feels impossible that Scorsese could return with another masterpiece and the world could simply shrug at it. As of now, I am predicting The Irishman to win precisely zero of its 10 nominations. That is a feat matched or exceeded by only five other films in history, including Scorsese’s own Gangs of New York in 2002, which similarly went 0-for-10. The list also features American Hustle (10), True Grit (10), The Turning Point (11), and The Color Purple (11). I do not think it is controversial to suggest The Irishman is the blue ribbon of that group.

I wonder how much of this is the Netflix effect. Not simply the Academy’s and the industry’s at large aversion to the growing power of the streaming platform. If anybody could move voters beyond that prejudice, surely Scorsese could. Rather, Netflix’s model, for both its film and television originals, seems to be a major release with much press and hullabaloo. The new piece, say The Irishman or Marriage Story, dominates the cultural conversation for a week or two, then disappears, lost in the sea of content. I cannot imagine a world in which a master director releases a perfect film and it simply disappears into the ether, but here we stand.


Little Women, directed by Greta Gerwig

There is little that irk me more than sight-unseen prejudice. The conversation around the release of Little Women was that men would not see it, that men, in fact, were refusing to see it based on some misguided and phony masculine code. Yet, it is here. It is among the nominees for Best Picture in a male dominated Academy. So, clearly, some men crossed the picket line and saw it. For doing so, they were rewarded with a masterful piece of storytelling in which everything old is new again. Little Women is a rebuke to the very men who would refuse to see it.

Little Women is also a major work from one of the best new directors on the scene. With Lady Bird and now this, Gerwig has proven that she is in this game to play, and not only is she playing – she is winning. Her post-modern take on the March girls saga is the perfect movie of the moment, striking at the very core of what drives conversations around art and the artist. It is a film in conversation with itself and the world at large, daring viewers to judge it, to misinterpret it, and to miss the point. It is challenging, daring, and brilliant, so of course, it will not win. But just wait until Gerwig gets back here again.


Joker, directed by Todd Phillips

The preferential ballot used to determine Best Picture rewards consensus. A controversial, love-it-or-hate-it work is unlikely to win under this kind of system. It does not come much more controversial than Joker when it comes to the Academy’s top award. Many voters will put it down as the No. 1 film of the year. Many others will place it last on their ballots or leave it off entirely. This is not a film that can build consensus, yet its ceremony-high 11 nominations suggest it has strong support across the board.

The critical and industry divide on Joker has been fascinating to watch ever since it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. Somehow, winning a major award put a target on Joker’s back. Its worst sin is that it is derivative of early Martin Scorsese, though the homage fits the tone of the piece. From what I can tell, people want to find nothing in the film. People who want to hate will find it empty, though admittedly, some who love are seeing too much. The truth is the film’s existence is something of a miracle, a billion-dollar-grossing comic book film that takes an infamous character and puts a new spin on it. Kudos to Phillips for trying something and succeeding.


Jojo Rabbit, directed by Taika Waititi

This is my least favorite among the nominees. I just want to be upfront about that before I discuss the film’s chances to win Best Picture. Part of me wonders if Waititi just is not my bag. Though I loved Hunt for the Wilderpeople, I could not get on board for any of What We Do in The Shadows, Thor: Ragnarok, Flight of the Conchords, or Jojo Rabbit. While some of the humor works for me, what I found most distressing about Jojo Rabbit were its attempts at sincerity.

Jojo Rabbit wants to be about something important – it is even billed as an “Anit-Hate Satire,” just in case you didn’t get the joke – but it also wants to make you laugh at the antics of an imaginary Hitler. The tonal shifts do not work. The film works for others, and I am happy for them. I will not be happy if this film wins Best Picture, which is a viable outcome for a middlebrow crowd-pleaser that has Life Is Beautiful DNA. Few would call it their favorite film, but few will say they outright dislike, which could be important on a preferential ballot.


Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood, directed by Quentin Tarantino

Tarantino shot his shot with this film. I think it is his second-best work after Inglourious Basterds. He says he will retire after his 10th film – this is No. 9 – and it is hard to imagine him producing another work of such profound beauty and introspection. As ever, this Tarantino movie loves movies, and it loves people who make movies, which would be Academy members. If there were ever going to be a fastball down the middle of the plate for Oscar voters, this would be it. And yet, it has gained little traction.

Brad Pitt will win Supporting Actor, Tarantino could win his third Original Screenplay award, and the film is in the mix in a couple below-the-line categories, but the momentum does not seem to exist for the top prize. Like Inglourious Basterds, which came in the year of Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker, Once Upon a Time seems to be running third behind the two Best Picture favorites. Maybe it ends up second on enough ballots and surprises everyone, but it does not seem to be in the cards. Maybe Tarantino will never get there. Hitchcock never did. Nor did Kubrick. Welles couldn’t even get back to the show. If Tarantino does retire and join this group, hey, there is worse company in which to find yourself.


Parasite, directed by Bong Joon-ho

The best film of the year does not always get this close to the top prize. In the 16 or 17 years I have been following the Oscars closely, my favorite film of the year has won the top award three times, and I freely admit that many people disagree with me about those selections. There is not much disagreement that Parasite is the best film of the year. It won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, becoming the first Korean film to do so. It won numerous critical accolades and has broken down barriers across the board for Korean films specifically and foreign language films in general.

There is no one in the industry who does not like this director, this cast, or this film. At industry function after industry function, the enthusiasm and applause for this film and these filmmakers has been off the charts. Bong has been one of the most popular individuals in the room at every party he attends. Parasite is universal. The love is out there. The question is: Will that love translate into votes? The short answer is yes, but will there be enough? We will find out.


1917, directed by Sam Mendes

It is no longer cool to admit you still like American Beauty. There is the Kevin Spacey aspect, the general whiteness of the film, its handling of gay characters, and its generally icky plot about a middle-aged man lusting after a teenage girl. The film has not changed. The culture has. In many ways, I understand. But the fractured take on suburban malaise had not become a cliché at this point. American Beauty is primarily responsible for the wave of imitators that followed. That was 20 years ago when Mendes’ first feature film won Best Picture. Now, he is on the verge of another triumph.

1917 has won all the right awards that would suggest a Best Picture win. It won the Golden Globes, it won the Producers Guild, it won the Directors Guild, and it won all those BAFTAs. There is only one empty spot in the trophy case. 1917 is a strange goliath because it is such a well-made film. It truly is an impressive piece of filmmaking and storytelling. I do not want to root against this film. I really enjoyed it. The crafts are impeccable, the performances are lovely, and the climax is among the most stirring I have seen in a cinema in recent years.

The problem is that Parasite is an unimpeachable masterwork. Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood is stunning. Little Women and The Irishman are brilliant. You want something transcendent to beat that group. 1917 is tremendous, but transcendence is elusive. All signs point to 1917, but it is hard to be excited about that outcome. Of course, the last time I felt this certain about a Best Picture winner was La La Land. Then, Moonlight happened. So, you never know.

Will win: 1917
Should win: Parasite
Should have been here: Midsommar

Countdown to the Oscars: What You Can Hear



Welcome to the Last Cinema Standing Countdown to the Oscars for the 2019 movie season! Throughout this series, we will break down all 24 categories with predictions and hopes for the big night. The series continues with the crafts you can hear.

Best Original Score

Nominees
Joker, Hildur Guðnadóttir
Little Women, Alexandre Desplat
Marriage Story, Randy Newman
1917, Thomas Newman
Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker, John Williams

It does seem like Williams gets nominated just for getting out of bed in the morning and going to the studio these days. Williams will be 88 years old within the week after this year’s Oscars ceremony, and he is on his 47th nomination, which – need I say – is a record. Remarkably, he has won just five times from all those nominations and not since Schindler’s List in 1993. This is his 20th Original Score nomination (he also has an Original Song nomination in there) since that win, which is a lot of tuxes to rent (he probably owns by now, right?) without winning an award. He will not win this year for his familiar Star Wars work, but I think it is good to remember exactly who we are talking about when we talk about John Williams.

Randy Newman, of course, is another Academy favorite, though he is more known for his songs than his scores. He has been nominated nine times for Original Score, but this is his first recognition in the category since 2001. He has never won for a score. Randy’s cousin, Thomas Newman, has also never won for score, despite a record-tying 14 nominations (just to be clear, that is the record for nominations without a win). I found the Marriage Story score to be so contrapuntal as to be distracting, though I know a lot of people love it. The 1917 score on the other hand is a beautiful example of the form, building tension and perfectly complementing the onscreen action.

Desplat’s work on Little Women is a wonderfully propulsive burst of energy that fits like a glove on Greta Gerwig’s modernist take on the material. Finally, there is Guðnadóttir’s creepy, ominous work on Joker, which fills the film with its deep sense of dread. Some have complained that the tones and strings are overbearing, telling the viewer how to feel rather than evoking a feeling. I disagree. That overbearing is the feeling being evoked, a crumbling city falling down all around and finally on top of you. I found it deeply moving, and the season seems to be pointing this way. If Guðnadóttir wins – and she is the current favorite – it will be richly deserved.

Will win: Joker
Should win: 1917
Should have been here: Midsommar

Best Original Song

Nominees
“I’m Standing With You” from Breakthrough, Dianne Warren
“Into the Unknown” from Frozen II, Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
“Stand Up” from Harriet, Cynthia Erivo and Joshua Brian Campbell
“I’m Gonna Love Me Again” from Rocketman, Elton John and Bernie Taupin
“I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away” from Toy Story 4, Randy Newman

I have been very clear in the past how I feel about this award. I hate it. Clear enough? Not because I think the best film songs of the year do not deserve to be rewarded but because that is not what tends to happen in this category. Every year, voters – and the nominating music branch – fail to ask: Does this song complement and enhance the themes of the film? Is it integral to the plot? Does it evoke the mood of the story and improve our understanding of the characters? Instead, they ask: Is this person famous? Was this song a hit? Do I like this movie?

That is how you end up with a list of nominees that looks like this. If you are looking for the winner, it probably comes down to “Stand Up,” “I’m Gonna Love Me Again,” or “I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away.” The Frozen II nomination feels like a token Disney nod for the third-best song in a middling to bad movie. “I’m Standing With You” can be explained by the music branch’s love of Warren, who is an 11-time Best Original Song nominee and has never won the award. She will be bridesmaid once again this year.

For Newman, this is his 13th songwriting nomination, and he won his last time out, but that was for Toy Story 3 10 years ago. He has won this award twice, though, and it seems unlikely the Academy will award him again. So, it comes down to “Stand Up” or “I’m Gonna Love Me Again.” Rocketman was a huge hit, and people love Elton John, who previously won this award and was thrice nominated for The Lion King in 1994. But, because Erivo is highly unlikely to win Best Actress, this is another place they can award a performer and movie they clearly liked. In the end, I think John and Taupin take it just based on star power, but watch out for “Stand Up.”

Briefly, I should say my biggest Oscars snub of the year came in this category (boy, it feels like that is always the case). I will never understand how the music branch could have slept on the tremendous “Glasgow” from the underseen but spectacular Wild Rose. Jessie Buckley plays a woman who dreams of being a country singer, and the film culminates in Buckley’s powerful performance of this song. This is the kind of song this award is meant for and should be rewarding, but it almost never does, so I suppose I should not be surprised. If nothing else, please seek out Wild Rose, which is also a better film than any of these nominees.

Will win: “I’m Gonna Love Me Again” from Rocketman
Should win: “I Can’t Let You Throw Yourself Away” from Toy Story 4
Should have been here: “Glasgow” from Wild Rose


Best Sound Editing

Nominees
Ford V. Ferrari, Donald Sylvester
Joker, Alan Robert Murray
1917, Oliver Tarney and Rachel Tate
Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood, Wylie Stateman
Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker, Matthew Wood and David Acord

Okay, we have talked about the difference between sound editing and sound editing a few times before on this site, so I will not totally rehash it here. If you want a detailed look at it, you can head over here or here. For the layman, think of it this way: Sound editing equals sound effects, and sound mixing equals levels of all sound (score, sound effects, dialogue, etc.). That difference being stated, the Academy sound branch does not differentiate much in its nominees, as you can see above and below.

The mix of nominees in Sound Editing this year is interesting, featuring a couple classic actioners (1917 and Ford V. Ferrari), two more subdued works (Joker and Once Upon a Time), and a science-fiction yarn (Star Wars). It is always kind of remarkable to me the Star Wars films have not done better in this category, considering their green-screen worlds rely heavily on sound effects to bring everything to life. Is there any more iconic movie sound than the light saber swoosh? But, as ever, the nomination is the respect of the craftspeople in the branch who recognize the work.

The larger Academy tends to be swayed by both prestige and more tangible, visceral work, in this case films like the war epic 1917 and the race car flick Ford V. Ferrari. Either would be an admirable winner, though I will make the case below for Ford V. Ferrari in the other sound category. Most likely, the Academy’s love for 1917 as a whole and the recognition of the film as a clear technical achievement will carry it to victory here. Never mind that it is also probably the most deserving of the nominees.

Will win: 1917
Should win: 1917
Should have been here: The Nightingale

Best Sound Mixing

Nominees
Ad Astra, Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson, and Mark Ulano
Ford V. Ferrari, Paul Massey, David Giammarco, and Steve Morrow
Joker, Tom Ozanich, Dean A. Zupancic, and Tod A. Maitland
1917, Mark Taylor and Stuart Wilson
Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood, Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler, Mark Ulano

Swap out Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker for Ad Astra – one space adventure for another – and you have pretty much the same lineup for Sound Mixing as Sound Editing. Once again, the Academy members are likely to be swayed by the overall technical achievement of 1917 and tick off the boxes all the way down the ballot. Make no mistake, the balancing of Thomas Newman’s score with all those effects is an admirable feat, but it is perhaps not most impressive among this group.

For that, I want to single out two films: Quentin Tarantino’s breezy comedy caper Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood and James Mangold’s superior sports film Ford V. Ferrari. Tarantino has talked extensively about using the diegetic sound in the movie to create the atmosphere necessary for his story. In particular, the songs playing out of car radios and off record players in the homes are omnipresent, and they are omnipresent in the way music is in our lives and in the lives of these characters. It is loud without being obtrusive, underpinning the dialogue in a way that feels authentic and true to life.

Meanwhile, Ford V. Ferrari is a film about the intricacies of building an automobile. It is about characters attuned to every subtle change in the look, feel, and yes, sound of the car. Featuring a rousing score – sadly overlooked by the music branch – and all those engine noises and screeching tires, Massey, Giammarco, and Morrow help make the world of Ford V. Ferrari visceral without it being overwhelming. It is not a sensory overload so much as it is a perfect balancing act of sensation. All that being said, do not predict two separate films in the sound categories (unless there is a serious musical in play, which is a discussion for another year). Go with 1917.

Will win: 1917
Should win: Ford V. Ferrari
Should have been here: The Nightingale