Sharing my love of all things Oscar. I see all the movies with nominations so you don't have to - and I do my best to research and help pick the winners. Subscribe, share your comments, and feel free to share with others. Follow me on Twitter @JodiBee.
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score): Max Richter
Best Motion Picture of the Year: Liza Marshall, Pippa Harris, Nicolas Gonda, Steven Spielberg, Sam Mendes
Best Achievement in Directing: Chloé Zhao
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role: Jessie Buckley
Best Adapted Screenplay: Maggie O’Farrell, Chloé Zhao
Best Achievement in Production Design: Fiona Crombie (production designer), Alice Felton (set decorator)
Best Achievement in Costume Design: Malgosia Turzanska
Hamnet is the beautiful and deeply moving story of William Shakespeare and his family; how he met his wife, his rise in popularity, and the family that he left behind when he went to London to put on what would become enduring work that would live well beyond his lifetime. With this film, Chloe Zhao has done something powerful. While we have seen films before that play out a “real life” story that eventually become a Shakespeare play (a la, Shakespeare in Love), this feels grounded in a world that feels as real as it is theatrical, and as theatrical as it is real. Of course the technical categories lend themselves to the experience, but what makes this movie are the performances from Jessie Buckley, Paul Mescal, and the three child actors who play their children. (At this point, I can’t see anyone taking the gold from Jessie Buckley.) We know that Chloe Zhao is an outstanding director, but the thing that connects her Oscar winning Nomadland to Hamnet is her ability to have enduring compassion for her women leads while still showing them to be fully human, whether pooping in a bucket in a van or giving birth alone in the woods. And here is my big reveal - if you are going to see only 2 or 3 of the nominated Best Pictures this year, make sure that Hamnet is one of them.
Best Achievement in Cinematography: Darius Khondji
Best Motion Picture of the Year: Eli Bush, Ronald Bronstein, Josh Safdie, Anthony Katagas, Timothée Chalamet
Best Achievement in Directing: Josh Safdie
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role: Timothée Chalamet
Best Original Screenplay: Josh Safdie (writer), Ronald Bronstein (writer)
Best Achievement in Production Design: Jack Fisk (production designer), Adam Willis (set decorator)
Best Achievement in Costume Design: Miyako Bellizzi
Best Achievement in Film Editing: Ronald Bronstein, Josh Safdie
Marty Mauser is a shoe salesman with a dream - to become the world champion table tennis player. He is a hustler, he has a married girlfriend who is pregnant with his baby, and what’s more, each one of his disastrous decisions puts him in danger, or at least right at the edge of it. But he is singularly focused on achieving greatness, much like the actor who plays him and openly says that he aspires to be one of the all-time greats in his own field. The film is frenetic, much like Josh Safdie’s other works (especially Uncut Gems), and this is another year in a row when the Producer/Director is also the Writer/Editor and is nominated for all four categories (including Best Picture). Last year, Sean Baker took home all four prizes.
Does this put Marty Supreme on the path for the big win, Best Picture? In the mix, maybe. For the win? I don’t think so. Having said that, it’s hard to argue that the frenetic style of movie making - when done well - must be a top contender for Editing. And Timothee (who longtime readers of the blog will know I have nicknamed “Greasy” because even after an on-screen shower, he still somehow looks a bit greasy to me) was outstanding. For an actor who brings his A game powerfully in every role, this was his best performance of his career. The nominations in some of the technical categories (costume, production design) are expected for period pieces but are unlikely winners against films like Hamnet and this year’s darling, Sinners.
I highly recommend the film with the caveat that it can be dizzying. If you’re not up for that kind of experience, then give it a skip.
Young Thomas has been sent to Transylvania to close a lucrative Real Estate deal by his employer. Leaving his young, beautiful wife Ellen at home, he discovers a creepy castle and an even creepier owner. He is aware that something odd is going on as he passes out and awakens with a bite mark, and each night as he dreams terrible dreams, he awakens with more bite marks in the morning. He insists on leaving, but not before the owner gets him to sign a contract in a foreign language that is presumably the land sale document. Though he questions if he should sign a document which he can't read, he also is lured by the commission he will earn and be able to take care of his beloved wife and make the couple rich.
Of course when he returns home, he realizes what he has done - he has signed a document nullifying his marriage opening the door for Nosferatu to join with Thomas' wife, and who Nosferatu has claimed as his own for decades. On the other hand, if his wife does not submit to the vampire willingly within three nights, it is made clear that Thomas will be killed. Ellen summons the vampire to her room, and tricks him into having sex with her and draining her blood until sunrise, killing Nosferatu with sunlight and herself in sacrifice for Thomas.
This is not my kind of movie and I'll bet if you go back into the blog history, you'll be hard pressed to find a single film of this genre that I liked. Not so with this one, it was gorgeously filmed and the story was so engaging that I liked it very much. I most certainly would not have seen it if not for the Oscar nominations, but that just teaches me a lesson that sometimes a good film is a good film, even when it comes in a package that I wouldn't normally open. I'm hardly opening my veins for the next vampire flick, but when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. This one was worth the view.
"Oh, what a celebration we'll have today! Thank goodness!"
What if we could go back in time and learn how the Wicked Witch of the West became so reviled and renowned? That's the story of Wicked Part 1 when Elphaba and Glinda are paired together at Shiz University and shenanigans unfold. Glinda is popular and beautiful, Elphaba is studious and different, that is to say, green. And while normal maneuverings at school and normal love triangles abound, there is also a populist movement against talking animals; maligning them and making people fear them as the enemy. (hmmm, totally unrealistic, of course). Elphaba doesn't want to be different, much like most people, but also doesn't want to admit that she is troubled by her difference. When the head mistress takes a special in her interest as a practitioner of magic, Elphaba is invited to meet the Wonderful Wizard of Oz who lives in the Emerald City. Having now developed a friendship with Glinda, she invites her friend to come along and off the two go to meet the wizard.
I'm a huge fan of the musical (and for the love of God, would somebody please give Marc Platt his do over Oscar? Haven't you bothered this guy enough???) Back to the musical - if you know it, if you love it, if you have trouble sitting quietly in the theater and not singing along with the songs, you're going to absolutely love this film! But more than that, seeing it on screen brought to life two concepts from the stage that I had overlooked.
First, there's the trip to the Emerald City where everything is green. it hit me watching the magnificent costumes and production design that Elphaba's visit to the city is the first time in her life that she fits in more than the popular girl. She has come to the land of green, where green is keen (sorry, I couldn't resist) and it is everywhere. I know the movie sprinkled in tiny bits of pink into the Emerald City, but that choice showed even more how Glinda and her pink personality didn't quite fit in the hallowed city as much as Elphaba does. I can imagine both overwhelmed by the new feelings - fitting in for one, sticking out for the other.
The other revelation is how many plays on good, goodness, bad disguised as good, good disguised as bad - the themes are literally spread throughout the entire movie. If you've seen it already, go back and watch or go back and listen to the soundtrack. Almost every use of the word good has multiple meanings, "I have been changed for good." Does that mean I have been changed in a good way, or does that mean I have been changed permanently? Or both? Even the line I opened this post with - Thank Goodness! Is that, "thank the one who is representing good (Glinda)," is it "thank the state of being good," or just the plain old "phew!" This show is riddled with these suckers, and watching the movie again was a pleasure for all of the new discoveries that await even the longest time fan of the show. (or, good God, maybe just me... oh! There's another one!)
See this film for goodness sake! (That's another one... is it, "for the sake of goodness" or is it "gosh darn it!" OK I'LL STOP NOW.)