Oscars 2020: Did they actually see any movies this year?

Where once there was the just the Oscars, now every academy, guild, festival and critics’ circle has an award to give which has resulted in an awards “season”. By the time the Oscars roll around, it’s a bit of an anti-climax – the award recipients are very guessable, because they’ve won all the other awards. To return the Oscars to its position as the crème de la gongs, the 92nd Oscars ceremony has been moved to an earlier date and there’s less time between the nominations being announced and the big night. They didn’t think about how this change would affect me, your humble blogger. Less time means I haven’t been able to see all the nominated movies.

In other news, after taking some baby steps towards progress in the last few years, the (not diverse enough yet despite best efforts to broaden it) voters have regressed. All that effort to be more inclusive must have taken it out of them because the nominated films this year seem a tad blokey again. Or what the middle-aged white male membership might see as a resumption of normal service. Despondent Sigh.

After the show went smoothly last year without a host, the show’s producers have obviously thought “hosts? Who needs ‘em!”, so it will be hostless again this year. The show’s producers teased us last year by having Tina Fey, Amy Poehler and Maya Rudolph do an opening monologue. Unfortunately, the Academy is yet to do the sensible thing and allow them to host the whole thing.

A hard life

Best Actress

Cynthia Erivo, Harriet
Scarlett Johansson, Marriage Story
Saoirse Ronan, Little Women
Charlize Theron, Bombshell
Renée Zellweger, Judy

I haven’t seen Harriet (based on the story of slavery abolitionist Harriet Tubman) but I do know that Cynthia Erivo has a surplus of talent. She is also nominated for Best Song for the same film and really, you should hear her sing. If she wins Best Song, she’ll become an EGOT.

Scarlett Johansson hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar before and then bang, this year, two nominations at once. That means two chances to not win. She is nominated in this category for playing Nicole, a not entirely sympathetic character, in Marriage Story.

Saoirse Ronan plays every thinking girl’s heroine, Jo in Little Women and this is her fourth Oscar nomination and she’s just turned 25.  Stop it Saoirse, you’re making us feel like underachievers.

Charlize Theron is nominated for Bombshell (a film guaranteed to make you go ‘eewww!’). She does her best but the part itself, as Megan Kelly from Fox News, lacks substance. And while the film seems topical, I’m not sure if it really adds much to the conversation, except that sexual harassment happens even if you don’t believe in feminism (I’m guessing women who work at Fox News don’t).

Renee Zellweger will be receiving her second Oscar (the first was for Cold Mountain), portraying the legendary Judy Garland in the last year of her life. Zellweger even does her own singing (it wasn't Garland at her peak so it works). It's a great performance and the rest are really here to make up the numbers.

Best Actor

Definitely winning an Oscar

Antonio Banderas, Pain and Glory
Leonardo DiCaprio, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Adam Driver, Marriage Story
Joaquin Phoenix, Joker
Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes

Again, like Renee Z and Judy, Joaquin Phoenix is a lock for Joker. It’s a stunning performance, which elevates the whole film.  He gave Arthur Fleek Shakespearian levels of complexity which I thought seemed at odds with a comic book film. Factoid time: it will be the second time an actor has won an Oscar for playing Batman’s nemesis, Joker (Heath Ledger being the other). It's a comic book character that has really cemented itself in our cultural conscious. Will no one thank Cesar Romero?

I fully expect Adam Driver to win an Oscar at some stage and he is the main competition here (it’s his second nomination) was excellent as the blindsided Charlie in Marriage Story with his best scene being at the end when he sings Sondheim’s ‘Being Alive’.

If these things were based on merit, Jonathan Pryce would be the main competition for playing Pope Francis in The Two Popes, a film that impressed me much and probably should have got more attention. Antonio Banderas gets career acknowledgement for Pain and Glory directed by his long-time collaborator, Pedro Almodovar, in which he plays a film director (based on Almodovar) looking back on his life.

I think Leonardo DiCaprio is a fine actor but his performance in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Rick Dalton, trying to stave off has been status, is one he could have given on any day of the week. George MacKay from 1917 should definitely have been here instead (I think there may be an unofficial minimum age limit on this category – actors under 30 are rarely nominated). But his day will come.

Best supporting actress

Kathy Bates, Richard Jewell
Laura Dern, Marriage Story
Scarlett Johansson, Jojo Rabbit
Florence Pugh, Little Women
Margot Robbie, Bombshell

Kathy Bates is a legend and should get all the awards all the time. In Richard Jewell she plays the mother of the film’s eponymous character. However, the film was met with controversy by taking more poetic licence than necessary though.

Scarlett Johansson plays young Jojo’s courageous mother, Rosie, in Jo Jo Rabbit and it is one of her most interesting roles but Shuzhen Zhao who played Nai Nai in The Farewell should really be here instead.

Florence Pugh was excellent as older Amy in Little Women but, at 23 years old she wasn’t so convincing as 12 year old Amy, even though she gave it her all.

Margo Robbie notches up her second Oscar nomination as the fictional Katelyn and has one big emotional scene in Bombshell, guaranteed to be the Oscar clip, although she really is very good.

However, Laura Dern will win for her performance as the formidable and highly skilled divorce lawyer, Nora, in Marriage Story. She was fucking terrifying, but if you needed a lawyer, that’s the one you’d want. (You can't have it all though - I thought she was terrible as Marmee in Little Women).

Best supporting actor

Tom Hanks, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Anthony Hopkins, The Two Popes
Al Pacino, The Irishman
Joe Pesci, The Irishman
Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

In old white men strike back, this category is full to the brim with Hollywood faves and the youngest actor here is 56 year old Brad Pitt. This is his fourth nomination and it looks like fourth time will be the charm, for his performance as the thuggish stuntman, Cliff Booth in Once Upon a Time In Hollywood.  

Anthony Hopkins gave an uncannily accurate performance as Pope Benedict in The Two Popes (will reiterate, it is an overlooked film, available on Netflix).

Children’s TV presenter Fred Rogers is so beloved in the US that maybe only Tom Hanks could have played him in A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood. It’s a great performance but it probably means more to American audiences than the rest of the world.

Here’s an anecdote – my mother went to see Good Fellas and has been terrified of Joe Pesci ever since and she’s an actress who normally clocks the technical side of a performance. He won in this category for that movie.  He would be Brad Pitt’s main competition and most likely upset win. His was probably the most convincing performance in The Irishman as Russell Bufalino, who is in the haberdashery business (or is he?).

Al Pacino notches up his ninth nomination for playing Teamsters boss, Jimmy Hoffa in The Irishman but have I mentioned the de-aging technology didn’t really work? He had a few great moments among the longer moments of chewing the scenery.

Maybe there’s some sort of mental block about nominating someone for playing Hitler. Afterall, Bruno Ganz wasn’t nominated for Downfall. It may be the reason Taika Waititi isn't here (instead of Pacino) for playing Hitler in Jojo Rabbit – it takes a lot of skill to tightrope walk between buffoonish and frightening. And he's a Jewish Maori, so that would really annoy Hitler, too. 

Best director

Martin Scorsese, The Irishman
Todd Phillips, Joker
Sam Mendes, 1917
Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Bong Joon-ho, Parasite

When feminism began, no one would have predicted that of all the male bastions, Best Director at the Oscars was going to be one of the hardest to crack but here we are. Sam Mendes is most likely to get this (it would be his second, the first being for American Beauty) because he pulls of both the logistical feat of 1917 being done in very long takes and telling an engrossing and moving anti-war story.

If they are feeling adventurous enough to see a movie with sub-titles (WTF?) Bong Joon-Ho is the one who could spoil Sam Mendes' party.   

Todd Phillips should not be here because Joker is well-made but not outstanding. He took a spot that could have been filled by Greta Gerwig, Lulu Wang, or Marielle Heller. 

Similarly, Scorcese and Tarantino are both very good at what they do, but did they do anything in these movies that we haven’t seen before? I feel asleep in both bum-numbingly long movies, which I didn’t do in another long movie – Avengers: End Game so that’s got to be down to the directors (The Russo Brothers) right? It has one nomination for special effects.

Best picture

Ford v Ferrari

The Irishman

Jojo Rabbit

Joker

Little Women

Marriage Story

1917

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Parasite

Maybe it is just me, but when I read this year’s Oscar nominations, it made me wonder if the members of the Academy actually went to the movies last year. With the exception of Parasite, it’s a pedestrian selection of movies. Okay, Jojo Rabbit is a bit from left field as well. Although that was before I saw 1917.

Firstly, I have to confess I haven’t seen Ford vs Ferrari, which came and went so quickly I’m surprised it made enough impact to be nominated. It’s about how Ford threw a shitload of money at designing a race car in order to beat Ferrari at the 1964 Le Mans, just because Ferrari declined to be taken over by Ford. I expect it will win some of the sound categories because of all the vroom vrooms.

Parasite could cause an upset and make history by being the first foreign language film to win the big one. Apparently though, not being in English is a bigger obstacle than it should be because some people can’t deal with subtitles (and I judge them harshly for this - I have dyslexia and I don’t find sub-titles problematic so there’s really no excuse). The story about disparity of wealth in South Korea has been widely praised and found a sizeable audience.

The Irishman is a Netflix film and may have been known as I Hear You Paint Houses (a euphemism for asking if someone was a hitman, because the blood “paints” the walls. Geddit?) Anyhoo, it is a 3 ½ hours long and I took a nap in the middle of it. It is a well-made film, loosely built around the Jimmy Hoffa story, but the three septuagenarians in the leads were too old for their parts and the de-aging tech didn’t really work well. And do we really need another movie about the Mob?

Jojo Rabbit has to be the sentimental favourite, and the juggling between tragedy and comedy was well-handled. It is a parable about the stupidity of hate. It also has get Mel Brooks’ seal of approval so what more do you need?

Joker getting the most nominations this year (11) is surprising. It is a good film, don’t get me wrong, but it isn’t great.  And considering the best comic book movie ever, Logan, only ever got one nomination, you can’t help but wonder if people have got a bit over-excited about it. It’s “greatness” rests largely on the performance at the centre of it. That said, it is the only film here that had a bit of a “buzz” around it.

Not sure how many times Little Women has been adapted to the screen now, but Greta Gerwig did manage to do something new with it. However, if you weren’t familiar with the story, I can see how the flashbacks would get confusing. Greta will most likely have to settle for Best Adapted Screenplay (deservedly considering she fixed the troublesome ending*).

Marriage Story is a very good film, with some top-notch acting, but I think Netflix is causing many ructions and they may not want to award it yet. That said, considering how divorce and Hollywood are synonymous, it probably resonated with many of the Academy voters.

Quentin Tarantino seems to have an almost childlike need to right great wrongs of history, based on first Inglorious Basterds and now Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  While it is very well made, I can’t help but think it is on the self-indulgent side.

Best Picture will go to the actual Best Picture

Best Film will go to the epic 1917.  Based on stories told to Sam Mendes by his grandfather, it stands head and shoulders above all the other films nominated and the story of an ordinary soldier's determination to get a message to call off an attack, to the frontline, is terrifying, thrilling and moving.  It is shot in what seems like one continuous take (there are some hidden edits along the way), but it never feels like a gimmick. As an aside, having grown up watching Australian war films, it was interesting to see a British WWI film – there’s a lot less smart-arsery and the British officers aren’t all pompous gits.   

Another quality film that didn’t make the cut is Knives Out (a much more acerbic allegory on contemporary America than Joker – entitlement rather than desperation being the cause of current fractures - fingers crossed then for Best Screenplay) and what the hell happened to The Farewell?? Subtitles again? Lady director? Bit of both?

So it is a pedestrian selection this year, but not without some real gems. Another factor playing into things might be how we consume entertainment now. It used to be just free-to-air TV and cinema so we all watched more or less the same things. Now there are so many ways to watch movies (and TV is now seen as the where the good stuff is coming from), there is a splintering of common opinion. You can watch a movie, think it is the best thing you’ve ever seen, and even find other fans online but go to work and ask if anyone else has seen it? Chances are, that not only have they not seen it, but they’ve never heard of it. There's so much out there now, that common cinematic ground is being lost.

* the troublesome ending of Little Women has Jo a) turning down neighbour Laurie and b) marrying Professor Bhaer.  This never sat well with me, and I'm sure this oddball ending informed my own romantic choices more than it should have. It isn't that I thought she should end up with Laurie but because I couldn't really see why she was attracted to the Professor. I really only accepted this ending when he was played by Gabriel Byrne. And even then.  

SPOILER ALERT in Gerwig's version, it isn't spelt out but Jo tells Laurie she doesn't know why she can't love him the way he loves her (subtly suggesting that Jo is gay as was Louisa May Alcott probably) and she actually remained single and in love with her writing. Professor Bhaer was included as a plot device to satisfy Jo's editor, who felt strongly that the heroine had to be married at the end. It makes much more sense and I like to think Louisa May Alcott would approve of this more truthful fix.