Evaluating the nominees

[Uri]

Thank you all. I'm fine, on a day to day basis, at least.

[Greg]

Sorry for your loss and challenges, Uri.

[danfrank]

That’s a lot to be carrying, Uri. I appreciate you sharing all that. My condolences on the loss of your father (I lost mine in 2020), and for everything that has happened in Israel. Sending you virtual hugs.

[Big Magilla]

Sorry for your loss, Uri.

My father was 91 when he died twelve years ago. I lost a brother to cancer at 54. My remaining seven siblings, all younger than me, insist that I'm the healthiest one left which may or may not be true.

What's happened to the New York and San Francisco I knew is so sad but it's nothing compared to what you and your family must be going through.

At least they haven't taken our movies away yet!

Stay safe.

[Uri]

I hope the dreadful part of 2023 was more global than personal for you, Uri. We are all too aware of the global part, which of course can have a big impact personally.

Actually, it was harsh on a very personal way. My father was diagnosed with a heart failure back in January and was in and out of the hospital until he passed away in September. But dying at 91, in his bed at home, in his sleep, is a good way to go. And in retrospect, he was extremely lucky to be spared of what happened here since October the 7th. As long as he was around, I wasn't able to go abroad, so after he died I went to be with my sister in California. She was having treatments for Cancer (she ok, it's a "good" one), so she couldn't come here to be with my father or for the funeral. Being in the states for 4 weeks (I've been to San Francisco - very depressing - and NY too) this time was a rather gloomy experience, since I was very occupied with what was going on in Israel. Traveling while wondering if there is still a home - in a deeper, metaphorical sense - to go back to, is not fun. But - I did go to the movies!

I was very fortunate not to loose anyone I know in the war (yet), but my movie loving cousin, the one who practically introduced me to the Oscars, is a member of a kibbutz which borders with the Gaza Strip. Since that day was a holiday, she was having other family members staying with her. While the IDF in general fucked up big time that day, by pure chance, there was a tank nearby the kibbutz, and the team of it had the initiative to fight, with the local emergency squad, the mob which attacked them. So her kibbutz was relatively spared - "only" 5 dead, about the same number of people kidnaped, 10 housed burned. My family - adults and kids - stayed at the shelters for many hours, hearing the fighting outside. They were evacuated after nearly two days. My cousin is now a refugee in a kibbutz in the south of Israel, not knowing when she'll be able to go back home.

Maybe the hardest thing for me is to not be able to manage having totally different, often conflicting, takes on what's going on here. Politically, morally, philosophically, historically, mentally, emotionally - I'm all over the place. Don't try it at home.

now, let's talk Oscars.

[Big Magilla]

It's always good to have your perspective, Uri.

I agree that 2023 was a shitty year and this year isn't starting out much better, but I disagree with you on the film year. I think it was the best we've had in some time. That said, I agree with your order placement with a few exceptions - I have American Fiction (good but runs out of steam in the end) switched with The Holdovers (which I found to be great comfort food) - and Poor Things (which I had to watch a second time to fully appreciate) switched with Killers of the Flower Moon (which is probably still ranked too high).

The only two Oscar nominees that don't make my top ten list are Maestro and Barbie which I replaced with All of Us Strangers and Saltburn.

I haven't seen The Zone of Interest yet either, but I did read the synopsis on The Movie Spoiler website, so I know what to expect but not where to place it until I actually see it - it's very chilling but nothing we haven't really seen before - tenth place may be where I leave it.

[danfrank]

I hope the dreadful part of 2023 was more global than personal for you, Uri. We are all too aware of the global part, which of course can have a big impact personally.

As to the movies, I’m curious whether there are other films and/or performances from 2023 that you would assign an A or B grade.

[Uri]

2023 was a dreadful, dreadful year. On all levels.
And the movies weren’t that great too.

My rating: A- the ultimate best of the year, B- very good, would make a decent, worthy winner, C- a nomination should suffice, D- not necessarily bad, but not award material, F- a failure.

Best Picture
1. Past Lives – B*. kind of almost Ozu like.
2. Oppenheimer – B. Bombastic (dah), Oscar bait, simplistic, lecture-y, pretentious – whatever. It works.
3. American Fiction - C. I liked it a lot. And I loved the fact that the big-fat-fraudulent-act storyline was nearly sidelined, as if it was just a teaser, a mildly provocative illustration of a thoughtful character study which, for me, was the raison d'etre of this film.
4. Anatomy of a Fall – C/not ranked*. A very well-made, intelligent courtroom drama. Maybe a little bit too neat for my liking. The writing stuff, the excuse for the way language is used, the blindness – I wouldn’t use the term calculated, but maybe somewhat over-orchestrated.
5. Killers of the Flower Moon – D. It’s not a film. It’s an important EVENT. Alas, it’s a sorrily missed opportunity. A practically unknown, fascinatingly subversive chapter of American history of a brief ethnicity and gender power-game reversal being kidnaped into Scorsese’s comfort zone – bad boys dynamics, De Niro, (the grotesquely miscast and misguided) DiCaprio, a lack of ability to/interest in exploring full-blown female characters – all in place.
6. Poor Things – D. Is it some kind of an emperor-new-clothes thing? Is it a Rorschach test I’m failing? Is “Barbie with genitalia” the right answer? One of us, either this film or I, is not really as smart as it imagines itself to be, I’m afraid.
7. The Holdovers – D. A pastiche of clichés.
8. Maestro - D. When in New York I love catching films set On-the-Town. One Fine Day or As Good as It Gets certainly were elevated for me by this sense of extra familiarity. Maestro is so tediously overworked even watching it in the Angelika film center didn’t help (nor did the ticket price – 20$? WTF?) Bernstein was a genius Jack of all trades, juggling every possible musical genre and job, so the film must cinematically replicate this frantic pattern, no? Well – if you’re not a genius film maker, (ahm, or not even a good one), then the answer is no.
9. Barbie – F. An extremely flat soufflé.

The Zone of Interest will only be opened here in 6 weeks (hopefully. One can never know, in our serene little neck of the wood).

* - Uri, didn’t you constantly promote the notion that the Oscars should be exclusively about English-speaking films? – Well, sort of. It’s really about films which are related to American Civilization (ok, British as well). Hence Past Lives is in (as are other films about immigration to America such as Minari or Hester Street). Anatomy of a Fall is not.

Best Director
1. Christopher Nolan – B. This is what I said the last time he was nominated: “He’s an extremely anal film maker. He likes to come up with big fat concepts and then meticulously (and, admittedly, rather expertly) flash them up onscreen”. It wasn’t meant to be a compliment – not in the case of Dunkirk, nor with most of his other films. But it worked beautifully with Memento and it applied itself rather well to this story about meticulous, pedantic and methodical processes and people.
2. Justine Triet – C/not ranked. A capably orchestrated piece of film making indeed.
3. Yorgos Lanthimos – C. Technically it’s, as expected, a rather impressive piece of film making. BUT - is what the World really needs now a misanthrope, adult-only Wes Anderson?
4. Martin Scorsese – D. Since I saw this film in the States, I was privileged to have him condescendingly patting me on the back for watching his film in a theater. And then there was that cameo at the end. He’s into the Massiah-complex phase of his career, I presume.

Best Actress
1. Sandra Hüller – A/not ranked. A good example of my claim – had the Oscars been truly inclusive there is no way this would have been her first nomination. Anyway, a masterful performance.
2. Cary Mulligan – C, I guess. She has the benefit of playing a lesser known – and more condensedly written - character (and of being a better thespian) so she easily outshines her co-star. It’s technically good performance, but my problems with the film it’s in hinder my judgement.
3. Emma Stone – D. She’s a good actress and I like her, alas “bravery” does not necessarily amount to a finely coherent performance. It’s a series of - too often heavy-handed – Actorly études. But it is indeed A LOT of acting, hence the hosannas.
4. Lily Gladstone – D/not ranked – it should have been a leading role, but her film sabotaged it, so as it is, if it should be considered it’s as supporting. This is in no way another Marlee Matlin/Yalitza Aparicio charity nod. She is not amateurish and at the beginning of the film, when allowed to, she nicely displays a promising sophistication, but in no time, she is being relegated to a state of saintly passivity, as if to not interfere with the testosterone-oriented rest of the film.
5. Annete Bening -D. Why do they keep doing this? Having all that footage of the real people whose story is being told in the film is a double-edged sword. From what we see here (I knew nothing about Nyad), it seems that while Foster got the essence of Bonnie, Bennig is totally wrong. She is way too collected, lacking the essential (insane) sparkle of the character - her performance has the impact of a deadwood drifting in the water.

Best Actor
1. Jeffrey Wright – A. I liked him a lot. He conveys a three dimensional, very particular and relatable person, while managing, simultaneously, to be entertaining, displaying a lovely comic touch and convey a multilayered, complex study of what it’s like never to be looked at, regardless of whatever self-perception one might have, color-blindly.
2. Cilliam Murphy – B. His introvertive presence in the middle of this extrovertive film gives it a solid, coherent, and human backbone. Not my personal pick, but I’m fine with him winning.
3. Colman Domingo – C. Ok.
4. Paul Giamatti – D. This performance begins and ends with this very lazy piece of casting. And he smells too. Give me a break.
5. Bradley Cooper -D. I’m sorry, but with all due respect, trying as hard as one can, doing one’s best, is simply not enough to overcome mediocrity.

Best Supporting Actor
1. Robert Downey Jr. – B. It’s a showy turn, at times not too subtle, but it functions well as the antagonist within the structure of the film.
2. Sterling K. Brown – C. I must admit I was (very) slightly let down – people here oversold this performance. But it is a good one. On its own and especially, as it should, being a truly supporting turn, in challenging Wright’s central performance – attitude wise, family dynamics wise, sexuality wise and yes, skin color wise.
3. Ryan Gosling – D. I have a sneaking feeling he himself is amazed – and amused – that this performance is taken that seriously. He is fun and his turn here would have been fun had it been featured in a better film.
4. Robert De Niro – D. As usual, as he does for the past 40 years, he is clenched-jaw-ingly De Niroing his way through the film. He’s ok, I guess, doing what he’s called to do here.
5. Mark Ruffalo – D. Against the nature of the film he’s in, he does manage to convey real humane pathos, so I’m happy Willem Dafoe is nominated. Oh, wait a minute…

Best Supporting Actress
1. Jodie Foster – B/not ranked – it’s a full-blown lead performance – it’s rather idiotic to think that playing a supportive character makes it a supporting performance, isn’t it? Anyhow, she doesn’t know it, but for the past half a century (since Tom Sayer), Foster (who is 19 days younger than me) has been my movie-star-buddy. So, it’s so nice that after being nominated four times for masochistically playing lower class heroic victims she is now up for playing a sunny, grownup no-nonsense Audrey. It’s a delightful, vivid performance – and the only reason to watch this film.
2. Da'Vine Joy Randolph – B. Is this the Falconettian effort all those awards she was getting suggest? No. Is awarding her conveniently ticks an obligatory diversity box? Yes. Still, while not breaking any new ground, it’s a good, relatively nicely subtle turn – certainly compared with the rest of her film.
3. Emily Blunt – C. She does what she’s called for, meaning being one of many reliable fibers in the Oppenheimer fabric. She’s here mainly because of her gender – and for the fact that ever since Prada she was considered due, I guess – but this nomination is not a disgrace.
4. America Ferrera – D/F. D for this nothing of a performance (that is, for not standing in the way of a nothing of a role). F for the fact that no one being filmed doing what she did here (acting it was not) should be considered - nor consider oneself - to be part of any thespianism-related conversation.

I guess anything would be an improvement on the original, but I can’t say I’m looking forward to seeing the new and improved TCP. As for Brooks – she was quite good in the first couple of seasons I saw before giving up on that prison show.