Oscar predictions 2018

Evening all

Well, no one could really have predicted the Envelopegate of 2017's Academy Awards, but I imagine this year's awards will have their own upsets.  I've seen as many of these as I can, and as such, here are my predictions.

Best Actor in a Leading Role
Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour

This one is pretty much nailed on.  Oldman has won every Best Actor gong going for his portrayal of Winston Churchill, and rightly so.  Sorry everyone else.  Not your year.

Best Actress in a Leading Role
Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

This seems pretty certain too.  Great portrayal of Mildred Hayes, left grieving and seeking justice after the murder of her daughter.  Multi faceted character piece with no definitive rights or wrongs, and no easy solutions.  Some competition from Sally Hawkins in The Shape of Water as the mute Elisa Esposito, but I think this performance secures McDormand's second Oscar.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Tough call between him and Woody Harrelson, but Rockwell edges it for exactly the same reasons as Frances McDormand.  Honourable mention for Christopher Plummer as a short notice replacement for Kevin Spacey in All the Money in the World.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Allison Janney - I, Tonya

Still getting my head around this film, but an absolutely vile performance from Allison Janney as the needling, abusive, bitch of a mother in I, Tonya.  Sorry Octavia Spencer - just edged out of this one.

Best Director
Guillermo Del Toro - The Shape of Water

For a film that goes into the Oscars with the most nominations this year, I don't think it will go home with many, but I do think it will get one of the Big Five.  Specifically, Best Director.  Every scene of that film is like a work of art.

Best Film Editing
Baby Driver

Typically Edgar Wright, the film is so precise.  Milliseconds faster or slower and this film would have been awful, but the editing in Baby Driver is both a science and an art.

Best Music (Original Score)
Alexandre Desplat - The Shape of Water

Best Music (Original Song)
I want it to be Remember Me from Coco, but I think it might go to This is Me from The Greatest Showman.

Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
Call Me By Your Name

Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri 

Best Animated Feature Film
Coco

I'd like to think that Blade Runner 2049 will pick up pretty much all the technical awards, as some sort of apology for the fact that the film itself isn't recognised for Best Film.

Leaving...Best Picture
Oh this is a tough one.  The two main contenders seem to be Three Billboards and The Shape of Water.  Between those two, Three Billboards edges it.  But...but...the Best Picture winners of the 2010s have more often than not been a surprise.  Moonlight won over La La Land, Spotlight won over The Revenant, Argo won over Lincoln, Birdman won over Boyhood.
I don't think it's Phantom Thread, Call Me By Your Name, Lady Bird, Dunkirk or Darkest Hour.
Horror films and fantasy don't win - the only exception to this has been The Return of the King.  So that should rule out The Shape of Water and Get Out.  But Get Out is having a resurgence in popularity, despite coming out well before awards season started.  And it did win the Film Independent Spirit Award - which has correctly predicted the Best Picture for the past four years.

I want The Post to win, and it should if the Academy want to make a political point.  But Best Picture is the only category which is decided by a First Past The Post voting system, which makes a winner by consensus trickier.  That said, it is a film about how the media are ace, and the Academy is a bit of a sucker for that.

Right.  Conclusions.  And these are surprising me even as I type...
Should win: The Post
Will win: I think it might be Get Out.

Gosh.  I'd have voted three times if I could...

The Post

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Post)

It's been a strange year, hasn't it?  I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb to say that the world in the Trump-era feels a lot more uncertain, and that most of us can't believe that Trump's been president for a year.  Only a year?  Haven't we all aged so much more than that?

It's often interesting to see how current events then shape the artistic, and what we're seeing now can usually be traced back to previous events.  That said, this years awards films feel a little on the "safe" side (with the exception of Get Out which is a surprise nomination).  There's many uncontroversial messages being told well - people overcoming seemingly insurmountable adversity, people seeking redemption, people finding love.  That's all pretty standard fare.   The Post stands out as timely and topical as it draws pointed comparisons between the presidencies of Nixon and Trump - Republican administrations at war with the press.  I'm happy to be corrected, but I think this might be the first (of many) responses to a Trump presidency. 

Postman Pat: the sequel?

The Post tells the story of how a military analyst in Vietnam leaks his classified reports to the papers, and the papers (specifically the Washington Post) decisions about whether or not to publish the findings of those reports.  The reports date back over four Presidential administrations, and are very clear on the following - American politicians knew that they could not win the Vietnam War.  Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all briefed as such.  They continued to send troops to Vietnam to save face, and tell the American public that America is winning and making great progress.
In "present day" (Nixon administration), Katharine Graham (Meryl Streep) has inherited the Washington Post and is trying to make it financially stable by floating it on the Stock Market.  She is close friends with various politicians and other people of public significance.  She and chief editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) find themselves in receipt of the leaked papers and must weigh up the consequences of what they decide to do with them.  Moral dilemmas ensue.

In some ways, it seems like Steven Spielberg has specifically stopped everything that he was doing in order to make this film.  Right now.  He's said as much.  In other ways, it's the latest in a line of Spielberg films which point out that the U.S. has a Constitution that was put in place for a reason and should be followed as such (Lincoln, Bridge of Spies).  There is a real sense of urgency and consequence throughout, heightened by the trappings of the time (Journalist Ben Bagdikian - Bob Odenkirk - goes to get a tip off on a payphone, but drops the quarters that he needs to keep the call going; decisions need to be made in order to hit the deadlines for the day - newspapers being created by typesetting; Daniel Ellsberg - Matthew Rhys - stealing actual cumbersome physical files, rather than the memory stick and digital file equivalents of the Snowden era).   
There has been some criticism that the writing is a little too on-the-nose in places, and that the audience are spoonfed a little too much, rather than being allowed to actively come to their own conclusions.  Comparisons are made to 1976's All the President's Men (a film I haven't seen yet, but I understand that it credits the audience with a little more discernment and intelligence) but I would argue that in 2018, audiences need something sharp and on point to cut through the endless cacophony and vagaries.  There will be time for allegory and metaphor later.  For now, there is definitely a need for being deliberately reminded of things like "free press serves the governed, not the governing".  There is also a need for these things to be said by some of America's most trusted people (Hanks, Streep, Spielberg).

I have an idea...

Let's turn our attention to that cast.  In real life, Meryl Streep has already been called "highly overrated" by the current President following her criticism of him last year.  In The Post, she is on top form as Katharine Graham and has been Oscar nominated as such.  Her story is a concise portrayal of the issues of gender inequality - constantly being undermined and devalued in a sea of men (pointed out by Sarah Paulson as Tony Bradlee).  There's some sneaky direction throughout her transformation from hesitant to confident.  The first half of the film is shot from above, with Streep looking tiny and subservient.  She's made more vulnerable in a series of meetings where someone (usually Hanks) arrives unexpectedly at her house while she's in a nightdress (and uncomfortably trying to pay attention while hiding bare flesh behind throw cushions).  By the end, she is shot from below in white and gold (albeit, bizarre looking) garments which make her look like a goddess and not to be trifled with.

What *is* this garment?

"This is MY paper" she eventually squeaks out.  "Not my father's and not my ex-husband's.  It's mine [and I'm in charge]".  It's a reminder that the decisions of history are not arrived at easily.
Tom Hanks, in the meantime, has not publically suffered the wrath of Trump, but has been quietly critical in a more subtle way.  His verbal sparring with Streep throughout is enjoyable, and it's strange to think that these two actors have not been in any previous films before.  While Streep's Graham shows uncertainty in herself and her decisions, Hanks's Bradlee constantly lays down all the pertinent facts needed to come to a decision.  It's difficult to see why Hanks (and Spielberg for that matter) have not been equally nominated alongside Streep - perhaps the Academy are confused by a role in which Hanks smokes like a chimney and drops a lot of f-bombs.

No Tom!  Stop swearing.

Actually, to take this a step further, this film doesn't seem to be getting a lot of love and I'm unsure why.  The combination of Streep, Hanks and Spielberg fighting for truth, justice and the American way is magnificent, and yet I've struggled to see it at the local cinemas around here.  I'm clearly not in the minority, if the monologue for this years Golden Globes is anything to go by (from 5:03).

That is not to say that this film is perfect.  It takes a while to get going, and in places there's some details which are specific to American audiences (an issue, I imagine, which is the same in reverse in films like Darkest Hour).  The New York Times have also been critical that they are essentially side lined in a story that could have been theirs.  The film also, I think, could benefit from spending a bit more time with Ellsberg - this starts off by being his story, but he is forgotten about quite quickly.  This is a real shame, because he is never considered in the decisions to print (or not to print).  At one point, he was facing a prison sentence of 115 years as a result of his actions - surely a fact worth noting?  But I can also see the rationale behind these decisions - this story itself is not about the people involved, it's about the freedom of the press and upholding of the Constitution.    

    

For my money, The Post is the film that should win Best Picture at this year's Oscars (well, actually, it should be Blade Runner 2049, and it's frankly ridiculous that it's not even nominated).  If the Academy want to make a point to the increasingly fascist Donald Trump, then this should win.  His adulation of Hollywood, and desire to be popular are both sore points and worth poking.  And surely he should approve?  I hear he's very much against "fake news"?

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

• Apparently the film was originally called "The Papers".  In hindsight, a much better title.  Sorry Steven.

• This marks John Williams' 28th collaboration with Steven Spielberg.  He's 86 and still composing great music.  I have trouble walking and chewing gum.

• Ben Bagdikian isn't credited much in this film, but should be.  He is famously quoted as telling students at Berkeley University "Never forget that your obligation is to the people. It is not, at heart, to those who pay you, or to your editor, or to your sources, or to your friends, or to the advancement of your career. It is to the public." - that's the throughstory of this film.  Turns out that Ben Bagdikian should have his own film.  Google him. 

Blade Runner 2049

(Warning: contains spoilers about Blade Runner, and Blade Runner 2049)

Writing a film review is a strange and interesting process.  Some films lend themselves very easily to a review.  By the time I’ve travelled home from the cinema, the review is pretty much in my head, fully formed, just waiting to get written down.  I find this has been particularly true of bad films, where it’s like my brain needs the earliest opportunity to expel the poison from its system. 

I’ve previously likened films to food, where some are candyfloss – delicious, insubstantial and of no nutritional value whatsoever.  But still a good experience.  Others are steak – satisfying  and something to get your teeth properly into, though not necessarily something you want all of the time.  Blade Runner 2049 has been a properly meaty film.  It’s taken a while to write the review for a couple of reasons – 1. After steak you need a while to sit and digest.  2.  I’m still not entirely sure what I’ve seen.

Is this just what all film posters look like now?

Blade Runner 2049 is a sequel to the 1982 film Blade Runner.  Set 30 years after the original, there has been some kind of blackout which has wiped the details of all replicants and their locations.  K (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner - the never really explained term used to describe those who hunt down replicants and kill them.  He himself is a newer model replicant, but is tasked with finding older replicant models and “retiring” them.  He discovers the remains of a replicant.  Closer inspection suggests that this replicant was once pregnant – it was previously believed that replicants could not reproduce (as an ongoing argument about how they as “artificial humans” should be considered as less than “real humans”).  K is given the task of investigating, and destroying any evidence about the child (plus the actual child if necessary).  Mission ensues.
Written by Hampton Fancher (who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Blade Runner) and Michael Green (who is racking up an impressive list of sci-fi credits including American Gods, Logan, Alien: Covenant), and directed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival), the result is faithful to the noir, gloom, and neon artifice of the 1982 original, while also not alienating those who come to the sequel first.   

This film is fascinating, because it can be viewed and interpreted in a myriad of different ways.  There are compelling arguments to say that it’s a pro-feminist film, and equally compelling arguments to say that it’s very anti-feminist.  Discussions about what’s real and what’s artificial are rife.  Comments about who knows what, and when, and how.  Interpretations of what it is to be alive, and the permutations of what that means.  It is vast and intimate, unknowable and personal, specific and vague.  In the hours following my first viewing of the film, I was having very complicated discussions with friends about different interpretations of what we’d all seen, knowing that in 10 years time the same topic could come up, and I’d think 100 different things.  There is much to savour, and much to digest.

First of all, as previously mentioned, you don’t need to have a great understanding of the original to appreciate the sequel.  I saw this film with my husband, who has watched Blade Runner a great many times and insists on quoting bits of it, repeatedly, and out of context.  Conversely, I have seen it once, and rarely understand why he shouts “TOO BAD SHE WON’T LIVE” when I least expect it.  We both think Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best films of the year.  For those who have seen the original, the sequel is faithful to it but subverts it subtly and frequently throughout.  The origami unicorns are replaced by wooden horses.  The Voight-Kampff tests now actively discourage authentic human responses.

Secondly, for me the oddest subversion is that the things that had the most emotional resonance…weren’t real…   So, K has a girlfriend, Joi (Ana de Armas), who is an upgraded hologram who travels with him.  We see K upload her, and upgrade her.  We see her glitch, and get interrupted by other technology.  She is partially see-through, and frequently reminds K that she is not real.  But when her emitter is destroyed it is a character death, it is shocking, and it is the most upsetting moment of the film.  The relationship between K and Joi is real to them, and real to us.  But it’s also completely and utterly not real.

Deckard (Harrison Ford) comes face to face with Rachael (Sean Young), the replicant he fell in love with.  He is visibly moved to see her, more so because she’d died some years before.  He speaks of the romance of their first encounter – the film goes to great pains to point out that those memories aren’t real either.

Ana Stelline creates memories and dreams for people.  They are things of intricate joy and beauty, and they evoke profound emotional responses from all who see them.  They’re not real.

The characters that we know most about and respond most to – K, Joi, Deckard, Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) – are artificial.  The characters we believe to be “real humans”, such as Wallace (Jared Leto) are the ones who seem most inhuman.  That suggests that “humanity” can be artificially created, and I’m not sure I believe that, and yet…I find myself moved by a film, which in its very essence isn’t real.  WHAT DOES ANYTHING MEAN!?!

Thirdly, it would be remiss of me to ignore the feminism argument.  How does Blade Runner 2049 depict and treat women?  Good question.  The arguments that say it is anti-feminist are compelling – this is a film directed by a man, screenwritten by men, predominantly produced by men.  The female characters are mainly sex objects created for men and overtly so.  A woman is “born” and killed entirely because she’s not pregnant, and therefore worthless.  Joi is subject to the whims of K – she acts the way he wants her to act, dresses the way he wants her to dress.  He has bought her to be like that.  She has sex with him via another woman – Mariette (Mackenzie Davis), in a scene oddly reminiscent of Ghost – that woman is also bought and paid for.  There is a crumbling society where there is evidence of giant female sculptures, all naked, all fetishized, all submissive.  Replicants like Luv carry out the whims of people like Wallace because they literally cannot do anything else.  The film makes the point that Lt Joshi is also a sexual creature – propositioning K, and being turned down.  There is no suggestion that there is a male version of Joi for her.  So there’s a lot there that’s troubling.  However…

Blade Runner 2049 is a dystopian world, and it is evident that it is wrong and sick.  It is a place where no one is happy, content or satisfied.  It is not a world to aspire to.  Of the many people I know who have seen this film, not one is desperate to live there.  Therefore we can reason that, likewise, its treatment of women is not to be emulated.  If the argument is that the film is pro-men anti-women, who is the male character who is “winning”, and we should aspire to be?  Deckard – in seclusion, grieving, hunted?  K – who has no idea what’s real anymore, and his only raison d’ệtre is to kill his own kind?  Wallace – blind, deluded, isolated?  No thank you very much.

I don't really want to live here, thank you.

There are significantly more female characters than males.  Those female characters are notably more detailed, interesting and complex than the males.  Consider Mariette – on one hand, she is a prostitute who is paid to betray K.  She is also a significant figure in the resistance, not only betrays K but saves him, and is the only one not put off by his Blade Runner reputation. 

Consider Lt Joshi – she is a woman in a position of power, who isn’t afraid to ask for what she wants.  In a world which is male dominated, that really stands out.

The main argument for women as commodities for reproduction alone is voiced by Wallace, who is the villain of the film.  We aren’t supposed to agree with what he says.

Admittedly, a few small tweaks here and there would have improved some of the criticism.  It’s a very heteronormative film (although the dystopia argument could come into play here again, I suppose), and a few more women behind the camera wouldn’t go amiss.  There is an argument to say it’s anti-women, but there’s also one to say it’s anti-men. 

But that it manages to cram so much into 2 hours 44 minutes (admittedly long, but not bloated.  It’s a surprisingly lean film), while remaining faithful to the original, and introducing an old world to a new generation.  In a lot of ways, it’s nothing short of a miracle.

But then again,  

…you’ve never seen a miracle.     

Additional thoughts, questions, concerns:

1.  What was the point of Wallace and where did he go in the end?

2.  Who in the film is very definitely a human?

3.  If the film were to go on another 5 minutes, or 5 days, what would happen next?