Ayyyy, Happy Star Wars Day guys! Because apparently, this is a legit thing now: to celebrate and watch Star Wars on this, the fourteenth of May. Yeah, bit of an arbitrary date if you ask me, I haven't quite worked out the significance yet, but I'm sure that-
What's that?
...
What do you mean I've got the wrong day? It's May the fourteenth, isn't it?
...
It's May the-? Oh. Ohhhh! I see. Well, shit. And how's the time machine coming along?
...
That bad, huh?
...
No, I'm not going to backdate it, that's cheating. We'll just, *ahem*, we'll just keep going.
BOY, wasn't that a fun Star Wars day we had last week? I've gotta say, I had a great time, watching all the Star Wars films back-to-back on the day itself like the good little fanboy I am. So what if it took over twenty hours, this is a sacred ritual we fanboys must undertake in order to appease The Great Mouse, Mickey be thy name. He is a fair but vengeful god, and you know he'll cancel season two of The Mandalorian if he doesn't think we're worshipping him hard enough.
So I hope you were all watching along, clad in your Darth Vader pyjamas, sipping Rebel Alliance coffee from your Luke Skywalker mug, and lovingly caressing your Yoda wank doll through every crucial scene in the series. Unfortunately, with the number of Star Wars films to get through in one day, I didn't have time to perform the ritual sacrifice of my firstborn child to the Knights of Ren, and just as well too, because I realised I'd left my good Ponda Baba ritual dagger in my other limited edition Wuher messenger bag at a fellow cultist's house, and what with the lockdown and all, I could hardly ride my TK-421-branded scooter over to his, could I?
*sigh*
What am I saying? There's eight different Star Wars related posters, paintings and artworks on my bedroom walls, there's a Lego Millenium Falcon on the shelf beneath my television, and there's a collector's model of Boba Fett's helmet on one of my DVD shelves. Everyone's got a bit of Star Wars memorabilia lying around somewhere.
And you know what, despite the horrific over-merchandising, the toxicity of the fanbase, the constant tampering and revisionism of the original trilogy, and every dodgy decision made by Lucas and Disney on almost every film that followed, I'm still a massive Star Wars fan.
And it's hard not to be. Star Wars is probably one of the most popular and influential franchises in media history. It represented a distillation of every story and idea that came before it into one seemingly perfect space opera, and has inspired basically every filmmaker since who grew up with these films, me included.
My earliest memory is sitting with my dad on the sofa at about three years old, watching the OT and Phantom Menace, taped off the TV. I remember seeing that shot of the AT-ATs coming over the ridge on the Battle of Hoth and being struck with awe. Of course, back then my understanding of special effects was limited and I thought they'd actually built these machines for the film, but even when I cam back to these films as a preteen, that scene still had a power to it, and that was when I realised that film was what I wanted to do with my life. And I wouldn't be here to this day, writing this blog with a degree in Film and Television if it weren't for Star Wars.
So yeah, I'll always be inextricably invested in Star Wars as a universe and a franchise, but that doesn't change the fact that Star Wars as a film canon is, umm, a little rough shall we say.
While I don't think any of them are truly bad films and are all enjoyable in some kinda way, they certainly aren't all peaches, and even the OT, praised by many (including me back in the day) as being some of the best films ever made, certainly are far from flawless. And while I loved the prequels as a teen, I'm a lot older and wiser now, and a lot more well versed in film criticism, so why don't we see how the Star Wars franchise holds up, and more importantly, how they stack against each other?
So here we go, a ranked retrospective of all the Star Wars films. Except Rogue One. And Solo. Oh and we're not doing The Clone Wars movie either. No, we're not doing Caravan of Courage, what is wrong with you? Or The Battle for Endor! The Holiday Special? WHY would I include the-
Right, fine. Here is my ranked retrospective of The Skywalker Saga. Are we happy now? Oh and there's gonna be no restraint on spoilers, so if you somehow don't know what happens in the Star Wars films by this point, might want to fix that before you venture forward.
Oh and don't worry, Disney. I definitely rewatched these on your frustratingly-well-timed streaming platform Disney+, and not on the seven seas or the old pre-Disney DVD copies I've been hoarding for years. See kids, this is why you get a DVD collection: so that when all the fragmenting streaming networks take your favourite films hostage you can still watch them without having to give a toss about paying the monthly ransom for their fingers.
#9) The Phantom Menace
"I am immeasurably shocked and surprised that The Phantom Menace is on the bottom of a ranked Star Wars list," said absolutely no-one ever. Yeah, ok obviously this one wasn't going to appear super high, and to be honest, until the sequel trilogy came about the Star Wars ranking was a pretty open and shut case. And regardless of whether you hate this or Attack of the Clones more, they're both usually occupying these bottom slots, and with pretty fair reason. That being said, come on guys, it's not that bad. Ok, it's not great, but even the worst Star Wars films are still decent enough entertainment. And for what it's worth, Phantom does some things well. Some of the digital effects have actually aged half decently, a rarity with Lucas, and....umm...uhhhh...Darth Maul's pretty cool. Well, he'd be a lot cooler if he had any kind of character building at all. Ok fine, maybe there isn't that much to like when you start to dissect it but it was hardly an unpleasant experience. To criticise Phantom doesn't feel so much like beating a dead horse as it does beating a dried red stain on the concrete old enough to drink in America, but I am a critic, so for the record if nothing else, here we go.
The plot's a mess, and with the political side as well it genuinely gets incomprehensible at points. Also, I can't think of a more boring opening line (well, second line) to a Star Wars text crawl than "The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute." It sounds like its own Simpsons parody. A lot is made about the performances in all of the prequels, but clearly, a lot of these actors have done plenty of other, much better things, and especially when the acting's this stilted across the board, it's probably way more likely that George Lucas just can't direct his way out of a paper bag. Consequently, I feel quite bad for Jake Lloyd, who abandoned acting after being bullied about his portrayal of Anakin, but honestly, he's nowhere near as bad as people make him out to be, and in fact he's actually better (or at least more convincing) than a lot of other cast members. Such as Natalie Portman, who I'd say takes first prize for most wooden, but Ewan McGregor isn't far behind: both delivering lines like human emotion is a concept they've vaguely heard of but haven't really grasped.
Speaking of Portman, the Amidala decoy plot point still makes as little sense as it ever did. Oh, and the whole thing about Anakin being a virgin birth? I just... George, please, you're not a great writer but you're surely better than that.
Finally, of course, there's Jar Jar. He's... well... he's Jar Jar. What more could I possibly say? The character has taken quite the proverbial beating in the Star Wars community ever since he was introduced and to be quite honest, it's mostly justified. He is obnoxious and feels weirdly out of place, both tonally and alongside the rest of the cast. But something I don't hear being brought up very often is how hard it is to understand what he's saying. I genuinely struggle to make out half of his lines because the way in which he speaks, specifically something that happens with the consonants, just makes him borderline unintelligible. And I can't decide whether that makes him easier or harder to endure.
In summary, I struggle to really muster any strong feelings about this film one way or another. It's certainly not a great film but it's really not too bad: it just kinda hangs out in the middle and evaporates shortly after watching it. For the most part, it feels like we're waiting for stuff to happen, and not in like an "I'm bored, get to the action" kind-of-way, more that everything in the film just feels so irrelevant to the overarching story. Besides discovering Anakin and having him bestowed to Obi-Wan, everything that happens feels like it just isn't going to go anywhere in the long term and doesn't really matter (which a lot of it doesn't), and I get an intergalactic war has to start somewhere, but a blockade of one planet that no-one else seems to care about feels a little small scale, and it feels like maybe we went a little too far back.
I guess the best way to describe it is if the Star Wars series was a student film, then The Phantom Menace would be the shot of an alarm clock going off, followed by the protagonist turning it off and getting out of bed. If that makes any sense at all.
#8) The Rise of Skywalker
Hooooo, boy. What in the ever-loving fuck happened here. It's Damage Control: The Movie. Now, the sequels have been pretty divisive among the Star Wars community, with The Last Jedi seemingly at the centre of it all. But while the wars still rage on as to whether The Last Jedi was a flaming heap of garbage that personally killed all of your family pets and gave your sweet old granny chlamydia, or whether it was the boldest and most artistically driven Star Wars film that dared to go against the grain we had grown weary of and try something adventurous and brilliant, both sides agree that Rise of Skywalker was the pits.
This is what happens when you attempt to make a sequel trilogy to one of the most loved franchises of all time with no plan whatsoever: something that I still cannot believe Disney went along with. So Force Awakens comes out: like most of J J Abrams' films, it's safe but ultimately enjoyable and it gets a favourable response from fans and critics alike. Satisfied, Disney hands Last Jedi to Rian Johnson and says "do what you like." So he does, leaping off from Force Awakens in a daring new direction/completely and utterly ruining the franchise beyond all repair (delete as to your level of butthurt). The critics love it. The fans love it until someone told them they shouldn't and they all decide they hate it now. Disney goes "shit, what are we going to do now? The fanboys are angry at us. JJ! Save us from the fanboys!"
And so we get a trilogy which reads like it was written by two recent exes in the wake of a traumatic breakup. The second instalment unpicks threads from the first one that it doesn't like, and the third instalment unpicks everything the second instalment did, seemingly out of spite, while simultaneously trying to pretend it never happened. But there aren't enough films to maintain this fight between Abrams and Johnson, and we're already at the end of the trilogy and need to somehow wrap this story up at the same time as JJ is trying to cover up an entire third of it.
So for one thing, Rise of Skywalker feels like it wants to be two films, or at least maybe one four-or-five-hour epic, but has had to squeeze into a skimpy 140-minute dress, and as a result, the story blasts through at breakneck pace. And not in a good, tight action thriller kind of way, in an "if we let up for even a second, everyone will realise how none of this makes any goddamn sense" kinda way. The characters move from one world to another on a convoluted MacGuffin hunt with scarcely room to breathe or develop character or do anything but move from setpiece to setpiece in the manner of an ADD-ridden squirrel, lest anyone go "hang on, why does this ancient Sith artefact that's existed for thousands of years perfectly line up with the jagged outline of the ruins of the Death Star that would have crashed randomly to the ground and, wait hang on, the Death Star was blown into oblivion, not just into chunks and WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN PALPATINE'S RETURNED?"
Yes, the infamous line: "somehow, Palpatine's returned", barely spoken with a straight face and with a look of confusion matching the audience's, and again Star Wars is sounding like its own Simpsons parody. I mean really, there's no better line to perfectly and succinctly sum up the film and its refusal to explain or even give a shit about the hows or whys of its story as long as it thinks the fanboys are happy. I am convinced that a large part of the planning process for this film was done by looking at the Star Wars meme subreddits and going "ohh, so that's what the fans like", which is why Palpatine's back. It doesn't make sense, there's essentially no attempt to explain it outside of some half-arsed mention of cloning, but it doesn't matter, because the fans love Palpatine and therefore they'll love this film because he's in it. Oh and look, we gave Chewy a medal out of fucking nowhere. Do you love us yet? It's all the hip memes you ever wanted, what more could you ask for. This film is probably the perfect embodiment of the argument that fans don't know what they want, and if you try only to appease the fans you will end up with a desperate mess. No-one knows what they want until they've got it, so they'll only ever demand the things they've seen before and your series will stagnate, that's why it's so essential to do your own thing and do something brave and interesting and different. Even those who hate The Last Jedi surely would agree they'd prefer it to this film: a film that tries something new and different and fails spectacularly is a thousand times more interesting than a film that shits itself in tired iconography and pathetically humps your leg as it begs you to love it.
There are loads more things that annoy me about Rise of Skywalker: the blatancy of its merchandising with the introduction of D0, a useless character that gratifyingly didn't take off as the latest cute droid mascot (plus of course the infamous "tHeY fLy NoW", after which I could practically hear "each sold separately"), the devaluing of the Death Star threat even further than it had already been in Force Awakens (more on that later) with the attachment of a Death Star laser to every star destroyer like a massive dangling cock that of course if shot directly blows up the entire star destroyer because at this point no-one's even trying, the almost complete refusal to do anything with Rose Tico other than shift her to the background in shame and cut all of her presumed lines, the fact that not only is every character besides Rey and Kylo completely ignored and basically get no resolution whatsoever, but the subplot introduced where Finn desperately has to tell Rey something is completely dropped after being established way too hard (and no, I don't care whether it's that he's force sensitive or in love with Rey, it doesn't matter what it is, you can't just make a big deal of establishing it then never speak about it again). But one thing that I think quite poetically sums up this film's revisionist attitude and disregard for its predecessor and by extension the reason it irks me so much is the Chewy fake-out.
There's a moment where Rey and Kylo are force-fighting over a ship containing an imprisoned Chewy, and in her anger Rey's force lightning destroys the transport. It's a shocking and powerful moment, and great character development for Rey since she's now being made out to be a Palpatine. It's the kind of risky and dark twist that I'd appreciate in such a final instalment, and there's this great almost Akira-esque notion of Rey's powers growing far beyond her control to the point that she can't stop them from harming the ones she loves. Nah, don't worry boys and girls, he's alright. There's all of maybe two minutes of grieving before "no look, he's fine. Chewy was on the other transport ship this whole time. He's not dead. We'd never kill Chewy, he's far too marketable and we don't want anything dark and challenging in this series about constant inevitable warfare that's becoming dangerously stagnant. Nope, Chewy's alive. Don't worry Rey, you just viciously murdered a bunch of First Order soldiers who probably had families but who cares. You don't need to feel sad for them, they're not as marketable as good ol' Chewy. Here, let's give him a FUCKING MEDAL".
*ahem*
I am putting it ahead of Phantom though, and for one key reason. Sitting watching this film in the cinema, as with every Star Wars film I've been fortunate enough to see in a cinema, was still very entertaining. At least stuff happens, even if it is a complete and total mess. Phantom on the other hand... well it wasn't boring but as I've said it felt like a lot less happened in it. And there we go. That's maybe Rise of Skywalker's only saving grace: for about ten minutes after leaving the cinema, you feel pretty good about it. Then you start thinking about literally any of it, and it falls apart. I guess that is ticking a box of some kind and I hesitate to give it a negative score because I was at least entertained but, god I don't know. The more I write about this film the more I begin to despise it.
#7) Attack of the Clones
Oh wow, this one really hasn't aged well since I last saw it. When it comes to deciding which is the worst of the prequel trilogy, I think it comes down to what people personally prefer in a film. The bad dialogue and delivery is a lot more egregious in Clones than it is in Phantom, but Phantom's plot is less interesting, harder to follow and less relevant to the overall story than Clones, and while both actually have half-decent setpieces for their climaxes, I do think Clones' is better. I'm reminded of back in the day when the Star Wars Machete Order was a thing, and the suggestion was made that Phantom can be skipped entirely as it offers very little to the overarching story that isn't reestablished anyway in Clones, and I've gotta say, that's pretty much right on the money. Not only is Phantom non-essential for understanding the rest of the series, the fact that it happens ten years before Clones, the longest gap between two entries of any of the trilogies, actually raises more questions, a lot of which boil down to what the hell has been happening politically in that time?! The situation only seems like it's a year or two tops on from where we last left it with the Trade Federation and the droid army, what have they been doing this whole time? I guess politicians really do get nothing done. But also just being able to assume the droid armies were being built by one of the Separatists would work better than knowing that the Trade Federation (which I guess is the Star Wars answer to the East India Company or something?) has just had this army for a decade already and have already invaded Naboo and revealed the existence of said army to the galaxy, and only now, ten years on, has anyone decided this was a problem? Whatever, this is Phantom's boo-boo, not Clones', and in fact, I feel Clones makes at least some effort to make up for the mistakes of Phantom, by streamlining the politics a bit more and reducing Jar Jar's screen time. But I'm sorry, Senator Binks? Senator fucking Binks? Lucas, I get that Jar Jar was supposed to be an important character and you still want him to have some involvement with the plot, I honestly do, but no-one in their right mind would put Jar Jar fucking Binks in a position of political power. He is a proven half-wit that constantly gets into trouble and can barely think for himself, how is anyone supposed to believe that he'd - oh. Ohhh. I get it, now. God, Lucas was a genius, we just never saw it.
Not as a writer though. Christ. I get Anakin is supposed to be angsty and hate-filled, but Jesus the stuff Lucas makes him say makes Todd Phillips' Joker look like Cassanova. Genuinely, I am going to show you a quote from Anakin when he's trying to confess his love for Padmé, and I want you to look me in the eyes (somehow) and tell me this doesn't sound like something a neckbeard would write.
"From the moment I met you, all those years ago, not a day has gone by when I haven't thought of you. And now that I'm with you again... I'm in agony. The closer I get to you, the worse it gets. The thought of not being with you- I can't breathe. I'm haunted by the kiss that you should never have given me. My heart is beating... hoping that kiss will not become a scar. You are in my very soul, tormenting me... what can I do?- I will do anything you ask."
And that's probably the biggest problem with the film: Anakin and Padmé. Their 'blossoming romance' seems to be the focus of the film, but again, Lucas's direction and writing is so astoundingly poor that I just don't believe a word of it. There's no chemistry, they barely speak like real humans, plus Anakin is not just whiny but already disturbingly unhinged and creepy and it just doesn't feel plausible that Padmé would fall for him, especially after the whole Tusken Raider outburst, after which any sane person would probably back away slowly and make a note to sever contact.
Once you get past all that though, the climax on the whole is pretty exciting. The arena fight, the entrance of the Clone army, our first glimpse at the scale of the Clone Wars, and the fight with Anakin and Obi-Wan against Count Dooku, all together is probably one of the highlights of the prequel trilogy. However, there is still one thing in here that really pissed me off and that's the fight between Yoda and Dooku.
Watching the OT, Yoda has always been about the Force, and specifically how it should be used "for knowledge and defence, never for attack." This is kinda like the defining point of Yoda's character, he's never on the offence and seems almost pacifist in nature, and also doesn't seem massively keen on lightsabres. So why on earth in this film does he not only have a lightsaber, but fucking launches himself at Dooku with a battle cry and start flipping and flying off of all the walls. I'm sure you thought it was awesome to see Yoda kicking arse as a kid, but come on now, you've got to admit this is out of character to say the least. A Yoda fight is definitely possible and would be interesting to see (and we get one in Revenge of the Sith that's more along these lines), but I would expect it to be Yoda trying to outwit his enemy, using the force to expertly deflect attacks and find creative solutions to stun or restrain his opponent. But no, crazy flips and lightsabers it is. Although to its credit we do see Yoda blocking and absorbing Dooku's force lightning, which is pretty badass, so there's like a glimmer of that in there.
Again, not a terrible film, and it's above the other two primarily for its last thirty minutes or so, i.e. the point where the prequels finally start doing what we were kinda hoping for from the beginning. But if it weren't for that, this would probably slip further down. At its worst, it's probably more painful than Phantom, but again, so much more happens and it feels like it actually matters too, so it gives it the edge it needs to come out on top. In my mind anyway. I completely understand if people put this below Phantom.
Also, I know he built it in the first place, but did Anakin just steal C-3PO?
Stay tuned next week for Part 2 of Star Wars: A Ranked Retrospective!
Thursday, 14 May 2020
Monday, 17 February 2020
The Ciné Rambles Podcast Announcement
Nope, no new post yet, although there will be one more written post before the end of the month. Instead, I've got a bit of an announcement to make in terms of the blog.
The astute amongst you may have noticed the lack of an Oscar results post this year. The more astute amongst you may have noticed that this year's written Oscars post was replaced with a two-hour-long podcast, available now on YouTube and SoundCloud. And with that comes our exciting new announcement!
Ciné Rambles has jumped mediums into the audible range of air pressure waves: sound! The Ciné Rambles podcast will be available on YouTube every week, featuring the dulcet tones of yours truly and my good friend Andrew Jones, where we'll discuss and review recent releases and chat about other film-related topics over the course of the hour.
But if you love reading my more tempered, written thoughts, don't fret, for the blog will continue in, err, blog form with new written posts coming out once a month.
So if you'd like to keep up with the Ciné Rambles podcast, click here to subscribe to our YouTube channel, with episodes posted every Friday. And, even better, if you like Ciné Rambles on Facebook or Twitter, you'll be notified on new podcasts and new blog posts, the latter of which will be posted towards the end of each month.
That's everything for now. Make sure to check out the Oscar Results podcast if you haven't already, and stay tuned for more rambles, both written rambles and audio rambles. I'm afraid there're still some kinks to work out in the virtual reality rambles, but we're working on it
Wednesday, 15 January 2020
Oscar Nominations 2020
Ahh, you've gotta love Oscar season. I mean, you don't have to: it's a kinda meaningless and arbitrary award ceremony with decisions often driven by internal politics rather than genuine favour, rarely reflecting the actual best films of the year that stand the test of time, instead cluttered with nominations for forgettable films made to cash in on the award season buzz before immediately fading from memory the moment the ceremony is over.
Also, you're your own unique individual who can love or hate whatever you like. Obviously.
Regardless, what started as a one-off idea for a blog post about five years ago became an annual tradition, and now Oscar season has genuinely become one of my highlights of the year. Despite how much the Academy and their stupid decisions infuriate me, I just enjoy writing about them too much to truly hate them, and with so many nominated films to talk about, it feels like a film reviewer's Christmas. I've legit been looking forward to this for months! Right, no more dilly-dallying: it's time to unwrap my presents.
Ford v Ferrari
I briefly talked about this film last year, although in all honestly, that post was more of a Disney rant in disguise than a proper discussion of the film, that disguise being about as sophisticated as a pair of Groucho Marx glasses, but it's actually a pretty great film and nearly made my top five of the year. There's something about motorsport films like this and Rush that separates them from other sports movies. Maybe it's something thematic, like the relationship between man and machine or the power and ingenuity of human engineering. Or maybe it's just that the adrenaline rush of fast cars zooming past each other naturally lends itself to a visual medium like cinema. At any rate, whatever the magic ingredient, Ford v Ferrari has it in spades, with its expertly crafted racing sequences serving as the rich peppercorn sauce to the juicy steak of the background politics of the Ford motor company and the relationship between Damon and Bale's characters. I suppose you could say it all comes together like a well-oiled machine. I can't necessarily see it winning the top prize, but then, to be honest, it was a welcome surprise to see this film in the lineup in the first place, so I guess anything's possible. 8/10, Medium Recommendation
The Irishman
Next on the list of 'films that only just missed out on my top 5', Martin Scorsese's latest gangster epic. I've got to admit, I've never really enjoyed gangster films. I can't quite place what it is about them, but I've seen a lot of the greats and very few of them really hold my interest. Goodfellas in particular, often considered one of Scorsese's best, is a film I've just never really found particularly interesting, so when initial reviews of The Irishman started comparing them, I got the impression this wasn't going to be the film for me. Adding to that was The Irishman's infamous 209-minute runtime, which to be fair has turned off a lot of other people I know, too. But I gave it a chance one Sunday morning/afternoon, and I'll be damned if I didn't find myself utterly hooked. I'm not gonna pretend that I didn't feel the length at all, but the key point is I was never bored. I don't know if it was the writing or the acting or direction, most likely a combination of all three, but I found myself very absorbed in this decades-long tale of a gangster's rise and fall. And over such a long runtime and such a long period of these character's lives, it's almost impossible not to feel for them as *ahem* the ending draws near, let's say. To top that, the film's forty-minute-or-so epilogue is a very moving and personal reflection on mortality, and one that feels very much like Scorsese is expressing himself directly through the film. It's such emotionally honest filmmaking and its exactly the kind of thing this art form is all about: expressing an emotion or idea in such a way that an audience can feel it alongside you. I don't have any real criticisms of it, but the only reason it hasn't got a higher rating is just personal taste really. It is still a gangster film, and probably the best one I've ever seen, but there is kinda a ceiling on how much they can interest me it seems, so while I did enjoy it, it's not like I constantly find myself thinking about it. But if you love the likes of The Godfather or Goodfellas or Once Upon a Time in America, I'm sure you'll love this too. And if you are concerned about the runtime, there was a great suggestion on Twitter of how to split it up into a four-part mini-series, if that's more your thing. 8/10, High Recommendation
Jojo Rabbit
Probably the most surprising film on this list, I genuinely wasn't expecting a whole lot of Oscar buzz for Jojo Rabbit, but hell, six nominations is quite a hefty buzz. Of course, as per my last post's decree, Jojo Rabbit isn't a 2019 film because it didn't go on general release here until New Year's day, but whatever. Had a lot of fun with this one: Taika Waititi is probably one of the best comedy directors working at the moment, and I know a lot of my friends probably feel similarly. It's especially interesting that Jojo Rabbit has been getting so many Oscar nominations considering that it seems to be quite a divisive film amongst critics. I've seen a lot of people decrying that this film is tasteless for trying to make light of Nazi Germany and I guess for skirting around the Holocaust or something. Personally, I don't get it. I mean come on guys, it's hardly "too soon". For one thing, we've been taking the piss out of the Nazi's for ages, why is it now suddenly a problem? God, don't show these people the Wolfenstein games, they'll have a fucking heart attack! Plus, with some of the more disturbing trends in American politics at the moment, maybe a piss-take of just how ridiculous the Nazi ideology was (and I guess, still is) might not go amiss. For another thing, even if you think this film isn't saying anything meaningful, which I would completely disagree with, whoever said a World War II film has to be Schindler's List or Downfall to be valid? Films can exist as just entertainment, and there shouldn't be any restrictions on what can and can't be used as a setting or topic, especially in comedy. Being able to make fun of something is the surest sign that we've moved on from it, but if we keep roping off topics as being too taboo or un-politically correct to make comedy out of, how do we ever expect society to move on? But then I do have a pretty dark sense of humour, maybe this stuff just bothers me less. Politics aside, this is a supremely entertaining film, and yet is still surprisingly heartfelt and emotional at points. As long as you're not some curmudgeonly old person with absolutely no sense of humour, I see no reason why most audiences shouldn't enjoy this film. But I really don't see it as an Oscar winner, at least not for Best Picture. I mean, if ever there were two words to describe the Academy voters, 'curmudgeonly' and 'old' would be some of my top choices. And maybe some other, ruder ones... 8/10, Medium Recommendation
Joker
With eleven nominations, Joker is currently leading the pack this year, which is honestly kinda crazy considering this is still technically a comic book movie, despite its artistry. Not that comic book movies haven't won Oscars before, but to put it in perspective, if Joker were to win all of its nominations, it would be tied for most wins with Titanic, Ben-Hur and Return of the King. And while Joker is still probably my subjective favourite out of the Best Picture noms (rewatch pending), I'm not sure I'd say it's the best. Not that it's not a good film, and not that it isn't going to be a film that's remembered and talked about for years to come, but there are other films here that I think are better and probably more deserving picks, not to mention safer, which is normally the way the Academy leans. And if you haven't read my thoughts on Joker yet and consider yourself a fan of essays, you can read my review from last year here. 8/10, High Recommendation
Little Women
One of only two films on this list I haven't seen, and that is something I plan to rectify in the next few days. It's been getting rave reviews from critics and audiences alike, and I've been actually quite eager to see it, even before it got nominated. And I'm afraid until I watch it, that's all I've really got to say. Tell you what, since I will probably be seeing it this week, I'll update this post once I do with my thoughts. In the meantime, having seen Lady Bird, it's clear Greta Gerwig has some definite talent as a writer-director, and I have no doubt that Little Women will be not only a really well-made film, but a strong contender for Best Picture.
Marriage Story
Probably one of the more humble films on this list, Marriage Story is very much a character-driven work, with the story of a divorcing couple and the toll their fight for custody over their son takes on the relationship between the three of them, made only worse by mercenary-minded lawyers trying to convince each party to fuck the other one over. As with any character-focused story, the performances are everything, and luckily Marriage Story boasts some stellar acting, in particular from Adam Driver. What I liked most about the film is that neither side really hates the other, and the divorce starts almost amicably, only for them to be slowly turned against each other by the money-grubbing ways of the American legal system. The problem with this, and my only real criticism of the film, is they add a point about Adam Driver's character having cheated on Scarlett Johansson, presumably to better justify why she's divorcing him, but it seems like such an unnecessary conflict that just kinda jars with the rest of his character. It also makes it a little harder to sympathise with him, even though he seems to be the one the audience is supposed to be rooting for. It just seems like such an out of place and misjudged detail. Other than that, I don't really have a huge amount to say about the film, but I did really enjoy it and I could easily see this being the Academy's choice, since while it's not exactly Oscar bait, it's the kind of performance-heavy drama that they tend to like. 8/10, High Recommendation
1917
I feel like I'm about to receive a lot of flack for the following paragraph, but alas, here goes. The premise of 1917 is that in the World War 1 trenches, the Germans have set up a trap for the English, but communications with the attacking force have been severed and so two young soldiers must travel by foot to deliver a warning to the frontline before it's too late. To complement this, Deakins' cinematography imitates a single take, ala Birdman, that follows the soldiers as they travel through the scarred and war-torn French landscape, and in theory giving the film a sense of unfolding in real-time, with every second passing feeling like another second closer to disaster, an idea reinforced by the rather excellent tagline; "Time is the enemy". All in all, a great idea on paper. However, in practice, the film seems to buckle structurally under the weight of this technical achievement. Not collapsing exactly, but I definitely wouldn't want to stand under it if it were a bridge, put it that way. I get this sense that the story is fighting the cinematography and that the film is struggling against the one-take conceit like a challenge to overcome rather than an enhancement. Around the middle of the film, for example, they just straight-up cut to black and rejoin the protagonist several hours later, presumably because someone realised they needed to scribble forward in the timeline a bit and couldn't figure out any other way to do it. One of the problems with long takes is you're removing an entire aspect of filmmaking, the cut, and as a result, you lose a lot of control over the pacing and, perhaps more importantly, the rhythm. Consequently, 1917 could be charitably described as episodically structured, and uncharitably described as repetitive. The characters just move from one setpiece to another like they're on a sightseeing tour: they arrive at a place, something happens at the place and they move on to the next place, repeat. And it's not that this wouldn't work, it could very easily, it's a pretty standard format for a Hero's journey, but unfortunately, because there's no rhythm to the edit and the camera is just doing the same thing kinda movement throughout, it becomes visually monotonous, and it draws attention to the issues with the story, and the characters aren't developed enough to overcome this and get me emotionally involved in the story. To be fair, this only started to bother me around the middle of the film, and the first hour or so is actually pretty strong, with the exploration of the abandoned and very eerie German trench probably being my personal highlight of the film. It's also possible that, especially with the jump in the timeline, the film just loses its sense of urgency, because once we reach the frontline and the film moves towards its climax, it recaptures that spark. Ultimately, as impressive as the oneish-take is, I've seen the same thing done before and better, and not at the cost of the story. I saw a reviewer quote the other day on a Facebook ad that went something like "a stunning technical achievement", and that's probably the best way to sum it up: it's being pushed as a technical achievement more than it is a story. A very well made, yet still surface-level spectacle. It sounds like I hate this film but I really don't: for the most part it's great, and there are sequences of absolute brilliance, but when the cinematographic gimmick is pushed so hard in the marketing and it's clear that that's what we're supposed to be wowed by, it's disappointing when that turns out to be the film's downfall. But hey, everyone else seems to love it, so what do I know? 7/10, High Recommendation
Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Ten nominations. Ten. TEN! What are people seeing in this film? It genuinely baffles me: it's Tarantino at his most self-indulgent, not to mention its bereft of drive or direction, presumably starting life as an almost self-insert fanfic about the Manson murders that then got a whole other unrelated film inexplicably tacked onto the beginning of it. My opinions on this film can be read in full here, and they really haven't changed much in that time. Compared to the other contenders on this list, I cannot see this film winning the Best Picture, but then I guess the old Academy voters are notoriously big on nostalgia and self-congratulations, so maybe a film about how great Hollywood was in the 60's will tickle that pickle for them. But come on Academy, don't fuck this up. 5/10, Low Recommendation
Parasite
Gee, well I'd love to tell you all about Parasite, but unfortunately it's STILL NOT OUT YET in the UK, and I don't want to pirate it because I respect Bong Joon Ho and the South Korean film industry too much to undermine it like that. All this stuff about how we need to support foreign and independent cinema, I'm absolutely on your side but I can't support if you don't give me a chance to see your film! America has had it for two or three months now, what are you doing to it that's taking so long? Are you rewriting the subtitles to include a phonetic cockney accent or something? Just release the damn thing! While Parasite has clearly done very well with critics and audiences, I believe there has yet to be a non-English language film to win Best Picture (do correct me if I'm wrong), especially while the Best Foreign Film category exists (regardless what they change the name to), so my prediction is the same as with Roma last year: Parasite will win Best Foreign film instead of Best Picture. Maybe history will change, maybe I'll be one of the naysayers who'll be laughed at after Parasite becomes the first non-English best picture winner. But this is the Academy we're talking about, so don't hold your breath.
And to conclude, here's a recap of my predictions. The Irishman, Little Women and Marriage Story are my front runners for the win, but 1917 also wouldn't surprise me. Joker and Ford v Ferrari are less likely but still in with a chance, I'd say. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Jojo Rabbit just don't seem like the kinda thing the Academy would vote for, and Parasite is highly unlikely to win just because the foreign film category already exists and the Academy are rarely ones for breaking the mould. If forced to pick just one, my money's on Little Women, and although Joker is technically my favourite of the bunch, The Irishman would probably be the one I would crown Best Picture if I had such power. Although there are probably better things I could be doing with my time if I had that kind of power.
Notable Omissions
It's rare for the Academy to ever show much appreciation for the horror genre, despite it being home to a lot of the more creative and thematically interesting of what cinema has to offer. Midsommar got no nominations at all, and while it's not really a surprise considering the above, it's still pretty disappointing as Midsommar was definitely one of the year's highlights. Not to mention Ari Aster is clearly very talented, between this and Hereditary, but I guess until he makes a period drama or something the Academy's not gonna give him the time of day. My film of the year, of course, was Knives Out, which I feel is quite conspicuous in its absence, and considering the Agatha Christie roots of the film, you'd think the older demographic that is the Academy would have been kinder to it. Finally, the other film that I'm surprised has gone completely unmentioned is Uncut Gems, which while I haven't seen yet because, as ever, it ain't getting properly released until the end of the month, has been getting stellar critical and audience praise, and I was half expecting Adam Sandler to get a Best Actor nomination. It's possible the producers of these films didn't want or bother to create Oscar campaigns, which would be fair enough; more power to them, if anything. But still, disappointing.
And now, the rest!
Best Director
It surprises me that Martin Scorsese, probably one of the most legendary film directors still working today, has only ever won one Oscar for his directing. The Irishman was an absolute tour de force, and I could easily see him winning for that, especially if the Academy, in turn, snubs The Irishman for Best Picture. On the other hand, Sam Mendes' direction is actually pretty good in 1917 despite everything, and one could argue that Todd Phillips is worthy of recognition for transitioning from shitty Hangover sequels to something as regarded and competent as Joker. You know who shouldn't be on here? Tarantino. No, he's not a bad director all things considered, and I like most of his work, but this was his worst film to date and he really doesn't deserve any awards for it. As per usual with the Oscars, there's been some outcry about the lack of diversity in the award nominations, especially at the lack of female directors, and while I don't think anyone should be entitled to an award just because of their gender or race etc, what I will say is Tarantino is taking up a valuable spot here, that could have been better awarded to someone like Greta Gerwig, or any other director that actually made a good film this year rather than three hours of cinematic wank.
Best Actor
If it were any other year, Adam Driver would surely crush this category. Marriage Story was a film made by its performances, and amongst them, Adam Driver's frustrated husband and father trying to do what he can to save his relationship with his son in the midst of a breakup he never asked for, is probably one of the film's strongest. You really grow to feel for him and the emotion he puts behind it is so utterly believable. Unfortunately, Joker also came out this year, and there's basically no way Joaquin Phoenix won't win. The Academy has shown a preference for transformative performances in the past, and Phoenix seems to have ticked that box quite well. Also, it's not like his Joker isn't a great performance. It's utterly fantastic, and I imagine the film probably would not have worked nearly as well without such a stellar performance at the centre. Ultimately, my money's on Phoenix to win, but really I'd want both him and Driver to win. Maybe they can share.
Best Actress
I'll be honest, the only one of these I've seen is Marriage Story, and while Scarlett Johansson was by no means bad, I wasn't as into her performance as much as I was Adam Driver's to be perfectly honest, and she's probably not going to be the one taking home the statue. Out of the nominees, my gut says Saoirse Ronan just because I know how good she is, but with the transformative performance thing in mind, an argument can probably be made for Renée Zellweger in Judy as well. Consider my opinion abstained.
Best Original Screenplay
This is the only nomination Knives Out has gotten, which, again, is pretty disappointing, but on the other hand, this is at least one that it absolutely deserves. Knives Out was such a fantastically put together mystery thriller, with so many fantastic reveals, red herrings, payoffs and characters that all weave together perfectly. On the other hand, 1917's weakest point was story-related, even if its dialogue was generally pretty good, and I assume we can all guess which of the nominated films here I think shouldn't belong. The award is probably down to Knives Out, Marriage Story or Parasite, and I'd like to think Knives Out will snag it, but I think Marriage Story has a really strong chance too.
Best Animated Feature
Everyone rejoice! Frozen 2 is nowhere to be seen, even if it inevitably got a Best Song nomination. Toy Story 4 is here, however, which I guess is to be expected but look, Pixar, I love you guys but there are other animation studios, it's not just you guys. Luckily, we've got some reasonably diverse choices for animated feature this year, with the indie I Lost My Body and Klaus both making the list, as well as Studio Laika's stop motion Missing Link. While its story kinda fell apart towards the end and kinda just stopped rather than concluded, I Lost My Body was for the most part really entertaining and full of creative spirit and visuals, and while it occasionally frustrated, there were parts that made me feel quite warm and fuzzy. Meanwhile, I managed to persuade my family to put on Klaus this Christmas Day rather than Finding Dory, and while I was in the midst of flu and wasn't able to give it my full attention or mental faculties, I did still enjoy the film a lot, and again, a lot of creativity and passion was on display. Let's face it, Toy Story 4 will win, but if we dare to dream for a second, I think Klaus would probably be my pick. Although while I haven't seen it, I would also be supportive of Missing Link winning, just because Studio Laika need some goddamn respect for seemingly single-handedly keeping stop-motion alive. That shit is crazy difficult, not to mention just such a uniquely characterful artform.
Best Cinematography
Well you already know I'm not a massive fan of 1917's cinematography: not only did it hamper the film rather than add to it, but it also just wasn't that visually interesting overall, at least not compared to Deakins' other works. I take no pleasure in saying any of this, but yeah, 1917 just isn't my pick, although I'm sure it will be the Academy's. Looking at the rest of the nominations, The Lighthouse has yet to surface this side of the pond, and that really only leaves Joker and The Irishman. Look, even if I wasn't predisposed against it, Once Upon a Time wasn't particularly interesting visually anyway. Besides 1917, nothing really jumps out at me, so let's just say The Lighthouse cause it was in black and white and I'm an edgy bastard.
Best International Feature Film
I mean, Parasite is going to win this. Hands down. No competition. What's more interesting to me is the title change from 'foreign film' to 'international feature'. Is this supposed to be some kind of anti-xenophobic move? Like is 'foreign' now too alienating a word? Or are the American public so triggered by the concept of foreigners that the very word triggers them? I mean, I have nothing against the name change, besides it maybe being a little more of a mouthful to say, (foreign film just rolled off the tongue, ya know?) I'm just very mildly bewildered, is all.
Best Supporting Actress
Laura Dern is sure to win this one for her amazingly punchable lawyer in Marriage Story. It's probably the performance that sticks out the most besides Adam Driver's, and she became such a pivotal part of the conflict, carefully driving the wedge further between them while smiling that sickly smile as she did. I love how much I hated her!
Best Sound Editing/Mixing
Oh my god, just make it one category! It's clear you want to, since again you've got nearly identical lists for each category, with just one film conspicuously different, presumably just to justify that "no, really: these are two completely separate things". Ad Astra has Oscar-worthy sound mixing but not sound editing, and Rise of Skywalker has Oscar-worthy sound editing but not mixing. Go fuckin' figure.
(also kinda sad this is the only nomination for Ad Astra, I think it deserves a nomination for cinematography at least)
Best Costume Design
"Normally, period pieces are a safe bet", I thought as the nominations were revealed. Then I looked through them all. "Oh." Let's just say Little Women, since it's the oldest of the periods being emulated here and I have no other grounds to really judge this on.
And I think that's about everything I have to say there. As usual, part two will be up in February as soon as I can after the ceremony. But this year, if you want to join in the festivities (and presumably don't care about fucking up your sleep schedule) I shall be live-tweeting my reactions to the results on the official Ciné Rambles twitter! Oooh!
Have I mentioned this yet? I don't think so. There's now an official Ciné Rambles twitter account, where you can also find my micro-reviews of recent releases. There's a link here and in the sidebar if that's something that takes your fancy. Otherwise, stay tuned for an Extra Rambles later this month, since the Oscars have now messed up my blog schedule, on top of everything else.
Ah, what am I saying? You can't get angry when Christmas comes early.
Also, you're your own unique individual who can love or hate whatever you like. Obviously.
Regardless, what started as a one-off idea for a blog post about five years ago became an annual tradition, and now Oscar season has genuinely become one of my highlights of the year. Despite how much the Academy and their stupid decisions infuriate me, I just enjoy writing about them too much to truly hate them, and with so many nominated films to talk about, it feels like a film reviewer's Christmas. I've legit been looking forward to this for months! Right, no more dilly-dallying: it's time to unwrap my presents.
Best Picture
Wow, I'm genuinely kinda shocked. This might be one of the strongest best picture rosters I've seen in years. Not only is there nothing on this list that I would classify as Oscar bait, at least not in the traditional sense, but of all the titles on this list that I've seen, almost all of them I think are quality films deserving of the recognition. Almost all of them. Also, release date-wise, there are only three films on here that are taking the piss, which I think might be a record.Ford v Ferrari
I briefly talked about this film last year, although in all honestly, that post was more of a Disney rant in disguise than a proper discussion of the film, that disguise being about as sophisticated as a pair of Groucho Marx glasses, but it's actually a pretty great film and nearly made my top five of the year. There's something about motorsport films like this and Rush that separates them from other sports movies. Maybe it's something thematic, like the relationship between man and machine or the power and ingenuity of human engineering. Or maybe it's just that the adrenaline rush of fast cars zooming past each other naturally lends itself to a visual medium like cinema. At any rate, whatever the magic ingredient, Ford v Ferrari has it in spades, with its expertly crafted racing sequences serving as the rich peppercorn sauce to the juicy steak of the background politics of the Ford motor company and the relationship between Damon and Bale's characters. I suppose you could say it all comes together like a well-oiled machine. I can't necessarily see it winning the top prize, but then, to be honest, it was a welcome surprise to see this film in the lineup in the first place, so I guess anything's possible. 8/10, Medium Recommendation
The Irishman
Next on the list of 'films that only just missed out on my top 5', Martin Scorsese's latest gangster epic. I've got to admit, I've never really enjoyed gangster films. I can't quite place what it is about them, but I've seen a lot of the greats and very few of them really hold my interest. Goodfellas in particular, often considered one of Scorsese's best, is a film I've just never really found particularly interesting, so when initial reviews of The Irishman started comparing them, I got the impression this wasn't going to be the film for me. Adding to that was The Irishman's infamous 209-minute runtime, which to be fair has turned off a lot of other people I know, too. But I gave it a chance one Sunday morning/afternoon, and I'll be damned if I didn't find myself utterly hooked. I'm not gonna pretend that I didn't feel the length at all, but the key point is I was never bored. I don't know if it was the writing or the acting or direction, most likely a combination of all three, but I found myself very absorbed in this decades-long tale of a gangster's rise and fall. And over such a long runtime and such a long period of these character's lives, it's almost impossible not to feel for them as *ahem* the ending draws near, let's say. To top that, the film's forty-minute-or-so epilogue is a very moving and personal reflection on mortality, and one that feels very much like Scorsese is expressing himself directly through the film. It's such emotionally honest filmmaking and its exactly the kind of thing this art form is all about: expressing an emotion or idea in such a way that an audience can feel it alongside you. I don't have any real criticisms of it, but the only reason it hasn't got a higher rating is just personal taste really. It is still a gangster film, and probably the best one I've ever seen, but there is kinda a ceiling on how much they can interest me it seems, so while I did enjoy it, it's not like I constantly find myself thinking about it. But if you love the likes of The Godfather or Goodfellas or Once Upon a Time in America, I'm sure you'll love this too. And if you are concerned about the runtime, there was a great suggestion on Twitter of how to split it up into a four-part mini-series, if that's more your thing. 8/10, High Recommendation
Jojo Rabbit
Probably the most surprising film on this list, I genuinely wasn't expecting a whole lot of Oscar buzz for Jojo Rabbit, but hell, six nominations is quite a hefty buzz. Of course, as per my last post's decree, Jojo Rabbit isn't a 2019 film because it didn't go on general release here until New Year's day, but whatever. Had a lot of fun with this one: Taika Waititi is probably one of the best comedy directors working at the moment, and I know a lot of my friends probably feel similarly. It's especially interesting that Jojo Rabbit has been getting so many Oscar nominations considering that it seems to be quite a divisive film amongst critics. I've seen a lot of people decrying that this film is tasteless for trying to make light of Nazi Germany and I guess for skirting around the Holocaust or something. Personally, I don't get it. I mean come on guys, it's hardly "too soon". For one thing, we've been taking the piss out of the Nazi's for ages, why is it now suddenly a problem? God, don't show these people the Wolfenstein games, they'll have a fucking heart attack! Plus, with some of the more disturbing trends in American politics at the moment, maybe a piss-take of just how ridiculous the Nazi ideology was (and I guess, still is) might not go amiss. For another thing, even if you think this film isn't saying anything meaningful, which I would completely disagree with, whoever said a World War II film has to be Schindler's List or Downfall to be valid? Films can exist as just entertainment, and there shouldn't be any restrictions on what can and can't be used as a setting or topic, especially in comedy. Being able to make fun of something is the surest sign that we've moved on from it, but if we keep roping off topics as being too taboo or un-politically correct to make comedy out of, how do we ever expect society to move on? But then I do have a pretty dark sense of humour, maybe this stuff just bothers me less. Politics aside, this is a supremely entertaining film, and yet is still surprisingly heartfelt and emotional at points. As long as you're not some curmudgeonly old person with absolutely no sense of humour, I see no reason why most audiences shouldn't enjoy this film. But I really don't see it as an Oscar winner, at least not for Best Picture. I mean, if ever there were two words to describe the Academy voters, 'curmudgeonly' and 'old' would be some of my top choices. And maybe some other, ruder ones... 8/10, Medium Recommendation
Joker
With eleven nominations, Joker is currently leading the pack this year, which is honestly kinda crazy considering this is still technically a comic book movie, despite its artistry. Not that comic book movies haven't won Oscars before, but to put it in perspective, if Joker were to win all of its nominations, it would be tied for most wins with Titanic, Ben-Hur and Return of the King. And while Joker is still probably my subjective favourite out of the Best Picture noms (rewatch pending), I'm not sure I'd say it's the best. Not that it's not a good film, and not that it isn't going to be a film that's remembered and talked about for years to come, but there are other films here that I think are better and probably more deserving picks, not to mention safer, which is normally the way the Academy leans. And if you haven't read my thoughts on Joker yet and consider yourself a fan of essays, you can read my review from last year here. 8/10, High Recommendation
Little Women
One of only two films on this list I haven't seen, and that is something I plan to rectify in the next few days. It's been getting rave reviews from critics and audiences alike, and I've been actually quite eager to see it, even before it got nominated. And I'm afraid until I watch it, that's all I've really got to say. Tell you what, since I will probably be seeing it this week, I'll update this post once I do with my thoughts. In the meantime, having seen Lady Bird, it's clear Greta Gerwig has some definite talent as a writer-director, and I have no doubt that Little Women will be not only a really well-made film, but a strong contender for Best Picture.
Marriage Story
Probably one of the more humble films on this list, Marriage Story is very much a character-driven work, with the story of a divorcing couple and the toll their fight for custody over their son takes on the relationship between the three of them, made only worse by mercenary-minded lawyers trying to convince each party to fuck the other one over. As with any character-focused story, the performances are everything, and luckily Marriage Story boasts some stellar acting, in particular from Adam Driver. What I liked most about the film is that neither side really hates the other, and the divorce starts almost amicably, only for them to be slowly turned against each other by the money-grubbing ways of the American legal system. The problem with this, and my only real criticism of the film, is they add a point about Adam Driver's character having cheated on Scarlett Johansson, presumably to better justify why she's divorcing him, but it seems like such an unnecessary conflict that just kinda jars with the rest of his character. It also makes it a little harder to sympathise with him, even though he seems to be the one the audience is supposed to be rooting for. It just seems like such an out of place and misjudged detail. Other than that, I don't really have a huge amount to say about the film, but I did really enjoy it and I could easily see this being the Academy's choice, since while it's not exactly Oscar bait, it's the kind of performance-heavy drama that they tend to like. 8/10, High Recommendation
1917
I feel like I'm about to receive a lot of flack for the following paragraph, but alas, here goes. The premise of 1917 is that in the World War 1 trenches, the Germans have set up a trap for the English, but communications with the attacking force have been severed and so two young soldiers must travel by foot to deliver a warning to the frontline before it's too late. To complement this, Deakins' cinematography imitates a single take, ala Birdman, that follows the soldiers as they travel through the scarred and war-torn French landscape, and in theory giving the film a sense of unfolding in real-time, with every second passing feeling like another second closer to disaster, an idea reinforced by the rather excellent tagline; "Time is the enemy". All in all, a great idea on paper. However, in practice, the film seems to buckle structurally under the weight of this technical achievement. Not collapsing exactly, but I definitely wouldn't want to stand under it if it were a bridge, put it that way. I get this sense that the story is fighting the cinematography and that the film is struggling against the one-take conceit like a challenge to overcome rather than an enhancement. Around the middle of the film, for example, they just straight-up cut to black and rejoin the protagonist several hours later, presumably because someone realised they needed to scribble forward in the timeline a bit and couldn't figure out any other way to do it. One of the problems with long takes is you're removing an entire aspect of filmmaking, the cut, and as a result, you lose a lot of control over the pacing and, perhaps more importantly, the rhythm. Consequently, 1917 could be charitably described as episodically structured, and uncharitably described as repetitive. The characters just move from one setpiece to another like they're on a sightseeing tour: they arrive at a place, something happens at the place and they move on to the next place, repeat. And it's not that this wouldn't work, it could very easily, it's a pretty standard format for a Hero's journey, but unfortunately, because there's no rhythm to the edit and the camera is just doing the same thing kinda movement throughout, it becomes visually monotonous, and it draws attention to the issues with the story, and the characters aren't developed enough to overcome this and get me emotionally involved in the story. To be fair, this only started to bother me around the middle of the film, and the first hour or so is actually pretty strong, with the exploration of the abandoned and very eerie German trench probably being my personal highlight of the film. It's also possible that, especially with the jump in the timeline, the film just loses its sense of urgency, because once we reach the frontline and the film moves towards its climax, it recaptures that spark. Ultimately, as impressive as the oneish-take is, I've seen the same thing done before and better, and not at the cost of the story. I saw a reviewer quote the other day on a Facebook ad that went something like "a stunning technical achievement", and that's probably the best way to sum it up: it's being pushed as a technical achievement more than it is a story. A very well made, yet still surface-level spectacle. It sounds like I hate this film but I really don't: for the most part it's great, and there are sequences of absolute brilliance, but when the cinematographic gimmick is pushed so hard in the marketing and it's clear that that's what we're supposed to be wowed by, it's disappointing when that turns out to be the film's downfall. But hey, everyone else seems to love it, so what do I know? 7/10, High Recommendation
Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Ten nominations. Ten. TEN! What are people seeing in this film? It genuinely baffles me: it's Tarantino at his most self-indulgent, not to mention its bereft of drive or direction, presumably starting life as an almost self-insert fanfic about the Manson murders that then got a whole other unrelated film inexplicably tacked onto the beginning of it. My opinions on this film can be read in full here, and they really haven't changed much in that time. Compared to the other contenders on this list, I cannot see this film winning the Best Picture, but then I guess the old Academy voters are notoriously big on nostalgia and self-congratulations, so maybe a film about how great Hollywood was in the 60's will tickle that pickle for them. But come on Academy, don't fuck this up. 5/10, Low Recommendation
Parasite
Gee, well I'd love to tell you all about Parasite, but unfortunately it's STILL NOT OUT YET in the UK, and I don't want to pirate it because I respect Bong Joon Ho and the South Korean film industry too much to undermine it like that. All this stuff about how we need to support foreign and independent cinema, I'm absolutely on your side but I can't support if you don't give me a chance to see your film! America has had it for two or three months now, what are you doing to it that's taking so long? Are you rewriting the subtitles to include a phonetic cockney accent or something? Just release the damn thing! While Parasite has clearly done very well with critics and audiences, I believe there has yet to be a non-English language film to win Best Picture (do correct me if I'm wrong), especially while the Best Foreign Film category exists (regardless what they change the name to), so my prediction is the same as with Roma last year: Parasite will win Best Foreign film instead of Best Picture. Maybe history will change, maybe I'll be one of the naysayers who'll be laughed at after Parasite becomes the first non-English best picture winner. But this is the Academy we're talking about, so don't hold your breath.
And to conclude, here's a recap of my predictions. The Irishman, Little Women and Marriage Story are my front runners for the win, but 1917 also wouldn't surprise me. Joker and Ford v Ferrari are less likely but still in with a chance, I'd say. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Jojo Rabbit just don't seem like the kinda thing the Academy would vote for, and Parasite is highly unlikely to win just because the foreign film category already exists and the Academy are rarely ones for breaking the mould. If forced to pick just one, my money's on Little Women, and although Joker is technically my favourite of the bunch, The Irishman would probably be the one I would crown Best Picture if I had such power. Although there are probably better things I could be doing with my time if I had that kind of power.
Notable Omissions
It's rare for the Academy to ever show much appreciation for the horror genre, despite it being home to a lot of the more creative and thematically interesting of what cinema has to offer. Midsommar got no nominations at all, and while it's not really a surprise considering the above, it's still pretty disappointing as Midsommar was definitely one of the year's highlights. Not to mention Ari Aster is clearly very talented, between this and Hereditary, but I guess until he makes a period drama or something the Academy's not gonna give him the time of day. My film of the year, of course, was Knives Out, which I feel is quite conspicuous in its absence, and considering the Agatha Christie roots of the film, you'd think the older demographic that is the Academy would have been kinder to it. Finally, the other film that I'm surprised has gone completely unmentioned is Uncut Gems, which while I haven't seen yet because, as ever, it ain't getting properly released until the end of the month, has been getting stellar critical and audience praise, and I was half expecting Adam Sandler to get a Best Actor nomination. It's possible the producers of these films didn't want or bother to create Oscar campaigns, which would be fair enough; more power to them, if anything. But still, disappointing.
And now, the rest!
Best Director
It surprises me that Martin Scorsese, probably one of the most legendary film directors still working today, has only ever won one Oscar for his directing. The Irishman was an absolute tour de force, and I could easily see him winning for that, especially if the Academy, in turn, snubs The Irishman for Best Picture. On the other hand, Sam Mendes' direction is actually pretty good in 1917 despite everything, and one could argue that Todd Phillips is worthy of recognition for transitioning from shitty Hangover sequels to something as regarded and competent as Joker. You know who shouldn't be on here? Tarantino. No, he's not a bad director all things considered, and I like most of his work, but this was his worst film to date and he really doesn't deserve any awards for it. As per usual with the Oscars, there's been some outcry about the lack of diversity in the award nominations, especially at the lack of female directors, and while I don't think anyone should be entitled to an award just because of their gender or race etc, what I will say is Tarantino is taking up a valuable spot here, that could have been better awarded to someone like Greta Gerwig, or any other director that actually made a good film this year rather than three hours of cinematic wank.
Best Actor
If it were any other year, Adam Driver would surely crush this category. Marriage Story was a film made by its performances, and amongst them, Adam Driver's frustrated husband and father trying to do what he can to save his relationship with his son in the midst of a breakup he never asked for, is probably one of the film's strongest. You really grow to feel for him and the emotion he puts behind it is so utterly believable. Unfortunately, Joker also came out this year, and there's basically no way Joaquin Phoenix won't win. The Academy has shown a preference for transformative performances in the past, and Phoenix seems to have ticked that box quite well. Also, it's not like his Joker isn't a great performance. It's utterly fantastic, and I imagine the film probably would not have worked nearly as well without such a stellar performance at the centre. Ultimately, my money's on Phoenix to win, but really I'd want both him and Driver to win. Maybe they can share.
Best Actress
I'll be honest, the only one of these I've seen is Marriage Story, and while Scarlett Johansson was by no means bad, I wasn't as into her performance as much as I was Adam Driver's to be perfectly honest, and she's probably not going to be the one taking home the statue. Out of the nominees, my gut says Saoirse Ronan just because I know how good she is, but with the transformative performance thing in mind, an argument can probably be made for Renée Zellweger in Judy as well. Consider my opinion abstained.
Best Original Screenplay
This is the only nomination Knives Out has gotten, which, again, is pretty disappointing, but on the other hand, this is at least one that it absolutely deserves. Knives Out was such a fantastically put together mystery thriller, with so many fantastic reveals, red herrings, payoffs and characters that all weave together perfectly. On the other hand, 1917's weakest point was story-related, even if its dialogue was generally pretty good, and I assume we can all guess which of the nominated films here I think shouldn't belong. The award is probably down to Knives Out, Marriage Story or Parasite, and I'd like to think Knives Out will snag it, but I think Marriage Story has a really strong chance too.
Best Animated Feature
Everyone rejoice! Frozen 2 is nowhere to be seen, even if it inevitably got a Best Song nomination. Toy Story 4 is here, however, which I guess is to be expected but look, Pixar, I love you guys but there are other animation studios, it's not just you guys. Luckily, we've got some reasonably diverse choices for animated feature this year, with the indie I Lost My Body and Klaus both making the list, as well as Studio Laika's stop motion Missing Link. While its story kinda fell apart towards the end and kinda just stopped rather than concluded, I Lost My Body was for the most part really entertaining and full of creative spirit and visuals, and while it occasionally frustrated, there were parts that made me feel quite warm and fuzzy. Meanwhile, I managed to persuade my family to put on Klaus this Christmas Day rather than Finding Dory, and while I was in the midst of flu and wasn't able to give it my full attention or mental faculties, I did still enjoy the film a lot, and again, a lot of creativity and passion was on display. Let's face it, Toy Story 4 will win, but if we dare to dream for a second, I think Klaus would probably be my pick. Although while I haven't seen it, I would also be supportive of Missing Link winning, just because Studio Laika need some goddamn respect for seemingly single-handedly keeping stop-motion alive. That shit is crazy difficult, not to mention just such a uniquely characterful artform.
Best Cinematography
Well you already know I'm not a massive fan of 1917's cinematography: not only did it hamper the film rather than add to it, but it also just wasn't that visually interesting overall, at least not compared to Deakins' other works. I take no pleasure in saying any of this, but yeah, 1917 just isn't my pick, although I'm sure it will be the Academy's. Looking at the rest of the nominations, The Lighthouse has yet to surface this side of the pond, and that really only leaves Joker and The Irishman. Look, even if I wasn't predisposed against it, Once Upon a Time wasn't particularly interesting visually anyway. Besides 1917, nothing really jumps out at me, so let's just say The Lighthouse cause it was in black and white and I'm an edgy bastard.
Best International Feature Film
I mean, Parasite is going to win this. Hands down. No competition. What's more interesting to me is the title change from 'foreign film' to 'international feature'. Is this supposed to be some kind of anti-xenophobic move? Like is 'foreign' now too alienating a word? Or are the American public so triggered by the concept of foreigners that the very word triggers them? I mean, I have nothing against the name change, besides it maybe being a little more of a mouthful to say, (foreign film just rolled off the tongue, ya know?) I'm just very mildly bewildered, is all.
Best Supporting Actress
Laura Dern is sure to win this one for her amazingly punchable lawyer in Marriage Story. It's probably the performance that sticks out the most besides Adam Driver's, and she became such a pivotal part of the conflict, carefully driving the wedge further between them while smiling that sickly smile as she did. I love how much I hated her!
Best Sound Editing/Mixing
Oh my god, just make it one category! It's clear you want to, since again you've got nearly identical lists for each category, with just one film conspicuously different, presumably just to justify that "no, really: these are two completely separate things". Ad Astra has Oscar-worthy sound mixing but not sound editing, and Rise of Skywalker has Oscar-worthy sound editing but not mixing. Go fuckin' figure.
(also kinda sad this is the only nomination for Ad Astra, I think it deserves a nomination for cinematography at least)
Best Costume Design
"Normally, period pieces are a safe bet", I thought as the nominations were revealed. Then I looked through them all. "Oh." Let's just say Little Women, since it's the oldest of the periods being emulated here and I have no other grounds to really judge this on.
And I think that's about everything I have to say there. As usual, part two will be up in February as soon as I can after the ceremony. But this year, if you want to join in the festivities (and presumably don't care about fucking up your sleep schedule) I shall be live-tweeting my reactions to the results on the official Ciné Rambles twitter! Oooh!
Have I mentioned this yet? I don't think so. There's now an official Ciné Rambles twitter account, where you can also find my micro-reviews of recent releases. There's a link here and in the sidebar if that's something that takes your fancy. Otherwise, stay tuned for an Extra Rambles later this month, since the Oscars have now messed up my blog schedule, on top of everything else.
Ah, what am I saying? You can't get angry when Christmas comes early.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)