Monday, March 18, 2024

Mike Pence's Non-Endorsement Matters

This past week, former Vice President Mike Pence announced on Fox News that he would not support former President Trump in his quest to win a second term this November.  Pence announced this on Friday, saying that Trump was "pursuing an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda we governed on during our four years."  He followed up on Face the Nation by telling Margaret Brennan, when she asked specifically about those jailed for their involvement with the January 6th riots that Trump's commentary on them was "unfortunate" and he did not approve of Trump calling these people "hostages" particularly in light of the situation in Gaza.

Pence's announcement is not getting the press that it deserves, and so (despite a very busy week) I'm going to make sure to point it out here, because it is a big deal and I want to give it proper credence.  For much of the past four years, Pence has largely eschewed the spotlight, and has been tepid when it came to his criticisms of President Trump.  This was despite him literally campaigning against Trump in the presidential primary (friendly reminder in case you forgot because it'd be easy to forget-Pence briefly ran for president last year), and Trump encouraging a group of his supporters to storm the Capitol and stop the count that Pence was presiding over at the time.  Yes, even though Trump led a group of violent rioters to the Capitol, while they chanted "Hang Mike Pence" in a building that not only had Pence, but also his wife, brother, and daughter, I'll be real here-I'm kind of stunned Pence had this kind of moral courage.

Pence is framing this as a difference of policy, but let's be real here-that is not the problem here.  Pence has had no problem in the past supporting people like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, both of whom have much more divergent political beliefs than Pence to Trump.  No-this is about Trump's unfitness for office, and it's worth noting that Pence is not the only high-profile member of the administration who has done this, though of course Pence is the most noteworthy since it was also his administration.

Other members of Trump's administration who have not yet endorsed include his former Chief of Staff John Kelly, his Defense Secretaries (James Mattis & Mark Esper), Attorney General Bill Barr, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and two of his National Security Advisors (John Bolton, HR McMaster).  There are others (such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) who have not made much public statement either way, but these are the names that stand out considerably to me because they have been so vocal in their criticisms of Trump's behavior in office, and given the cover of Pence's decision, I would imagine most, if not all of them, will not endorse him.

This comes on the heels of three sitting Republican senators (Todd Young, Bill Cassidy, & Mitt Romney) stating that they will not vote for Donald Trump in November, even if he is the nominee.  Given their support for other candidates in the primary, my eyes are definitely on Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and (to a lesser degree) Mike Rounds to see if they join them.

This is a stunning rebuke to the former president and now-Republican nominee for president, the likes of which, I'll be honest, we have never seen in modern politics, even in 2016.  No living former vice president will support the Republican nominee (Dick Cheney & Dan Quayle have joined Pence)-that's an insane situation, and one that the media does not focus on enough.  There is a lot of conversation about "discord" in the Democratic Party because of the "Uncommitted" vote in states like Michigan & Minnesota, but overall-the party power-brokers have lined up for Biden.  Outgoing Senators Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema have not yet endorsed, but I suspect they will (especially Manchin) get behind the president, even if it's just with cursory support, by this fall.  Rep. Rashida Tlaib has also declined to endorse, but that feels similar to Sinema/Manchin-I anticipate she'll announce she'll vote for him, but not "endorse" him like she did in 2020 (which is tantamount to the same thing).

But these are not figures akin to Mike Pence or James Mattis or Bill Barr.  That would be the equivalent of if Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder weren't backing Biden-and they all obviously are.  The reality of this should not be lost, either politically or consequentially.  On-the-fence Republicans will look to figures like Pence & Nikki Haley and say "if they know him best, and won't vote for him...should I?"  This is a real problem for Trump, because those same voters also cost him the election in 2020.  It cannot be overstated enough that Donald Trump LOST the 2020 election, and as a result he has to win over voters who didn't vote for him in 2020 if he wants to win in 2024...attacking Pence & Haley (and Haley's numerous primary supporters) while Biden is courting those same supporters is risking an even bigger loss if you don't make up the votes somewhere else.

It should also not be lost that Pence chose to do this, almost certainly, because he saw what a Trump presidency did to the country and to our democracy.  I disagree with Pence on nothing politically, but it has to be noted that he conceded the 2020 election, that he went to the inauguration (when Trump didn't), and that he was willing to tell America that Trump is not worthy of the presidency even if that means a Democrat wins (and Pence's political career is now over).  That takes guts, sure, but it also scares the hell out of me that all of these people who literally worked for the guy are so scared of a second Trump term, they're willing to give tacit support to Joe Biden to make sure Trump loses.  How bad do they think he could be?

Sunday, March 17, 2024

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (1931-32)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (1931-32)

The Nominees Were...


Sidney Howard, Arrowsmith
Edwin Burke, Bad Girl
Percy Heath & Samuel Hoffenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

My Thoughts: We are moving into the adapted screenplay race, which unlike the Best Original Story category, is the modern equivalent of the category, though we once again have only three nominations.  If you were going to expand any of these categories, this would've been the place to do it, given that circa 1932, virtually all screenplays were adapted.  For some reason (perhaps because sound was so new), screenplays of this era were almost always plucked from the Broadway stage or from the shelves of your local bookshop.  The three this cycle were all based on books, two by famed authors and one largely forgotten by history.

We'll start with the title I'm confident you all know, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (by Robert Louis Stevenson), the only one of these that I've actually read in addition to seeing the film.  The movie itself is quite wonderful, and a visual feast.  The legendary transformation effects (using camera filters to make it look like Fredric March is changing in front of you) is what draws you into the movie.  The adaptation is not really the most impressive part of it (that's the acting and the effects), but it's serviceable, giving you most of the high notes of March's novella, and I like the ways that it handles Miriam Hopkins, specifically, in making her the audience's entry point into the story.

We've insulted Arrowsmith a lot this season, which is weird because it's mostly been foreshadowing, but now we've finally arrived at the reason why-the adaptation is truly poor.  The film is a slog, frequently getting caught in its own machinations, and not leaning in hard enough to its Pre-Code status.  The film gets away with things that wouldn't be possible a few years later (i.e. the hint of an affair), but without saying outright that Ronald Colman & Myrna Loy are clearly having sex (I would assume/hope the book is more explicit about this), it feels jumbled, and totally gives Helen Hayes the world's most boring wife role.

For Bad Girl, I'm going to quote my Letterboxd review "communication is key to a marriage...but it's more crucial in a screenplay."  I know that Bad Girl has its champions, and indeed it's a better movie than Arrowsmith, but it's also one of those movies where even the most basic of conversations could sort out mountains of misunderstandings.  The film would work better as a straight-up comedy (at least then the misunderstandings would feed into the subject), but it's a drama and the lack of any actual "bad girl" behavior from Sally Eilers made me feel like I was cheated.

Other Precursor Contenders: There were no precursors in 1931-32, so I'm guessing that fourth place was maybe something like Five Star Final, which is a fast-talking picture, and also one that was based on a hit Broadway play that many Academy members likely would've seen the year before.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I will be adiosing all of these nominees, even the best one, with my own five-wide field.  Something like Frankenstein, which takes what could've been an unadaptable book and makes it so universal that most people assume that's what happens in the book, is at the top of the list.
Oscar's Choice: Oscar loves a Bad Girl, especially one who isn't actually bad, and gave the film the statue that Arrowsmith probably got the closest on.
My Choice: I'm going to go with Dr. Jekyll, as it's the only movie I liked, and I'm going to attribute at least part of that to the screenplay.  I'll do Arrowsmith next, then Bad Girl.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you finding yourself drawn to a bad girl like Oscar, or would you rather hang with an (actually) bad boy with me?  Why do you think there are so few adaptations of Sinclair Lewis novels today (does anyone even read Sinclair Lewis anymore)?  And why were adaptations all the rage in the early Sound Era?  Share your thoughts below!

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2000200120022003200420052006200720082009, 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022

Saturday, March 16, 2024

OVP: The Stratton Story (1949)

Film: The Stratton Story (1949)
Stars: James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Morgan, Agnes Moorehead
Director: Sam Wood
Oscar History: 1 nomination/1 win (Best Motion Picture Story*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on June Allyson: click here to learn more about Ms. Allyson (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We don't really think about this anymore, but one of the best aspects of the Classical Hollywood era was that, while they weren't really big on sequels (they had them, mind you, but the concept of a tentpole wasn't a thing), they did tend to milk cinematic pairings until they were no longer adored by the public.  Had Barbie been as big of a hit in 1949 as it was in 2023, the studios would've basically forced Margot Robbie & Ryan Gosling into another 3-4 more movies, knowing that the public would show up to cheer them on.  This is something that happened to June Allyson a lot, and honestly I wish studios would do more of now (I like capitalizing on movie stars more than I like capitalizing on franchises).  We talked about this initially with Van Johnson in Two Girls and a Sailor, but this week (and next week) we're going to focus on maybe the most-remembered of her pairings.  Even though she would ultimately make more movies with Johnson or Peter Lawford, June Allyson's most beloved pairing to modern audiences is probably with Jimmy Stewart.  The two made a trio of movies together, all of them big hits, and in the case of The Stratton Story, Allyson's favorite picture from her whole career.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie talks about now largely-forgotten baseball player Monty Stratton (Stewart), at one point a promising pitcher for the Chicago White Sox, who would end up sidelined during his prime after a freak accident where he accidentally shot himself in the right leg, forcing it to be amputated.  The film focuses on his career from the beginning to end, including being raised by a thorny mother (Moorehead) and being recruited by a sweet baseball scout (Morgan).  Along the way, he marries the love of his life Ethel (Allyson).  The movie spends a long time on his recovery, which is less physical and more emotional, until Monty decides to take his glove back to the baseball field, and remarkably stages a (true-to-real-life) minor league comeback, even as an amputee.

The movie won an Academy Award for Best Motion Picture Story, a category that's a little hard-to-understand to modern audiences, but essentially boils down to "best idea for a movie" and in that way, it generally works.  This is a movie film, one that tells the story of a hero who overcame the odds, and it does the best thing that biopics can do-it tells you a new tale of a person you didn't know about.  But it also doesn't really work.  The first hour of the film is a snore, giving us virtually nothing but repetition and basically feels like it's explaining the concept of baseball, which (I'm sorry) in 1949 was not something America needed a lesson upon.  So I'm in the middle on that statue, even if I understand why it happened.

The film's back half is much better, and easily to invest upon.  A broken man overcoming the odds is the subject of a lot of Jimmy Stewart's best films, and he definitely nails this part.  His boy-next-door charm plays well with Allyson's girl-next-door pluck, and I get why the studio saw not just the dollar signs at the box office, but also them playing off of one another and understood this was a formula worth repeating.  I just wish that they were in a stronger movie, especially in the first half.

OVP: Little Women (1949)

Film: Little Women (1949)
Stars: June Allyson, Peter Lawford, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, Rossano Brazzi, Mary Astor, Lucille Watson, C. Aubrey Smith
Director: Mervyn LeRoy
Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Cinematography, Art Direction*)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on June Allyson: click here to learn more about Ms. Allyson (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we missed June Allyson, because I was in the office all week & it was the Oscars (which as you can imagine, is quite the event around my house), so today you're going to get a double dip of Ms. Allyson, both films from 1949.  Circa 1949, you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger name in Hollywood than June Allyson.  Allyson's lack of an Oscar nomination relegates her to a category of actress that isn't super discussed today (we'll talk about this in a couple of weeks, but a few decisions late in her career also contributed to this decline in stature), but she was a big deal on the MGM lot, rivaling figures like Judy Garland or Joan Crawford (at a competing studio) as one of the most noteworthy actresses in Hollywood.  One of the biggest films she made at the time was the all-star rendition of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, one of four big-screen studio incarnations of the story, and arguably the one with the most buzz-worthy cast.  In a lineup that included Mary Astor, Peter Lawford, Janet Leigh, and Elizabeth Taylor, it was Allyson who got top billing & the leading role.

(Spoilers Ahead...though do you really need a spoiler alert for Little Women?) The movie is about the four March sisters: headstrong Jo (Allyson), dutiful Meg (Leigh), vain Amy (Taylor), and sweet Beth (O'Brien) who used to be rich, but now live in relative poverty (relative being the operative word here given their house is pretty swanky in this film) with their nurse mother (Astor), while their father is out away fighting for the Union in the Civil War.  The film unfolds with these four women trying to live their lives, at the center of it a love square between Jo, Amy, handsome-and-rich Laurie (Lawford), and handsome-and-studious Professor Bhaer (Brazzi).  Love, tragedy, and even death ensue (we all know that Beth dies), but it's a family drama with all of the trimmings...I could go into it more, but let's be honest, you've either seen one of the movies or read the book if you're on this blog.

I will own that I've never really gelled with this story.  Even the recent critically-acclaimed movie by Greta Gerwig I was just in the middle of (let me tell you-my 3-star review of that picture stands OUT compared to my friends on the platform).  But watching this, I get why Gerwig's film enchanted so many, as it takes a relatively formulaic story and gives it life, particularly through the performances from Timothee Chalamet & Florence Pugh.  The 1949 film has no such luck, giving us little invention, and as a result, playing all of the characters as flat.  Star power will get you a little bit (Elizabeth Taylor is delicious if nowhere near as good as Pugh, playing pretty Amy), but the rest is a struggle.  Jo March is a tricky heroine (she bucks convention, frequently makes somewhat cruel mistakes about people, and spends much of the film not knowing what she wants), and Allyson doesn't know how to land her.  The first and second halves of the film feel like separate Jo's entirely.

The movie won several Oscar nominations, and here I'm onboard.  The technicolor cinematography looks divine, with all of these beautiful actresses framed perfectly in snow-covered houses and richly-detailed libraries.  The art direction in generally is also strong-I get why this, with these houses that actually have personality, won the statue.  I'm surprised, honestly, that it didn't get in for costuming too, which is fun (particularly Elizabeth Taylor's gown in the film's final scene) and lovely.  But there's not enough life in this film to make any of these lush decorations truly sing.

Monday, March 11, 2024

The 96th Academy Awards: The Good, the Bad, and the Reflective

Last night, we had the 96th Academy Awards, and while it's coming out a little bit later in the day than we normally write it, we are going to do my annual write-up focusing on what the Oscars did right, and what they did wrong at last night's ceremony.  If you're reading this, you likely watched it, so I shall avoid the preamble and just dive into the good stuff.

The Good

Overall, last night's ceremony was almost entirely good.  After years of mixed bags, either in terms of the way that the Oscars (and their hosts) handled the ceremony, or badly-timed winners, we got a pretty strong show.  Jimmy Kimmel's opening monologue is not at the same level of someone like Billy Crystal or Whoopi Goldberg, but he's done a better job of handling some of his jokes (leaving "no one has seen these movie" cuts to himself), and had a few really solid zingers, the best being to Steven Spielberg ("Steven, are you nominated again this year or do you just have season tickets"...for the record, Spielberg was nominated as he was one of the producers of Maestro, only the second film after 2006's Letters from Iwo Jima where Spielberg was nominated for a film he didn't direct).  Kimmel is a good host, and as I've said a few times, I like having hosts that repeat so that we don't just give up on a good idea if it doesn't last perfectly the first time-I hope ABC keeps him in the rotation.

Though the presenters got off to a rocky start (Melissa McCarthy & Octavia Spencer doing a bit about Chippendales that tanked), they got into a decent groove after that.  Emily Blunt & Ryan Gosling, Arnold Schwarzenegger & Danny Devito, Kate McKinnon & America Ferrera (again with Steven Spielberg) all pulled off their presentations with aplomb, landing decent jokes and bits.  It helps to hire funny actors to present, and in all of these cases, that was achieved.  We also had very few fashion misses, and in many cases (Anya Taylor-Joy, Danielle Brooks, Lily Gladstone) they were home runs.

But two things more than anything stand out as genuinely great from last night.  The first was a trio of winners that were not necessarily expected (though none would be considered a surprise) that I have to admit I loved: The Boy and the Heron for Animated Feature Film, The Zone of Interest for Sound, & Godzilla Minus One for Visual Effects.  None of these were gimme wins, and in all cases, the Academy had a more conventional (and less interesting) option waiting in the wings...but they still showed unusual care in picking three victories that will age well.  The Academy gets such crap for not making the right choices, it needs to be acknowledged when they picked beautifully-all of three of these are well worth it.

Lastly, the single best moment of the night was Ryan Gosling going balls-to-wall with "I'm Just Ken."  It has been a long time since we saw a truly impressive (and not just a "Lady Gaga can actually sing!") number that wasn't guaranteed to go well, and this could've been it.  I initially assumed that Will Ferrell (one of the stars of the film) would take this on and play it for silly laughs, but instead, they had a handsome man doing his best Marilyn Monroe impression, getting up there like a sexy rock star, and landing every punchline in the song.  "I'm Just Ken" is not a great piece of music, but it is a terrific set piece, and Gosling showed that in the best musical number I can remember the Oscars doing in a decade.  When he wins his eventual statue, honestly...this is part of how he won it.

The Bad

I'm not going to weigh in on the Emma Stone & Lily Gladstone situation, even if it's the headline this morning, because I think they're both on roughly the sage page.  Gladstone is my preference, but Stone is nearly as good-neither of these wins was going to age poorly, and I'm glad Gladstone went lead because while Stone can alternate between lead & supporting without it hurting her career, Gladstone is the first true Native American leading woman in Hollywood...I don't see a world where she goes supporting for her one true lead role and it doesn't mean she's always a supporting actress.  She's since gotten another lead role, and I think that may help her career more than an Oscar (even if I do wonder if this is the only time she ever gets nominated, mostly because most first time nominees only get nominated once, even genuine, decades-long movie stars like Doris Day or Debbie Reynolds who never showed up again).

But what I will say is bad is that the show felt a bit staid.  Save for "I'm Just Ken" the show was a little bit too safe, and maybe too predictable.  The only two things that didn't feel totally unrehearsed were Emma Stone accidentally calling Jimmy Kimmel a dick/prick (it was hard to tell which, but it was definitely one when she was caught accidentally on camera after a joke about Poor Things she clearly didn't approve of) and Al Pacino forgetting to read all of the nominees and just giving us the immortal words "my eyes see Oppenheimer"...more star charisma in a mistake than most actors have their whole careers.  Otherwise...it was more respectable than thrilling.

I think part of this is the need to telegraph so much of the ceremony in advance, which is a byproduct of social media.  Telling us every single one of the presenters in advance means there's no "surprise guests," which I'm sorry, you need.  Having Olivia de Havilland randomly walk out to present something used to be a "drop the curtain" sort of moment from the Academy Awards, and there weren't enough of those this year.  If you don't have that, you need iconic comedic talents like Robin Williams or Jim Carrey who can come out and channel their own persona for a few minutes.  Even the "bring back the former winners" moments were largely a yawn (with a few exceptions-Jessica Lange & Lupita Nyong'o, you understood the assignment).  Supporting Actor was entirely people who had won this century, and so it felt less special.  I know that a lot of this category's most notable winners have died, but where was Michael Caine?  Joel Grey? Tommy Lee Jones?  There was a lack of "whoa" in almost all of the lineups, and even the legends that showed up (like Rita Moreno or Sally Field) show up all the time.  I know the Academy got burned a few years back by having Kim Novak present and get attacked on social media, but I want more risks like that; the only thing that came close was the Keaton/Schwarzenegger/DeVito bit, which I loved and kind of wish they'd also included Margot Robbie & Cillian Murphy to show all the Batman villains in the audience.  Bring back someone like Ali MacGraw whom the people in the Dolby would know but the people at home might have to (gasp!) watch a movie to learn more about.  Also, I am officially putting this to rest on the blog after this (hopefully), but Brendan Fraser barely being able to get through his lines about acting titan Jeffrey Wright, only to be followed by Nicolas Cage giving one of the best intro's and totally upstaging him says everything you need to know about how bad the Academy screwed up by giving him a statue for The Whale.

The Reflective

One of the signs that this year was kind of dull was that I didn't cry during a single speech (I know some people did during earlier speeches, but I'll be honest-I'm not a "cry at a political speech" sort of person in general having followed politics & the national conventions for decades).  I did, however, tear up during the ceremony, and that was when Al Pacino walked onto the stage.  Pacino walking out to the theme to The Godfather (which I get to watch for the first time in a while later this year as part of a rewatch for the OVP) hit a chord with me, the 83-year-old actor all warmth and happiness as he got a standing ovation.

I have so long had the Oscars be a part of my personality, I sometimes have to remind even myself that there's a reason I love the Oscars-I love the movies.  I am not, it has to be said an "awards person."  This isn't to say I don't follow them-I know who won the Globes or BAFTA's or SAG Awards, and I love the pomp & majesty of the Oscars, including the show and the monologues and the fashions, but I haven't watched any awards show other than the Oscars in full for at least five years (just in morning after clips).  At the end of the day, the reason I got into the Oscars were they were a guide to the movies, and the reason I keep talking about them is that they are a framework for me to talk about film.  The Oscars are the one time each year where everyone sort of stops and is willing to discuss the thing that fills my heart with joy.  But increasingly, with the Oscars, it feels more mechanical, like all of the magic is being commodified.  The presenters & performances must be shown in advance, the awards are so overanalyzed that they lose all of their surprise and intrigue.  Watching Film Twitter, one of the best vessels to discuss movies, act like winning an Oscar is just a game of chess, has made it less fun.  I went 17/23 for my predictions (respectable, if nowhere near a personal best), but the one I was most proud of this year was calling The Boy and the Heron because it felt like me going with my gut for a win rather than going with the precursor math.  Precursor math can help (I never would've called American Fiction without it as my gut was definitely saying Greta was getting that statue for Barbie), but it isn't very satisfying.

So it was good to see Al Pacino take the stage, and be reminded that the reason I watch the Oscars, the reason I watch movies, and don't just have them veer into "on my cell phone background noise" or (shudder) "content" is that they mean something.  Al Pacino in The Godfather impacts my soul in a way few things can.  And looking back on the last year, there were moments that felt like I was transported somewhere else.  Paul Mescal flirting with Andrew Scott in All of Us Strangers.  Lily Gladstone interrogating Leonardo DiCaprio in Killers of the Flower Moon.  Rachel Zegler singing for her life in Hunger Games.  These are moments that will last longer for me than anything at the Oscars, and a good reminder that it's okay to just enjoy movies, and to give them their proper respect.  Put down the phone John, you can just watch the twinkling lights in the dark, and see if they might bring you somewhere (to quote another movie fan) you've never been before.

Wednesday, March 06, 2024

OVP: Original Story (1931-32)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (1931-32)

The Nominees Were...


Frances Marion, The Champ
Grover Jones & William Slavens McNutt, Lady and Gent
Lucien Hubbard, The Star Witness
Adela Rogers St. Johns & Jane Murfin, What Price Hollywood

My Thoughts: A lot of categories for 1931-32 we are skipping over.  Editing, Makeup, Visual Effects, even Sound & Score...not categories in the 5th Academy Awards.  But today we are going to be doing something we haven't done since we started this series-introducing a new category.  From 1927 to 1956, the category of Original Story (also known as "Motion Picture Story," and "Best Story"...we'll call it "Original Story" in the title and "Motion Picture Story" in the tags to hopefully catch the largest number of curious readers) existed, for many years concurrently with the category of Original Screenplay.  This led to some confusion (including by me) over what this exactly is.  Based on my reading, the difference is largely that a screenplay is the finished product (including dialogue) that is used in the film, while the story is a broader based idea (similar to a film treatment) that outlines the concept of the film.  That is how we're going to treat it (and also, because it's such a loose category, we're skipping it for the My Ballot even though we'll obviously do it every year for the OVP, but we'll get to that later).  In 1931-32, there were four nominees.

The first of those nominees is maybe the most famous story of all time, at least when it comes to the Oscars, though you wouldn't know it at first.  What Price Hollywood is the tale of a young waitress who rises from nothing to become the biggest actress in Hollywood, all while another man sees his power decline.  Yes, What Price Hollywood is essentially the story of A Star is Born, so much so that RKO considered filing a lawsuit against David O. Selznick over plagiarism.  But the film actually is a spin on the story, less a classic and more invested in the female lead than her male counterpart.  The man who falls is not her lover, but instead just a friend, and the film's fresh takes on feminism are honestly refreshing for 1932.

Our second nominee is also playing with a classic story, one that would be remade later called The Champ.  The concept of a washed-up boxer trying to prove his worth to his son was actually pretty refreshing in 1931, and the film plays it well.  It's helped that Beery & Cooper have strong chemistry together, but the detailing with the story (the wealthy unknown mother, the juxtaposition of rich/poor, talent/no talent, and lost dreams) is really strong.  The Champ is not a movie that I love as much as some of my friends (I am featured on an episode of Gilded Films podcast if you want to hear me talk about this movie and all of the 1931-32 Best Picture nominees more in-depth), but I am very aware of how strong the story is-this was a smart choice by Oscar.

We'll move next to The Star Witness, a nomination that I can't defend in nearly the same breath as the first two pictures.  To give it credit, the gangster film had not yet reached its most formulaic spot in 1931.  Films like The Public Enemy, Little Caesar, & Scarface all came out in a 15-month period between January 1931 and April 1932, and would be foundational for the genre until the 1970's...but this isn't those movies, and really it neither invites a lot of the tropes nor is it particularly strongly executed.  It's hard to not judge the dialogue when it comes to story, but let's just say that isn't helping the matters either and the film feels rudimentary, even for a genre in its infancy.

The final nomination is Lady and Gent, which is a twist on the boxing trope, where a boxer's gal decides to adopt a young child, completely out of her nature.  The movie is solid, don't get me wrong, but I don't know if it deserves a lot of credit for the story, but more so the great work by Wynne Gibson as the picture's lead.  It does have a bit of Pre-Code naughtiness (if you ever wanted to hear John Wayne make a joke about cocaine, this is your movie), but it's just solid work in terms of the story, not really creating a trope or breaking into something properly original.

Other Precursor Contenders: We've been through this already, and I'll be honest-I know so little about this category that I'm not going to hazard a guess at who was in contention.  It's also worth noting that original screenplays were REALLY hard to come by in this time frame, so honestly it may well have been a film that wasn't nominated anywhere else (which is true for all but The Champ in this lineup).  If you have theories, I'm all ears in the comments.
Films I Would Have Nominated: We will do original screenplay instead of original story for the My Ballot, but I think Monkey Business, a charming little diversion from the Marx Brothers, would be a safe bet for either category on my personal ballot.
Oscar’s Choice: Oscar gave the trophy to The Champ, the only Best Picture nominee here, probably over What Price Hollywood.  It's worth noting that in a nicely progressive moment for the Academy, both films featured female screenwriters, which was quite unusual in the early 1930's.
My Choice: I'm going to do the reverse, giving What Price Hollywood our first Motion Picture Story Oscar, here over The Champ, as I think it being the most important building block for the Hollywood myth cannot be denied.  Lady and Gent is in third, followed by The Star Witness.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you hoping to become a star with me, or do you want to enter the ring with Oscar?  Why do you think Oscar picked so many gangster films in this category in its infancy?  And since it's new-are we all in agreement this is the best way to judge Original Story?  Share your thoughts below!

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Primaries

While we have had weeks of presidential primaries already, yesterday kicked off congressional primary season for 2024.  Five states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, North Carolina, & Texas) had their down-ballot primaries last night (in addition to it being Super Tuesday on a presidential level), and that shaped several contests for later this year, including a de facto coronation of California's next senator, and set up a couple of House elections that will be of critical importance to who wins the House majority in November.  If you're new here, I usually give a "five thoughts" morning-after article when it comes to primaries like this, so we're going to dive into the biggest takeaways I had from last night.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
1. Adam Schiff Becomes California's Newest Senator

The biggest news in terms of who will be leading in Washington next year came in California, where Rep. Adam Schiff became the sole Democrat to advance to the Senate general election (the Golden State has a top two primary system, regardless of party) alongside Republican Steve Garvey.  California saw a slight turn red in 2022, but even assuming that holds, it is one of the bluest states in the nation, and will easily give Schiff a victory.  Schiff's election means that California, which in 1993 became the first state in the Union to have two female senators, will not have any in January.  For months, it wasn't clear whether or not Garvey would advance or whether Schiff's House colleague Katie Porter would, the latter setting off an expensive race for a safe blue seat.  Those dollars will hopefully be spent elsewhere now (Schiff's fundraising was insane, and I hope he has the good sense to share some of that money with his current & future colleagues to help Democrats' take majorities in November), but I will totally own that I was backing Porter in this race, and this is a disappointment (I wear an independent political analyst hat in these articles, but I'm not going to pretend I don't have preferences).  Porter has been a rare talent in the House, with an ability to attract support from Millennials & Gen Z with her straight-forward approach (i.e. her famous white board), and given that 23% of American parents are single-parent households, it would've been cool to see a single parent in the Senate so it would look a bit more like America.  But Schiff will be a reliable Democratic vote, and a safe victor in California (and hopefully a second Biden term would involve Porter in some way).

The only other Senate primary of note was in Texas, where Rep. Colin Allred officially became the Democratic nominee, which was largely expected though he did have a challenge from State Sen. Roland Gutierrez.  Texas remains a reach seat for the Democrats, but it's now a reach seat with an A-tier recruit, a sitting House incumbent who defeated a Republican congressman to win in 2018.  If Biden's fortunes improve into the summer, this will be a race I keep my eye on.

Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC)
2. Nikki Haley Wins Vermont

We're not going to focus much on the nearly-completed presidential primary (news is breaking as I'm writing this that Haley will suspend her race later today, though it sounds like she won't officially endorse Donald Trump yet).  But she will do so having won a state last night.  Haley won the state of Vermont, meaning that Donald Trump will not have won all fifty states (something Joe Biden will be able to claim, though he somehow lost American Samoa last night in the weirdest election result I've seen in a while), and that will leave Al Gore as the only non-incumbent to win every state in a presidential primary, depriving Trump of that title.  Haley continued to over-perform polls last night, a streak we have seen all year where Trump's support is softer-than-expected based on public polling.  This isn't unusual (presidential primary polling is not as reliable as polling for congressional primaries and certainly for presidential general elections), but it is curious that every single one of these polls has underestimated Trump by so much.  And it is worth noting that it wasn't just "independents and Democrats" driving Haley's victory-she got 16% in Oklahoma, a state with a closed primary so those were all Republican voters actively choosing not to vote for Trump.

Otherwise, the only other noteworthy result last night was a disappointing result for Joe Biden in Minnesota, which some pundits were saying was important, and I will just say-it was not important.  Anecdotally, I was all over the Twin Cities yesterday and didn't see an "I Voted" sign on anyone but me (numbers were low for a state that regularly leads the nation in voter turnout), and Minnesota's unusual progressive politics streak (and position as the home state of Dean Phillips) was always going to present a challenge to Biden, particularly as he didn't spend here.  I don't think that his performance (which was still better than Trump's) is a sign that Minnesota is competitive in November.

Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC)
3. North Carolina Sets Up the Nation's Most Important Governor's Race

North Carolina's gubernatorial primaries were not at all competitive, but they do officially set up the most important governor's race this fall.  The swing state (which, it has to be said, also showed signs of strength for Haley in suburban counties around Raleigh & Charlotte which it would behoove Joe Biden's team to milk for all they're worth) will feature a race between Attorney General Josh Stein (D) and Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R).  I know that Democrats have gotten desensitized to Republican extremism, but I have to be real-Robinson is a different level, and it'll be up to Stein (who has the tall task of not only winning a state that Donald Trump is clearly leading in, but also to extend to a third Democratic term this fall) to make sure Tarheel voters know this.  Robinson is a Holocaust denier, and is deeply antisemitic.  He also has publicly called gay & transgender people "filth" and has threatened to arrest transgender people simply for using the bathroom of their choice (yes, I said arrest).  He called Covid-19 a "globalist conspiracy" and has called Ellen Degeneres a "demon," Martin Luther King a "communist," and has insinuated that Michelle Obama is secretly a man.  Stein, by comparison, is a pretty generic left-of-middle Democrat, one who has been Attorney General since 2017, and (taking on particular importance given Robinson's past antisemitic comments) would become North Carolina's first Jewish governor if he were elected.

One other callout before we leave North Carolina-the Attorney General race will have an unusual national importance given the candidates.  Rep. Dan Bishop (R) won an expected victory on the GOP side, while Rep. Jeff Jackson (D), despite Republicans spending almost $1 million to beat him, was able to win the Democratic nomination.  This sets up the first sitting House member vs. House member race for Attorney General since 1954 (in New York).

Rep. Jerry Carl (R-AL)
4. House Results (Safe Seats Edition)

We had a lot of primaries last night for the House, and specifically in California, they're still counting the votes so we won't know all of the matchups for days (if not weeks).  But there are a few things to note, and we'll start with the races where the incumbents are guaranteed spots this fall.  Rep. Tony Gonzales (R) will advance to a runoff against MAGA conservative YouTuber Brandon Herrera (the mental picture you just drew of what his politics are like is accurate based on that description).  Gonzales has attracted criticism from Republicans due to his support for the Respect for Marriage Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, both of which were signed into law in 2022 (after the Texas primaries that year).  Also going to a runoff will be the redrawn Alabama's second congressional district between Shomari Figures (son of State Sen. Vivien Figures) and House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels.  Not to editorialize too much, but while Figures is the favorite here given his performance last night, I am actively hoping for a Daniels upset in the runoff given Figures has received suspect donations from a conservative Super PAC associated with cryptocurrency, which is setting off internal alarms for me personally, and would not be in this position were it not for his more accomplished parents.

Those are the undecided races.  The rest looks decided.  Rep. Barry Moore defeated Rep. Jerry Carl in the redrawn first district of Alabama, which means Carl is officially the first incumbent (of either party or either house) in Congress to lose reelection this year.  Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), who voted to certify the 2020 election and was attacked for it on the campaign trail, won a surprisingly close reelection last night (and I would expect this could cause him to retire in 2026), while Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) also saw a tighter-than-expected election after Crenshaw also supported the 2020 election certification.  Scary times that certifying an election can cost you significant support in a primary, but given the makeup of these seats, both men will win reelection in November.

State Rep. Rudy Salas (D-CA)
5. House Results (Swing Seat Edition)

The biggest question in terms of actual question marks for November in DC, and not just "who will hold safe seats" came in California's 22nd congressional district.  In the weeks leading up to Tuesday, there was a lot of conversation about whether the Democrats would be shut out of the 22nd congressional district, despite the seat going for Joe Biden by 13-points and Alex Padilla by 3-points (i.e. territory they need to compete in).  The Republicans got their preferred candidate in Rep. David Valadao (R), one of only two sitting members of the House who voted to impeach Donald Trump over his involvement in the January 6th terrorist attacks, but the worry was that the two Democrats (State Rep. Rudy Salas and State Sen. Melissa Hurtado) would split the vote enough that conservative Chris Mathys would join Valadao in the general.  This didn't happen though.  While some media outlets have yet to call this contest, Decision Desk HQ did call it early this morning for both Valadao & Salas, and that appears to be legitimate.  This sets up a rematch of 2022, when Valadao beat Salas by 3-points.  Given the presidential results in 2020, and how tight the House is, Salas' victory is a sigh-of-relief for the DCCC as they get their man for one of the most important House seats on the map this November.