OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2003)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2003)

The Nominees Were...

Robert Pulcini & Shari Springer Berman, American Splendor

Braulio Mantovani, City of God

Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Brian Helgeland, Mystic River

Gary Ross, Seabiscuit

My Thoughts: We are going to to try and get as much of 2003 done this week as my body will allow.  I have been exhausted lately, but in the next two weeks I will be A) stuck at home because of ongoing car troubles and B) traveling less than I have in months, as I have my first two consecutive weekends where I will be home alone this year.  This should hopefully mean we'll be getting a bunch of articles happening & getting into the rhythm of 2022 (it should also hopefully mean that some of the long-delayed projects I planned for the new year will begin).  In the meantime, this week we'll be focusing quite a bit on the 2003 OVP in terms of articles (other than Oscar predictions & our February star, I don't know if we'll have time for much else, though for my political readers I promise to make some political articles priority the following week as we have been slacking), almost certainly finishing next week.  Let's begin!

Our first adapted screenplay was the nomination heard around the world-City of God.  It's hard to impress upon young Oscar watchers, but in those early days of blogging (pre-Twitter), there was nothing more shocking than City of God, which no one had predicted, getting this nomination.  The film itself is, I'll admit, a technical feat but not one that I can get into, though its influence in the years since is undeniable.  Part of that lies with the story; the film involves too much plot, never quite knowing what to do with itself as it continues (Goose's story feels almost superfluous when you compare his tale to that of Benny later in the picture).  There are moments that feel truly exceptional (one late death is jaw-dropping in the way it unfolds), but it is uneven.

You could make a similar argument about Mystic River, which was definitely the "other" potential winner in this lineup against Return of the King, at least in Oscar's eyes.  The movie is intoxicating, and there are great monologues (Laura Linney's speech toward the end, where she uncovers a Lady Macbeth that's been in plain sight the whole picture, being the best).  But it feels a little bit trite, and borrows so much from Shakespeare that you can't help but feel like you've been cheated out of some of the twists that come later in the picture as we learn each character's true nature.

One could make the sincere argument that Return of the King's least successful element is its script.  The movie is littered with marvelous speeches (my audience actively cheered after Miranda Otto's "I am no man!" declaration), but the ending is indulgent, the sign of someone who might not have known how to edit out enough of his tale.  That being said, it manages to give us finite endings to a dozen or so characters we'd spent literal years falling for, and so it's hard to discount it too much.  It's the sort of nomination, though, that a strong year might take away another of Tolkien's trophies (so far we've only denied it one).

That film is not Seabiscuit, however.  The movie has some scripted moments that work (William H. Macy's announcing has a bit of humor & heart that would've carried the film better if it'd been more of a plot point).  The movie is dull, and it's predictable.  It doesn't take knowing the actual true story behind Seabiscuit to understand that this horse is going to come out of nowhere and become a legend...you can tell that in the way it's telegraphed in virtually every scene.  Seabiscuit is the worst kind of prestige sport film, rife with cliche & nothing distinctive.  It's the sort of film that might have been passable (but forgettable) if you hadn't shoved a bunch of Oscar nominations in front of it.

American Splendor isn't much better.  Playing with form, it tries to be a cringe comedy, animated feature, & documentary, utilizing the real-life Harvey Pekar, his famous cartoons, and the fictionalized version in Paul Giamatti, but it doesn't quite work.  I think part of the investment in American Splendor is finding Pekar's off-putting personality (and mental health conditions) charming in a curmudgeonly way, but I didn't...that isn't entirely the script's fault (I blame to a large degree Paul Giamatti, who is not good at playing subtle characters and with such a loud figure to play, he uses a sledgehammer to the script), but it doesn't help, and I don't think it's successful in any of the mediums it attempts.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine their writing categories so there is no adapted or original distinction, and here we have just two adapted contenders: the Oscar-nominated Mystic River and Cold Mountain.  At the BAFTA's the categories are separated, and we had Return of the King taking the big prize over Big Fish, Cold Mountain, Girl with a Pearl Earring, and Mystic River.  The WGA's also split their nominees, and went with American Splendor against Cold Mountain, Seabiscuit, Mystic River, and The Return of the King.  This all tells me two things.  One, with each precursor going in a different direction, this is the rare category (and the last one we'll encounter) where Return of the King's 11-win sweep was in jeopardy.  And two, I have no idea how Cold Mountain, Miramax-backed, prestigious Cold Mountain, fell to City of God.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Here's the deal-I'd nominate Cold Mountain.  The Civil War is always a bit rough onscreen, but it does a great job of feeling urgent while also ensuring that we get a taste for the true day-to-day life in the American South during the darkest days of the Republic.

Oscar's Choice: Return of the King wins, likely in a close contest against Mystic River in its only true shot at a non-acting award.

My Choice: Return of the King is a brilliant movie, and its script is very good.  It is not, however, the strongest element of the film so given, say, a Lost in Translation in this race, I might well have gone with that film because Return could have done better (you could make a sincere argument it is the least tightly-scriped of the original three films).  But against this competition, it takes it over Mystic River.  Following them is City of God, American Splendor, and Seabiscuit.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Is everyone kind of ready to give Tolkien another award, or is there a winner I'm missing here?  Does anyone feel a little weird about American Splendor knowing how the story ends in real life (as opposed to stopping in 2003)?  And how the hell did Cold Mountain get skipped here?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2003: Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2003

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019

Kristen Stewart & the Globes

One of the biggest questions headed into the Oscar nominations, which will be announced in ten days, is around the Best Actress field.  For quite a while headed into the season, five names had shown up as probable contenders: Nicole Kidman (Being the Ricardos), Olivia Colman (The Lost Daughter), Jessica Chastain (The Eyes of Tammy Faye), Lady Gaga (House of Gucci), & Kristen Stewart (Spencer).  These five were the contenders at the Golden Globes for Best Actress in a Drama, in fact.  But since that announcement, they've gone on a bit of a wild ride.  While Kidman & Colman feel like sure things (I suspect one of them is probably winning), Kristen Stewart, a figure whom many pundits assumed might win the trophy, now feels like a "nomination is its own reward" contender.  She missed out at the SAG Awards in favor of Jennifer Hudson (Respect), and didn't even show up on the BAFTA longlist, despite her film being about British royalty (usually a gimme nomination for a prestige picture at the BAFTA Awards).  Spencer has failed at virtually every one of the guild awards, indicating that Stewart, at best, is likely going to be the film's only nomination if it happens, but increasingly names like Hudson or Penelope Cruz (Parallel Mothers) seem to becoming more en vogue.

But Stewart's nomination at the Globes combined with one other factor makes me stubbornly keep her in my Top 5 predictions (coming out in the next week) despite a definite yen to want to cite Hudson or Cruz (both with more heat and former Oscar winners themselves).  That other factor is the fact that Kristen Stewart has never been nominated for an Oscar.  While AMPAS will oftentimes skip one of the Golden Globes nominees for Best Actress in a Drama (Best Actress is generally easier to get in for a Musical or Comedy than Best Actor, and of course there's more than five dramatic performances in a given year so Oscar can go off of the HFPA menu all-together), they're weirdly averse to letting the chance to honor a Globe-nominated actress in this category not end up with "Oscar nominee" in front of her name before the season ends.

In the past forty years, sixty times have actors have been nominated for a Globe and not gone on to be nominated for an Oscar that same year (I say it that way to count out both figures like Debra Winger, Nicole Kidman, & Kate Winslet, who got nominations for different films, and Bjork, who got a nomination in a different category, neither of which are an option for Stewart this year)-so about 70% of the Globe nominees ended up with an Oscar nomination, a very high percentage considering that's on par with just one miss a year.  This already basically puts Stewart's odds at about 4-in-5 that she'll get a nomination.  But if you further examine those sixty, 43 of them were former Oscar nominees or winners-less than a third of the time did it happen that Oscar ignored an actress they'd never cited before, and only one time in the past decade (Jennifer Aniston in Cake) did this happen.  When it comes to this category and first-timers, Oscar has a bad case of FOMO.

If you look at the kinds of performances that missed with Oscar, there's not a lot of consistency other than most of these films were not a big deal with the Academy (which, admittedly, Spencer seems to be headed that way).  Only four of their movies (Rachel Chagall in Gaby: A True Story, Courtney Love in The People vs. Larry Flynt, Evan Rachel Wood in Thirteen, & Maria Bello in A History of Violence) were nominated for other acting trophies, and none of their movies were cited for Best Picture.  A few dominated the tech awards (Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria & Zhang Ziyi in Memoirs of a Geisha), but by-and-large most of these movies were going at it alone, which is probably where Spencer is most vulnerable, though recent nominees like Andra Day & Vanessa Kirby prove you can make the AMPAS list even if you're the only part of your film in contention.

This is all to say that you shouldn't count out Kristen Stewart just yet, even if she's clearly vulnerable, as statistically someone like Gaga or Chastain feel more vulnerable as former nominees.  It's worth noting that if Kristen Stewart does miss with Oscar, it won't necessarily preclude her from ever becoming an Oscar nominee.  Of the seventeen performances that missed in the last forty years after a Globe nod, seven of them were given by people who would eventually be Oscar nominees, and a few of the women that remain in the "missed with Oscar" category are performers like Aniston, Wood, & Blunt, who still work in prestige film/television projects regularly, and could still get their Oscar moment.  So Stewart fans shouldn't give up yet, not until February 8th, and certainly not after-history is definitely on her side.

Mame (1974)

Film: Mame (1974)

Stars: Lucille Ball, Beatrice Arthur, Robert Preston, Bruce Davison, Jane Connell

Director: Gene Saks

Oscar History: Both Ball & Arthur were cited for Golden Globes, but neither of them translated to Oscar.

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Lucille Ball click here to learn more about Ms. Ball (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week, we talked about Lucille Ball's tumultuous marriage to actor Desi Arnaz, which overlapped with the most successful period of her career, where she & Arnaz redefined television as the Ricardos on I Love Lucy, still considered one of the greatest sitcoms of all time.  I Love Lucy went off the air in 1957, and while the two appeared in the successful Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour specials, their onscreen & offscreen relationships dissolved in 1960.  Ball, though, stayed on television for the next 15 years, first in The Lucy Show and then with her children with Here's Lucy.  Not as well-remembered today (particularly Here's Lucy, which thanks to competition from I Love Lucy and The Lucy Show, struggled to gain a foothold in an already crowded "Lucy Reruns" syndication market), both series were massive hits in their days, and from 1951-1972, Lucille Ball had a Top 10 hit every single season (even when it went off the air, Here's Lucy was still in the Top 30).  During this time, Ball tried her hand at other industries, including theater & film, marking one of her bigger successes opposite her The Big Street costar Henry Fonda in the rom-com hit Yours, Mine, and Ours, which finally put Ball in the same stratosphere in cinemas that she had had for years in television.  But all careers have lows with their highs, and today we will talk about perhaps the lowest moment of Lucille Ball's career until that point, and one of the most infamous flops of the 1970's: Mame.

(Spoilers Ahead) For those unfamiliar with either the original Auntie Mame film with Rosalind Russell (which I had seen) or the smash Broadway musical which has been revived many times (which somehow I haven't seen), Mame is the story of Mame Dennis (Ball), an eccentric (and wealthy) spinster who is made the legal guardian of her nephew Patrick (Davison as an adult) after her brother's death.  Mame raises Patrick unconventionally, inviting him to the "school of life" rather than a more traditional, conservative upbringing given his status.  She also goes broke early in the film, but finds a loophole around that when she marries Beauregard Burnside (Preston), a wealthy Southern gentleman.  The back half of the film shows, after Beauregard dies in an avalanche, the once-again wealthy Mame trying to save Patrick from the doldrums of life by sabotaging his relationship with a snobby society girl who is only interested in money.  As this is a feel-good movie, Patrick eventually sees the light & marries Mame's Irish maid, with their kid now spending time with Auntie Mame, completing the cycle from Patrick's childhood.

It's important to understand a few things about Hollywood in 1974 when considering this picture.  For starters, musicals like Mame weren't really something that Hollywood was making anymore.  While there were films that had been made that had mirrored the level of success of previous generation's of musical, they weren't usually comedies (think Fiddler on the Roof or Cabaret, both pretty dramatic pictures), and so Mame already felt dated.  Warner Brothers also was sinking a fortune into the film, and as a result they wanted a known commodity.  Though they picked several key players from the Broadway production for the big-screen adaptation (including Bea Arthur & Jane Connell), for the lead role they felt that Angela Lansbury, who had been a Tony-winning sensation in the part, wasn't a big enough name to lead the film, and instead chose television's biggest icon instead.  There's a famous (potentially apocryphal) legend that Ball went to see Lansbury in the role, with Lansbury initially flattered before she noticed Ball watching the play while taking notes in the balcony...and that was when Lansbury realized she was never going to get to play the role for Warner.

Ball, though, was all wrong for the part of Mame.  In her early 60's at the time (a decade older than Lansbury), she couldn't sing (at all), and vanity seemed to get the best of her as she was frequently shot in soft focus to make her look younger (there are moments in the film that looks like the lens of the camera was covered in vaseline).  As a result, she was basically unwatchable & off-key in the musical numbers.  Even a part like Mame, which doesn't require a huge range (she's not Sally Bowles or Mama Rose), was too much for her, and it shows onscreen.  Ball isn't as bad in the scenes where's she's talking (she's still Lucille Ball-there's charisma to spare), and lord knows there are other problems with this movie (the sound mixing is excruciatingly bad), but the critics were right-Warner had made a foolish calculation in trading Lansbury for Ball, and what had looked like a potential Oscar player quickly became an industry punchline.  Ball would never work in movies again.

This was sadly not the last noted failure of Ball's career.  A decade later, despite having more money than she needed & her legacy firmly cemented thanks to her previous series playing in perpetuity in reruns, Ball wanted to take one last stab at television, which she did in 1986's Life with Lucy.  The show, though, didn't work-the jokes weren't funny and Ball's brand of humor felt dated in an era where Miami Vice and Moonlighting were hits (ironically, one of the biggest shows of that season was Murder, She Wrote, starring Angela Lansbury in the role that would make her a global TV superstar).  It didn't last the season, and Ball would die three years later, with the unfortunate knowledge that her last two major projects had been high-profile flops.  Luckily for Ball, though, her legacy is secure.  Decades later, we're still in love with Lucy, an actress synonymous with television in the way Marilyn Monroe is with movies or the Beatles are with pop music.  Next month, we're going to take a look at a different star (and good friend) of Lucille Ball's whose brief career in film never took off, but that led him to become of the biggest names in radio & the early days of television.

Oscar Trivia for Tuesday?

I spend a lot of time on Film Twitter, a subset of my favorite social media app, and they are wont to spout fun trivia about the potential nominees for this year's Oscars, which we will find out officially in a little over a week.  This year, a lot of the conventional wisdom around who will be the nominees seems to be running counter to historical precedence (something we run into a lot in our political articles here, but not as much our awards races), and you know me...I love a good trivia list.  Below I have talked through five of the biggest streak-enders that could happen on February 8th.

1. No First-Time Director Nominees

The Trivia: The last time that all five of the Best Director nominees were previous nominees was 1950.

How It Could Happen: 1950 is one of only two years (the other being somehow 1931-32, only the 5th Academy Awards) that all of the lineup for the Best Director field are previous nominees, but if you went completely with the frontrunners for Best Director this year, you'd end up with such a lineup.  The DGA just announced Jane Campion (The Power of the Dog), Steven Spielberg (West Side Story), Paul Thomas Anderson (Licorice Pizza), Kenneth Branagh (Belfast), & Denis Villeneuve (Dune) as their contenders, all of whom are previous nominees.  Even if you assume one of them falls (the DGA is rarely a carbon copy of the Oscar race-the last time it was the exact same was 2009), arguably the next most logical next option is Adam McKay (Don't Look Up), who is also a former nominee in this category.  And even if Oscar goes off-the-beaten-path for this category (as they consider doing quite often), it's not like Joel Coen (The Tragedy of Macbeth), Pedro Almodovar (Parallel Mothers), or Ridley Scott (House of Gucci) aren't former nominees as well.

What Could Stop It: Honestly, not a lot.  It's hard to see who the weak link is in the DGA lineup (it feels very AMPAS-friendly), and even if you stretch to make it seem like it's Spielberg or Branagh who is at risk, McKay is such an obvious sixth place it's hard not to see him filling in.  If the streak isn't broken, it'll either be because King Richard (and its director Reinaldo Marcus Green) was a much stronger contender with Oscar than was assumed, or because Ryusuke Hamaguchi's Drive My Car, which has been a critical darling all season, can pull off a nomination in the vein of Cold War & Another Round by landing for a non-English film that resonated with the generally cinephile-minded Directors Branch.

2. No First-Time Best Actor Nominees

The Trivia: No Best Actor field has featured all previous nominees since 1980.

How It Could Happen: The last time that this happened, it was because Oscar somehow ignored Donald Sutherland in Ordinary People (that year's Best Picture nominee) in favor of some work in movies Oscar otherwise kind of skipped.  This year, the opposite would be the case, with Will Smith (King Richard), Andrew Garfield (tick tick Boom), & Benedict Cumberbatch (Power of the Dog) in Best Picture contenders who are near certain to be nominees.  Add in Denzel Washington (The Tragedy of Macbeth) who has only missed once at the Oscars when he was nominated at the Globes (i.e. he's probably getting in), and you've got one slot left.  The thing is, virtually all of the names that could fill it are not just former nominees, but former winners.  Javier Bardem (Being the Ricardos), has dominated the precursors, Leonardo DiCaprio is headlining a starry Best Picture nominee (Don't Look Up...more on that later), Mahershala Ali (Swan Song) was a surprise Globes contender, and Nicolas Cage (Pig) is in the kind of critical darling that gets a nomination despite not a lot of heavy precursor love.  Most of the contenders this year simply are former nominees.

What Could Stop It: Unlike Best Director, you don't have to stretch credulity to get a first-time nominee in this field, because the name that would disrupt the race is obvious: Peter Dinklage.  Dinklage has had a lot of precursor love (Globes, Critics Choice), and is exactly the kind of name brand star who usually gets an Oscar nomination on their resumé at some point.  The biggest problem for Dinklage is that MGM has royally botched his campaign by waiting too long to release Cyrano, costing the film most of its momentum.  If Dinklage gets in, it'll likely be on sheer star power and a "no clear favorite" fifth nomination race, but if he doesn't get in...he should take it up with his studio.

3. Don't Look Up & the Five Oscar Winners

The Trivia: Don't Look Up could become the first Best Picture nominee since 1963 to feature 5+ Oscar winners and not get an acting nomination.

How It Could Happen: It seems illogical that a movie as starry as Don't Look Up wouldn't get at least one acting nomination, right?  After all, it features five former winners (Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, & Mark Rylance) and two more former nominees (Timothee Chalamet & Jonah Hill).  But Don't Look Up has failed to impress beyond the top-line awards all season.  DiCaprio got a gimme nomination from the Globes, but Streep missed (a rarity for the actress), and then at the SAG Awards while it was nominated for Best Cast, it couldn't get into any individual categories.  As a result, unless I'm missing a cameo or something, this is the first time since How the West Was Won that a film has had five Oscar winners (at time of release) and could end up empty-handed from the acting branch.

What Could Stop It: Leonardo DiCaprio.  As I just mentioned, Leo is technically in the running for this nomination, and it's possible he gets the fifth nomination for the Best Actor field over Dinklage, Cage, & Bardem.  DiCaprio is an Oscar favorite (this would be his seventh acting nomination), but the heat for this nomination is barely there.  That might not matter (you could argue he was losing steam for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood before he suddenly made the list), but the other three guys make way more sense on paper.

4. Can Netflix Get Three Best Picture Nominations?

The Trivia: This is a crazy one (kudos to Will Mavity from NextBestPicture for spotting it), but Netflix could become the first studio since 1974 to get three Best Picture nominations in the same year.

How It Could Happen: It's weird this isn't more common, to be honest, particularly in recent years since the 5+ fields give more options for studios, but since the introduction of an expanded field in 2009, no studio has been able to pull off this hat trick.  Unlike the above, it's less about what needs to go wrong here for the trivia to happen and more about what needs to go right as we know the three movies that have to show up in order to make this happen: The Power of the Dog, Don't Look Up, and Tick Tick Boom.  All three are currently in the hunt, and I'd argue the first two are basically renting their tuxedos at this point they're so certain to make it.  If Netflix gets all three, it'll land this trivia plane.

What Could Stop It: Tick Tick Boom is clearly one of those movies that is angling for the 9th or 10th spot, rather than a movie that would have been in the Top 5 in previous years.  Tick Tick Boom comes armed to win (Critics Choice, Golden Globes, & PGA have all paid tribute), but in a race where probably 8 of the nominees are secure (Power of the Dog, Don't Look Up, Licorice Pizza, Belfast, West Side Story, King Richard, Dune, & CODA all feel solid), Tick Tick Boom is up against about four films (the others being Tragedy of Macbeth, House of Gucci, Drive My Car, & Being the Ricardos) that could score those final two slots.  All of these films have deficits, and Tick's might be that it's a pretty tiny picture, certainly compared with Gucci, and it doesn't have the kind of "constantly talked about" word-of-mouth you'd expect from a streamer like Ricardos.  I think those two are its biggest competition, but it's certainly in the hunt, and could solidify Netflix's increasingly plausible march to its first Best Picture award for Power of the Dog.

5. Disney Gets Three Nominations

The Trivia: Disney could become the first studio ever to get three nominations for Best Animated Feature Film in the same year.

How It Could Happen: First, I want to start out on a technicality, since you could argue 2002 achieved this feat, but while two Disney films (Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch) were definitely the product of the studio, Spirited Away was only distributed by the film in the US, so it's not really a Disney production.  That said, 2021 could make this happen.  Disney has three films (Raya and the Last Dragon, Luca, and Encanto) which have shown up virtually everywhere (all got the Critics Choice, Globes, & Annie blessings).  If they weren't all the same studio, you'd argue that they were all guaranteed.  And the competition also seems pretty friendly to this idea: Flee and The Mitchells vs. the Machines are both the other two names we're seeing a lot, but while Flee feels immobile, Mitchells missed with the Globes, potentially make it vulnerable.  That said, these are clearly the five names that the season so far points to as our nominees.

What Could Stop It: While Encanto is not only nominated but it's going to win, neither Luca (released exclusively on streaming) nor Raya (the least critically-successful of the three, the earliest release) are totally safe.  Raya, in particular, seems to be the one in bronze from the studio...the question is who might replace it?  Belle, a GKids production (a well-liked studio by Oscar), did reasonably well with the Annie Awards and is in theaters right now, while My Sunny Maad got a surprise Golden Globes nomination.  This category has had something of a history of picking out-of-the-blue nominations at the last minute, but in recent years they've done that less...I wonder if we're about to see Disney's total takeover of this category in 2021.

My Top 10 of 2021

Yesterday we went through my Top 10 favorite first-time viewings in 2021 (that weren't 2021 releases).  Today, we'll get into the 2021 releases.  This isn't a popular sentiment to share in certain sections of the internet, but I was generally bored by cinema in 2020.  While I'm not someone that always needs a lot of happy endings or giant effects, having all small, independent films got to be a bit monotonous, and perhaps more damning, there simply weren't that many truly spectacular movies, and the ones that were suffered from not getting the bright pop of a big-screen (think of how much better Mank or Nomadland would have looked in your local cineplex).  That wasn't the case in 2021.  Not only do I think this year was an improvement over last year, I am thrilled to say I saw eight of the below (10, err, 11) films on the big-screen, which in at least a couple of cases made all of the difference.

I am a one-man operation here with a full-time day job, and so there are inevitably a few films that I missed here.  I have every intention of seeing, specifically, Drive My Car & Flee (arguably the most critically-lauded movies that I didn't have the chance to get to), but weather and sheer exhaustion meant they missed the cutoff by a few days.  I did, however, see over sixty movies from 2021, and below are the ten best (alphabetically) of the bunch.  

Honorable Mention

Bo Burnham: Inside

dir. Bo Burnham

In an era where streaming overlaps so frequently with film it's hard to grasp the difference between what is and isn't cinema.  My gut says, by the strictest definitions, that this was intended to be "television" and as a result I'm not going to rank Bo Burnham's vital, bold, revolutionary comedy special in this Top 10, but know that if it was a movie it surely would've not just made this list, but would've sat at the top of it.

My Top Ten

Bergman Island

dir. Mia Hansen-Love

Part Certified Copy, part The French Lieutenant's Woman, with just a sprinkling of Scenes from a Marriage to stay on theme, Bergman Island is a thoughtful look at how we are haunted by art, and the way the tales we create for ourselves mirror our real-life relationships.

CODA

dir. Sian Heder

Takes a formulaic story and fills it with warmth & heart in unexpected ways.  The entire cast shows up (it's difficult to single out a member of the main quartet, though you'll crush hard on Daniel Durant) in the year's best ensemble.

Dune

dir. Denis Villeneuve

Oh yeah, that's what I've been missing.  Big-scale moviemaking of the highest-order, Villeneuve brings Frank Herbert's seemingly unfilmable movie to life with excellent world-building, superb effects, & a slew of superstars ready to embrace the picture's iconography.

Encanto

dir. Byron Howard & Jared Bush

Lin-Manuel Miranda's score is of course the centerpiece here ("We Don't Talk About Bruno" became a pop culture phenomenon for a reason), but what left me invested in a way I haven't been for the Mouse House since Coco was the myriad details the filmmakers put into every corner of the picture-it's a familiar story, but it feels anew with such well-drawn side characters.

The Green Knight

dir. David Lowery

The Green Knight plays a lot with form (this is less Howard Pyle and more Terrence Malick), but it truly shows what the meaning of honor is (what it's worth and its artificial constructs).  Dev Patel is marvelous (and sexy as hell) as our lead hero, and Alicia Vikander proves all of her Oscar naysayers wrong with a complicated (but perfectly executed) dual role.

Licorice Pizza

dir. Paul Thomas Anderson

By far the year's most "cinematic" movie.  I am always intrigued with PTA, but am not always in love...Licorice Pizza is one of those times where adoration is involved.  Alana Haim sings onscreen (excuse the pun)...a born actress from the opening scene.

The Power of the Dog

dir. Jane Campion

Completely enthralling, a slow-burn enigmatic tale that will keep you guessing right up until the final moments.  Benedict Cumberbatch takes what could've been a fatally miscast role and gives the performance of his career, and Kirsten Dunst & Kodi Smit-McPhee are up to the task of aiding him to that chilling finale.

Quo Vadis, Aida?

dir. Jasmila Zbanic

Quo Vadis, Aida? is at its best when it's showing the cruelty of fate.  A real-life story that plays with the tension of a high-stakes thriller (you will grip your armrest), it captures the immediateness of war in a way that few films before it have been able to achieve.

West Side Story

dir. Steven Spielberg

I never had a doubt that Steven Spielberg would make a good remake of arguably the 20th Century's greatest musical, but what I was unsure of was if he'd make it feel "needed."  Turns out, Spielberg is able to bring a modernness (without it ever feeling tacked on) to this tale, and is aided by a solid ensemble cast, particularly Mike Faist & Ariana DeBose.

The Worst Person in the World

dir. Joachim Trier

Trier captures one woman's life, the up's and down's in amazing detail.  But what makes Worst Person's story so mesmerizing is the way that he doesn't take time to let us second guess.  Like real life, Worst Person gives us a story about people who aren't ready to make decisions that they must make, and will affect the rest of their lives.  Few films can give us such stakes without feeling manipulated.

Top 10 Films of 2021 (that aren't from 2021)

All right, we are officially going to be doing two days to close 2021 today.  While we won't be bidding adieu to the year exactly (Oscar predictions are to come, and of course we'll eventually get to the 2021 OVP when Oscar gives us his nominees), but today we'll be doing my Top 10 lists of the year.  As is tradition for a blog that focuses a lot on classic movies, we're not going to start with movies from 2021's calendar year (that's tomorrow), but instead we're going to focus on movies that I saw for the first time in 2021.  As you can imagine if you've been playing along this year, our Saturdays with the Stars project (which focused principally on the filmography of Alfred Hitchcock) meant that the Master of Suspense is going to be well-represented here (I saw, for the record, 351 movies in 2021, a personal best, but Hitch was by far my most-watched director).  Weirdly, though, our series of Saturday with the Stars also resulted in a different director getting a double dip below.  I won't keep you waiting any longer-here are the (alphabetical...choosing this lot was hard enough) list of the films I saw for the first time in 2021:

The Children's Hour (1961)

dir. William Wyler

More modern than I expected, and definitely more sympathetic than I'd have guessed, The Children's Hour is a splendid achievement.  The whole cast is giving it their A-Game, though none more than Shirley MacLaine (criminally snubbed at the Oscars) for a woman who increasingly cannot tell truth from fiction.

Dead End (1937)

dir. William Wyler

Weirdly modern given its release date & studio, Dead End is a wonderful ensemble look at the day in the life of a series of jaded New York City slums, as every character faces consequences & realities that they aren't prepared for.  Best of the lot are Humphrey Bogart & Claire Trevor, the latter in just a few minutes of screen-time giving us decades of history in every urgent stare.

The Innocents (1961)

dir. Jack Clayton

Completely shocking, and genuinely terrifying (not just 1960's scary...watch this alone at your peril).  This might be the best performance I've ever seen from Deborah Kerr (leave it to Oscar to nominate her regularly for routine work & then skip when she's seismic), and the sound is of another dimension.  You won't be able to forget it.

Journey to Italy (1954)

dir. Roberto Rosellini

A deceptively simple, but persistently devastating look at a marriage on the rocks.  Sanders is perfectly cast as an insecure cynic, Bergman is mesmerizing as a woman at a crossroads, but perhaps the best part is the way that Rossellini consistently uses a war-ravaged (real world) Italy as a metaphor for their fractured union.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

dir. Alfred Hitchcock

A genuinely compelling mystery, one that starts out as a Grand Hotel-style ensemble before giving us one of Hitchcock's funniest thrillers.  The mystery will keep you guessing, the cast never disappoints...this is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest true masterpiece.

The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944)

dir. Preston Sturges

Genuinely wonderful little charmer, with great (dare I say Oscar-worthy?) performances from Hutton, her sister Diana Lynn (a riot), and her father William Demarest.  Madcap (this is not an "on in the background" screwball), but totally worth it.

Moonrise (1948)

dir. Frank Borzage

Moodily lensed by cinematography legend John Russell, Moonrise is a bleak, gorgeously-shot film noir with a cascade of marvelous performances.  If you've always thought Ethel Barrymore was a bit too "stage-y" in her film roles, watch this-it'll make you a believer (here is the role she should've won that Oscar for).

Rope (1948)

dir. Alfred Hitchcock

Totally fascinating editing, completely gay-Dall & Granger are flawless together as killers (and probably lovers) with very different agendas.  Hitchcock rarely shied away from implied sex, and this movie has it in a ticking clock mystery where the cast is so good even Jimmy Stewart sometimes finds himself upstaged.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

dir. Alfred Hitchcock

One of the many undersung Hitchcock deep cuts I watched this year, Shadow of a Doubt is a nasty, delicious affair where Joseph Cotten (marvelous) ruthlessly torments & manipulates his confused niece (a never better Teresa Wright).  Everything about this movie works.

La Strada (1954)

dir. Federico Fellini

A glorious, foundational movie, one that continues to reverberate after you leave the theater, understanding the cruel ways that the film's plot doles out reality (cause ultimately that's what this movie is about, the reality of what matters and how we don't understand it until it's gone).  Masina is otherworldly as the tragic Gelsomina.

Forever, Darling (1956)

Film: Forever, Darling (1956)

Stars: Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz, James Mason, Louis Calhern, Natalie Schafer

Director: Alexander Hall

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Lucille Ball click here to learn more about Ms. Ball (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We last left Lucille Ball in 1942, when her contract with RKO was expiring and she was signing with MGM.  It is entirely possible that Lucille Ball's career might've ended roughly at that time, a lot of promise but only a few brief years of stardom.  Ball's time at MGM wasn't particularly successful-she led a few movies, but she stayed in her genre of forgettable B-Movies, and by the end of the decade she was floating from studio-to-studio.  It was about that time, though, that fate intervened and Ball was hired on the radio show My Favorite Husband, which became a hit.  This led CBS to hire Lucille Ball for a TV show.  Ball had one major demand when she agreed to sign, though-that her husband Desi Arnaz would be her fictional husband on the show.  CBS, desperate to get a name as big as Ball's, agreed, and Ball (largely doing this to save her struggling marriage), signed on to make I Love Lucy.

It's hard to grasp exactly how big I Love Lucy was in its day, particularly in an era where TV hits are less about universality and more about streaming revenues.  But when I say pretty much every person in America watched I Love Lucy, I mean everyone watched it.  44 million people watched Lucille Ball give birth, roughly 14.4 million homes watching it.  To put that into perspective, nearly 74% of all American homes with TV sets watched Lucy Ricardo give birth (for comparison's sake, the Super Bowl, the quintessential American television get-together got barely half that last year).  Ball & Arnaz, through talent, smarts, & a bit of luck, had gone from being a B-Grade movie star and a night club act (respectively) to being two of the most famous people in the country.  And so it obviously made sense that when they asked MGM to sign a two-picture deal, the studio jumped at the opportunity.

(Spoilers Ahead) Forever, Darling features Arnaz & Ball in familiar roles, playing husband-and-wife.  Lorenzo Vega (Arnaz) is a chemical engineer working on creating a new type of insect repellent who marries a socialite named Susan (Ball).  The two have an idyllic marriage at first, but as time goes on they grow to like each other less-and-less, with Susan wanting a grander life with her high society friends, while Vega dislikes this and wants a simpler life with his wife, focusing on his research.  Things come to a head when Susan's Guardian Angel (Mason), shows up, telling her that she needs to look after her marriage & try harder to become interested in her husband before the union eventually falls apart.  Hijinks ensue, with Susan initially having moments where the Guardian Angel (invisible to all but her) causes many around her to think she's gone mad, but eventually she takes his advice, and goes with Lorenzo on a work trip.  While they have some calamities (it wouldn't be Lucy & Desi without some physical comedy bits, including a particularly funny one with a sinking boat), they end up making up & going back to their true romance.

Forever, Darling is not a great movie, and it wasn't a hit in 1956.  Part of the problem for audiences at the time was that everyone wanted Lucille Ball to just be Lucy Ricardo; this was, in fact a problem that she'd endure her whole life, though we'll get to that a bit more next week.  Forever, Darling is not the happy-go-lucky Ricardos though...if anything, it was more what Arnaz & Ball's marriage was like in real life, as Arnaz's alcoholism, gambling, & infidelity (not to mention both of their tempers) regularly put their successful professional partnership at risk.  No one wanted to see Lucy & Ricky unhappy, and the two-picture deal with MGM dissolved.

I don't have as much problem with seeing Ball, a talented actress, do something other than Lucy Ricardo (as we've seen throughout this month, she was a pretty versatile performer).  But Forever, Darling is too long & too boring to be of much interest beyond being a curiosity.  Ball & Arnaz, probably aware that the public didn't want to see them too unhappy onscreen (I Love Lucy was still on the air and they would continue working together until their divorce in 1960), can't fully commit to the rougher patches of the movie, and so a modern viewer feels like they are getting whiplash.  This would end up being the third and final theatrically-released movie to feature Arnaz & Ball.  Next week, as we close out our month with Ball, we will take a peak beyond I Love Lucy, and the decades that Ball would continue to work in, with many hits (and two notorious bombs).

Why Progressives Must Get a Win for Mark Kelly

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)

I rarely debate policy in my real life, because as a general rule I find it to be pointless.  Most people when they want to engage in a debate want to focus on being right more than learning, and that's not really how I approach any problem.  I always want to solve the problem, even if it means exploring multiple options, rather than making sure the problem proves I'm right, and as a result debates...feel fruitless to me.  I think political conversations can be important, for sure, if someone actually wants to learn or find a new level of understanding, but I have no interest in watching public policy debates because they are largely ceremonial endeavors that just make people feel the need to stay further grounded in their own belief system.

But there are exceptions to every rule, and perhaps the one I most feel the need to bring up in debates & reiterate is surrounding electoral strategy, and understanding when you need to shift tactics.  It is clear, at this point, that the Senate Democrats, who are currently debating the filibuster reform, have something of a messaging problem.  They have spent much of the past year trying to move Senators Kyrsten Sinema & Joe Manchin on filibuster reform to no avail, and in the process almost certainly not only damaged the approval ratings of President Biden by not being able to read the room, but potentially cost the Democrats an abbreviated BBB (if one can trust that Joe Manchin's word that he would've passed a smaller version of the bill that still would've benefited millions of Americans) by assuming they had leverage where they simply didn't.

That they're focusing on filibuster reform still, even though they know that they're not going to win this debate, and it seems get anything truly practical out of this, could be a case of foolishness.  It would not be the first time that a political party didn't try to get at least something for their work when told they wouldn't get anything.  But I am curious about an angle of this that showed up this morning with the announcement that Senator Mark Kelly would back filibuster reform if the Republicans continue to block the voting rights legislation before the Senate.

Kelly making this statement is fascinating for a variety of reasons.  First, Kelly is a first-term senator, generally considered to be one of the more moderate members of his caucus-if he supports this, it's probable that most of the other moderate Democrats are considering it (save for Sinema & Manchin), which would mean that Schumer is probably two votes away from a carve out if he was able to take it there in a future Congress.  Second, Kelly is notable as he is from the same state as Sinema, so he is proposing two opposing viewpoints in a purple state on a hot-button issue (Joe Manchin's fellow senator is a Republican, so there's no way to make this comparison).  And third, Kelly is up for reelection this fall-he's taking a calculated risk that this will help him (whereas Sinema is taking a calculated risk that backing the filibuster will help her).

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)

This gives Democrats (and more, specifically, progressives) a true test.  Mark Kelly is now taking a significant amount of political risk by sticking his neck out for progressives, and he's hoping that by doing so progressives will have his back in November, not sitting out the election due to antipathy toward the president.  If Kelly wins, it will prove that taking a position like this was not political malpractice in a purple state, and it will set up Kyrsten Sinema to be vulnerable in 2024 in a primary to her left.  If he loses, however, Sinema will look smart-she anticipated that Arizona progressives didn't care enough about filibuster reform (or didn't have high enough numbers of voters) to make the position tenable, and she was smart for trying to cling to the middle because it's the only way to get a victory there.  Some Democrats may scoff, but I will be willing to bet if Mark Kelly is not a senator in 2023, the entire party establishment will get behind Sinema regardless of her actions in the past year-Democrats are not risky people, and they aren't going to risk a seat they think will go red if not for Sinema (and if Kelly loses, they may well be right).

Progressives don't have a great track record of helping Democrats who take big bets like this (and I say  this as a very progressive Democrat).  In 2010, House & Senate Democrats were thrown overboard for backing the Affordable Care Act, even if it was the biggest expansion of healthcare in over 40 years.  In 2014, the progressives stayed home again, and again they screwed over Democrats like Kay Hagen & Mark Udall who had put their political careers on the line to back progressive causes (in the process, those apathetic progressives ended up confirming Neil Gorsuch by proxy).  And most importantly, in 2016, progressives truly showed that they don't pay enough enough attention to the elections proving that a "true progressive would be able to win in a red/purple state" is just a slogan, not reality.

In 2016, Democrats nominated to three swing states Russ Feingold (WI), Katie McGinty (PA), & Deborah Ross (NC).  Feingold had been an unabashed progressive for his three terms in the US Senate, and was running to take back his seat from a deeply conservative opponent (Ron Johnson), and McGinty & Ross, had they been elected, would've been the most progressive senators from their states in decades (in Ross's case, potentially the most liberal senator ever from North Carolina).  All three of these candidates were to the left of Hillary Clinton, who was still more progressive than most Democrats who had run for president (even if she was not as liberal as Bernie Sanders), and were basically the answer to "what would happen if the Democrats ran true progressives in swing states?"

Chief of Staff Katie McGinty (D-PA)

The answer ended up being "they would lose."  This is a problem for left-leaning Democrats, because they demand progressives in their primaries, but aren't willing to make the extra yard to win, either because there generally aren't enough liberals in these states to elect people like McGinty, Feingold, & Ross, or because they don't show up when those progressives need their backs, blaming the sins of the few on the many.  McGinty, Feingold, & Ross are not once-in-a-generation talents like Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams (whom, it's worth noting, also lost as progressives in red/purple states), but they are, like Mark Kelly, what it takes to build a majority.  Republicans have understood this for decades (Mitch McConnell more than anyone), but Democrats don't understand that it's not about winning by miles every election-sometimes, it's about winning by inches so you can win by miles eventually (it's worth noting that had McGinty, Feingold, & Ross won their respective elections, it is probable that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would've been replaced by a Democrat, not a Republican).  Allowing people like McGinty, Feingold, & Ross to lose is a way to ensure you never really get anything done-you have to show up every time that there's a possibility to swing a seat to the left, and not just focus on one seat (aka how I've heard more about a Sinema primary challenge than any Senate race that's actually up in 2024 from progressives).

The point here is, Mark Kelly's move is a "raise the stakes" moment for progressives, and I hope they live up to their end of the bargain.  The goal here is not to just primary Kyrsten Sinema, it's to show her that her approach isn't the right choice for a state like Arizona, that the Democrats can do better.  But the only way they do that is by electing Mark Kelly.  If you care about filibuster reform, it's probable that you aren't going to get a lot of wins this Congress-the only way to live to fight another day is if in November, Mark Kelly has a blue checkmark next to his name.  Politics has few absolutes, but here's one-if Mark Kelly loses, filibuster reform is going to move from "nearly there" to "pipe dream" pretty darn fast.

The Big Street (1942)

Film: The Big Street (1942)

Stars: Henry Fonda, Lucille Ball, Barton MacLane, Eugene Pallette, Agnes Moorehead

Director: Irving Reis

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2022 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different Classical Hollywood star who made their name in the early days of television.  This month, our focus is on Lucille Ball click here to learn more about Ms. Ball (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Initially when I planned this month's look at Lucille Ball, I had a film later in her career for our third week.  Ball spent most of the 1940's under contract not to RKO, where she made most of her most famous films, but instead to MGM.  But, both because it is a key plot point in the recent biopic Being the Ricardos (which looks increasingly likely to win Nicole Kidman a second Oscar), and because it was Ball's favorite film performance, we're going to continue our look at Ball with The Big Street today, a movie that could've taken an entirely different direction for Lucy if it had been a hit, but instead was one of the final movies she made for RKO.

(Spoilers Ahead) The Big Street is the story of Pinks (Fonda), a waiter who is madly in love with a spoiled singer named Gloria (Ball).  Gloria is a beautiful crime boss's girlfriend, and treats everyone (especially Pinks) like garbage.  When Gloria is pushed down the stairs by her mob boss boyfriend, she become paralyzed, and needs constant help (and money), which Pinks provides even though she still continues to treat him poorly.  After she eventually is scorned by a former lover of hers, she & Pinks stop speaking until it turns out she's clearly dying.  Gloria confesses to Pinks that she wants to just be her old self again, if only for a night, and through a series of blackmail, theft, & pulling every string he can, Pinks does just that, getting her a night of dancing & singing & fawning in a club before she dies in his arms.

I enjoyed this movie, though your mileage may vary as it's less a good movie and more a great melodrama...but I'm a sucker for a four-hankie, "doomed romance" style melodrama, and so I was onboard.  It helps that Lucille Ball is at the top of her game, totally owning every angle in the complicated role of "your highness," playing Gloria as totally unlikable, but charismatic to a degree that you get why people want to be on her good side.  I was less enthralled with Henry Fonda, who is playing Pinks as a mousy cartoon character, but Ball...there's a reason she thought this would open up new doors for her at the time.

But it didn't.  The Big Street was a big opportunity for Ball, and she only got the role because Carole Lombard wasn't available (and because write Damon Runyon overrode RKO's wishes to put Barbara Stanwyck or Jean Arthur into the part).  Ball got rave reviews for the film, but it wasn't a hit, and RKO, after having spent years trying to find the right formula that would work for Ball on the big-screen, let her contract go after which she signed with MGM.  We're going to, as a result of spending time with The Big Street largely gloss over the MGM portion of Ball's career, but it's probably okay as she made very few films for the studio worth mentioning, and indeed, it looked like Ball's career as a film headliner was almost over before a radio show called My Favorite Husband would change Ball's life (and the medium of television) forever.  We'll talk about that, and one of the films that resulted from it, next week.