OVP: Best Film Editing (2023)
The Nominees Were...
Lauren Senechal, Anatomy of a Fall
Kevin Tent, The Holdovers
Thelma Schoonmaker, Killers of the Flower Moon
Jennifer Lame, Oppenheimer
Yorgos Mavropsaridis, Poor Things
My Thoughts: I always feel that the first two rounds of the OVP Ballots are kind of fun-quirky, giving us the personality of the year in some fashion. And then we hit Editing, and it's all about those Best Pictures, honey. That's the case this year. In the era of ten-wide Best Picture nominees, Best Film Editing either goes 4/5 or 5/5 with Best Picture, and this was the latter, with all five of these showing up for the top spot. The movies aren't quite what I'd guess would be the "real five" nominees that would've made it in a pre-2009 universe (I think Barbie would've still found a way given its box office), but this is darn close to that list.
We'll start as our entry point, therefore, with Oppenheimer, the winner and the big winner in general at the Oscars in 2023. Oppenheimer is one of those omnipresent films with Oscar that I liked but didn't love, which can be a challenge to write about because it feels like I'm criticizing it more than I need to. For its editing, I think this is one of its better attributes. Nolan covers a lot of ground, and Jennifer Lame brings it together, tying the stories in connected patterns without always giving us all of the road maps of where we're going, an appropriate strategy for a film about wandering through the dark of scientific discovery. No complaints here-this is a really strong start to the category.
And it continues with the film's chief rival, Killers of the Flower Moon. Thelma Schoonmaker is a legend, and there's an inclination at this point to just give her all of the accolades in the way I kind of want to do for people like Roger Deakins & John Williams whom I always love, but it needs to be said-the editing here really ties it together. Look at the ways that Schoonmaker builds the story from both directions. We have lots of characters (but particularly Robert de Niro's William Hale), whose actions are only understood scenes later, and Thelma both obviously telegraphs that with the way that reaction shots & hints are put throughout the movie, while never telling the audience it in an opaque way.
Poor Things does something similar. When an actor wins a statue for their performance, there's usually at least one tech category that they owe it to, and for Emma Stone that is most assuredly her film's editors. The best part about her evolution is that you see, in fact, her evolution in front of you. Each scene pushes her Bella Baxter further & further toward her destiny. The editors do this, and they do it with a large amount of CGI and green screens, some that feel sort of disconnected from reality (and therefore harder to place in this very real story), with great precision. Poor Things needs that pruning (and maybe honestly less of it, given that we could've used a bit more growth from the side characters), but if this is meant to be Bella's story, it shows.
Every year there's at least one movie that gets into this category less because it has a lot of or good editing, and more because it theoretically could win Best Picture and this branch doesn't like to skip the Best Picture winner. The Holdovers, for me, is that film in 2023. The movie doesn't necessarily have bad editing (it's frequently funny, which needs decent editing-comedy is so reliant on this category it's a shame we don't see that more often in the nominations), but it also doesn't standout. There's nothing here that feels like the editors are adding anything to the conversation, or aiding it. Editing is the invisible art, but if we're handing out an Oscar nomination, you've gotta give me something to judge.
Anatomy of a Fall on the flip side, is our one example of bad editing in this bunch. I am grading this by the American release of the film (I don't know if international films had this), but opening the film with a title card instructing the audience to go to a website called "Did She Do It?" is about as insulting of a way to get you into a 152-minute movie where you realize from the opening frame that you are going to get no resolution by the movie's ending. The film's over-use of the prosecution to underscore its misogyny message, combined with the inability to come up with a decent ending are the true reasons I'm going to score this low, but I will totally be honest-wasting my time with that title card & giving a spoiler in the movie (the first time I've ever seen that) is weighing on my rankings as well.
Other Precursor Contenders: The ACE Eddie Awards separate their categories between Comedy and Drama, so we have ten nominations. For Drama, we of course have Oppenheimer winning against fellow Oscar nominees Anatomy of a Fall & Killers of the Flower Moon, as well as Maestro and Past Lives, while The Holdovers won for Comedy against Poor Things, Air, Barbie, and American Fiction. BAFTA also gave its statue to Oppenheimer, here against the exact Oscar lineup except we skip The Holdovers in favor of The Zone of Interest. The sixth place is a challenge, because I think it's a question mark as to when The Zone of Interest's momentum picked up steam. Did the film already have some momentum enough to get in here, or were its wins secured when people started watching it more post the nominations? If it's the latter, Barbie for sure makes sense here given its strength otherwise (for the nominations, at least), but I buy either argument.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I'm for sure going to give this nomination to The Zone of Interest when I get the chance. The movie's terrifying ability to have a domestic drama taking place in the confines of a truly horrifying look at the Holocaust and the "banality of evil" is built by the editing team's judicious use of longer tracking shots combined with quick peaks at what's beyond the wall.
Oscar's Choice: Best Picture winners as certain as Oppenheimer always win Best Editing, and I don't think anything else was even that close.
My Choice: I'm going to favor Killers of the Flower Moon, whose editing I think picks up the movie more, over Oppenheimer, a sweep win that totally holds up to post-ceremony scrutiny. Behind these two would be Poor Things, The Holdovers, and then Anatomy of a Fall, in that order.
Those are my thoughts-what are yours? Is everyone staying in the Oppenheimer camp, or does someone want to join Thelma & I in Oklahoma? Am I missing something with The Holdovers editing nomination (or is this just a default situation)? And was it The Zone of Interest or Barbie in sixth place? Share your thoughts below!
3 comments:
I don't have a strong opinion about the editing award, but I do have one about the story you told about seeing Anatomy of a Fall - I would have been PISSED if that title card had shown up before the movie! I watched the film on demand, and it was definitely NOT there when I viewed it.
Just putting a comment here to stress the fact that this title card was NOT there when I saw anatomy of a fall.
That is intriguing-I'm glad that on demand (and in France) they know enough to not put there. It's possible this was just an AMC thing, in which case I owe these editors a slight apology (or they should've had better sense to control what their distributors did with their product).
Post a Comment