Eat Pray Love (2010)

Film: Eat Pray Love (2010)

Stars: Julia Roberts, James Franco, Richard Jenkins, Viola Davis, Billy Crudup, Javier Bardem

Director: Ryan Murphy

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 (and now 2025) 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 Julia Roberts: click here to learn more about Ms. Roberts (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

In Notting Hill, there's a memorable scene (possibly the best scene) of Julia Roberts saying "one day, my looks will go, they will discover I can't act, and I will become some sad middle-aged woman who looks a bit like someone who was famous for a while."  In real life, Roberts got a happy ending (and her looks will likely never go-movie star beauty has more endurance than us mere mortals), marrying her husband of 20+ years Danny Moder in 2002.  But her career would never have the same sort of sparkle that it did in the years after her unmatched 1997-2002 run.  Roberts would get $25 million for Mona Lisa Smile in 2003, but the film didn't live up to the giant grosses of Notting Hill and Runaway Bride, and she would spend much of the next two decades alternating between forgettable mid-sized vehicles (Larry Crowne, Duplicity, Mother's Day, Money Monster), and attempts at prestige that went nowhere for her in terms of a return to the Oscars (Charlie Wilson's War, Secret in Their Eyes, and the best of her films/performances during this era, Closer).  While she did get an Oscar nomination in 2013 (for August: Osage County), Roberts, at one point the biggest star in the world, had to resort to category fraud to secure her nomination since it was felt she couldn't compete with costar Meryl Streep, an actress in a different lane than her in the 1990's, but by 2013 Streep had become a far more consistent box office presence.  Just two live-action films during this era can be called "true" hits, ones that would have fit in with her 1990's runs, both out in 2010-the much-maligned Valentine's Day, and our final movie with Roberts, Eat Pray Love, which would set off enormous conversation about the film itself, and would become shorthand for a specific type of "rich white woman finding herself" motif in the years that followed.

(Spoilers Ahead) Eat Pray Love is about the spiritual awakening of Liz Gilbert (a real-life journalist played by Roberts) who decides that the unrest she feels in her marriage to Stephen (Crudup) is too much, and as part of the divorce (and a recent breakup with an actor, played by Franco), she leaves her life in New York City, upending herself financially, and moves to a series of destinations (Italy, India, & Indonesia) where she can try to find meaning in her life.  In these places, she finds friendship, life, adventure, experiences, and food (so, so much food), but until Bali, when she finally opens herself up to a man named Felipe (Bardem), she doesn't admit that what she needs is a willingness to take a risk again, to feel open with another person.  In doing so, and getting married to Felipe, she finally resets the clock, and lives more fully.

You'll notice that I didn't write as much about the plot of Eat Pray Love as I normally do in these reviews, and there's a reason for that-for a film that is 140 minutes long, not a lot really happens.  Sometimes this isn't a bad thing-there are moments in this that are just about watching the simple pleasures of life like a thoughtful meditation or eating a plate of pasta with friends, that gives you a sense of what Liz is trying to get out of this travel.  As someone who is going to go on a trip to Europe in a few weeks (and am, like Liz, both really hopeful that it will give me some new perspectives as well as honestly terrified about taking a leap, by myself, into a place I don't know and into locales where I don't speak the languages), I can understand this.  One of the hallmarks of Eat Pray Love was that it did market a sort of romance about travel that you still see today in lifestyle shows on Netflix and Food Network.  The movie frequently plays with the concept of "cultural appropriation" without really acknowledging that as a concept, but it also does so in a way that at least feels celebratory of those cultures...this is truly about trying to learn about yourself by seeing (and respecting the world).  Liz does not pretend she is an expert in the lives of any of the people she meets, just that she's better for having met them...which feels less like cultural appropriation to me (which this movie has been accused of) and more like cultural appreciation, which I think is a fairer categorization.

But the movie doesn't have much to do beyond that, and in being so long (and in making Liz's journey so central to the story) it falls flat.  Roberts, in her early forties here, looks and acts as beautiful-as-ever, radiant in every moment, but no one else matches that charisma (including the dialogue).  In a sea of potential leading man, neither Franco, Crudup, nor Bardem seem worthy of Roberts herself (even if they might be good enough for the less impressive Liz, who is unusually indecisive for a woman headed into the fifth decade of her life).  Not even a short part for Viola Davis (just off her first Oscar nomination and about to become a movie star in her own right) makes much of a difference here.  The film looks great (putting 3-time Oscar winner Robert Richardson behind the camera can have that effect), but it's empty when you think about it for longer than a minute.

Roberts, as you will know, is still working.  In 2022, she starred in her first non-ensemble romantic comedy since 2011 with George Clooney in Ticket to Paradise (another movie that looks great but needed a much better script), and will be taking on her most interesting-looking role in years in Luca Guadagnino's After the Hunt later this fall.  What's in store is a question mark for an actress that perpetually redefines herself (even though she'll always be the exact same Julia Roberts to some audiences, that twinkling waitress they fell for in Mystic Pizza).  Next month, we're going to conclude our sixth season with the woman that spent all of the 1990's as Roberts' chief rival for the title of America's Sweetheart, one whom the media was far kinder too, but unlike Roberts, when she fell from grace, she wasn't able to recover.

5 Thoughts on Joni Ernst's & Rebecca Bradley's Retirements

This morning, Republicans had not one but two major retirements in the midwest, with Sen. Joni Ernst and Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley both announcing that they will not seek reelection next year.  As is our routine on the blog, these types of retirements result in a "five thoughts" article, and boy do I have thoughts.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)

1. Joni Ernst Leaves Behind a Shaky Legacy

It's hard to remember this at this point, but at one juncture Joni Ernst was a political underdog.  In her first Senate campaign in 2014, up until Labor Day of that year, it seemed pretty likely that Rep. Bruce Braley would succeed Tom Harkin in the Senate.  Iowa had historically benefited from splitting its Senate delegation (ensuring there was a veto card on both sides of the aisle when it came to ethanol subsidies), and Ernst was a relative unknown compared to Braley, who was a sitting member of Congress.  But an impressive campaign (with her infamous "let's make 'em squeal" ad) led her to two terms in the Senate, watching as Iowa became a solidly red state in the process.

But Ernst's tenure in DC has been, shall we say, unimpressive by comparison to that early promise.  She regularly got herself into verbal trouble, from not knowing the price of soybeans in a 2020 debate to mocking people who were knocked off Medicaid by saying "we're all going to die," Ernst was arguably vulnerable enough in 2026 that Democrats might not have gained much in terms of advantage this morning (depending on who succeeds her, it's arguable that Ernst would've been easier to beat).  Ernst's inability to join either Trump administration (she was rumored for both the Vice Presidency and Secretary of Defense), only to lose out to men that were less qualified to her, can't help either (and neither can the alleged sex scandals with government officials that have plagued her messy divorce).  She'll retire in Chuck Grassley's shadow, a senator with little to show for her time in office other than an upset victory and riding the Trump wave.

Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA)

2. Republicans Line Up...But Trump is Likely to Decide

Ernst's retirement means that a number of Republicans will be considering the race.  I would expect the list to largely be centered around three names, though: Attorney General Brenna Bird, and Reps. Ashley Hinson & Zach Nunn.  Bird, Hinson, & Nunn all three turned down the chance to run for Governor (a race that seems increasingly likely to be between Auditor Rob Sand and Rep. Randy Feenstra), but this will be too tempting for them not to give it a shot.  Nunn's seat is extremely vulnerable, even more so without him (Hinson, as well, has a formidable Democratic opponent that could be a problem if she leaves, though not to the degree of Nunn), and there will be intense pressure on him to stay put, possibly even from President Trump (who pushed him out of the governor's race).  You could argue that Chuck Grassley's seat, likely to be open in 2028, is an option, but his grandson Pat Grassley has basically been sitting waiting for that for years, and the Grassley machine will surely push him.  If you're Nunn, Bird, or Hinson, this might be your one true shot at getting a promotion, and they'd be fools not to look into it.

State Sen. Zach Wahls (D-IA)

3. Democratic Field Likely Still Set

I will admit-my hope was that Democrats would get to fight against Ernst.  In a similar fashion to the governor's race, where I was hoping Kim Reynolds would be Rob Sand's opponent, I think it'll be easier for the GOP to market a "conservative but still a change" pol against Ernst than against someone like Hinson or Bird who can say that they're "not the same old playbook" even if they're virtually identical to Ernst politically.  The biggest tell of this-I don't anticipate that any new Democrats will enter the race that weren't already in the contest due to Ernst's exit.  The race feels increasingly likely to be a battle between two members of the state legislature (State Rep. Josh Turek & State Sen. Zach Wahls), to the point that another candidate (State Rep. JD Scholten) dropped his campaign for the seat a few weeks ago and endorsed Turek.

One thing that I hope Democrats do make a point of finding a way to campaign on is ethanol & agricultural issues, because a reality seems to be setting in that I don't think farmers are acknowledging.  Ethanol is one of those third rails in politics that no one touches because of the Iowa caucuses, and because Iowa has historically been a swing state.  However, with Iowa losing both its early position in the primaries and losing its swing state status, it doesn't really provide incentive to protect ethanol in the Senate for Democrats.  This trend continues with other key ethanol states that have historically either 1) sent Democrats to the Senate but haven't in recent years (South Dakota, Nebraska) and 2) states that do send Democrats, but the agricultural sectors have abandoned them so incumbent Democrats don't really need to care about ethanol (Minnesota, Illinois).  If I was playing chess with my vote, having a US Senator Zach Wahls would be much more valuable as a farmer to me than sending yet another Republican to the Senate, mostly because Wahls would have the power as a single senator to force ethanol spending at current levels even if the Democrats win a trifecta in 2029 (no way would Chuck Schumer endanger one of his most valuable incumbents, even if the majority of his caucus wanted him to)...something there's no guarantee of if the Democrats don't have a senator from Iowa or Nebraska by then.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

4. Is This the Last Senate Retirement?

There are, on paper, eight senators who have still not officially announced they are running for reelection, all but one of them (Chris Coons, who is 61 and I'd imagine stays for at least one more term) being Republicans.  Most of them are first-termers (Roger Marshall, Markwayne Mullin, Cynthia Lummis) who will definitely go again, but there are three senators (Shelley Moore Capito, Steve Daines, & Susan Collins) that do invite question marks of whether they'd want to stay on.  Capito's son Moore is currently a nominee to be US Attorney and ran briefly for Governor in 2024...I wouldn't be stunned if she stays on one more term in hopes of handing the seat off to him the way I would think Chuck Grassley will with his grandson.  Steve Daines had a very strong run in the leadership last cycle (he ran a successful tenure as NRSC Chair), and might want to stick around to see if he can parlay that into a stint as leader (that's how Chuck Schumer eventually got his job).

But Susan Collins...with increasingly tenuous approval ratings, her political skills a bit rusty (just look at her most recent handling of a public speech where she was booed), and a rough-looking midterm, is the biggest remaining question mark in the deck.  I think Collins would be formidable, though I don't think her race is any better than a Tossup, but she could retire undefeated from Congress if she left next year, and has to be aware that her hero (Margaret Chase Smith) couldn't read the room in 1972, and lost despite being an icon in the state because she was "out of touch" with voters.  If she steps aside, the race becomes a guaranteed flip, so somewhere John Thune is promising Collins literally everything she wants to stay one more term, but I think this is a conversation that could get interesting.

Judge Rebecca Bradley (R-WI)

5. Rebecca Bradley Retires as Well

Ernst is certainly the most famous person retiring today, but she might not be the most consequential.  Rebecca Bradley, the most conservative member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, announced that she would retire rather than stay on as a "minority member of the Court."  Shifting voting trends in Wisconsin, where Republicans haven't won a Supreme Court race there since they (barely) pulled off a victory in 2019, probably factored into Bradley's calculations more than being in the minority.  Democrats are increasingly more likely to show up for off-cycle elections (Joni Ernst announcing retirement just three days after the Democrats flipped a Trump-won State Senate seat in Iowa is possibly not a coincidence), and they already had a head-start with Judge Chris Taylor basically their nominee.  Now the Republicans will, with Donald Trump in office, have to defend Bradley's seat without an incumbent to help them (incumbency is something that, even in this partisan environment, is super difficult to fight against in Wisconsin's Supreme Court races, to the point where this race just went from Slight Republican to Lean Democrat, a seismic shift).  Should they lose, the Democrats will have three justices locked in for 2030's census, meaning that Republicans will be one loss away from not having the final call on congressional and legislative maps that cycle.

Examining the Utah Redraw

Judge Dianna Gibson

Yesterday, a long-anticipated ruling from Judge Dianna Gibson was issued in Utah, declaring the congressional maps in Utah to be unconstitutional.  In a time where there are nearly a dozen states either actively pursuing or tentatively floating the idea of doing a mid-decade redraw of their maps, you might be wondering why I'm giving time specifically to this race, but while the others are partisan (and yes, I'll own it's a "both sides are doing it" even if it was very much one side that started it type of arms race), Utah's redraw, should it happen, would be a cause for celebration, as it would officially be a situation where we are stopping gerrymandering from happening, even if it's 100% clear which party would benefit from the redraw.

Taking a step back, Gibson's decision is based on a judicial suit that has been in the courts for years, enough so that it was considered for the 2024 cycle before Democrats ultimately gave up on trying to get a seat in the state that year.  The ruling is based on a constitutional amendment that was passed by the state in 2018 that required independent redistricting for congressional races, but the Utah state legislature (as deeply Republican as you would expect for a red state) basically just ignored this amendment, and drew a map that would ensure that all four of the state's congressional representatives were Republican.  With Gibson's ruling, though, these maps are invalid, and Gibson is not giving them a particularly large amount of time to try and counter her ruling (which most expect will be upheld by the Utah Supreme Court if the GOP tries to appeal).  Republicans can try to run the clock out, but that comes with an intense bit of risk.

The big issue with Utah's congressional maps right now surrounds Salt Lake County.  The historically red county has, in the Trump era, become reliably blue, voting for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris in their respective presidential races even as Donald Trump decidedly won the remainder of the state.  With over 1.1 million people, Salt Lake County has more than enough citizens to have its own congressional district, but given that seat would lean to the Democrats (if not be strongly blue, depending on how you draw it), the state's Republicans split the maps up so that all four districts have at least a portion of Salt Lake City or County included in their constituency.  I've mentioned this before, but this makes Utah (give or take Tennessee) arguably the most egregious gerrymander currently in the country (Texas will probably outdo it), as it essentially destroys the state's population (and economic) center's ability to have a voice in Congress.

Republicans could try to run out the clock here, but that would risk Gibson ordering an independent commission to redraw the map, which honestly is a ticking clock for Republicans.  Utah is a fast-growing state, and you could easily draw a map that would flip two seats to the Democrats if you wanted to, splitting the Salt Lake City metro area in half, and given the midterms in 2026 could be favorable for the left, this feels risky.  The smart move, in my opinion, would be to admit defeat, cut your losses, and draw a blue sink with safe red seats surrounding it.  Utah is expected to gain a seat in 2032 anyway given population trends, and there's no way you can practically make a 5R-0D seat in Utah without putting 2-3 of those seats at risk.  Why not just start the precedence of having one Democrat that always wins and not risk having a second seat that goes blue in tough years for the GOP?  This is the approach that Kentucky & Kansas Republicans have struck in their states.

This is ultimately what I think will happen, after much hemming-and-hawing, and claiming this is "unfair" even though it's correcting a heinous gerrymander (Mike Lee, the Jake Paul of the US Senate, has already started whining).  But this will do two things.  First, it'll mean that (unless someone retires) we'll get a member vs. member primary, probably between Reps. Burgess Owens & Celeste Maloy.  Owens is thirty years Maloy's senior (and could just retire), but he might not given Maloy has struggled to solidify her right flank (she barely won her 2024 primary, only getting a victory by 176 votes), which has never been an issue for Owens.  If they both run, I'd anticipate Maloy would lose, which is why I'd assume she'll pressure him behind-the-scenes to retire given he's 74.  Either way-I would assume one of them ends up being on the chopping block.

For the Democrats, though, this is a huge opportunity.  While there have been Democrats since the Clinton administration who represented Utah in Congress (specifically Jim Matheson & Ben McAdams), they have always done so 1) as moderates and 2) as incumbents that struggled to keep their seats.  McAdams lost reelection in 2020, and Matheson certainly would've lost his seat had he run again in 2014.  This seat, though, will likely allow for a more progressive Democrat (not in the vein of Jasmine Crockett, but certainly more in the vein of a Maria Cantwell than a Joe Manchin) if Democrats so choose.  I would imagine a host of names (Jenny Wilson, Angela Romero, Erin Mendenhall, Luz Escamilla, Jackie Biskupski, even a return bid from McAdams) to be names looking at the contest, the first time (maybe ever) that there's a chance for a Democrat to consistently, reliably, be part of the national conversation from Utah since the 1970's.

The Democratic Party Meets Graham Platner

Sergeant Graham Platner (D-ME)

Democrats love nothing more than a candidate who doesn't act like a Democrat.  In 2016, Jason Kander had what has to be considered one of the most-lauded Senate campaign ads in years when he talked about taking on his Republican opponent while also taking apart a gun (training from his time in the US Army).  In her 2018 House campaign, Amy McGrath was lauded for being a "different type of politician" with her combination of blue collar appeal & military experience and came close to flipping the seat.  The same could be said for Air Force veteran MJ Hegar that same year in Texas.  So it is not a surprise to me that, this past week, Graham Platner's effective rough-and-tumble candidate (once again with a military background) had euphoric social media love and Democrats' falling over themselves over another "different kind of politician."  But it does mean that we need to take a quick swig of reality, both about how these campaigns usually go...and Platner's chances (both the good and the bad).

First-and-foremost, I picked the three candidates I just listed for two reasons.  First, they all are similar to Platner in terms of aesthetics in their viral campaign ads (high-profile, well-funded campaigns featuring blue-collar bonafides and legitimate military credentials).  This is not something to take lightly.  Someone like, say, Sen. John Fetterman, was able to go far in politics by being using his blue-collar aesthetic so well, and military service has helped congressman like Jason Crow, Don Davis, & Jared Golden win swing seats in the Trump Era.  But the second thing they all had in common-they all over-performed but ultimately lost their races.  We are in an era where candidates do matter, but the label behind someone's name matters more, as does money.  Platner, like McGrath & Hegar (Kander was Secretary of State when he ran), is a political novice, one who has not been vetted by the national media (first-time candidates are rarely as talented as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and more often make missteps or have scandals that are unearthed), and no matter how impressive the team behind him is, proclaiming him the second coming or "the candidate we should go with" as some online were saying, feels insanely premature, and honestly, irresponsible.

After all, this is a seat the Democrats have to win, and while he isn't trying to win over historically red territory (Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, & Hillary Clinton all won Maine), he's against one of the most impressive candidates in the country: Susan Collins.  Collins is a national punchline for Democrats, but that doesn't negate she's very competent, and knows Maine much better than any other candidate.  Every time you read about her retail politicking skills, the journalist following her comes across impressed-the kind of politician who can walk into a Maine city hall and know the names of every person she's shaking hands with.  There's a reason she was able to win her state with Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all gliding to victory further up the ticket.  Platner could be the candidate who takes her down, and I do think she's vulnerable, but pretending she'll be easy to beat is insane, and we should push for the best candidate.

That candidate is probably Gov. Janet Mills.  Mills' age (she's 77) and perceivable antipathy toward running don't deny the fact that, as a two-time statewide official, she's the best option the Democrats have, and to pretend that Chuck Schumer should stop pressuring her to run with Platner in the race is madness.  First off, Platner would lose to her (she'd get incumbent-style numbers given her sky-high approval ratings), and secondly, the Democrats can't really afford to take risks here.  The Senate math for them is hard the next six years with so many solidly red states.  There's no universe where Democrats can allow a Clinton/Biden/Harris state have a Republican senator...Collins has to go if we don't want to severely handicap our chances at a majority not just in 2026, but also in 2028 & 2030.  If Mills runs, she's the best option, and Platner acolytes are going to need to adjust to that.

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA)

But what I do admire about Platner is that he didn't wait, because sometimes, that pays off.  If Mills doesn't run, it's unlikely Platner gets this primary to himself-Senate seats are too valuable & rare to just hand-off to a novice.  Most assume that Attorney General Aaron Frey will run, but unlike in most states, the Maine Attorney General position is not elected (Frey was appointed by Mills) so he doesn't have the natural relationship with voters that Mills will have.  Frey would probably be preferred by the DSCC as they like known quantities, but against Frey, Platner would have a better shot to prove if he has what it takes, and by doing this early, he's gaining ground.  Mills is famous enough that she can wait as long as she wants and remain the frontrunner...but Frey has a ticking clock attached to his "second choice" status that he can't really afford to let another star take.

A good example of this is what is happening in California's Governor's race.  For months, it looked like everyone in the Golden State contest was playing for also-ran status, as Vice President Kamala Harris (like Mills) was someone that would win no matter when she entered the race.  Indeed, some figures like AG Rob Bonta and Sen. Laphonza Butler totally skipped the race rather than risk Harris pushing them out.  But former Rep. Katie Porter, coming off of a disappointing third-place finish in the 2024 Senate primary, did enter the race, getting in without waiting for Harris.  This was seen as foolish by some (including me), but had a genius to its madness.  Had Harris run, Porter's career (especially after her last loss) would've been over (most candidates can't come back from two losses).  But with Harris gone, a weak field in a very blue state is slowly starting to look like Porter's.  She's led in every poll this year, and with Republicans taking the #2 and #3 slots (former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, State Controller Betty Yee, State Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa aren't catching fire), the Democrats are in a bind.  It's pretty clear that the powers-that-be do not want Porter as their nominee.  Most weren't impressed with how she handled her loss in 2024 (she lost a lot of respect from me as well, and I had endorsed her in that race), but other candidates aren't catching steam.  Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who had endorsements from Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, & Barbara Boxer, withdrew from the race rather than continue to poll poorly against Porter.  California's unusual top-two primary combined with Republicans being in #2 & #3 polling slots (i.e. worry that if the Democrats splinter the vote they won't have a candidate in the general) means that if Democrats get nervous, they'll back an unpopular frontrunner rather than risk the seat going red, which will benefit Porter who, like Graham Platner, didn't wait for her turn.  I'll be honest-this doesn't usually work (Platner is betting pretty hard that Mills won't run and that he can beat someone more experienced like Frey if she doesn't), but Katie Porter proves that this is the kind of campaign move can sometimes pay dividends.  We'll have to wait until next year, though, to understand if this bet will pay off.

Conspiracy Theory (1997)

Film: Conspiracy Theory (1997)

Stars: Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, Patrick Stewart

Director: Richard Donner

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 (and now 2025) 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 Julia Roberts: click here to learn more about Ms. Roberts (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

You'll notice above that Mel Gibson got top billing over Julia Roberts, and that's not a mistake, nor is it sexism.  Headed into 1997, Gibson was the far bigger star of the two.  Gibson was finishing up a decade-long run as one of the biggest stars in America, including nabbing a pair of Oscars for the box office smash Braveheart, and was indisputably one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood.  Julia Roberts, as we discussed last week, had not had a proper hit since 1993's The Pelican Brief.  But that was about to change in 1997, when Roberts would stage one of the most impressive runs in Hollywood history.  You could argue, quite frankly, that Conspiracy Theory isn't a good enough example of this era, but because these movies are so ubiquitous it's the only one that qualifies for this series because it's the only one I haven't seen.

It started out with the romantic scheming of My Best Friend's Wedding, a huge comeback vehicle that out-earned the far more expensive Speed 2: Cruise Control which opened a week earlier (starring Roberts' then rom-com rival Sandra Bullock).  In the years that followed, she would continue to invest in the bread-and-butter that had launched her stardom, alternating between female-driven dramas and romantic-comedies like Stepmom, Runaway Bride, Notting Hill, and 2000's Erin Brockovich which finally won her an Oscar.  Roberts would come out swinging after securing an Academy Award with a trio of hits in 2001 (The Mexican, America's Sweethearts, & Ocean's Eleven).  Nine hit movies, most of them liked by critics, in the span of five years...America's Sweetheart had come back from potential footnote status and was once again the most bankable (and highest-paid) actress in Hollywood.

(Spoilers Ahead) But we have a movie to discuss, and it's a weird one in this list, though it does put Roberts in a romance with a big-name leading man.  Jerry Fletcher (Gibson) is a taxi driver who spends his days spouting crackpot theories to his ambivalent customers, and then goes home to a claustrophobic apartment filled with locks, newspaper clippings, and countless copies of The Catcher in the Rye (side note-I am in love with what they do with Gibson's apartment in this movie, and think it does SUCH good work in helping you get to know a sometimes underwritten character...kudos).  His only friend is Alice Sutton (Roberts), a Justice Department lawyer who has a soft spot for him because he once saved her life.  But a third of the way through the movie, he's kidnapped and tortured by Jonas (Stewart), a man channeling Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man who works for some covert organization we (along with Jerry & Alice) try to understand.

Here's the thing about Conspiracy Theory-it doesn't make a lot of sense.  The twists aren't particularly interesting decades later, when the idea of a man making up lies about the government feels less like that one uncle at Thanksgiving everyone tries not to sit next to and more like your congressman talking on Fox News.  Combine that with the role being played by Mel Gibson, an actor that, even if you're a fan of his (separate-the-artist-from-his) work, it's hard not to see the real life parallels that 1997 audiences wouldn't have caught yet, and you have a film that flirts with unlikable and convoluted for stretches of its (too long) runtime.

But I did like it, and I think that has to do with the way that the film centers around Roberts & Gibson's ample chemistry.  In a modern film like this, they'd be friends, but because a thriller starring two attractive people in the 1990's is going to have them kiss, we get a romance, and this makes it far more enjoyable.  Even if you struggle to root for Jerry, cheering on Alice is easy, and you learn to love that Jerry is the good kind of bad-for-her.  This is the sort of movie that doesn't get made today because it doesn't have established IP and we don't really cultivate brand name movie stars like Roberts & Gibson (not to mention that in a very sexless cinema, we've stripped out proper romance in everything from Snow White to Twisters unless absolutely necessary), but you watch this and understand why movie stars used to rule Hollywood: they provide an insurance policy for a script that doesn't really work (something that Iron Man or the Human Torch is never going to be able to do).

Mary Reilly (1996)

Film: Mary Reilly (1996)

Stars: Julia Roberts, John Malkovich, Michael Sheen, George Cole, Glenn Close, Michael Gambon

Director: Stephen Frears

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 (and now 2025) 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 Julia Roberts: click here to learn more about Ms. Roberts (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we talked about The Pelican Brief, which capped off an incredible run of near-constant hits for Julia Roberts following Pretty Woman.  But by 1994, the public was losing some of its initial infatuation with Roberts.  Part of this was due to the public feeling like her romantic life was too flighty (this was not a new criticism when it started to be levied at another global superstar, Taylor Swift, in recent years), with her reportedly jilting Kiefer Sutherland days before their wedding (something Roberts has claimed was not the case, and that their relationship was done long before the scheduled nuptials), and a short-lived marriage with country singer Lyle Lovett, ten years her senior (and not conventionally attractive in the way that Roberts is, something I only point out because it was a source of fascination at the time in the way that Arthur Miller & Marilyn Monroe was during their courtship).  Roberts was a mainstay on the front pages of supermarket tabloids, and everyone in America had an opinion on the actress in the way that Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor had endured decades earlier.

But celebrity always invites scrutiny of your love life, and studios would've been fine with this had Roberts been able to deliver cinematic hits during this era, but that didn't happen.  Her headlining work in Something to Talk About, Michael Collins, & I Love Trouble were all greeted with yawns by the public (there's a famous clip that recirculates every few years of Roberts talking to David Letterman where she discusses an anonymous leading man who has a tirade against a director, threatening to run him over with a car, that pretty much everyone agrees is Nick Nolte in I Love Trouble...a film whose legendary production where the two leads were at each other's throats is far more discussed than the actual movie itself which is weirdly the first Julia Roberts movie I think I saw in theaters).  Even all-star pictures like Pret-a-Porter and Everyone Says I Love You (directed by Woody Allen, who was practically getting his actresses Oscar nominations annually at this point) didn't make a peep with the public or awards bodies.  None felt more like a five-alarm fire more so, though, for Roberts than today's film Mary Reilly.  A notorious flop, perhaps the biggest of her career (it'd win her her second of three Razzie Award nominations to date, and the only one for an outright box office loser, likely only being spared a "win" because this was the year of Demi Moore in Striptease), it had people questioning her as a bankable leading woman, particularly as actresses like Meg Ryan & Sandra Bullock were rising to be far more consistent box office champs.  Today, before she gets her comeback, we have to talk about Mary Reilly.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Mary Reilly (Roberts), the young maid of Dr. Henry Jekyll (Malkovich), a kindly-but-enigmatic doctor who runs a quiet household staff and largely keeps to himself.  Dr. Jekyll takes an interest in Mary, particularly her scars which we learn later are a symbol of the sexual and physical abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of her father (Gambon).  Dr. Jekyll has taken on an "assistant" and because she is in his confidence, Mary starts to run errands for him, frequently to a brothel owned by Mrs. Faraday (Close), which shocks but also arouses young Mary.  We soon learn that his assistant Edward Hyde (also Malkovich) is causing murder-and-mayhem all over London, eventually killing Mrs. Faraday when she attempts to blackmail him, but because of a curiosity (and lust) toward Mary, he has spared her, and she witnesses first-hand his destructive nature, and eventually learns the truth that both men are one-and-the-same, a science experiment gone horribly wrong (in a really weird CGI scene where a baby is seen crawling underneath Malkovich's skin).  The film ends with Mary, after confronting her father and realizing she can be freed of her own accursed childhood, leaving behind these two men, both dead at their own hands, possibly inspired by Mary's goodness, and going out keeping their horrible secret.

For those who are familiar with the classic novella by Robert Louis Stevenson (one of my favorites), you'll notice only a few similarities with the source material.  There are a few characters from that that stay here (not just the title characters, but also the stern butler Mr. Poole and Sir Danvers Carew, here played by future Oscar nominee Ciarin Hinds), but this is instead a direct adaptation of Valerie Martin's bestseller of the same name (in Stevenson's original tale, the maid character isn't even named, though in both film & novella she knows the true nature of Danvers Carew's murder).  This disappointment will be evident if you're hoping for something ghastly like that, as this movie is rarely scary, though it is grotesque.  It functions more as a melodrama in parts, with Mary never feeling particularly in danger, and more a pawn in a boring game of chess between dual melodramatic performances from Malkovich.

Roberts is badly miscast here, though one could argue not the worst performance in the film (that would be given by 8-time Oscar nominee Glenn Close, in a role so horrible you would be forgiven for thinking she was being blackmailed into undertaking it).  Roberts' Irish accent here sits alongside Cameron Diaz in Gangs of New York, Tom Cruise in Far and Away, and Chris O'Donnell in Circle of Friends as one of the worst in cinematic history (that she did another Irish film in 1996, Michael Collins, proves her agent deserved to be fired).  She is dour, one of those dramatic actors who think that playing an introverted character means that you lose all charisma & grace, and plays Mary as if she's on novocaine.  It's a really bad performance, one I suspect Roberts undertook because she wanted Hollywood to take her more seriously as an actress and stop forcing her to do rom-com's, but as a result of doing this part, she basically would have to go back to playing the types of comedic roles that made her a star...but in a nice twist, this would work, and finally win Roberts the respect she felt the industry had denied her.  While other actresses that rose to fame alongside her like Demi Moore & Andie MacDowell couldn't seem to get their careers together in the wake of a mid-1990's slowdown, Julia Roberts was about to have one of the most impressive career comebacks in Hollywood history.

What Will Mary Peltola Do?

Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK)

Hyperbole is perhaps the most contagious disease on the internet.  Every single day, there is something that people proclaim is the worst thing that has ever happened, and that is certainly the case when it comes to discussing electoral politics.  But I will admit that sometimes that hyperbole surprises me, even when I get where it's coming from, and that's been the case in the past few weeks when it comes to a certain former congresswoman and her prospects for the future.

Rep. Mary Peltola's loss in 2024 stung for a lot of Democrats, not just because Peltola's initial election was such a thrill (a surprise victory in Alaska, a state that had not elected a Democrat to the House in decades), but also because it was such a close loss.  In a state that Kamala Harris was getting demolished by 13-points, Peltola only lost by less than 3-points, outrunning the Democratic nominee by nearly 10-points, a spectacular performance, and one that makes her a very attractive candidate in 2026 for pretty much everyone involved.  It has been heavily assumed that Peltola would run for the open governor's mansion in 2026, and polling shows her currently in the lead for the job.  Alaska has not elected a Democrat to Juneau since Tony Knowles in 1998, and given the state's unusually bipartisan state legislature, it's possible she'd win with a trifecta, giving Democrats the chance to reshape the Last Frontier's government in a pretty dramatic way.

But reports have started to leak that Peltola is talking to Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, about potentially running for the Senate seat (currently held by Republican Dan Sullivan) in 2026 instead of the governor's race.  In a summer where Schumer has recruited Roy Cooper & Sherrod Brown (and appears increasingly likely to get a decent candidate in Maine in the coming weeks), Peltola would be the biggest in an impressive line of recruits, one that would turn a Safe/Likely Republican race into a Leans Republican one, giving the Democrats their best Senate recruit in Alaska since Mark Begich in 2008.

The internet, though (specifically Twitter) is furious that this might happen.  From what I can tell, there's a combination of anger at Schumer and at Peltola since the internet believes that Peltola is a "sure thing" for the governor's race but has no chance for the Senate, a sentiment that seems to be compounded by many believing that Schumer cheated Democrats out of their best shot at flipping the Ohio governor's mansion by getting Brown into the race for the US Senate.  It's worth noting, of course, that the cagey Peltola has not played her cards yet, and this is nothing more than gossip, but it made it high enough up that former Biden administration official Neera Tanden spoke up, pointing out that Peltola can do more against Trump as a senator than as a governor.

Let's establish some reality here because a lot of assumptions are being made, and it's very clear that those who are angry at Schumer are acting like, well, idiots (even if they are not entirely wrong).  First-and-foremost, it is Chuck Schumer's job to recruit the best Senate challengers that he possibly can-not all of the candidates that he will recruit will win (and sometimes he does pick poor ones, as can be seen by the push that Schumer & Kirsten Gillibrand are doing for Haley Stevens, who has run a lousy campaign in Michigan so far this cycle), but he needs to try to win as many as possible.  That's why he pushed Brown, it's why he's hoping to get Peltola into the race.  These are the best options in these states, and if they win, they'd get him closer to winning back a majority (which, for the record, it's worth remembering all Democrats should want).  Being mad at Chuck Schumer in this case (and only this case, I'm mad at him for other things right now too) is foolishness.

It's also foolish to think Peltola might not win, or that she's guaranteed a victory in the governor's race (just like it was foolish with Brown).  Polling shows her in a better position for governor, and if I were her advisor or friend, I'd say to go for that-it's the safer option, and the easiest route back into elected office, even if it's not close to guaranteed.  But I also don't know what Peltola wants-US Senator is a very different job than Governor, and she actively chose to pursue a race for Congress when she could've run for governor in the past (just like Brown).  It's possible she enjoys the role of a legislator.  It's also clear that, while she'd be an underdog, she could win (and there are other Alaska Democrats that could take that seat while she tried to get back to DC).  A good wave cycle can raise all boats, and we've seen people like Heidi Heitkamp & Doug Jones win unlikely races and go on to serve in the halls of the US Senate recently.

Because let's be honest here-Tanden's right.  Forget Trump for a second (though obviously she could hurt him too...not that she wants to be loud about that given he won her state)...if Peltola were to get even just one term in the US Senate, she would be able to do more for her state than as governor.  A Sen. Peltola would have the very real possibility of serving in a Democratic trifecta come 2029, one with a thin Senate majority, one where (as a red state moderate senator) she would take on the role that Joe Manchin spent four years in the Biden administration playing.  That's hard to say no to, even if it's not as safe a path as Governor.  If I were her, I'd have a tough time with that too.  One route is easier, not certain (it's still a red state), but easier.  Down the other road is a tougher journey...but at the end of it, if you succeed, is influence that would make her one of the powerful people on Earth.

The Kennedy Center Honors in the Trump Era

This morning, an annual tradition in the District of Columbia took place-the announcing of the Kennedy Center Honorees.  This generally takes place in July, but it's not unheard of for the announcement to happen in August or even September.  The honorees, who will be feted at a gala at the White House and a performance at the Kennedy Center in December, included actor Sylvester Stallone, Phantom of the Opera star Michael Crawford, disco diva Gloria Gaynor, country musician George Strait, and rock band Kiss.  In a break from tradition, though, they were announced at the Kennedy Center by President Trump, rather than by the Kennedy Center via a press release or by longtime Kennedy Center Honor Chair David Rubinstein (whom Trump fired as Chair earlier this year).  The White House does weigh in on this (and it is tradition for the President to both speak at the gala and attend the corresponding performance), but this was an indication, that like so much of what has happened in the past year, Trump has changed an American tradition, likely forever.

Trump took on the role as the Chair of the Kennedy Center earlier this year, an organization that (at best) the President is involved for just for an evening or two every year at the White House.  While other presidents have talked about how much they've enjoyed it (Bill Clinton, in particular, made a point of saying "you'll never find a president that enjoys this more," and given Clinton's penchant for music (his playing a saxophone solo of "Heartbreak Hotel" on The Arsenio Hall Show was a huge moment in his first presidential campaign) this was probably accurate) and the First Lady is technically the honorary co-chair, the Kennedy Center Honors aren't, well, important enough for the president to be particularly involved.  Trump, though, has never really taken his role as president all that seriously, and has always loved hanging out with celebrities & entertainers (and is a noted musical theater fan), and clearly saw this ceremonial perk as being something he would actually enjoy far more than governing.

Additionally, Trump was not someone that got to really enjoy this in his first term.  The Kennedy Center Honors, it should be noted, despite claiming to be a night where politics is put aside, have always had a political bent.  Mel Brooks, for example, refused to receive the Honor from George W. Bush (he eventually accepted when Barack Obama was president), and there was a lot of clucking when Bush gave the award to noted liberal (and Bush critic) Barbra Streisand, though to Bush's credit he made a point of calling this out in his speech, and didn't let her criticisms get in the way of heaping praise on the singer's talents.  Jane Fonda has never won a Kennedy Center Honor despite a body-of-work that dwarfs a lot of victors, due in large part to her links to the anti-Vietnam protests; neither have activist artists like Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen. 

But when Trump became president his first term, there was a breaking point.  At Trump's first ceremony dancer Carmen de Lavallade and TV writer Norman Lear were chosen, and both of them refused to accept from Trump, so a work-around was involved that would allow other figures to present them the awards (that year, the emcee was Dame Julie Andrews), but for the next four years, as noted progressives like Cher, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Linda Ronstadt, & Sally Field all won the awards, Trump was nowhere to be found.  

Given this clearly bugged him, Trump chose a slate of honorees personally this year that won't protest to sitting next to him.  Trump said in the press conference that the honorees "came through me" and he turned down "some wokesters" before talking about the lousy ratings of the Academy Awards (side note: I largely avoid listening to Trump speak, but his inability to finish a sentence has gotten really bad hasn't it, watching this press conference?).  Trump claimed he didn't care if they were Republicans, and to be fair, some of them (specifically Gaynor and select members of Kiss, including Gene Simmons) are on record as having criticized Trump in the past, but we don't see any noted, current Trump critics here.  Figures like, say, Patti LuPone, Angela Bassett, or Robert Downey, Jr., who might have been good choices but also stood vocally against him in the last election, weren't selected.

I bring up LuPone for a reason, because she kind of illustrates one of the problems with this lineup.  Each on their own feel like an "okay" choice.  Stallone, for example, if you look back on this blog list, is someone I've listed as a theoretical future winner of this award.  But collectively...it feels a bit low-rent.  Michael Crawford, for example, has a pretty scant Broadway career when compared to someone like LuPone, Bernadette Peters, or Audra McDonald, none of which have yet won the Kennedy Center Honor.  Stallone gets this award before other action movie stars like Denzel Washington, Tom Cruise, & Arnold Schwarzenegger got the prize (despite a decent argument to be made that they're all more famous, and the former two are certainly better actors).  Compared to last year's choices under the final ceremony held during the Biden presidency, where we had Francis Ford Coppola, Bonnie Raitt, Arturo Sandoval, the Grateful Dead, and a tribute to the historic Apollo Theater...it's hard not to think that you're getting the B-Team with these winners.

This is better than it could've been.  I had visions of Trump picking overtly political figures and C-List entertainers like Lee Greenwood, Roseanne Barr, & Pat Boone, or even worse, I did wonder if he might just pick himself, and none of these are outright embarrassing.  But the paltry lineup, coupled with how much Trump has linked the awards with himself (on Truth Social, he referred to it as the Trump/Kennedy Center) means that it'll be hard for future winners in 2029 and beyond to really view this as the prize it once was when someone else is president.  It's hard to imagine that Trump will be able to sustain four years of even this (lessened) quality of honorees without picking people like Greenwood, Barr, and Boone, and the fact that he explicitly stated that he picked these people based on their politics is going to turn off other figures who might be considered for it in the future for fear of being viewed as too political.  The days of a Streisand & Bush setting aside politics for a night are gone.  It's hard not to feel that the Honors, which at their inaugural ceremony honored figures as storied as Marian Anderson, Fred Astaire, George Balanchine, Richard Rodgers, & Arthur Rubinstein, have been destroyed (like so many things) by Trump, potentially forever.

Sherrod Brown Tries Again

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

This morning, a long-rumored run for the US Senate was telegraphed by former US Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH).  While Brown has not officially launched his campaign, it appears to be confirmed, and with that, the Democrats have one of their best recruits of the cycle...and I have some thoughts.  Brown's interest in another office is not entirely unexpected.  The 72-year-old had, before his defeat last year by Sen. Bernie Moreno, held public office for most of the past 50 years, but I was not expecting him to run for the US Senate, and am honestly kind of surprised as to why he's undertaking this task.  Let me explain.

Brown was first elected to office in 1974, and with the exception of a two year stint after his 1990 reelection lost for Secretary of State to Bob Taft, he'd been in public office ever since, most of that time as a Democratic member of Congress (serving since 1993).  Brown's loss, though, was part of Ohio's continued rightward shift.  While he outran Kamala Harris in 2024, it wasn't enough, and it honestly looked to me like Brown's time in federal office was over.  If he couldn't beat Moreno, how exactly would it be that he could do it again, particularly against someone like Sen. Jon Husted (basically the definition of a "Generic Republican").  I thought that he would be more likely to go for the open gubernatorial election, capping off his career as Governor after a Senate loss (much like Mike DeWine, the guy who Brown beat to win his Senate seat initially, ended up doing).  The gubernatorial election looked more achievable (weaker opponent, and there's more crossover votes for state offices than federal), and it also was for a four-year term, whereas Brown, even if he wins, will have to run for a full term in 2028 (the mental math here would be a lot easier to understand if he was running for a six-year term as, if he won, he'd have a shot to serve with another Democratic president after 2028).  There's no chance of Brown getting a shot at a trifecta without also running in 2028...he might win Chuck Schumer back a majority, but it's a majority that (best case scenario) he won't do much more than gridlock.  Plus, there's the very real possibility that Brown will not win, meaning he'll have a double loss as the epitaph to his storied career.

This is actually the case for a lot of senators, including a number of Brown's former colleagues.  Lots of former senators (Bob Kerrey, Russ Feingold, Evan Bayh) have run in states that had shifted rightward after retiring or losing reelection, and all ended up with another (usually larger) "L" under their name.  Feingold, in particular, is a warning sign for Brown because he lost both in 2010 and 2016; getting a win after a loss for the US Senate is rare.  The last senator to do so was Slade Gorton in 1988, who after a narrow loss in 1986 (losing during the Reagan midterms, which cost the Republicans 8 seats), he was able to barely hold the seat in 1988 against a liberal congressman.  Gorton, in this case, had both a good environment (which, admittedly, Brown could have), but also a much weaker opponent (which he will not).  He also wasn't against an incumbent, which Husted technically is, and wasn't attempting a party flip (which is what Brown would have to achieve).

This was also almost 40 years ago, and you have to go pretty far back to find another case of a losing Senator getting a victory later.  Howard Metzenbaum in 1974 was an appointed senator who lost a primary to John Glenn (this was the campaign where Metzenbaum idiotically said that John Glenn, at that point an American hero to millions, hadn't "worked a day in his life"), and then was the Democratic nominee against Bob Taft in 1976, beating him while riding Jimmy Carter's coattails.  But again, this wasn't him losing a general election.  To find a case of an incumbent losing a general election, and then beating a different incumbent in a subsequent general election (what Brown's trying to achieve), you have to go back almost 80 years, to Guy Gillette in 1948.  It's very hard to do what the Democrats are attempting in Ohio, and it's not because senators haven't tried.  That Brown is doing it for just a two-year term, knowing full well he'd be an even bigger underdog in 2028 than he is in 2026, feels like he A) really didn't want to be governor and B) has something to prove.  He's clearly the candidate that the DSCC wanted (though part of me wonders if we'd been better off going with a potential rising star like Casey Weinstein to attempt a Beto 2018-style run), and the Democrats should be happy...but it's very hard to see what Brown gets out of this.

That said, the DGA now has an opening, as Brown was a potential frontrunner for the nomination in 2026.  I suspect that former Rep. Tim Ryan, who was widely seen as a potential candidate for whichever office that Brown didn't run for, will step in, and despite other figures (Weinstein, Amy Acton, Jennifer Brunner) rumored for the seat, he'd start out a healthy frontrunner.  Honestly, the biggest loser this news might have is on Rep. Emilia Skyes, who saw her Plan B destroyed if the Ohio State Legislature successfully gerrymanders her out of her seat (which appears to be likely) through mid-decade redistricting.  Ryan/Brown, especially with polarizing businessman Vivek Ramaswamy the probable Republican gubernatorial nominee, is a very strong ticket in 2026, and one or both could win if the blue wave is strong enough.  How that factors long-term as Democrats look ahead to the Senate race they'll have to quickly run in 2028, though, is (I guess) a problem for a different day.

My 1948 Oscar Ballot

All right-we are officially ready for another My Ballot!  While we got through the Oscar nominees from 1948 a while ago (click here for the Oscar Viewing Project article where I discuss whom I would pick in each field), we have actually completed a couple of years (both 1957 & 1981) in the meantime as I tried to circle back to finishing up 1948.  For those unfamiliar, for the Oscar Viewing Project, I discuss the films chosen for Oscar in their feature-length, narrative-film categories, seeing every single nominee, but with the My Ballot it's my turn, picking my own nominees and winners.  If you are curious how I've done this in the past, this is our 30th such article, and links to all 29 past contests are at the bottom of this article.  I love writing these, and so I hope you enjoy!

For those with long memories, you might recall that I both loved the 1957 year and thought that 1981 was largely phoned in, maybe the weakest year outside of 2020 that we have profiled for this series. You'll be happy to know that 1948 is back-to-form, and stands as one of the best Best Picture lineups I've ever assembled in our 30 completed ceremonies (in 1981, I had to let in one movie that didn't even bother to get 4-stars from me on Letterboxd, while in 1948 we have a half dozen 4-star alternatives that could've made the cut).  Every film in it is a winner, and this might be because 1948 was an a where virtually all of my favorite cinematic genres (film noir, westerns, epics, romantic dramas), were showing up in that lineup (if only there'd been a large-scale fantasy film we could complete the quintet, though those wouldn't really be en vogue for a few more decades).  I am very pleased with this Top 10 (and all of the nominees), but if you see a favorite of yours missing entirely, know that (unlike the Oscar nominees) I cannot see every single film from 1948 (you can check on my Letterboxd if you aren't sure if I've seen it), and I'm always down for more recommendations if you have them for the comments!

Note about categories: 1948 is one of the very rare years with Adapted and Original Screenplay mixed at the Oscars.  Instead, we have Motion Picture Story and Screenplay categories combined.  We will not repeat this at the My Ballot-we continue to do traditional Adapted & Original Screenplay.  Additionally, while Oscar separated some of their categories into Black & White and Color, I will stay consistent with both combined, five nominations a piece.  I will also continue to use Dance Direction from the 1930's, given the heyday of the musicals lasted until the 1960's, but both Dance Direction & Scoring will have only three nominations.

Note about eligibility: From the 1940's to the 1970's, it's sometimes unclear what is and isn't eligible for nominations in a specific year.  With the My Ballot awards, the first thing we do is defer to Oscar, and if he nominated a film in a specific ceremony, then we go with it even if that film isn't typically thought of as being from that year (after that, we go with what the film is largely known for as its release year by contemporary observers of such things).  This means that Bicycle Thieves, one of the most-lauded films of all-time (and a personal favorite) is not eligible this year as it was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay at the 1949 Oscars, and to keep things as similar as possible (I like the idea of comparing Oscar apples-to-apples given this project is using the ceremony as a touchpoint), it will be eligible when we profile 1949.  Hence don't yell at me in the comments for skipping it.

Picture

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Force of Evil

Fort Apache

The Lady from Shanghai

Letter from an Unknown Woman

Moonrise

Red River

The Red Shoes

Rope

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Gold: One of the great names in directing, and a man you'll see show up disproportionately more with me than with Oscar given my fandom of him, Orson Welles' breathtaking The Lady from Shanghai is a Lynchian, bizarre film noir, one filled with captivating performances and some of the most quotable lines in all of the genre.

Silver: The modernity continues with The Red Shoes, a film so bold in its color, technology, & innovation it shows how obsession, the quest for beauty and for pride, can take down everyone in its tracks.  Marvelously staged, it's one of those films that pretty much everyone who sees it rightly calls a miracle.

Bronze: We are finishing off our medalists with a movie that is not modern, but instead encapsulates the very best of its era.  Letter from an Unknown Woman is one of those movies regularly name-checked as a "forgotten classic," but it's so impossibly romantic, filled with tragedy & lust & sacrifice (as well as the best performance of Joan Fontaine's career) that you kind of wonder who could possibly forget it.

Director

Howard Hawks, Red River

Alfred Hitchcock, Rope

Max Ophuls, Letter from an Unknown Woman

Emeric Pressburger & Michael Powell, The Red Shoes

Orson Welles, The Lady from Shanghai

Gold: Welles is going to double dip with a matching Best Director statue for Lady from Shanghai, and while it's probably closer than Best Picture, it's easy to see why.  Lady is filled with such craftsmanship, such a sense of danger through its filmmaking approach, that it's impossible to be able to deny that the man who changed the game with Citizen Kane continued to find ways to haunt the screen with his less financially successful follow-ups.

Silver: Powell & Pressburger are a close second in this category.  We'll talk a lot about The Red Shoes today (I'll allude to this a few times, but it's the most-nominated film of 1948), but the direction feels like one big climb (and fall), a movie that from its opening scene that embodies a train (allusion intended) that is headed to its only possible destination.

Bronze: Hitchcock is going to be (like Steven Spielberg) a threat for the medal stand in so many of these years, you'd might understand me going for someone like Ophuls or Hawks who won't get nearly as much love to spread the wealth.  But the #1 rule for these My Ballots is we decide every one in a vacuum (not considering what the rest of their nominations might entail), and he is better than them, particularly in the way that he makes Rope's play on a staged look (and eventually choosing to let the world in) read as part of the grand reveal of the story.

Actor

Richard Attenborough, Brighton Rock

Humphrey Bogart, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

John Dall, Rope

Louis Jourdan, Letter from an Unknown Woman

Anton Walbrook, The Red Shoes

Gold: Leading a truly spectacular lineup (in most years John Wayne, Orson Welles, Dane Clark, and especially Laurence Olivier would've been in the Top 5...lead/supporting men are considerably better than the ladies in 1948) is Humphrey Bogart, not given enough credit in his day for his versatility, and you struggle to see why with Treasure of the Sierra Madre as he plays a man obsessed with gold (and more so, with gaining power).

Silver: Anton Walbrook's maddening work in The Red Shoes is sensational, one of those performances that make you wish he'd done more (as a gay, Jewish man living in Germany coming to fame in the 1930's, though...his career took some detours), he so owns this work of cruel disinterest followed by obsessive passion.

Bronze: Speaking of gay men with truncated careers, we have John Dall getting the bronze, his acting as a clearly homosexual murderer totally brought together by countering to his onscreen moral compass (Jimmy Stewart) and nervous lover (Farley Granger).  His need to be right even if it brings about his downfall is incredible stuff.

Actress

Olivia de Havilland, The Snake Pit

Marlene Dietrich, A Foreign Affair

Joan Fontaine, Letter from an Unknown Woman

Rita Hayworth, The Lady from Shanghai

Moira Shearer, The Red Shoes

Gold: My go-to answer for the actor who Oscar made the biggest mistake of never nominating is Rita Hayworth, and one of the big reasons why is she so clearly deserved not just a nomination, but a win for The Lady from Shanghai (for my money, the best performance of 1948).  She plays her Elsa as cool, conniving, where you wonder if even she knows what she's doing (except she knows exactly what she's doing).

Silver: As I said above, Joan Fontaine gives the best performance of her career in 1948, her Lisa a young girl (and then adult woman) obsessed with the love of a man who has no interest in her beyond the prurient.  The beauty of this performance is getting the audience to understand why Lisa could throw away so much on a (gorgeous) cad, but Fontaine informs that perfectly.

Bronze: With apologies to Olivia, she will have to settle for the bronze here (given my thoughts on some of their other performances, there's a decent chance this is the only time that the two sisters/rivals will compete against each other for a My Ballot Award even though this is certainly not their sole nominations, so Joan keeps the upper-hand Oscar gives here in head-to-head competitions).  That said, Olivia should not be ashamed as what she does with her work in The Snake Pit, played three-dimensionally in an era where this type of role would be all about surface-level histrionics, is some of the best leading work of her career.

Supporting Actor

Glenn Anders, The Lady from Shanghai

Walter Brennan, Red River

Walter Huston, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Rex Ingram, Moonrise

Everett Sloane, The Lady from Shanghai

Gold: One of my favorite things about doing My Ballot's is when an actor that might not get nominated anywhere else just comes in and nails a role so much they win a Gold Medal on (likely) their only nomination (a reminder that Hollywood is filled with great performers).  That's true of Glenn Anders' sensationally sleazy lawyer, cackling his way through this movie as Welles' character makes a deal with the devil, in the performance of a lifetime.

Silver: Anders has to be good, because we've also got Walter Huston giving the performance of a lifetime (one that received more laurels in its day) in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.  Remembered today for its Simpsons parody, in 1948 he was giving us a prototype that has never been matched (also, he's giving perhaps the most Walter Brennan-like performance I've ever seen not given by his fellow nominee Walter Brennan, whom I have to mention even though he's not medaling because this is potentially the 3x Oscar winner's only My Ballot citation for his sage old man in Red River).

Bronze: Brennan doesn't get the bronze because I'm giving it to Rex Ingram, who takes what could've been a stereotypical role (a wise Black man in the middle of our character's moral journey) and elevates it by essentially playing him like a Sphinx.  There's a scene in the movie where he alternates between singing and sharing riddles, trying to guide both the viewers & Dane Clark through the movie.

Supporting Actress

Ethel Barrymore, Moonrise

Elsa Lanchester, The Big Clock

Angela Lansbury, State of the Union

Claire Trevor, Key Largo

Claire Trevor, Raw Deal

Gold: The one acting category where I matched up with Oscar was Claire Trevor (for Key Largo, though she's good in both of her very different nominated performances).  The scene where she sings (a cappella) her torch song under the derision of Edward G. Robinson is heartbreaking stuff from one of the best character actresses of the era.

Silver: Ethel Barrymore has a reputation as one of the best character actresses of the era as well, though I don't always agree (I think she's sometimes too stagy).  But if I ever doubt her ability, I just remember Moonrise, where in a very short scene (she's barely in the movie) she plays a woman who has only loved damned men so effectively you believe it when people say she was one of the greats.

Bronze: Speaking once again of the best character actresses of the Golden Age, we have Angela Lansbury as our final acting medalist.  State of the Union is not a good movie, but there's a reason that Lansbury singled it out in her Honorary Oscar speech-she does so much in it, stealing the film entirely with her demon lady newspaper magnate, in many ways foreshadowing the fines role of her cinematic career, Mrs. John Iselin, 14 years early.

Adapted Screenplay

The Big Clock

The Lady from Shanghai

Letter from an Unknown Woman

Rope

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Gold: In a year bursting with really good adapted screenplays (look at the films that didn't get nominated for writing, and understand as a result just how good every one of these films has to be to displace them...this is what I dream of with Oscar lineups, a sea of contenders where only the very best survive & as a result every nomination is truly a win) The Lady from Shanghai is hands-down the best one of the bunch.  Filled with such quotable lines ("New York is not as big a city as it pretends to be"..."everybody is somebody's fool"..."maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her, maybe I'll die trying") and fabulous plotting, it's Welles at his absolute peak.

Silver: Another eminently quotable flick ("badges, we don't need no stinking badges" being as close to profanity as you could get in 1948), The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is another movie that finds its footing in its plotting, a movie about the inevitable nature of corruption, and what it will do to the men it ensnares.

Bronze: We finish off this fine list with Rope, a dramatic work that is brimming with plum speeches, frequently expositional without ever feeling that way, and as a result all of the monologues truly inform the characters.

Original Screenplay

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Drunken Angel

Germany, Year Zero

Raw Deal

Unfaithfully Yours

Gold: It is questionable whether or not Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein should count as an original film (it's not really a sequel, exactly, but it does use established characters and is at least tacitly a sequel to other films)...but I'm going to put it here, and give it the top prize because it so reinvents the horror genre, and in the process creates the horror spoof (its own genre at this point).

Silver: The word ruthless comes to mind when you talk about the script to Raw Deal, one of those barebone film noirs that I love so much from this era, filled with indulgent spins on the femme fatale and the bone-chilling crime boss that make it stand out in the process.

Bronze: The least-remembered of Rossellini's war trilogy, Germany Year Zero is an ultra-realistic look at what war can do to a country, even once it's ended, by putting us in its ravages through the eyes of a young boy (novice actor Edmund Moeschke).

Sound

The Lady from Shanghai

Moonrise

Red River

The Red Shoes

Rope

Gold: Sometimes you win a medal, even a gold medal, just from one scene or trick when it comes to the tech prizes, and we have a couple of those coming up.  While all of Rope is wonderful (the film shot as a stage is something else), it's the final scene, where for the first time we get the introduction of flashing lights and street sounds (i.e. we have left the "experiment") that really makes the rest of the film work...that trick is done in the sound department.

Silver: While every year should be in a vacuum, and of course it is (there's a lot of titles you'll see below that only get into one tech lineup and nowhere else...I hate when Oscar doesn't introduce a bunch of new names in the tech categories rather than just plucking from Best Picture), there's always at least one movie that ends up dominating for me in the tech categories and here you're going to see it being The Red Shoes.  It's hard to stop it-even when it's not the gold medal (like with Sound) it's still in the conversation with its orchestral flourishes.

Bronze: You feel transported to the west with Howard Hawks' Red River, a totally immersive western, with the cattle and sounds of the larger prairie coming fully into view for your ears (we'll talk about it a few times, but man is that cattle drive something else).

Score

Corridor of Mirrors

The Lady from Shanghai

Letter from an Unknown Woman

Red River

The Red Shoes

Gold: The greatest miracle in The Red Shoes is the music.  Today, no composer would be ballsy enough to have an original score and ballet in the movie, and not borrow in part from someone like Wagner or Tchaikovsky to ensure you're getting a classic.  But Brian Easdale writes a score that feels like a legendary ballet in the movie, and surely deserves this top prize.

Silver: Dimitri Tiomkin introduces a glorious western score into Red River, using an army of violins and military-style choruses to impart a sense of grandeur and stakes into the movie, though also keeping more optimism than you'd get from this type of western in later years...I love the complicated juxtaposition the score sometimes has with John Wayne's obsessiveness (that would become the source of an even better movie eight years later).

Bronze: Similar to The Red Shoes, Letter from an Unknown Woman gives you a score that comes into play in the actual plot (the violin-heavy composition to give us a sense of Louis Jourdan's classical musician) that also brings about much tragedy as the film focuses on his increasing understanding of the emptiness of his existence.

Scoring

Easter Parade

A Foreign Affair

Melody Time

Gold: Some original, some from years past, but all really wonderful, Easter Parade is the Judy Garland musical in 1948 that truly sings (and features a gigantic comeback vehicle for Fred Astaire).  Everything from "Stepping Out with My Baby" to "Easter Parade" to Ann Miller's sublime scene-stealing in "Shakin the Blues Away"...this is a movie people watch annually for a reason.

Silver: "Melody Time" is merely okay as a movie, but its music is far better than most of the Disney flicks of the late 1940's.  It helps that you assemble some of the biggest radio stars of the eras like Roy Rogers, The Andrews Sisters, & Frances Langford to give it a true sense of the era.

Bronze: Few stars of the Golden Age were able to imbue such a sense of personality and emotion into their singing as Marlene Dietrich (there's a reason she spent the latter half of her career in sold-out cabaret acts), and that's all-to-see in the best part of Billy Wilder's A Foreign Affair.

Original Song

"Blue Shadows on a Trail," Melody Time

"Illusions," A Foreign Affair

"Lonesome," Moonrise

"Please Don't Kiss Me," The Lady from Shanghai

"Stepping Out with My Baby," Easter Parade

Gold: Few films are able to have a scene not only establish a character almost entirely, while also giving us a moving piece of music, AND creating an entirely new ambience...but that's what Rex Ingram's mournful singing of "Lonesome" does in Moonrise, a scene that elevates it to one of the very best film noirs.

Silver:"Lonesome" would need to do everything in its picture to be able to upend "Stepping Out with My Baby" for the gold medal.  One of Fred Astaire's signature songs, it is accompanied by a gigantic jazz number and Astaire dressed head-to-toe in white spats...it's one of those scenes you watch and think "there's nothing like a Golden Age picture."

Bronze: I kind of wonder if the 1940's & 1950's are just always going to have a solemn western tune in Best Original Song lineup, I'm such a sucker for all of them.  "Blue Shadows on a Trail" gives us maybe the best moment in Melody Time, a beautiful ode to the open plains sung by one of the great cowboys of the era, Roy Rogers.

Dance Direction

Easter Parade

The Pirate

The Red Shoes

Gold: It's going to be very rare in the Dance Direction category that I'll be picking something other than a musical (hell, it's going to be rare I'll pick something other than MGM) to take the top prize, but this is going to be the rare exception, as you can't really have The Red Shoes without exquisite, mind-blowing dancing to carry the tale.

Silver: It doesn't do as much for me as a picture (it's fine), but the dancing in The Pirate is sensational, and might've won if it weren't up against such a juggernaut.  Particularly cool is the "Be a Clown" number, given it inspired one of the great musical numbers of Gene Kelly's career, "Make Em Laugh."

Bronze: Though the musical is less concerned with dancing than it is singing (it beat The Pirate for a reason in Best Scoring), having Fred Astaire's comeback and one of the first big breakout roles for Ann Miller is going to help you out when it comes to the hoofing department.

Art Direction

Corridor of Mirrors

Hamlet

Letter from an Unknown Woman

Red River

The Red Shoes

Gold: Gigantic staged sets, all beautiful and glowing, are what brings you to The Red Shoes (though even the title cards are part of the set design in this one), and make it feel like a dreamscape for all of its run.  Even some of the scenes that don't need to bring it (like the party ballroom) do find a way to stand out.

Silver: Letter from an Unknown Woman is one of those movies that reads really well in its production design, particularly in the busy-ness of the movie (I love when it feels like people actually live in the sets because it's more organic, and that's true here with the occasional mess in the background).  But it's the date-scene, on a train, that seals the deal here, with the ingenious use of painted backdrops in an amusement park ride giving a sense of romance through the sets.

Bronze: Oscar's Best Picture Hamlet only gets one nomination for my My Ballot Awards (despite me liking it MUCH more than I expected I would, and would've happily put it in Best Picture, Actor, or Cinematography if there'd been room), but it's a doozy of a solo nod.  The way that we see a combination of staged works with realistic castle scenes...the juxtaposition of what is real and what is facade in a play that constantly plays with that line is really smart stuff.

Cinematography

Fort Apache

The Lady from Shanghai

Letter from an Unknown Woman

Moonrise

The Red Shoes

Gold: The Red Shoes is just jaw-dropping beauty.  What would become stock-and-trade for Powell & Pressburger (I sincerely doubt this will be their only citation in this category before all is said-and-done), this is the peak of their powers, a confluence of color, light, & shadow in nearly every scene.

Silver: Lady from Shanghai comes to play with its cinematography, with virtually every scene of Welles' film feeling like it is ready-to-be-framed.  Obviously the scene at the end with the hall of mirrors is legendary for a reason, but everything here is good-the moments on the yacht feel like a hole is about to be burned through the reel it is so scorched with sun.

Bronze: Finishing out our pretty pictures is Fort Apache, up there with She Wore a Yellow Ribbon as one of the greatest uses of Monument Valley ever achieved.  Particularly in the final thirty minutes, as we see a battle staged with John Wayne's world-weary military man's journey coming to a close, the movie just comes together in the great expanse.

Costume

Easter Parade

The Lady from Shanghai

The Pirate

Red River

The Red Shoes

Gold: The alabaster whites of Moira Shearer's tutu and gown compared with the blood red, telegraphing crimson ballet flats that would seal her fate are such an iconic look you'd be hard-pressed to care that the rest of The Red Shoes is filled with ingenious design, particularly the way that Shearer's character changes through clothing as the movie progresses and she gains more of her dreams (and madness).

Silver: There's few things I love more than a random fashion show put in the middle of a musical, and Easter Parade further plays with this motif by putting the fashion show cleverly on the magazine covers.  Combined with some exquisite looks...Ann Miller in a black-and-canary-yellow gown, complete with elbow length bright yellow gloves and a skirt that opens halfway through for monogramed nylons...the elegance & creativity here is (sigh).

Bronze: Sometimes you need to have a little sex with your costume work, and boy howdy is that what's happening with the form-fitting stuff in Red River.  Think of the black undershirt that Monty Clift is wearing to better highlight his neck or John Ireland's suggestively slung ascot...the movie is basically begging you to picture these guys on top of each other (sorry, this might be a horny choice, but the movies, again, are supposed to be sexy...it's not like The Pirate as one of our just-misses for the medal stand this year isn't also using Gene Kelly's backside for maximum exposure...I mean look at that poster!).

Film Editing

The Lady from Shanghai

Moonrise

The Naked City

The Red Shoes

Rope

Gold: The extremely rare tech gold medal that I'm not giving to The Red Shoes comes in Best Editing, where we return to our Best Picture winner The Lady from Shanghai.  The movie feels so deliberate, much of it from memory (so there's a hazy, heightened quality to it throughout), and the way that the Hall of Mirrors scene is shot is the stuff of cinematic legend for a reason.

Silver: Speaking of dreams, Moonrise works so well because it feels like we're trapped in one, where a sense of what is reality and what is just something happened in Dane Clark's paranoia keeps the movie shifting.  I love the way that you can't quite tell what's coming next, frequently getting around the Hayes Code to ensure you're still in the dark.

Bronze: We finish off with The Red Shoes once more, particularly for the ballet sequence, which is riveting and needs to be, as in any other film it would've stopped the picture dead-in-its-tracks to just throw a ballet in the middle of the movie, and yet it keeps you glued to what will happen next in the story.

Makeup & Hairstyling

The Lady from Shanghai

The Loves of Carmen

Red River

The Red Shoes

The Three Musketeers

Gold: Like I said above, sometimes you get an honor just from one key moment in a film, and come on...Moira Shearer's wide-eyed, heavily pencilled, overdone makeup with black eyes and a painted downward pout ranks as one of the most memorable looks in the history of movies in The Red Shoes.

Silver: It might seem strange to pick a film starring almost exclusively men without a gimmick or prosthetic for a nomination (much less a silver medal) in 1948, but that's the case with Red River.  The fight scenes feel authentically bruised, but it's the smaller touches, like Montgomery Clift's overdone eye liner and the faded youth slipping from the once equally beautiful John Wayne (his aged hair late in the film, the dark shadows under his eyes) that add to the longevity in the picture.

Bronze: If you've read these for a while, you know that (unlike Oscar) I almost always throw in at least one nomination for "pretty movie stars being pretty" and that's true for Rita Hayworth in both of her nominated films...but especially The Loves of Carmen.  Her bright red mane of hair and gorgeous sun-kissed makeup show why the men in this movie are obsessed with her.

Visual Effects

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Deep Waters

Portrait of Jennie

Red River

The Red Shoes

Gold: The stampede sequence in Red River is honestly impossible to ignore.  There are other scenes in the film (including the fireball attack) that assist this gold medal, but it's winning the award for the combination of practical effects and stunt coordination in one of the movie's most iconic sequences, as a group of cattle run after our heroes.

Silver: Though not as robust, you could argue that Portrait of Jennie (Oscar's choice in this category) was maybe more innovative.  Using then impressive and rare color framing to enhance the water effects at the end of the picture, we feel Joseph Cotten truly fighting for his life in that storm.

Bronze: Best visual effects should be remembered as not always the most innovative, but ones that used them to their advantage.  This is the case of Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which use the groundbreaking effects of the Universal monster movies to comic effect, making things that were once terrifying and instead giving them a funny tilt, like a levitating Bela Lugosi or a jolted Frankenstein's Monster.

Other My Oscar Ballots: 1931, 1957, 1981, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024