The Personal History of David Copperfield (2020)

Film: The Personal History of David Copperfield (2020)

Stars: Dev Patel, Jairaj Varsani, Aneurin Barnard, Peter Capaldi, Morfydd Clark, Daisy May Cooper, Rosaling Eleazer, Hugh Laurie, Tilda Swinton, Ben Whishaw

Director: Armando Iannucci

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Jane Austen, William Shakespeare, & Charles Dickens.  Three of England's finest authors that are perpetually brought to the big-screen.  One oftentimes wonders when encountering a recent iteration of their works (and if you go to movies regularly, encountering them is pretty much inevitable), what more there is to say?  Even for me, who loves Charles Dickens & in particular loves the story of David Copperfield (for my money his second best book after Great Expectations), I wonder going in whether or not there's more I can find out about the story.  In Armando Iannucci's film, I don't always know if they're totally justifying trudging a familiar tome once again to the big-screen, but the film has enough pleasant humor & good-natured acting so you don't need to question too harshly whether it deserved going into the Dickens' canon once more.

(Spoilers Ahead) I mean, you know this story right?  David Copperfield (Patel as an adult, Varsani as a child) is a young boy who lives with his mother (Clark) and is raised by his nanny Peggoty (Cooper), but his childhood is upended when his mother marries the vicious Mr. Murdstone (Boyd).  David is sent to work in one of Murdstone's factories, living with the dodgy Mr. Micawber (Capaldi), and after his mother's death, eventually goes to live with his wealthy, eccentric Aunt Betsey (Swinton), and her unusual companion Mr. Dick (Laurie).  Aunt Betsey comes to finance David going into proper society, where he can become a gentleman.

These are the facts of David Copperfield, which Iannucci sticks pretty faithfully toward, even if he takes some liberties with the casting & costuming choices.  Obviously the biggest decision in the film is the color-blind casting of Dev Patel as the lead, which I think is welcome (they do this on Broadway all-the-time...David is a fictional character, why not try a different interpretation of him?).  Patel has kind of come into his own since Lion a few years back as one of the internet's collective boyfriends, and indeed he is sexy & adorkable as David.  I'm still not entirely convinced he's a particularly good actor, but instead just a winning screen presence, but charm is always a welcome addition to a film, and he has loads of it.

The sets, costumes, & hairstyling are lovely, and the film has some great British humor.  Both Laurie & Swinton stand out as having strong chemistry, and seemingly being born to play these parts (the movie honestly justifies itself just by having these two onscreen together).  The story of David Copperfield is too long for a two-hour movie without severe trimming, and this film doesn't do that.  As a result, we get short shift on some of the romance of David's life, and the film doesn't quite know how to make its leading man woo the ladies.  But this is a pleasant movie, and a welcome diversion if you need a lift from some of the drearier pictures of 2020.

The Souvenir (2019)

Film: The Souvenir (2019)
Stars: Honor Swinton Byrne, Tom Burke, Tilda Swinton
Director: Joanna Hogg
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

It's nearly November, which means it's about that time of year where I see A) a lot of movies in theaters and B) start to scoop up the critical darlings/intriguing pictures that I missed in theaters earlier this year & feel I should be watching before I make any sort of "best of/worst of" lists in January.  At the very top of that list was The Souvenir, a movie that earned absolute raves back in May when it came out, but for reasons I can't entirely remember now, I didn't get around to seeing (it's entirely possible I just felt particularly broke that month, and this only played at the theater where you have to spring for parking).  Whatever the reasons, I recently watched The Souvenir, and wanted to share my experiences with the film, which focuses on the latest progeny of acting royalty taking a whack at their parent's craft.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film centers on Julie (Swinton Byrne), a young film student who is attempting to make a movie about a working-class family in England.  Julie meets a man from the Foreign Office named Anthony (Burke), a seemingly posh guy, and they begin to date.  Eventually Julie starts to understand that Anthony is hardly perfect, as he frequently borrows money from her (which she gets from her wealthy mother, played by the actress's real life mother), and there are hints at infidelity & drug use.  This becomes too much for her, even though she clearly loves him, when he robs her and sells her jewelry to be able to buy heroin.  While they reconnect after he turns sober, this isn't enough, and he regresses back to using drugs, eventually dying from an overdose in a public toilet.  The film strongly implies that Julie will use this difficult chapter of her life in future art.

The film is based off of some of director Joanna Hogg's own experiences at film school, and it shows in the personal nature of the film.  The movie is probably at its best when it's showing the subtlety of class.  This is reflected not just in the ways that Julie treats the subjects of her film, but also in the way that she doesn't need to worry about money in the same way that Anthony does-she has the financial freedom given to her through her parent's fortune to pursue a creative dream, rather than staying in the Foreign Office and trying to find outlets elsewhere (through sex and drugs).  This was fascinating to me-it's rare you see a movie about money not shove the fact that "it's about money" into every lens of the film, wanting to spoon-feed to the audience, and instead just subtly give us a taste of Anthony's frustrations at never having been given the freedoms of his young romantic partner.  The film is smart in not judging these characters-they simply appear as they are, and this classism is one of the glowing side effects we find out as the movie progresses.

I didn't love The Souvenir in the way that other people did.  While I appreciated the subtler aspects, I felt that there are stretches of the movie that feel washed out by simply observing, and aren't as sharp as they could have been.  The film is not long for a modern-day drama (119 minutes), but it felt like trimming about 10-15 minutes off of the top would have tightened the story and still gotten the same point across.  Swinton Byrne doesn't have her mother's instantly iconic screen presence, which is not something you should really hold against her (demanding a 22-year-old actress have the magnetism of Tilda Swinton is an absurd ask of anyone), but I wish I had known more about what she was thinking, as it felt too surface-level, not enough inner-monologue for a movie that's really driven by her own feelings for Anthony.  The movie is well-crafted, and I'm curious to see more from everyone involved (there's a lot of promise there), but other than the conversations about class, I left more intrigued than satisfied.  I want to see what Hogg & Swinton Byrne do with more time & budgets to get their vision across, but am not quite enamored at this juncture.

OVP: Isle of Dogs (2018)

Film: Isle of Dogs (2018)
Stars: Bryan Cranston, Koyu Rankin, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, F. Murray Abraham, Tilda Swinton, Liev Schreiber
Director: Wes Anderson
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Animated Feature Film, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Wes Anderson are an odd conundrum for me.  Usually, when it comes to a deeply-stylized director, an auteur, if you will, I have strong opinions.  They might be good, almost "stan-nish" (Malick, Scorsese, Bergman), or they might be loathed (Inarritu, Russell, McKay).  But Wes Anderson I am almost always ambivalent toward, despite the fact that his films are very specific, so you would think they would recall some sort of reaction from me, either for the good or the bad.  There are movies of his that I like, there are others of his that I disliked, but I've never felt absurdly strongly one way or the other with Anderson.  He just sort of is this weird tangent I sit through at the movie theater.  When he made Isle of Dogs I was smart enough to know that he'd get another Animated Feature nomination so I caught the film before the nominations announcement (it seems likely that he'll eventually win his Oscar in this category, but unlike another stylized director, George Miller, he's worked here long enough for this not to seem strange), but once again I leave the film with a sense of "ehh" neither particularly damning of it but not overwhelmed either.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is, admittedly ridiculous (though a lot of great movies have ridiculous plots, so don't assume this is an insult).  The mayor of Megasaki (Nomura) in Japan has banished all of the dogs of his city to an island made of trash in the middle of the sea, officially under the pretense that he's trying to rid the city of the animals in hopes of preventing "canine influenza" from spreading to his citizens, but really it's part of a bizarre 1000-year-old vendetta to destroy all of the dogs in Japan.  The mayor's nephew Atari (Rankin) goes to trash island trying to find his dog Spots (Schreiber).  He is led in this quest by Chief (Cranston), whom we learn to be Spots's brother, who hates humans but slowly warms to Atari, and takes on the role as his protector.  They find him while being chased by a series of robot dogs, and eventually we discover that Spots has moved on from Atari, raising his family with a female dog, and makes Chief officially the child's protector.  Together, along with a student reporter named Tracy (Gerwig), they foil the mayor's plan, and eventually Atari becomes the mayor with Tracy dating him, and Chief becomes his protector, with his enigmatic girlfriend Nutmeg (Johansson) by his side.

The movie is beautiful, let's just say that first.  The films of Wes Anderson have a distinctive palette, but here he outdoes himself with mountains of garbage, a gorgeous city (that is clearly meant to be inspired by Tokyo) that Megasaki rules, and a series of distinct but specific dogs.  There's something to be said for the way that he uses the personalities of the dogs to match their voices in a way that works but isn't too wink-y, and some of the details in the movie are catchy.  If you look closely enough at the credits, you'll find that Anjelica Huston is credited as "mute poodle" a character that's in the film but doesn't actually talk, so there's literally no reason for her to be credited other than an in-joke between two old friends.  Perhaps the best such trick is casting Yoko Ono (yes the Yoko Ono) as an Assistant Scientist...named Yoko Ono.

But the movie is (and I know his defenders hate when people say this about him) "too twee" for me.  It has too many characters to really connect with any of them, and it borders that line between honoring and exploiting a culture that's not your own (Anderson is from Houston), with Anderson casting Japanese actors to play the Japanese characters...and then making all of their dogs be played by white actors.  The film is inventive, frequently to a fault, but I don't want to tear down inventive so I'm going with 3 stars because it's technically "good," but I left considerably under-impressed.  This isn't even Anderson stretching like he did with Grand Budapest or finding a new place to test his skills like Mr. Fox-it's just kind of another movie, one similar and borrowing heavily from what he's done before without anything new to say.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2007)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2007)

The Nominees Were...

Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There
Ruby Dee, American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan, Atonement
Amy Ryan, Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton

My Thoughts: Yes, my friends, miracles do occasionally happen on TMROJ, and as a result I am actually writing a second OVP writeup in the same week as the last as we continue along with our rundown of the Oscar races of 2007 (if you're behind, all of the links to past contests, as well as to every other Best Supporting Actress race we've profiled, are in the list below).  This race may be the only acting race I remember in my lifetime (save, perhaps, for 1998's Supporting Actor) where literally every single one of the nominees headed into Oscar night had a real shot at winning the trophy.  It's also a strange anomaly in recent years because these are all five genuinely supporting roles-there is no lead masquerading as supporting like we got with Casey Affleck in Supporting Actor.  Because of both these things, it's become one of my favorites (everyone loves a suspenseful, accurate category, except those paid to make predictions), but will it stand-up in terms of actual quality of the nominations?  We shall see, and we'll start with Amy Ryan because-why not?

Ryan's career post-GBG hasn't exactly set the world on-fire.  Other than a memorable role as Michael Scott's love interest on The Office, she's largely used her post-nomination time doing fine but uninteresting, 15-minute stuff in major motion pictures like Bridge of Spies and Birdman.  This is a pity, because there's real talent in her work in Ben Affleck's first picture.  Ryan's role as a "bad mother" who has lost her daughter is crucial to the moral crux of the film; it's hard to examine her role too fully without getting into spoilers, but the final scene of the film, easily the best of the movie, only works because of her.  I said at the time that I wish I'd seen a bit more layering of the character-so much of her Helene is surface-level, and perhaps that fits her personality, but even the shallowest of people have layers, and I don't see them inside of this thick Boston accent.  Still, it's showy work that keeps the film moving, and a great contrast to her scene-partner Casey Affleck.

Ruby Dee is also largely reliant on her leading man in her film, but unlike Ryan, she doesn't have a director that particularly cares about her role in that man's life.  Dee, playing the mother to Denzel Washington, gets one mammoth scene, easily the best in American Gangster, where she famously slaps her son and reveals she knows far more about his criminal enterprise than she's been letting on, but other than that, well-that's it.  It's not a bad performance, but in a 160-minute film she's in for roughly 5% of that run-time, and outside of that two minutes of screen-time, there's nothing special there.  It's a testament to Dee's long career that she makes that scene work (it wouldn't have worked with a lesser, and perhaps more tellingly, less famous actress), but this feels like it's more of a "we should have nominated you a long time ago, and Ossie too" style nomination more than anything else.  The slap works, but the rest here is nothing special.

Cate Blanchett has become so ubiquitous to the Oscars it should shock no one that she once got a dual nomination in the same year, but I do find it strange that so few people remember her excellent work in I'm Not There when listing out the best parts of her career.  Todd Haynes messy biopic of Bob Dylan (told with six actors playing fictionalized versions of the legendary songwriter) is at its best when Blanchett is taking on the Dylan-goes-electric period of his career, when he crossed over into the mainstream in a very specific way, a controversial move at the time which is reflected in her performance.  She plays Jude Quinn in a mannered, marvelous way, frequently finding the strange combination of genius-taking-a-risk-that-might-not-work, and finding clever touches about what ego will do to even the most "above-it-all" amongst us.  Blanchett finds a fragility in Jude/Dylan that was clearly on-display, but is more pronounced under her guidance.  It's strange to say since the part is male, but it's hard to imagine literally any other actor playing this role so well.

Tilda Swinton also plays against type but with splendid results as the in-over-her-head attorney in Michael Clayton.  Like Blanchett, Swinton has hit so many home runs since 2007 it's hard to remember how revelatory her work was when she won the Oscar in a tough field (it's also deeply frustrating that she's somehow never been invited back despite being one of the best performers in cinema since).  Her work here is specific, well-modulated, and impossible-to-ignore.  Somehow she makes Karen Crowder intelligent, capable, ruthless, complete, and still unhinged.  It's rare with a powerful character who makes crucial mistakes that it doesn't seem like lazy screenwriting to get the plot across, but she manages to make Karen someone who is damn good at her job and also able to fail at it.  Combined with excellent line readings ($10...10 million?) and specific character facial reactions (gotta love that scene with her looking in the mirror), it's a triumph of a performance.

The final nominee is one third of Briony Tallis, Saoirse Ronan, one of only four actors to be nominated as both a child and an adult (we'll be getting to the 2015 Oscars once we wrap up 2007 soon enough), Ronan's work here is deeply effective, enough so that her Briony hangs like a ghost over the rest of the picture.  Oftentimes with child actors you do wonder if it's actual talent or a really good director at the helm, but as Ronan gave us the wonderfully-specific work in Brooklyn, I'm guessing the former.  Her Briony walks so haughtily, and I love the way she grows in confidence in her lie as she speaks, but never entirely abandoning the fact that what she did was, in fact, a deep betrayal to her sister and Robbie.  The way she is shocked-how it mirrors adults being shocked rather than a genuine emotion, or how she doesn't understand fully the ramifications of what she's doing-it comes across in Ronan's speech and movements.  She plays Briony as a girl who has been told she's clever since she was young, and has confused it with being clever-like-an-adult.  It's a great distinction, and I'm so glad she blossomed into such a fine actress.

Other Precursor Contenders: Anyone else remember the heinous Golden Globes that year where Billy Bush complained while presenting during the writer's strike that the Supporting Actress trophy had gone to Cate Blanchett instead of Amy Ryan-I remember it being 10-kinds-of-tacky, though clearly not the most regrettable moment of Bush's career.  Anyway, the Globes went with Blanchett, and substituted out Ruby Dee in favor of Julia Roberts in Charlie Wilson's War.  The BAFTA Awards went with hometown favorite Tilda Swinton, with Samantha Morton (Control) and Kelly MacDonald (No Country for Old Men) making the cut over Dee & Ryan (both in far more American productions).  The SAG Awards were strange in that they completely ignored Atonement after the Globes went gaga for it, picking Catherine Keener (Into the Wild) for the spot filled by Ronan, and then gave Ruby Dee a surprise victory.  The true joy here is that this race was all over the place with a lot of very fine actresses, and quite frankly I'd buy an argument for Keener, MacDonald, or even Vanessa Redgrave (Atonement).  I remember at the time actually guessing this field entirely right, though I was debating pretty furiously with Keener being in the lineup so I'll go with her as my guess at sixth.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: If Oscar was going to go with a legend in a brief cameo, they probably should have favored Redgrave rather than Dee (though it's hard to quibble with Dee finally becoming an Oscar nominee), as her work as the elder Briony and that terrific final monologue is the stuff of actorly dreams.  I also would have included, genre bias be damned, Imelda Staunton, who gave the best performance in the entire Harry Potter franchise with her Dolores Umbridge, a cruel and vicious villain coated in pink, and Staunton manages to make Rowling's most compelling straight-up villain (sorry Voldemort), as evil as she is on the page.  And I might have made room for Kelly MacDonald's lonely, lost housewife in No Country for Old Men, as her work is the glue that holds the film together.

Oscar’s Choice: Like I said-I genuinely could have seen Oscar going any direction here, and I suspect Swinton gained a bit for being in a film that Oscar loved but had no other obvious place to honor.  Second place is a crapshoot, but maybe Dee-that SAG win was telling, and I actually recall predicting her to win at the time.

My Choice: For me it's between Blanchett and Swinton, and I'm going with the latter-it's a less showy part and she sticks with you longer.  In third place I've got Ronan, followed by Ryan and then Dee.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you in concurrence with Oscar/myself that Swinton deserved the trophy, or do you want to be contrarian (the rest of the precursors were, so why shouldn't you be)?  Does anyone recall thinking Catherine Keener could make the cut (and do you think she might again this year for Get Out)?  And who was the best supporting actress of 2007?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2007: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2007

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

OVP: Doctor Strange (2016)

Film: Doctor Strange (2016)
Stars: Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Mads Mikkelsen, Tilda Swinton
Director: Scott Derrickson
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Well, I guess Marvel got another hit.  That was the first thing that crossed my mind recently as I headed into yet another installment of their expansive universe.  Honestly-it's staggering to me how blindingly successful the franchises of Disney's Marvel universe are-even the films that under-perform (think of something like Ant-Man) crossed $500 million internationally, and Doctor Strange, despite being arguably the most cerebral comic book headliner in the Marvel universe, has continued that streak.  Like most of the films, I caught this one in theaters, likely surrounded by comic book fans who have never actually, well, read a comic book, and unfortunately I stayed roughly in the center of where I am with these movies-fair, but not excellent.

(Spoilers Ahead) There's really no need for a spoiler here, as this film has been done repeatedly with the same results.  This is the introduction of yet another character, so you know that Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) will, through some act of god, be forced from his high pedestal as a world famous surgeon and instead forced to avenge those around him for the greater good.  Indeed, an accident in one of the sexiest cars I've seen in movies in a while (it's a Lamborghini, for the curious), leads him off the cliff and eventually he must head to Nepal to try and find some way to get his hands and abilities back.  While there, he meets the Ancient One (Swinton), a creature that has lived for hundreds of years and teaches him how to cross into other dimensions and fight using the mythic arts.  As is the wont of such a film, the Ancient One eventually dies, and Dr. Strange, now armed with a sense of right-and-wrong and a set of powers, sets off to make the world a safer place, and indeed, during a post-credits sequence comes across Thor himself, implying he'll be back to fight with the Avengers in the near future.

The film is fun.  Let's not mistake my antipathy to the end product with the film not being any good.  There are lovely moments of levity; Cumberbatch and McAdams have good chemistry and can land their one-liners, and Swinton is a movie acting goddess, even if there's not a lot of obvious "acting" opportunities.  Like most Marvel films, the villain is less than impressive (Mads Mikkelsen is an actor I've grown weary of after playing the same bad guy so often), but the visual effects are a kaleidoscope without ever quite hitting the ludicrous places of something like Speed Racer (what's Emile Hirsch up to these days?).  Perhaps because Captain America and X-Men have now gotten there, maybe superhero films are trying harder to get into those tech categories at the Oscars, but it shows.

My problem with the film isn't that I would recommend it, but that there's nothing special here that hasn't already been seen in Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers, etc-all of these are essentially the same movie, particularly the first installment.  All have an unlikely protagonist who is led into extraordinary circumstances, questions his abilities, and then finds a hero comes along (with the strength to carry on).  One could claim this is true of the Marvel comics, but these characters don't constantly focus on origin stories, but instead have had the same characters go through multiple iterations, breathing new life into different situations.  The comic books themselves evolve enough to be the final seasons in television series-Marvel is stuck on the same, repetitive first season.  Only Captain America has properly risen above it, particularly with the frightening and effective Winter Soldier.  Here they have a character who isn't just reestablishing what we know about him over-and-over, but dealing with an inner-struggle.  Given the box office, I suspect Dr. Strange will return.  Let's hope that he finds his own Winter Soldier so this doesn't become another stale franchise being held up by a multi-billion dollar brand.

Those are my thoughts on Dr. Strange, a fine if predictable installment in the Marvel Universe.  Are you with me that you want something different (perhaps Captain Marvel or Black Panther can get there?) or am I being too picky?  Share your thoughts below!

OVP: Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Film: Hail, Caesar! (2016)
Stars: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Ralph Fiennes, Jonah Hill, Scarlett Johansson, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Channing Tatum
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Production Design)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I never quite know whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing when I spend an entire movie just thinking about another movie, but for some reason throughout the entirety of Hail, Caesar! I couldn't help but recall select scenes of Roger Altman's excellent The Player while watching the newer film.  Both pictures skewer the idea of celebrity by using actual celebrities onscreen, though in the case of Altman the celebrities are frequently playing themselves while here they are playing versions of classic celebrities.  Still, it's a fun bit of tongue-in-cheek, and while the film lacks the wicked observation of Fargo and the overall brilliance of No Country for Old Men holding any director to the standards of such a high bar is probably unfair.  Hail, Caesar! is a fun movie, one that occasionally even tries to veer into greatness, that is anchored by being more a lovely string of vignettes than an overall cohesive picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) What I mean there is that the film itself is more focused and at its best when it is skewering Old Hollywood and our romance with it.  It's not new to present select old movie stars as being real-we've been seeing that since A Star is Born, but it's not common to see the actual movies themselves come across as rather, well, awful, but that's true here.  The films that onscreen stars like Clooney, ScarJo, Tatum, Fiennes, and Ehrenreich are all making are clearly spoofing on the classic films of people like Charlton Heston, Esther Williams, Gene Kelly, George Cukor, and Roy Rogers, respectively, but not the better parts of their filmographies as all of those movies look, well, awful.  The film is supremely capable in its knowledge of old Hollywood, particularly since main character Eddie Mannix (Brolin) was actually based on a real-life "fixer" named Eddie Mannix who would cover-up stories of major Hollywood stars back in the 1940's and 50's.

These moments are great, and comedically fun set-pieces.  I think my favorite was Channing Tatum's Burt Gurney, who sings a tune about wanting dames to come into his bar and how he'll be stuck at sea without any women, but then proceeds to go into a deeply homosexual song-and-dance number that actually ends up turning the bar into a gay bar and has him being thrusted against by two backup dancers.  In a tongue-in-cheek wink to the many gay men who were paraded as straight during the period, Gurney is himself gay in real-life, but also in a twist defecting to the Russians and being aided by a team of screenwriters who are all Communist-sympathizers.  Coming in second to this hilarious comedic subplot for me was Scarlett Johansson, angelic in one of those ridiculously over-the-top water ballets that they always put in Esther Williams movies, playing a fast-talking broad offscreen, and they create an elaborate hoax to cover her pregnancy (in many ways mirroring the scandal involving Loretta Young and Clark Gable)-Johansson, who is so good so often these days as to be taken for granted, is fun in an underwritten part.

It's fun just to name-check all of these old and new movie star names, but the larger question is if the film is actually any good, and it is, but never really rising above that adjective.  Most of the film gains from its homages to old Hollywood, and really only the scenes with Ehrenreich, who clearly stands out as the only non-famous star of that cast list up-top, pop for me, perhaps because he's an unknown and I wasn't expecting him to be so wonderfully eager and charming.  He's a delight as a young, popular cowboy star who is hoping to prove that he has slightly more acting chops than the B-movie pictures that he has become famous for; Ehrenreich is terrific in this role, and I'm hoping gets more exposure after this film.  Otherwise the film probably juggles one too many plots (the entire George Clooney sequence feels largely unnecessary and like a side gag that's just there to prove that this is the quirky Coen Brothers behind the camera), and though it works in terms of watchability, it's nothing more than a passing fancy from two directors who have made films that will stay with you always.  Still, all-in-all it's a lot of fun.

Those are my thoughts on Hail, Caesar!, one of several films I've caught in the last week (we're also getting back in the swing of daily reviews on TMROJ) that we'll be discussing.  For those of you who saw this (and it was a pretty big hit all things considered, so I'm guessing that's quite a few of you)-what were your thoughts?  Did you enjoy the Old Hollywood homages, or were you leaving disappointed that it didn't have the cerebral ticks of something like A Serious Man?  Share your thoughts below!

A Bigger Splash (2016)

Film: A Bigger Splash (2016)
Stars: Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Matthias Schoenaerts, Dakota Johnson
Director: Luca Guadagnino
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

As I mentioned yesterday, I recently decided to have a cheeky bit of fun and see both Hockney and A Bigger Splash back-to-back.  Hockney, of course, being a documentary about one man wasn't really the type of film to really bring out the intellectual heft-it was pleasant in the sort of way that we expect early summer documentaries to be.  Occasionally brash, interesting, but never really heart-wrenching or a call-to-arms or anything of that nature.  Luca Guadagnino's latest, however, is hoping to grab your attention for the entirety of the picture and not let go.  The man who made I Am Love (which won our OVP for Best Costume design, for the curious) makes a concerted push for intellectual heft in A Bigger Splash, his much-delayed followup, and has the cast (but not always the editing skills) to make it work.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is not really integral to the story, as so much of it is reliant upon mood and feeling and conversations (whether verbal or otherwise) that explaining what is happening is not completely necessary, but I'll give it a shot.  The movie follows Marianne Lane (Swinton), a David Bowie-like rock goddess who is living with her cool younger boyfriend Paul (Schoenaerts) in Pantelleria when an ex-flame of hers, a record producer named Harry (Fiennes) arrives with his beautiful but enigmatic daughter Penelope (Johnson).  The film unfolds with them at first disrupting the glamorous celebrity couple, who are hiding low as Marianne recovers from vocal surgery, but soon old secrets start to spill out and rivalries begin to form in a sexually-intense story.

The film is not shy about sex, and the way that it drives the id's of all four of the main characters.  We learn as the film goes forward that Harry essentially traded in Marianne, obviously the love of his life but he was too bored at the time to realize it, over to Paul, whom he assumed would be a rebound but ended up being a deep connection with Marianne and they never broke up.  Hating Paul but also knowing that it's his fault that Marianne is not part of his life, he haunts the villa even if he's constantly, maniacally active.  Fiennes, who is such a spectacular actor almost all of the time, finds a grounded nature to his character that few others would have discovered-most people would have played Harry just for comedy, struggling with his demons and making them seem tragic, but Fiennes knows that they are less tragic than just some other veneer to put forward in order to grab sympathy and what he wants.  This is, after all, a man who actively pimps out a woman who may or may not be his daughter in order to get his old girlfriend back, despite her potentially being his own flesh-and-blood.

Fiennes isn't the only one who is bringing their A-game to this cast, however.  Swinton is mesmerizing, particularly when deprived of her vocal powers and quite frankly it's just a joy to see two actors so completely at the top of their respective games together in the same movie.  I love that we've now entered the phase of her career where Swinton can be celebrated as a beautiful, alien goddess and not have to dour her down in something like We Need to Talk About Kevin.  Swinton here is earthy, magnetic, and impossible to resist, which is why it's so odd when Penelope doesn't like her.  As the film progresses, you half expect Penelope to come out and be the child Marianne gave up for adoption or acknowledge the bitter hatred that she has for the world stemmed from something Marianne did, because Marianne is really awesome and awesome is kind of hard to do in an art house film, but Swinton nails it.  She's aided by Schoenaerts who is unabashedly sexy as the manic pixie dream guy with a solid amount of orgasm-inducing skill.  I love that so many of his roles, despite him being a man, are really about using his desire and power as an actor to intoxicate the audience-rarely do you find a male actor who does that so consistently.  And yes, despite her idiotically gaining a Razzy Award (she was actually pretty damn good in Fifty Shades of Grey, I'm sorry to say to the haters), Johnson is clearly a Kristen Stewart in waiting if she plays her cards right-she's stuck in a pointless franchise now, but give it time-an actress who can pull off this character's many tricky turns is doing something right.

So why the lower score?  Because the film falls apart in the third act.  I actually, after seeing this film, investigated a couple of opinion pieces regarding the movie and almost every one of them said the same thing-that the movie didn't end when it clearly was meant to end.  There is a scene late in the film (I told you there were going to be spoilers) where Paul kills Harry in what might be an accident, might be on-purpose, fight in the pool.  The film recedes up from the pool in a huge shot, and nearly goes to black.  If the film had ended there, it would have been surprisingly short, but it would have been a great look at how Harry always played to win-he ended up destroying Paul for Marianne by making him a murderer, and we would be left with Dakota Johnson playing the ultimate femme fatale, someone who lured away the loyal boyfriend to kill her father, all as part of his plan.  It's a great ending, and would have made for a superb movie, one of the best of the year.  However, the film drags on, trying to understand Penelope (seriously-Dakota Johnson's character is totally obsession worthy here), and then giving us a moment of reconciliation between Marianne and Paul, when not knowing probably would have been better.  There's nothing saving the last thirty minutes or so-it feels so tagged on that it nearly ruins a truly interesting and provocative film, one too good to put 2-stars by even if the ending drags it there.

Those were my thoughts, at least, on this very discussable movie.  If you've seen it, let's give that a shot, shall we?  What did you think of A Bigger Splash-were you hoping that it would end at the death scene as well, or did you want it to continue on forever?  When do you think Dakota Johnson will finally start getting her respect as an actor (you just know a Supporting Actress nod is going to land at some point in the near future)?  And can we have another Tilda/Ralph movie again soon please, as his history of repeating costars could pay huge dividends here?

OVP: Makeup & Hairstyling (2014)

OVP: Best Makeup & Hairstyling (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Bill Corso and Dennis Liddiard, Foxcatcher

Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Elizabeth Yianni-Georgiou and David White, Guardians of the Galaxy

My Thoughts: All right, a bit more delayed than I initially suspected, but let's start in on the 2014 Oscar Viewing Project, and like always we begin with Makeup the category that for some reason Oscar doesn't feel deserves five nominees despite literally every film having makeup as a component of it (Visual Effects and Sound Editing both got expanded, and neither of those is in literally every movie, after all).  The field here is an intriguing mix of superhero and perhaps the category's most beloved of tricks, making beautiful and iconic movie stars look completely different.  We'll start with that, since she's staring me right in the face and Tilda Swinton will not be denied.

Tilda Swinton is already a bit of an exotic creature, but in the hands of Wes Anderson she feels like the muse he always dreamed of (sorry Anjelica).  Swinton's aging grand dame is marvelously structured, to the point where you spend a good chunk of her first scene saying "wait, is that Tilda Swinton?"  This is occasionally distracting (I remember thinking the same thing for Looper) but overall (like Looper) I found the Makeup a joy.  The rest of the film isn't quite up to the snuff of Swinton, as the Saoirse Ronan giant birthmark feels at time to have been added to go to the wrong side of Anderson's twee-infusion in his movies, and none of the other hairstyles stand out in a particularly grand way, but Swinton is a the sort of creation that deserves Oscar recognition.

The moment I saw Foxcatcher, I knew it would be nominated for an Oscar.  Transforming identifiable movie stars like Steve Carell and Channing Tatum into oddly formed creatures for the screen is the sort of prosthetic work that usually resonates in this category.  However, while I found the work very lifelike (particularly the cauliflower ears that Tatum sports), I couldn't help but feel like it was almost too much, particularly when the script and Carell himself rely so heavily upon it.  Some of the choices for hairstyling (like Tatum's frosted tips) feel extra since the script is too subtle about the implied homosexual relationship between Carell's du Pont and Tatum's Mark, and the film seems to try too hard to imply a nastiness in Carell simply because he's ugly and not because he's sociopathic.  This isn't necessarily the makeup artist's fault (it's far more on the actors and the writers), but it's worth noting that it downplays the work of Corso and Liddiard, who manage to make a very realistic turn for Carell, Tatum, and Ruffalo in how they appear compared to reality.

The final nomination is less-concerned with reality, and of course it's Guardians of the Galaxy, a bit of a surprise nomination in some regards in the sense that Makeup rarely gives us a nomination when the film is overrun with visual effects.  However, you can clearly tell with several characters (such as Zoe Saldana's Gamora and Dave Bautista's Drax the Destroyer) that makeup work was very much on-display here.  I thought the look for Benicio del Toro's Collector was oddly mesmerizing, even if it felt like he was plucked out of a Guillermo del Toro film, but Saldana and Bautista's work was pretty banal, and in the case of Saldana I found a little insulting (this gorgeous woman is always covered in some random color-why can't she just be herself in one film?).  Then there's Lee Pace, whose makeup work is about as boring as his actual character.  In fact, with the exception of del Toro, I feel like this is one of those Oscar cases where "most" was replaced with "best."

Other Precursor Contenders: BAFTA smartly nominated five films, but didn't have time for the very-American Foxcatcher, instead siding with Into the Woods, Mr. Turner, and The Theory of Everything (Grand Budapest won).  The Saturn Awards had a slightly different idea, going with Guardians of the Galaxy as its victor and none of the other Oscar nominees, picking Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Dracula Untold (yes, this is the one with Luke Evans), The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Into the Woods, and X-Men: Days of Future Past.  And of course since Makeup has a bakeoff period, we know that The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Maleficent, Noah, and The Theory of Everything were the other contenders.  I honestly wonder, despite Maleficent having Rick Baker (an Oscar perennial) behind it, if Theory of Everything was closer than we anticipate.  It scored at BAFTA, had lots of old-age makeup, and was a Best Picture nominee.  I'd still postulate for Maleficent, but will not deny the validity of someone who'd want to make the case for Theory in the comments.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I'm going to vouch almost certainly for that other Tilda Swinton creation from Snowpiercer, where she also plays someone unrecognizable but unlike Carell actually rises above the makeup to create something deeply compelling onscreen.  I also would have rewarded The Hobbit, which continues to inspire me in this category-consistently great work doesn't necessarily need to be ignored.  I'm a fan of the period-specific work being done on Selma (it always feels like hair-styling is incidental to this category, but it's in the title now so they should keep that in mind with handing out the trophies).  And I would probably finish off with the wonderfully-styled hair of A Most Violent Year-so much of the work there reflects the personalities of the characters, and in particular Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain have looks that seem custom-made for their performances.

Oscar’s Choice: The Grand Budapest won one of its many "let's honor Wes Anderson's team" Oscars, besting Guardians in its likeliest shot at a trophy.

My Choice: An easy decision for Grand Buadapest-Tilda Swinton may be my favorite onscreen makeup creation since Heath Ledger's the Joker.  I'd probably go with Foxcatcher in second, followed by Guardians.

And those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you with the consensus here for Grand Budapest, or are you going with the rag-tag Marvel team?  Do you ever feel like the Makeup work results in lazy performances?  And which Tilda incarnation (Grand Budapest, Snowpiercer, or Only Lovers Left Alive) did you enjoy the most?  Share in the comments!

Also in 2014: Previously in 2014, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, 

Past Best Makeup Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Trainwreck (2015)

Film: Trainwreck (2015)
Stars: Amy Schumer, Bill Hader, Brie Larson, Tilda Swinton, Colin Quinn, John Cena, LeBron James
Director: Judd Apatow
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I am late to the Amy Schumer train, I get it.  I've never pretended to be hip or cool (when I got to pick a free CD in seventh grade and most people were picking Savage Garden or Puff Daddy, I went with the Best of Diana Ross & the Supremes...and I have no regrets), but I will say that I was wrong to wait this long for Schumer.  Her eponymous Comedy Central sketch show is a riot, consistently funnier than pretty much anything that goes viral on SNL or late night (and almost always smarter).  And I had prepped myself for a few weeks in anticipation of Trainwreck, her big-screen move star debut, so I was ready for something awesome when I saw the movie.  I am not a Judd Apatow hater, I am officially an Amy Schumer fan, and I laughed consistently at the trailer.  I was ready.

(Spoilers Ahead...and also admittedly some raciness as this is a pretty bawdy movie) And I left the film not disappointed, though admittedly not in-love.  The film, chronicling Amy (Schumer, still new enough to her career where she can play a character with her same name) and her journey from being on a string of endless one-night stands to finding love with Aaron, a ridiculously perfect doctor-boyfriend (Bill Hader, manic pixie dream guying it up), has too many fun moments to not be enjoyable in the moment.  Schumer and Hader are aces when it comes to comedy, and there are moments in the film that just work.  I actually loved the opening scene where Schumer is on a date with a guy whose penis is too large and she fakes a quick orgasm and goes to sleep in hopes of not having to actually deal with the thing.  It seems funny, it's a step toward realism with only a hint of Carrie Bradshaw (come on-if you haven't been on this date personally you at least have a friend who has), and gives an insight into the character she is.  Amy is actually pretty awesome, if admittedly a massive alcoholic.  She's ambitious in her career, she's got a cool best friend, and she enjoys a healthy sex life.  She also has chemistry with most everyone, and if she doesn't she has chemistry with the fourth wall because she can make you laugh at any given moment.  I particularly loved the way that she sort of assumes the non-committal "male" role not because it's a stereotype-breaking (if anything having a non-committal man in a movie these days would be breaking a stereotype), but because she's so nonplussed about it.  She truly doesn't care what is happening around her after a date or whether that guy calls her back.

So I wish that there had been a little bit more of a learning curve when it came to her boyfriend Aaron.  Part of my problem with this film is that Amy the character frequently is trying to fit into the leading woman box but makes too many leaps to get to an easy solution.  We never really get why Aaron specifically is her soulmate, quite frankly.  John Cena's character may be super self-involved, but really is the only thing that she needed to get to dewy-eyed a dorky doctor?  Because Cena's character is also sweet, thoughtful, and looking out for her.  Yes, he has a rough exterior and a macho attitude, but we get absolutely no sense from Amy that she likes this guy for anything other than his body, and yet she falls head-over-heels for Aaron.  Realism is something I value, particularly when the character onscreen is a lonely thirtysomething (because that's a subject know extremely well), and I just don't buy that the girl at the beginning of this movie falls for Bill Hader's Aaron without some sort of hint that she would have fallen for another guy.  I also don't get why Hader's Aaron is single when he clearly doesn't want to be.  He's cute, sweet, a doctor, and has court-side Knicks tickets.  What isn't to love here?  I get that this is a lot of nitpicking for a romantic comedy (a genre that abandons realism during the opening credits), but I expected more from Schumer than two attractive people having a series of meet-cutes.  I wanted something a little bit bawdier, a little more badass.  The ending scene feels plucked straight out of Pitch Perfect, where Amy dances to a song that Aaron likes-really?  Couldn't we have found a better way to end the movie.

So I'm torn here-the film is actually quite watchable the less you think about it, and Schumer/Hader/most of the rest of the cast is insanely funny (I particularly loved Tilda Swinton's tanned-out boss, who is wonderful and how the hell did Judd Apatow get Oscar-winning goddess Tilda Swinton in this movie?!?), but more moments of clarity and character consistency would have elevated this to be something like Spy or Bridesmaids.  I kept yearning for Brie Larson, possibly the film's unsung MVP, who is clearly in a different kind of romantic movie.  Her husband is just an average dude who has a peculiar son and quite frankly she's out of his league, but she's clearly wanted a life like this so badly that she's willing to make sacrifices.  Amy hasn't wanted a life at all like the one she got, and despite a series of adorable misadventures, she gets one just like her sister in the end.

Those are my (clearly more aggravated than I initially anticipated) thoughts on Trainwreck-how about yours?  Did you enjoy the movie?  Did you leave wanting more Schumer as a leading woman (this I can say I absolutely did-there's skill there even if I didn't love what the script did with it)?  And what do you think the pitch meeting with Tilda Swinton was like for this film?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Women and the Best Picture Race

Felicity Jones, the only lead actress in a Best Picture nominee this year

I am constantly fascinated by the subject of film when it comes to gender, and particularly whether gender is fully represented at the movies.  The stark reality is that every year we re-learn a more and more a resounding truth: that women are wildly underrepresented onscreen, particularly in mainstream Hollywood films, despite being 50% of the population.  This has become a cliche to complain about, but it's a problem that never seems to get any better, and no matter what angle you take with it, the reality is that the problem always rears its ugly head (I become incensed with people who roll their eyes when people complain about perpetual problems, because cynicism is an answer to nothing).

This year, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at the Best Picture races, and in particular the way that they treat female characters and stories.  Despite the year having a number of strong films starring women (Under the Skin and Wild spring instantly to mind), only one of the eight Best Picture nominees has what could be genuinely considered a female lead (Felicity Jones in The Theory of Everything) and none of them have only female leads.  As a result of this, we're going to look more at the ways that supporting roles by women are treated in the eight films nominated for Best Picture instead.  Below I will be dissecting the eight films nominated for Best Picture, and look at the women who feature amongst the top five billed stars of each motion picture, and how they relate to the overall plot and, most importantly, the ultimate message of the film.  This is a grey area, so please join in the comments if you concur or disagree, and we'll start out alphabetically with American Sniper. (Spoilers regarding all eight films so if you haven't seen one, skip, only read the rest, and bookmark for a later date)

Film: American Sniper
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Sienna Miller); you have to go outside the top ten to find the next highest-billed female character, which would be Bradley Cooper's first girlfriend Sarah (Marnette Patterson), who is essentially billed as a slut.
What is Her Relationship to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Does She have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: She's probably what you'd consider the catalyst for Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle trying to find his way back to civilization, but she doesn't actually contribute to him doing so (he does most of that growing on his own).
Does She Have Her Own Life Outside the Main Character: No, she does not.  The entirety of Sienna Miller's role in this film is based on her being charmed by Chris Kyle, then constantly calling him to come home-there's absolutely no indication of her wants other than those in relation to her husband.
Does it Pass the Bechdel Test?: No, it does not.

Film: Birdman
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Emma Stone and Naomi Watts)
What is Their Relationship to the Main Character?: Daughter and Costar, respectively
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Stone's character actually gets the final shot in the movie, as she's lured into her father's world of make-believe.  She's also a large part of his driving force, or at least the idea of family is, so she's not just a family member here.  Watts' character has little to do with the overall resolution of the movie.
Do They Have a Life Outsider the Main Character?: Yes.  Stone is frequently talking to other characters, including her father's costars, and is trying to find herself throughout the movie, and Watts is a struggling actress trying to make it on Broadway and crash her nerves against the new big break that she's experiencing.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes, it does (Andrea Riseborough and Naomi Watts discuss Watts' career and work in the play).

Film: Boyhood
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 3 (Patricia Arquette, Lorelai Linklater, and Libby Villari)
What is Their Relationship to the Main Character?: Mother, Daughter, and grandmother, respectively
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: None-despite the film occasionally checking in on both Arquette's Olivia and Linklater's Samantha, the film is mostly about Mason, Jr., and the eventual end of the film and the bulk of the film is based on his journey.
Do They Have a Life Outside the Main Character?: Yes, they do.  Despite the film being entirely from Mason Jr's point of view, we see Olivia experience multiple relationships and a change in career, and to a lesser extent we see Samantha blossom into a young woman independent of her brother.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-Olivia and Samantha discuss Samantha's homework and other aspects of her life throughout the movie.

Film: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 0 (to be fair part of the cast list is alphabetical though, so we'll include Tilda Swinton and Saoirse Ronan for the sake of argument as they are both billed above the line)
What Relationship Do They Have to the Main Characters (it's a dual-lead film)?: They are their respective love interests
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: In actuality, very little.  Both women play a crux in the plot (one gives a main character the hotel, the other is the reason that he keeps it), but both have very little screentime and ultimately the film's plot is based on Zero and Monsieur Gustave, rather than either of their female companions.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: No, they don't-we learn a bit about Madame Celine (Swinton) in the end, but at that point she's been dead for the bulk of the movie and Ronan's Agatha is only a reflection of Zero.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No-no named woman ever talks to another woman in the film.

Film: The Imitation Game
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Keira Knightley as Joan Clarke)
What Relationship Does She Have to the Main Character? Coworker and eventually fiance
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Hard to tell-the problem with The Imitation Game is proving what the reason for the film is.  If it's to prove the cruelty to Alan Turing as a gay person, then nothing.  If it's his discoveries as a code-breaker, then somewhat-she's the reason he eventually works with his team and she keeps him grounded.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Not in any significant way-she's always talking about Alan when she's onscreen, and even when she does get married, this is not a point-of-interest of her character.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No-the only time women speak to each other (Joan and her friend at the bar), it is in regard to Joan's male coworkers.

Film: Selma
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King)
What Relationship Does She Have to the Main Character?: Wife
What Role Do They Have to to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: Very little, to be honest.  This is a film about the masses moving toward a cause, and about one man's crusade to reach that cause-Coretta Scott King is an important historical figure, but here she's relegated to domestic scenes only and having concerns over the safety of her family.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: No, not really.  The entirety of her plot is based on her relationship with MLK.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-there's a scene about halfway through where Coretta and Lorraine Toussaint's Amelia Boynton Robinson discuss Coretta's role in the movement.

Film: The Theory of Everything
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 2 (Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking and Maxine Peake as Elaine Mason)
What Relationship Do They Have to the Main Character?: To be fair, Jones is a main character of this film.  To be more fair, though, no one refers to this as "that movie about Jane Hawking," so she's not the main character, in which case she plays his wife, as does Peake.
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: While Peake's part is pretty ancillary, Jones has something of a drive in the eventual conclusion of the film, with Dr. Hawking realizing the importance of his love for his wife in relation to his work, and how reliant he was upon her for his success.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Yes, in the case of Jones (not in the case of Peake).  Jones has a relationship with another man, struggles with giving up her career, and has an affair.
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: Yes-Jones and her mother Beryl discuss her joining the church choir.

Film: Whiplash
Number of Females in the Top-5 Billed Stars: 1 (Melissa Benoist as Nicole)
What Relationhip Do They Have to the Main Character?: Girlfriend
What Role Do They Have to the Eventual Conclusion of the Film?: None-the entire film is about Andrew and Fletcher's rivalry coming to a head, and at that point Nicole has just been a casualty of his drive to succeed.
Do They Have a Life Outside of the Main Character?: Nope-the only thing we know about her other than her infatuation with Andrew is that she works at a movie theater.  Otherwise her role is simply to be "the girlfriend."
Does It Pass the Bechdel Test?: No

And there you have it-a pretty damning indictment of the films nominated this past year.  I mean-look at the evidence.  Only Boyhood has more female actors in the Top-5 billed than males.  Only half pass the Bechdel Test.  Only in The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, and Birdman does the female character play any significant role in finalizing the plot.  And only one film has a principle female role that isn't romantic or familial (Naomi Watts in Birdman).

Compare that to the male roles in these films-all eight main male characters have male friends or enemies, and have lives outside of the female characters.  All eight easily pass the reverse-Bechdel Test, and all eight are critical to the eventual conclusion of the film.  This is a pretty damning indictment on the way the cinema treats women as a whole; when the supposed best of the best can't even find room for women, what can we expect from the rest of the cinema?