OVP: RBG (2018)

Film: RBG (2018)
Stars: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Director: Betty West & Julie Cohen
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Documentary Feature, Original Song-"I'll Fight")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars (I wavered between 2 & 3-the film is more enjoyable in the moment than it is when you hold a critical lens up to it.  So if you're not in the mood to think too hard (or need to see a true patriot after Trump's Twitter tirades in the past week), see this...even if "don't think too hard" is a terrible endorsement of a documentary)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a national treasure and an American hero.  I was struck by this over-and-over again last night as I watched her documentary RBG, which has been tearing up the art-house scene and even migrating into more mainstream pictures (I saw it at an AMC with a packed, eager crowd on a Sunday night).  You're struck by this in particular during the film's early third, when you realize what an important role she played during her years with the ACLU, defending women's rights throughout the 1970's, something oftentimes overlooked in the era of "Notorious RBG" where the Supreme Court Justice feels more famous for her diminutive size and witty dissents from the bench.  Ginsburg's legacy is never in-doubt in RBG, but it feels like they aren't willing to explore it at more than a surface-level.  The film, as a result, never amounts to more than fluff, albeit enjoyable fluff, and while Ginsburg certainly deserves the level of hero-worship it provides, it doesn't have anything meaningful to say about her legacy or the Court's legacy in an increasingly partisan era for the bench.

The film's most interesting moments, in my opinion, are in the first third.  Such recent, forgotten history oftentimes requires repeating for younger audiences, and even though I felt relatively familiar with Ginsburg's career, there were a few nuggets here-and-there that felt particularly compelling and new (I liked hearing from her fellow female law colleagues or high school friends, understanding how this shy, introverted girl from Brooklyn managed to overcome so many odds through the power of her intellect).  The interviews with her children were particularly compelling in the trepidation they have about describing their mother.  You get the understanding that Ruth might have been "the tough parent" between she and her husband Marty, and held her children to high-standards.  There's a lot of love in the interviews with her son and daughter, but a nervousness that either reads as being uncomfortable in-front-of-the-camera or perhaps as not wanting to frame their mother in a perfect light.  This was fascinating to me in a way that not as much of the rest of the film was (even the conservatives seem to want to put a halo on Ginsburg), and as I'm always interested at getting to the root of the conversation, even with proper heroes, I wanted more of what it was like for them growing up, not to demonize Ginsburg but to perhaps give us a sense of her private world.

Because the film in many respects mirrors Ginsburg's attitude toward a curious public.  Progressive, filled with hope, but matter-of-fact and distant.  Ginsburg's that rare public figure that has had such a storied career you can break out the "Greatest Hits" and still leave some of the audience's favorites off-the-menu, but it never moves beyond that.  The talking heads feel particularly disjointed, like a hodgepodge casually-selected by the film's directors in a rush to get this to the screen, rather than taking their time to create something truly special and standing about Ginsburg.  Why, for example, are we only hearing from Sen. Orrin Hatch about the hearings, and not say, the Chairman Joe Biden (it's impossible for me to believe that he wouldn't have wanted to do this, considering this is Liberal Red Meat and he's clearly considering a 2020 run)?  Why not show Sen. Dianne Feinstein & Carol Moseley-Braun, both of whom had just joined the Senate Judiciary Committee when Ginsburg was before them in the wake of Anita Hill?  They touch briefly on her friendship with Antonin Scalia, but what about other justices-where was conversation with John Paul Stevens, who saw her as both an attorney and a colleague, or Sandra Day O'Connor, who was forever intertwined with Ginsburg by gender but distanced from her by judicial philosophy?  What of Merrick Garland and the constitutional crisis that rocked the court two years ago?  The film spends so much time featuring reaction shots to Ginsburg watching her caricature on Saturday Night Live for the first time, why not get Kate McKinnon to do a talking head, or better yet, have her meet Ginsburg?  It feels frequently like there is something holding back the filmmakers-was it budget?  Access to Ginsburg herself?  Limits in what they were allowed to show or say about the famed justice?  The film as a result feels incomplete, like we're getting a tertiary look at what should be a grand, definitive picture of Ginsburg.

As a result, other than the earlier catalog of her work as a law student and attorney, the film's only other real calling card is the examination of her relationship with Martin Ginsburg, the quintessential supportive husband.  We get very little in terms of a complicated picture of Mr. Ginsburg, either because the filmmakers didn't want to show any bad sides to the promising young tax attorney who became a primary caretaker so that his wife could succeed, or perhaps Marty Ginsburg really was just as wonderful as he always seemed in interviews and speeches.  Either way, his relationship with Ruth was so lovingly featured in the film, it made me excited for what Armie Hammer will do with this performance later this year in On the Basis of Sex, considering Armie Hammer-in-love is easily the best version of the actor.  Marty's death in the film is a tearjerker moment, weirdly the only one in a film with so much hope, and it's clear Ruth cared for him in a way that's uncommon to see in DC marriages.  I just wish that the filmmakers had taken off the kid gloves for the rest of the picture, giving us a fuller, clearer portrait of an important woman and her legacy, rather than just a fan page that feels like a scrapbook.

Life of the Party (2018)

Film: Life of the Party
Stars: Melissa McCarthy, Molly Gordon, Gillian Jacobs, Maya Rudolph, Matt Walsh, Julie Bowen, Luke Benward, Jacki Weaver, Stephen Root
Director: Ben Falcone
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Melissa McCarthy has been a proper movie star now for about 7 years, ever since she stole the show from a slew of (then) more famous actresses in Bridesmaids, scoring an Oscar nomination for her role as Megan and transforming that into superstardom.  Since then, she's only once come close to the magic of Bridesmaids (that'd be Spy), but has been a persistent, bankable presence at the box office.  Her films regularly are profitable, perhaps in part because they aren't particularly expensive, and in particular she's become noted for her collaborations with her husband, actor/director Ben Falcone.  This is their third outing together, and so far they have yet to hit the mark.  Unfortunately, that streak continues with this picture.

(Spoilers Ahead) Life of the Party focuses on Deanna (McCarthy), a middle-aged woman whose life has largely been being a devoted wife-and-mother to her husband Dan (Walsh) and daughter Maddie (Gordon).  After dropping their daughter off at school, Dan admits that he has been having an affair with local real estate magnate Marcie Strong (Bowen), and wants a divorce.  This leads to a quick decision by Deanna to go back and complete her degree, wanting to take a course in archaeology, with her befriending her daughter's sorority, particularly another slightly older student named Helen (Jacobs) and romancing a handsome young student named Jack (Benward).  Along the way, she relates a bit better to her daughter, her parents, and to herself, as she owns her power and starts to create a better future for herself as a single person.

The film is pretty generic, but that frequently works for comedy's with a comedienne as talented as McCarthy.  After all, some of the better comedies of someone like Myrna Loy or Cary Grant were also pretty flimsy when it came to plot and they worked out fine.  The problem lies in the direction and writing of the film, and perhaps most importantly, the story-boarding, because Life of the Party doesn't really seem to have a point-of-view.  The film unfolds with Deanna's seemingly perfect relationship with her daughter being in jeopardy as Deanna becomes more popular than Maddie, but that lasts for only about six minutes before (inexplicably) the teeth come out of that plot and they're best buddies.  The same could be said for her relationship with her ex-husband, where he acts almost staggeringly cruel to her, to a comedic point that feels improbable (no one is that mean to someone they share a child with, certainly not in front of that child).  There's a scene late in the picture where Deanna comes across deliberately cruel billboards in front of her ex-husband's second wedding reception that read "Better Life, Better Wife," which seems preposterous to think he would do that and still maintain even a somewhat healthy relationship with his daughter, which he purportedly does.  Deanna isn't cruel or even particularly unattractive, so this feels like just lazy, directionless plotting to feed the next comedic set piece.

McCarthy is a game performer, and too funny for this movie to suck, and she was smart enough to hire a great supporting cast (particularly Rudolph as her supportive, horny best friend), but it's time to admit that she should be giving better than this to her fans.  It might sound cruel, but honestly-Ben Falcone has not proven himself an adept director of his own wife.  Throughout the movie, they confuse where they want to take this character-is she growing, or finding she was fine all along?  Is her May/December romance real, or just hormonal?  Is her daughter angry at her (or her father), or is she just happy-go-lucky?  These are issues you should have a perspective on by the time the credits roll, and that you don't shows a sincere failing in the writing and direction of this picture.  McCarthy is a good actress, and when paired with a strong director (Paul Feig, presumably Nicole Holofcener later this year), she can give a dynamite performance in a funny film.  But Ben Falcone can't deliver on that front, and they're both hurting their brands by continuing to try in a field they continually fail.

Ranting On...Lesley Stahl & the Evils of Access Journalism

Lesley Stahl

In a recent conversation with PBS Newshour's Judy Woodruff, longtime 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl said something that was startlingly mundane and yet all too shocking in the era of President Trump.  Stahl was the first journalist to interview then President-Elect Trump after his shocking victory in November of 2016, but she shared an anecdote from a sit-down interview with Trump where it was just she and her boss.  Trump, in the meeting, despite the lack of cameras or an audience other than the two CBS employees who clearly wouldn't be receptive to his bravado, railed against the press, and Stahl called him out on it stating "you've won the nomination, this is getting tired, why are you doing this...it's boring" using perhaps the adjective Trump tries hardest to avoid.  His response was chilling, "You know why I do it?  I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you."  The audience in the room felt hushed, with Woodruff visibly upset and shaking her head.  This is a startling anecdote that any other presidency would have invited weeks, if not months, of scrutiny, and while Trump rarely gives us time for such things, I want to examine it because there's a lot at play in this story, and some of it is genuinely new information to me.

Stahl's story, on its surface, is not all-that-surprising.  It is difficult in the era of Trump to deny that the president outwardly destroys the truth, and has disdain for any press that isn't complimentary.  It's one of the reasons he so rarely is interviewed by "actual" journalists like Stahl, instead preferring to call into the sycophantic Fox and Friends or sit with Sean Hannity.  It's been clear for months that Trump lies, repeatedly and incessantly, about his adversaries (one of which he considers the free press), so really the admitting of the strategy is the story here, not the actual strategy which has been clear for well over two years now.  Trump admitting this to a journalist is the shocking part, but perhaps more disturbing is that we are just now hearing about it from Stahl.

It's not entirely clear from the story when this took place.  Some news organizations seem to indicate that the interview happened immediately after the election, most seem to indicate it occurred sometime beforehand.  Based on how Stahl tells the story, when she recalls telling Trump "you've won the primaries" it likely occurred before the general election, likely in the late summer or early fall (I tried pretty hard to figure out if anyone has asked Stahl or if she later clarified when this interview took place, but couldn't find an exact date).  As a result, Stahl certainly knew about this exchange prior to her first interview with President Trump, and (unless she or her boss clarify otherwise), it appears before the actual general election.  This begs the very sincere question-why didn't Stahl see this as her civic duty to share such an exchange, one that was certainly relevant to the public good, and regardless why didn't she question Trump about this exchange on her program?

There's really no satisfactory explanation that Stahl can provide here.  Her best bet would be that she was off-the-record (in which case it also begs the question as to why she's sharing this now, since that would still apply), in which case that's an entirely different conversation about journalistic ethics.  But let's assume for a moment that a woman who has been a reporter for over 45 years knows well enough to not reveal an off-the-record conversation, and either Trump said this on-the-record or this wasn't explicitly "off-the-record."  If that's the case, Stahl should have reported this.  Particularly in 2016, this would have been a big story still-we weren't as used to Trump's bombast, lying about the press, and quite frankly the Republican nominee (or the president-elect) admitting such a thing to a journalist would have been shocking.  It's still shocking now, but it might have been tangibly important to the national conversation in a way that it simply can't be currently.

Ms. Stahl, interviewing (from left) Tiffany, Donald Jr., Donald Sr,
Eric, Melania, and Ivanka Trump

I can only think of three reasons that Stahl didn't report this at the time.  One, she didn't think it was news...but any quote from a potential president is always news, and this would have made enough headlines it's impossible to think she or the CBS executive she was with wouldn't have wanted the ratings.  Secondly, she didn't want to impact the race and appear biased.  This is perhaps more believable-if this did indeed happen in the run-up to the election, you could argue that Stahl didn't want to put herself in the crossfire of an election cycle.  Lest we forget that in 2004 60 Minutes had a profound influence on the national conversation leading to the Bush-Kerry elections that November, with Bush arguably gaining some points off of 60 Minutes' mishandling of documents surrounding President Bush's tenure in the Texas National Guard.  Stahl may not have wanted to risk her career in the same way her former coworker Dan Rather had twelve years earlier, particularly on a man who would vehemently deny such a charge and without more tangible proof like a tape recording.  This is cowardly, but at least believable.

The most concerning thing, though, is that Stahl didn't do it because she didn't want to lose access to a future president.  Stahl, of course, was the first person to interview President-Elect Trump in a huge scoop for her career (she says as much during the clip with Woodruff).  It's impossible to believe that Trump (or really any member of his administration) would have sat down with Stahl in the future if she'd hurt Mr. Trump's chances of winning the White House.  This is yet another case of "access journalism" hurting the credentials of well-meaning but realistic members of the press.

We see this time-and-time again, particularly with this administration which feels so vindictive to a media that doesn't appear ready to deal with perpetual lies and attacks on the free press.  Witness how someone like Brian Stelter (who got raked-across-the-coals for this on Twitter, including by me) continually puts Kellyanne Conway on his program despite the fact that she shares garbage information and no facts in her anecdotes.  Or see how someone like Andrea Mitchell goes over-the-top attacking Michelle Wolf's calm (and not insulting-at-all) comments about Sarah Sanders' appearance in a way to try to appear "unbiased" against attacks that the entire media is left-leaning.

Stahl, Stelter, and Mitchell are not bad people, they're not even bad journalists.  But this behavior is bad, upsetting, and dangerous, and they should all know better.  The reality is that the free press still hasn't quite figured out that they aren't playing a traditional "cover the story" game with Trump, but that they have become the story and need to fight back in order to remain a cornerstone of democracy.  Stahl should have confronted Trump about his comments publicly.  Stelter shouldn't have a woman he knows will lie on a news program, no matter her title.  Mitchell shouldn't coddle the White House over attacks she surely believes privately are tame.  Trying to curry favor with the Trump White House doesn't do you any good, and that has been proven time-and-time again.  By doing so, you might get a scoop, but you're not hurting those who are lying or making them correct their behaviors-they're on a different foundation than you are right now, and won't change as a result.  By covering up or trying to excuse them, you're just hurting yourselves.  Lesley Stahl is smart enough to realize that "that story" could have been the story that brought down an odious racist man she clearly has no respect for, and she's going to have to live with that for the rest of her career.  Hopefully other journalists won't make the same mistakes.

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Elections

It's Wednesday, and like clockwork during even-numbered years, that means we're about to dive into last night's primaries!  While not quite as large of a slate as last week (already the dust is starting to look a little stale on one of last week's victories as the Democrats' Scott Wallace feels like a wasted investment in PA-1), we still had primaries in Georgia, Arkansas, and Kentucky, as well as a series of runoff elections in Texas.  As always, I have my five thoughts on last night's elections, which center mostly on the Democrats and their quest to take on traditionally Republican territory this November.

State Rep. Stacey Abrams (D-GA)

1. Stacey Abrams Becomes a Superstar

Surely if you were on Twitter last night, you likely know the results of at least one of the elections from Tuesday evening.  That's because while she might not be as consequential in November (in terms of who will score a pickup on this list, she's not #1), it's impossible to deny that Stacey Abrams had a moment.  Abrams became the very first African-American woman in US history last night to be nominated for a major party's gubernatorial slot (a fact so hard to believe I spent ten minutes before publishing this article trying to figure out if it was actually true...it is).  Abrams, the former Minority Leader for the Georgia House of Representatives, clobbered her opponent (her former colleague State Rep. Stacey Evans), greatly outpacing even the most generous polls supporting Abrams.  While some will claim that Abrams' victory stands as a win for the progressive wing of the party (she was further to the left of Evans), it's hard to imagine a candidate that earned pretty much every major endorsement (in a rare occurrence, both Hillary Clinton & Bernie Sanders backed Abrams' bid for governor) as the "outsider" candidate.  In conjunction with last week's win for Paulette Jordan and last night's other major victory for Lupe Veldez in Texas (upsetting Andrew White in that primary), women of color are going to be a huge part of the DGA's strategy this fall, and Abrams stands the best shot of the three to win, which would make her a national player.

Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R-GA)

2. Republicans Head to Runoff in Georgia

Like pretty much every race (to the point we should probably be raising an eyebrow by now), polling has been scarce in the Georgia gubernatorial general election.  At this point, most pundits seem to consider Abrams a good candidate who will have to run an inside straight to win the general election considering her state's historically red roots (no Democrat has won the Peach State's governorship since Roy Barnes in 1998).  This will be tough, particularly if the conventional wisdom that Republicans are doing better now than they were a few months ago is accurate (a conversation for a different article on a different day).

Abrams did, however, score a big win last night in that no Republican advanced to the general.  In Georgia, you have a runoff if no candidate gets the majority.  The two main Republican candidates, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and SoS Brian Kemp will now compete until late July against each other, unlike Abrams, a huge asset for the Democrat who can define herself to the electorate while the Republicans tear the other guy to shreds.  This might be particularly true in this race, which has already featured unconventional plays for the hard-right in the state, with Cagle threatening Delta Airlines, one of the state's largest employers, with a tax hike after they pulled their NRA endorsement, and Kemp's bizarre campaign ad strategy (featuring, amongst other things, him pointing a gun at a teenage boy and him threatening to detain immigrants in his truck).  While the "fringe" candidates who may have been driving these ads are out of the race, it's impossible to assume that Kemp & Cagle won't continue this campaign style considering those are the votes they need to win to grab the nomination.  If the Democrats can capture a strong national environment headed into the fall, these campaign pivots will be a goldmine for Abrams to use in the general.

Amy McGrath (D-KY)

3. Amy McGrath Bests Jim Gray

Heading north, we also saw another woman succeed, this time against a much better-known candidate in Kentucky's 6th district (comprising Lexington).  Amy McGrath, a retired combat aviator in the US Marine Corps, started out the election as a rare find for the Democrats.  Her smart campaign ads caught fire, and she seemed like a weirdly good recruit for the DCCC until popular Lexington Mayor Jim Gray decided to run for the 6th district.  This set up one of the rare races with two genuinely strong candidates fighting to take on a Republican incumbent (Rep. Andy Barr).  Gray arguably had more establishment support (a sitting officeholder, he actually won the 6th district in his Senate race in 2016 despite losing statewide), but McGrath caught on with the grassroots, framing herself as an outsider, and of course in a year where women have done shockingly well in the polls, she continued that trend.

McGrath's victory is hardly a bad thing for establishment Democrats.  She easily would have scored a "Red to Blue" status if Gray hadn't been in the race (her profile fits the bill of what Democrats have been looking for in 2018), and McGrath is already being loudly touted on their Twitter account (expect her to be in the next "Red to Blue" lineup).  She starts out as a slight underdog for November, but not by much, and internal polling has shown this race as being very close.  If the Democrats win in November, they're going to need to take at least a few seats like KY-6 along for the ride, so the pressure is now on McGrath to win one more close race.

Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX)

4. The DCCC Scores Big in Texas

A few weeks ago, it looked like the DCCC would have egg on its face in the Lone Star State, and perhaps across the country.  In what amounted to a botched wading into a primary race, the DCCC eviscerated Laura Moser, a DC journalist, for past comments she made about her home state, thinking she was political suicide in TX-7, a district that swung from Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton, and therefore felt ripe for a pickup.  Moser, however, became a cause célèbre for the grassroots wing of the party, advancing to the runoff, and threatening to make the DCCC look like idiots.

That didn't happen.  Moser got crushed by attorney Lizzie Fletcher, who now advances with a lot of wind to her back in November, and the DCCC can breathe much, much easier (and perhaps continue to be pushier in the California primaries in a couple of weeks, arguably the most important primaries of the entire year).  But it wasn't just Fletcher that scored a major win last night for the DCCC.  Two other "Red to Blue" candidates (Texas's Colin Allred and Arkansas's Clarke Tucker) also won their primaries, and the DCCC got their establishment picks in Joseph Kopser & Gina Ortiz Jones, both Texas Democratic challengers that could be important come November (particularly Ortiz Jones).  Like in Kentucky, some of these races are going to have to swap to the Democrats in November if they have any shot at the majority, but the DCCC got the slate they wanted a week after their preferred candidate got bested in Nebraska.  Their political strength feels pretty solid, which is more than I can say for...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

5. Bernie Sanders Loses Again

The underwritten story of this year is that Bernie Sanders, two years after he took the Democratic Party by storm, is not having a good election cycle.  While Sanders' Our Revolution endorsed Stacey Abrams, so did everyone else and it's hard to give him credit for Abrams' victory.  Meanwhile the organization did endorse Laura Moser and Rich Trevino (who lost to Gina Ortiz Jones), and once again got egg on their face after failing in the Pennsylvania primaries earlier this month.  They didn't even gain a "W" last week in Nebraska, as one of their leaders (Jane Kleeb) convinced the organization that Kara Eastman shouldn't be endorsed despite fitting the profile of an "Our Revolution" candidate since it didn't look like she'd have a chance at winning.

It's hard to say what this will mean for Sanders in 2020.  You hear often that Trump can't transfer his connection with the electorate to other Republicans (as is evidenced by the losses of Ed Gillespie, Roy Moore, & Rick Saccone)-the same is surely true of Sen. Sanders.  But in a cycle where Joe Biden is doing better (he was a high-profile surrogate for Doug Jones & Conor Lamb), Sanders is definitely losing the proxy battle against one of his most important theoretical 2020 rivals. Look to see if this trend continues as we march into the June primaries.

OVP: Original Song (2015)

OVP: Best Original Song (2015)

The Nominees Were...

"Earned It," Music & Lyric by The Weeknd, Ahmad Balshie, Jason Quenneville, and Stephan Maccio, Fifty Shades of Grey
"Manta Ray," Music & Lyric by J. Ralph and Anohni, Racing Extinction
"Simple Song #3," Music & Lyric by David Lang, Youth
"Til It Happens to You," Music & Lyric by Diane Warren & Lady Gaga, The Hunting Ground
"Writing's on the Wall," Music & Lyric by Sam Smith and Jimmy Napes, Spectre

My Thoughts: We've run across, through the Oscars, some really wonderful Oscar categories through the Oscar Viewing Project.  I'd argue, for example, that 2007's Cinematography or 2010's Actress rank as two of the best fields that category ever came up with, and yet, I don't know that we've properly come around to one of the worst categories the Oscar has assembled...until now.  The Best Original Songs of 2015 weren't necessarily lacking (we'll get there below), but it was an overall poor year for the category.  That being said, Oscar still didn't rise to the occasion, and this is one of those rare fields where I struggle to find a film that really even deserved its nomination, much less its win.  However, the Oscar Viewing Project demands that "respect must be paid," and so let's tackle one of the stranger lineups this category has assembled.

You'll notice that this is one of the few categories where none of the films nominated were actually nominated in any other category-I don't know if that's a first, but it's the only time I've ever noticed something like it happening (if you know of another, share in the comments).  I suspect of these films that Youth was the movie that its producers assumed would do better (perhaps a deserved nomination for Jane Fonda or Michael Caine?), but didn't land as it tended to drag and Sorrentino's films aren't everyone's cup of tea.  David Lang's sweeping final song is supposed to be a classic within the confines of the film, but it honestly feels really hollow.  I know this is a bit gauche, but perhaps it would have been more interesting if it was sung in Italian or Mandarin, as the English lyrics are nonsensical and don't entirely jive with the music being composed.  For a scene that truly needs to be built toward (we have to realize that Caine's character became an icon with these songs, and that he's admitting with them that he's entering the final annals of his life), it doesn't work at all.

Fifty Shades of Grey will inevitably go down as one of the strangest titles to ever compete for an Oscar (the Best Song & Makeup categories continually give "Oscar-nominated" out to the most bizarre pictures, but I honestly still think it isn't a "bad" movie, even if it's not a strong one (it's a miracle compared to the book).  The Weeknd's "Earned It" gives the Oscars a bit of cred for expanding outside of their Celine Dion-blessed usual songs, but it's a relatively generic R&B track that doesn't resonate at all with the film.  The movie is more well-known for Beyonce's stripped-down cover of her own "Crazy in Love," and in a soundtrack brimming with pop hits, Fifty Shades' citation feels more like the sort of nomination that would happen in the 90's, even if it's a more modern song.  Either way, it doesn't connect enough with the picture for my taste and isn't unique enough to gain credit on its own.

Still, though, it's a thousand times better than The Hunting Ground's "Til It Happens to You."  At the time the frontrunner for the trophy, Lady Gaga got introduced by Vice President Biden for her performance, and she sang it to the roof, but that disguised the fact that the song is, well, terrible.  Lyrically it is atrocious (she rhymes "you" with "you" and "feels" with "real," for crying out loud), and it drags.  This was always one of the great risks with the trend of honoring documentaries in this category-eventually it would feel like you were simply honoring the issue (which, of course, is important, particularly considering how this predated the #MeToo movement), but Gaga's celebrity combined with the social relevance wasn't enough for the Academy to ignore the schlocky, just plain awful song that was in front of them.  Diane Warren has already been nominated since and will surely win an Oscar at some point, but this was a greedy play to finally take home the trophy, and she (and we) deserve better.

The victor at the actual Oscars wasn't that much better (though I'll argue against anyone that Smith deserved the Oscar more than Gaga).  Sam Smith's "Writing on the Wall" clearly has been written in the shadow of Adele's smash "Skyfall," and in many ways was the Academy deciding to give Adele a second Oscar by proxy (it's also insane that only two Bond themes have ever won the Oscar).  The song is a bit whiny for Bond, though not without precedence, recalling more "You Only Live Twice" or "For Your Eyes Only" a bit more than Shirley Bassey.  The Bond songs rarely have a lot to do with the film, so it can't score credits there, but it's not a bad song, it's just not the best Bond theme by a long shot (or, quite frankly, one of Smith's better choices).  I think if he'd done a little research about how he's one of a number of gay men who has won an Oscar, perhaps this win wouldn't be so derided.

The final nomination is yet another nomination for J. Ralph, who has developed a bizarre niche of Oscar-nominated songs from documentaries in recent years (this is his second of three to date).  The song is lovely, a melodic accompaniment to the film's sad message, and while it never comes close to his best nominated number (Scarlett Johansson's haunting "Before My Time"), it's still interesting lyrically and provides arguably the best compliment to the actual film it's surrounding.  I honestly just wish that it was a bit more memorable-I've heard this song at least four times through the years in connection with this movie, but I'm always surprised by how little of it I recall.  I'm also still stunned in hindsight that they went with this instead of the showier "One Candle" by Sia (considering her star power, that might have actually gotten J. Ralph his elusive win here).

Other Precursor Contenders: The Golden Globes always tend to like more commercial (and more famous) figures for their Original Song category, so you might actually be humming along with more of these citations.  They gave the top trophy to Smith's "Writing's on the Wall," but also found room for Brian Wilson's "One Kind of Love" (Love & Mercy), Ellie Goulding's ubiquitous "Love Me Like You Do" (Fifty Shades of Grey), and Wiz Khalifa's "See You Again" (Furious 7), as well as "Simple Song #3."  Predicting sixth places is a fool's errand for this category, but I think we were really close to getting double nominations for Anastasia & Christian's first chapter. 

Songs I Would Have Nominated: I surely would have included "I'll See You in My Dreams," the guitar-plucked final ballad of Blythe Danner's marvelous coming-of-old-age film-with-the-same-name from a few years ago (a lovely picture if you haven't seen it).  I also liked Meryl Streep rocking out to "Cold One" in Ricki and the Flash, and it would have been a hoot to see if Meryl actually showed up to sing the song live with Rick Springfield.  Pitch Perfect 2 I don't believe submitted "Crazy Youngsters" for eligibility (instead siding with the more relevent-to-the-movie "Spotlight"), but to use parlance I see regularly on Gay Twitter, that song is a BOP.  And though it was weirdly "played straight" for a film that spoofs the Bond-genre, it'd have been great if "Who Can You Trust" would have made it to show Sam Smith how it's done.

Oscar’s Choice: As I mentioned above, Sam Smith barely bested Lady Gaga for the trophy, so yes, Sam Smith has more Oscars than Glenn Close & Richard Burton...combined.

My Choice: Honestly, any of the four "I would have nominated" songs I picked would top this entire run, but I'll go with "Manta Ray" the best song (and in the best movie) of this bunch.  Following it will be Spectre, Fifty Shades, Youth, and Hunting Ground.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Were you with Oscar that it should have gone to Smith's Bond ballad, or are you siding with me that J. Ralph should have taken the Oscar?  Anyone want to get into it over the Gaga last place?  And seriously, how good is "Crazy Youngsters?"  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2015: Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Original Song Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Ranting On...Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow

Ronan Farrow's recent interview in The Guardian is one of the more interesting things I've been able to read in recent weeks, and honestly it took me a bit after reading it to understand why.  Farrow is having a moment right now, coming off of a Pulitzer Prize win for his work in The New Yorker looking into the allegations of Harvey Weinstein, and more recently for his piece on former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  Exceedingly polished in interviews, poised and almost constantly unflappable and witty, Farrow has become a poster boy for progressive millennials.  With the face of a movie star (though exactly which movie stars, it's still a question mark), and an impossibly pedigreed Ivy League education, Farrow is smart, capable, and consistently comes across as a crusader for those exploited by men in positions of power.  But the Guardian piece points to a problem in Farrow's journalism, one that no one seems to want to talk about because of the good that it's doing, but is there just the same.

Farrow's fame, while obviously blossoming from his journalism and career at MSNBC, admittedly still resides from who his parents are: film legends Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.  The only biological child from the couple's long romantic relationship, Farrow's celebrity was likely cemented the second the couple split up in one of Hollywood's biggest scandals from the past thirty years.  Allen had been involved with Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn, and while Allen & Farrow were not married at the time (and Previn/Allen were not biologically or legally related), pretty much everyone involved (including yours truly), thinks it was a disgusting move.  The facts of this have never been denied-Allen & Previn clearly had a romantic relationship that eventually turned into a marriage in 1997.  This is not, for the most part, the scandal that the #MeToo movement focuses on when it comes to discussing Woody Allen, though.  That is the allegations made by Mia's daughter Dylan, that Allen molested her when she was 7-years-old.

I'm not a judge, jury, or legal expert here, and I'm also smart enough not to re-litigate this case, mostly because it's near impossible to do so on the internet anymore without it erupting in a screaming match.  I attempted to find genuine facts on the case by only sticking to news sources that I trust, and in perhaps the first time this has happened to me in researching an article, I ran into a "fake news" situation.  Literally conflicting, recent reports from Vox and Vanity Fair (both news sources I trust) make it difficult to point out the facts in this case.  Based on the evidence, one of the few things that can be confirmed from the case is that Allen lost custody of his children as a result of the allegations, and that no criminal charges were ultimately filed against Allen.  However, it's worth noting this is one of the few cases where the courts actually saw the situation in real-time.  Most of the allegations against other people (such as Bill Cosby), the statute of limitations had expired at the time of the case so the court of public opinion was the only option available to consumers of his work.

As I said, I don't want to necessarily discuss opinions on Woody Allen or Mia Farrow here.  Honestly, the evidence and messages surrounding the case are horrifying.  Either Dylan Farrow's stories are true, in which case Woody Allen should have gone to jail, or they weren't, and Mia Farrow coached her daughter to destroy her ex-lover's reputation.  Either way, Dylan Farrow is a victim in this situation and deserves our sympathy.  But what is true is that Ronan Farrow cannot be considered an objective reporter in this case.  Covering a father he clearly despises (with admittedly good reason), it frequently feels like he's trying to vindicate his mother through his reporting, oftentimes lumping Allen with Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.  This isn't entirely accurate, though.  Allen's sole allegation of abuse actually saw the light-of-day in court, and charges were never filed despite there being ample opportunity to do so.  In many ways, it's difficult to imagine Farrow including Allen in his typical name check of sexual abusers in Hollywood without him, in fact, being his father.  As a result, it does create a bit of a gap in his credibility which is unfortunate, because he's doing such important work here.

It also makes me raise an eyebrow when a journalist actually calls him out on this, because in many ways Farrow's been having his cake and eating it too when it comes to including his father in the #MeToo movement.  He says that he hasn't called for a boycott of his father's films, which may be the case, but he has publicly criticized people celebrating his father's work, and members of his family have called for a public boycott of Allen's work, something he doesn't repudiate.  It feels to me that a journalist of his integrity should probably say that he can't be objective in this case considering his relationships with all of the figures involved, but Farrow doesn't feel capable of doing so.  In not acknowledging his clear bias, Farrow risks the larger merits of his work being sullied.  Woody Allen's day in the court of public opinion may well be deserved (and in many ways, has already been dealt), but Ronan Farrow is an inappropriate choice for its byline.

My Royal Wedding Odds Table

The Royal Wedding is on Saturday, and while I may or may not watch (my decades-long crush on Prince Harry leaves me with conflicting feelings on whether or not I can watch him get hitched while I am still very much "the single"), I can't just ignore the moment, so without further adieu, I shall make my Vegas odds chart for the Royal shindig:

Meghan Markle's dress is "better" than Kate's (or at least that's what 1000 random websites you've never heard of claim): 2-1

Princess Beatrice wears the crazier hat: 5-2

Elton John does a surprise performance: 3-1

The new couple becomes the Duke and Duchess of Sussex: 4-1

Sarah Ferguson still shows up at one of the after-parties despite not being invited to wedding: 6-1

Guy Pelly flirts with at least two of Meghan Markle's cousins before someone reminds him that he's married: 8-1

Princess Eugenie wears the crazier hat: 9-1

David & Victoria Beckham arrive late, but look fabulous so no one cares: 10-1

Theresa May misspells Meghan in her morning-of statement to a wedding she wasn't invited to: 12-1

Queen Elizabeth II Smiles: 50-1

Prince Philip Smiles: 75-1

The camera pans to Camilla Parker-Bowles at the first mention of Diana: I can't give this one to you until I know on a scale from '1 to Graham Norton' how gay the video operator is.

Princess Michael of Kent makes a horribly racist choice with her fashion: 100-1, unless the Queen got distracted and forgot to approve her clothes, in which case 3-2

Odds that Mike Tindall shows up on a motorcycle: 500-1

Odds that Chelsy Davys pulls a Ben Braddock at the ceremony: 1000-1

Odds that it's Cressida Bonas: 2500-1

Kate reveals she's pregnant again during the ceremony: 5000-1

Least likely royal to get drunk at the reception: Prince Edward

Most likely royal to get drunk at the reception: With Harry distracted, my money is on Ella Windsor

Piers Morgan tweets something obnoxious: Evergreen

Someone on your Facebook chastises you for obsessing about the Royal Wedding, calling it "stupid": Have you ever been on the internet?

Odds Harry looks sexy-as-hell on his big day: Eternal

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Primaries

It's Wednesday on the blog, and you know what that means-Primary Day Recap!!!  Last night the states of Pennsylvania, Oregon, Idaho, and Nebraska headed to the polls, choosing some of the most critical candidates for this fall's midterm elections.  As, always, I have my "5 Thoughts" article ready-and-willing for you here, and as I'm in a bit of a hurry to get to work, so let's just jump in, shall we?

City Solicitor Susan Wild (D-PA)

1. Democratic Women Dominate in Pennsylvania

Arguably the Keystone State is the most critical spot on the map for the DCCC this November (give-or-take California).  This is because Pennsylvania's mid-decade redistricting resulted in a huge number of potentially competitive seats, including a near-certain pickup for the Democrats in PA-5.  As a result, these candidates will be crucial for picking up the majority in November, and last night in the so-called "Year of the Woman" (a ridiculous moniker, but one that's being lived up to right now), the Democrats bet on female candidates to take this thing home.

Of the five seats (PA-1, PA-5, PA-6, PA-7, and PA-17), Democrats picked 60% women, with School Board Member Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-5), USAF Veteran Chrissy Houlahan, and City Solicitor Susan Wild being amongst the candidates to score their nominations.  Houlahan and Scanlon, in particular, now enter their general elections as the frontrunners to pick up these seats.  In addition, an open bright-blue seat in PA-4 went to State Rep. Madeleine Dean.  This is all the more remarkable because in the current Pennsylvania delegation, there are no women on either side of the aisle.

In order to win these seats, these women had to best a number of well-backed candidates, and proved last night that male candidates as varied as John Morganelli (a very conservative Democrat who once asked to be in Trump's cabinet) or Rich Lazer (a candidate personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders) could be susceptible to an increasingly blue, female wave.  The only major female candidate to lose last night was Rachel Reddick in PA-1, and she was badly outspent by self-funder Scott Wallace.  Overall, though, this could be telling for future competitive primaries that female candidates have a leg-up.

Kara Eastman (D-NE)

2. Kara Eastman Pulls Off a Huge Upset in Nebraska

By far the biggest upset of last night, and perhaps the biggest upset this year, was in Nebraska's 2nd district, where social worker Kara Eastman pulled off a huge victory over former Rep. Brad Ashford in Nebraska's swing-y second district.  Ashford was largely expected to cruise through to the general, where he'd face a rematch with Rep. Don Bacon.  The DCCC was so confident that they'd see Ashford in the general election that they added him to the "Red to Blue" program, despite them being criticized for messing with primaries in the past.

Eastman's victory shows a couple things.  First, it's yet another sign that this is a year where Democratic women are coming out very successfully.  Eastman was the only female candidate in the race, and as Pennsylvania showed (and Idaho-we'll get there in a second), women dominated in last night's primaries and have continued to be the main story when it comes to Democratic politics.  Two years after Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat was followed by the largest single-day protest in US history, women are stepping forward at the ballot box.  Expect Emily's List to be busy this fall (though they strangely didn't endorse Eastman prior to the primary...a fact I think they'll quickly rectify now).

The second thing is that this could be a hint toward the Democrats having a bit of a Tea Party problem of their own.  Eastman was far more socially progressive than Ashford, which could pose a challenge in a close-but-red district.  Ashford surely would have made this competitive in the fall (I'd be willing to assume that a good chunk of the electorate would still think he's the incumbent), but it's hard to tell if Eastman will have that same advantage, particularly she's much further to his left.  Already Kyle Kondik at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has moved this from "Tossup" to "Leans R," an ominous sign for the Democrats.  Republicans watched a number of seats disappear in 2010 and 2012 when they went with hard-right candidates...if Eastman loses this November, it's possible mainstream Democrats will be having similar complaints toward their progressive counterparts.

State Rep. Paulette Jordan (D-ID)

3. Paulette Jordan Wins in Idaho

Even in Idaho, progressives were doing surprisingly well, as State Rep. Paulette Jordan pulled off an upset victory over Boise School Board Member (and 2014 nominee for governor) AJ Balukoff.  Balukoff, the more moderate candidate, was expected to win the nomination and had most of the backing of the Gem State Democrats, but Jordan was able to come across as a younger, more progressive candidate (and once again, a victory for women).

Unlike Eastman, Jordan isn't entering a race she or Balukoff were expected to win-the Republicans should be able to take this seat with ease.  But it does point to the Democratic Party wanting to take a few more risks than they usually do in red states, and also shows a changing of the guard.  Jordan, roughly half Balukoff's age and a woman-of-color, looks more like what the Democratic Party resembles in 2018 than even a few years ago, and it's a strong indication that younger, female, and persons-of-color want to see themselves in the people who represent them when she pulls off a victory over the establishment's "preferred" candidate.  Jordan also heralds a sign that the Bernie Sanders' wing of the party wasn't just about Bernie (and though the Vermont Senator had a mixed bag last night with two of his favored candidates getting trounced in Pennsylvania, Eastman and Jordan's wins bode well for his chances in 2020 to score the Democratic nomination).

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)

4. Republican Congressmen Continue to Get Crushed

Last week, we saw Republican congressmen get destroyed when they ran for promotions.  Indeed, Reps. Todd Rokita, Evan Jenkins, and Luke Messner all lost to state-politics-focused Republicans in their primaries, showing that the GOP's electorate remains angry at DC Republicans no matter how conservative they might be.  That continued this week, as one of the most right-wing members of the House of Representatives, Raul Labrador, fell to Lt. Gov. Brad Little in the Idaho Republican Primary.  Adding in Robert Pittenger, it's worth noting that five sitting members of the House GOP conference have already lost elections this year.

This probably should be a bigger story than it will be, as Labrador was once seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, even once being floated as a far-right candidate for Speaker.  His run against Little is strange as arguably Little is less conservative than he is (a different tune than most Republican primaries), but Labrador struggled in raising funds for this race, and Little dominated with the state party, which seemed to matter more for the Republicans than the Democrats (in an odd twist).  In a state where there are very few chances for Republicans to move up the ladder, it's probable that Labrador's political career is over at age 50 (though you can never discount a second act for him in the Trump administration).

State Rep. Rick Saccone (R-PA)

5. Rick Saccone Loses Again

Speaking of careers that are over, State Rep. Rick Saccone watched his chances at Congress disappear last night as he faced a second high-profile defeat in the Republican Primary for Pennsylvania's 14th district.  Saccone a few months ago took what surely should have been an easy victory and transformed it into one of the most competitive special elections in years, in the end losing a deep-red district to now Congressman Conor Lamb by a minuscule margin.  However, it looked like Saccone might end up redeeming himself, perhaps even serving in Congress alongside Lamb, when mid-decade redistricting made the 14th district un-winnable for a Democrat, and Lamb decided to run in the 17th.

However, the powers that be (including disgraced former Rep. Tim Murphy, who publicly backed Saccone's opponent with money from his own campaign coffers) saw things differently, and Saccone lost what essentially was a general election to State Sen. Guy Reschenthaler (whom Saccone defeated in the initial primary to succeed Murphy).  Reschenthaler will now almost certainly be going to Congress (possibly in a seat-for-life situation), while Saccone seems likely to be out of politics indefinitely (it's hard to find someone who lost two elections in such rapid succession who then went on to any sort of meaningful career).  Meanwhile, Lamb was unopposed in the 17th, but is pitted against Rep. Keith Rothfus in one of the tightest-looking races of the November midterms.

OVP: The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Film: The Devil Wears Prada (2006)
Stars: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, Emily Blunt, Adrien Grenier
Director: David Frankel
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Costume Design)
(Not So) Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Do you ever have those Friday nights where you think "surely I have something better I should be doing with my night?"  Where you have a mountain of movies to catch up on, actual work from your office, and a dozen other chores that need tending to, and all you want to do is snuggle up and watch a movie on iTunes?  Well, that was me, and I had a hankering to catch The Devil Wears Prada, a movie that falls between the precipice for me of "movie I should probably own on DVD" and "movie that's not quite there yet for me to own on DVD."  So, well, I rented it, and as I'd never reviewed it on the blog before (and we're not terribly far away from finishing up 2006's Oscar race), I figured I'd give you a bit of a flashback to a movie you surely saw in 2006.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film focuses on Andy (Hathaway), a "serious" journalist who inexplicably gets an interview to be second assistant to the editor-in-chief of one of New York's top fashion magazines, Miranda Priestley (Streep).  Like all good movies, she starts out with most people against her, including the first assistant Emily (Blunt, in her breakout role), but is befriended by one of her coworkers Nigel (Tucci), and slowly begins to take the job seriously, in the process becoming chic and appreciative of what the people at Runway really do.  She ends up earning the begrudging respect of Miranda even though she ultimately abandons her in Paris, and all is right with the world in the end.

The film has relatively predictable plot turns (it's obvious that she'll eventually succumb to the charms of this world, but then escape it with her soul fully intact), but is impossibly charming even with such a staid plot, thanks largely to the charms of the cast.  Hathaway is given a relatively thankless role (Andy is meant to be our window into the world, but it's hard in hindsight to really like her considering her holier-than-thou attitude), and does a serviceable job with the performance, but the other three leads are splendid.  Tucci had a career renaissance after this performance, ending up getting a major hit in Julie & Julia three years later (and a totally undeserved Oscar nomination for The Lovely Bones), and is hilariously bitchy as Nigel.  Blunt got a career out of this work (and should have gotten an Oscar nomination), making what could have been a stock character into a side part you root for, with impeccable timing and line delivery.  Best of all is Streep, arguably giving her best performance of this century as Priestley, instantly iconic from her first moments onscreen.  Streep also got a renaissance after this role (though, admittedly, Meryl is never out-of-style), but despite winning an Oscar (and seven nominations) since then, she's never come close to being as pitch-perfect as Miranda.  There's a subdued nature to her, a way where Streep almost feels like she's proving herself rather than having a cheeky "I know I'm a genius" good-time.  I love Streep always, but occasionally she relies a bit too heavily in recent years on her "legend" status.  You see none of that here, with her instead giving full flavor to her work as Miranda.  It's a triumph, and probably would have won her the correct third Oscar had it not been for such a crazy good year for this category (still deciding on my ultimate victor, but really there were no bad options with Oscar in 2006).

The main problem, in hindsight, is that perhaps in a more understanding or "be yourself" sort of era as 2018 celebrates, it's impossible to look at Andy's personal and love life without rolling your eyes or actively wishing she'd stick with Runway.  Her boyfriend (Grenier) is a jerk, not understanding that this incredible opportunity is keeping her from his birthday party (like he's eleven!), and while the mild infidelity late in the film might seem bad, it was an unsolicited kiss-on-the-cheek.  Worse still are her friends, who desperately want free stuff from her and demand that she always give them attention, but give little sympathy for the fact that she's trying to pay her dues in a job that's a great opportunity.  Honestly, this ages poorly, as does the fact that there are no openly gay characters in the film (Tucci's Nigel or Rich Sommer's Doug are obviously implied to be gay, but never outwardly acknowledge it).  It's proof that you should always be as progressive as possible with the politics of your film, because you'll at the very least look forward-thinking in such a situation.  Still, though, this is a better film that I think I even acknowledged at the time, littered with great performances and a brisk, if anticipated, script.

OVP: Production Design (2015)

OVP: Best Production Design (2015)

The Nominees Were...

Adam Stockhausen, Rena DeAngelo, and Bernhard Henrich, Bridge of Spies
Eve Stewart and Martin Standish, The Danish Girl
Colin Gibson and Lisa Thompson, Mad Max: Fury Road
Arthur Max and Celia Bobak, The Martian
Jack Fisk and Hamish Purdy, The Revenant

My Thoughts: We're going to start the weekend out right by not only having an article, but a return to the world of 2015 (a simpler time...remember when Obama was president?), and finishing off the visual categories for our 8th Oscar Viewing Project.  As a refresher, there's links to all of our past contests in 2015, as well as every write-up regarding Art Direction/Production Design, down below.  But if you're all caught up, let's dive into this field, which features yet another space-age odyssey competing against a series of period dramas.

In recent years, we've seen space-age pictures, oftentimes more realistic space films, take up this category.  Gravity in 2013, Interstellar in 2014, and in the year following 2015 we saw the combo of Passengers & Arrival (we'll get to them at some point in the future).  In 2015, however, the big ticket was around The Martian, a film I have to constantly remind myself was better than it seems in my memory (it has such a staid premise, and was considerably lighter than you'd expect).  The Production Design, though, I need no introduction to-it's splendid.  The actual scenes on Mars, using the expansive vistas of Jordan for its outdoors shots and intimate settings in Hungary for the indoor scenes on the red planet, is very precise and detailed.  It says something about the specific use of metal, of sparse but carefully-selected furniture, and for the way the picture is lensed that we totally buy that this is a foreign planet, and perhaps more impressively, that this isn't entirely on a sound stage with CGI carrying the heavy-lifting.  Combined with the home shots of the space station (I loved the orderly clean, and that it instantly screams "NASA!" without having to fall too hard on cliche), this is an achievement even if it's not the "pretty castle" sort of look we're used to in this field.

For that we have to move decades into the past and into the Bohemian world of Denmark in the 1920s.  There's a lot to find problematic in the frames of The Danish Girl, but the art direction itself is not one of them.  The film uses minimalism in interesting ways.  Look at the way that the initial apartment feels empty, with so much focus on just the paintings and the clothes, while later on we are invited into a sumptuous, decadent feast of detail, ornate and beautiful as Lili discovers who she truly is.  Even the paint and wallpaper start to feed into your imagination and aid the script, giving us an insight into the characters that occasionally even the performances aren't willing to provide.  The film arguably loses some focus later on with the choices in the hospital and the parks not being quite as imaginative as what is being created as both characters come alive, and then one is left behind on a journey that's not really hers, but by-and-large there's more than meets-the-eye in what could have just been period porn.

While there's no more British tea room-style work, that doesn't mean that we don't get involved with other eras in this lineup.  The Revenant, after all, is about as far back as film typically is willing to go, with an adventure in the 1820's.  In some ways this is an interesting take on art direction, and one could argue that the location scouting might need to count here-after all, some of Lubezki's cinematography wouldn't work nearly as well as it did without the beautiful overhead shots of the rivers and cliffs.  That being said, mother nature is really the star here, and the backwoods cabins & tents that Fisk & Purdy pull together are not as inspired or as iconic as they probably should be.  Jack Fisk in particular has made a career out of designing the outdoors, but this isn't as interesting as some of his other work, and too often we cross the line from simple to just "not there," likely to fulfill Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's desire to make this journey as harrowing and soul-sucking as possible, giving Hugh Glass as little respite as he can.

The final period film is Bridge of Spies, a movie that even just three years later already feels like a "wait-that was a Best Picture nominee?" sort of film.  The movie's attention-to-detail is better than The Revenant's, particularly in early scenes like Rudolf Abel's apartment or that great claustrophobic plane scene with Francis Gary Powers (solid work from Austin Stowell there, who was also so terrific in Battle of the Sexes last year).  The later scenes occasionally feel like they're sets of a play-I remember thinking that one of the German apartments looked like it had literally never been lived in within a day, as if they hadn't remotely aged the soundstage for that scene, but overall the mood is there in this work, even if it's uneven.

We end with Mad Max: Fury Road, certainly the film in this bunch that has lingered the most in the popular zeitgeist.  Unfortunately for this category, though, it's not really the art direction that is bringing you back into the conversation.  Like The Revenant, Gibson & Thompson probably deserve some credit for finding a gorgeous desert shot that can absorb the heat of such a movie, but there's very little actual set work here and mother nature is doing most of the work.  The cars are interesting, and certainly specific, but they borrow heavily from pre-established Mad Max iconography, and as a result I can't really feel them.  The only other interesting additions to the art direction are probably the labyrinths of green plants and lair of Immortan Joe, but this also feels hit-and-miss, with every room full of hydroponics, we also get a half-dozen just empty caves to meander the camera through.  Of all of Mad Max's nominations, this arguably feels like the most "nominate your favorite picture" rather than specifically earning it on its own merits.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Art Directors Guild gives us fifteen nominees to sort through, in three separate categories: contemporary, fantasy, and period.  The category stretched "contemporary" a bit by letting The Martian win the trophy (unless I'm mistaken, we have not landed on Mars, and as a result I don't know that this should be included in such a lineup), besting Joy, Ex Machina (another questionable inclusion), Spectre, and Sicario.  For Fantasy, we have Oscar-blessed Mad Max topping Cinderella, Jurassic World, Str Wars: The Force Awakens, and Tomorrowland, while Period film gave their trophy to The Revenant over Crimson Peak, The Danish Girl, Bridge of Spies, and Trumbo.  The BAFTA Awards took a bit of their own path, choosing to skip over both The Danish Girl and The Revenant with Carol and Star Wars: The Force Awakens nabbing nominations, though Mad Max picked up the trophy.  In terms of sixth place, I'm a bit stumped-I could make the argument for Cinderella, Star Wars, or Carol, but my money is probably on the Disney princess motif, as that is more up their alley and I remember being an odd exclusion at the time.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I surely would have found room for Crimson Peak, which is gargantuan, gaudy, but the sort of house you'd want to spend days in, and Thomas Sanders knows how to lure in your eye.  I also would have found time for Carol, whose details are so luxurious, but real.  Look at how they manage to make a restaurant or department store so specific (but still "generic") that you can see it and think of first Carol, and then a store you saw in your youth that looks exactly the same.  Finally, credit has to go to the creators of Room-the rest of the film isn't quite as sworn to detail, but the fact of "Room" itself being its own character and taking up so much critical plot is so crucial to the story that it's impossible not to applaud their success.

Oscar’s Choice: Mad Max continues its domination of the visual categories, probably just besting The Martian and The Danish Girl, both very much in Oscar's wheelhouse.

My Choice: I'm going to go with The Martian, as I still feel its an underrated film and this is the category that it most deserves recognition (though I would have easily voted for Carol or Crimson Peak if given the opportunity).  Follow that with The Danish Girl, Bridge of Spies, Mad Max, and The Revenant.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you with me that The Martian finds something new to say about the modern era of space travel, or are you doing a battle cry for my dismissal of Furiosa's rides?  Do you think the outdoors-focused work of Jack Fisk will ever win him a twin Oscar to go alongside Sissy Spacek's?  And why do you think Carol missed yet another category here?  Share below!

Also in 2015: Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Art Direction Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014