OVP: The Towering Inferno (1974)

Film: The Towering Inferno (1974)

Stars: Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Susan Blakely, Richard Chamberlain, Jennifer Jones, OJ Simpson, Robert Vaughn, Robert Wagner, Susan Flannery, Jack Collins

Director: John Guillermin

Oscar History: 7 nominations/3 wins (Best Picture, Supporting Actor-Fred Astaire, Art Direction, Cinematography*, Film Editing*, Score, Song, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Steve McQueen: click here to learn more about Mr. McQueen (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Steve McQueen's career hit its financial peak in 1974, when he starred with Paul Newman in today's film The Towering Inferno.  At this point, Newman & McQueen were two of the biggest names in movies, and there were quite a few arguments over who would get top billing in the picture (ultimately it was a draw, with McQueen's name first but Newman's name higher), but after this both would suffer career lulls.  Newman would rebound eventually in the 1980's with films like The Verdict and The Color of Money, the latter winning him his only competitive Oscar, but McQueen would never regain this position.  He'd make an ill-fated Ibsen film in 1978 (one that would basically disappear from public consciousness), and then a pair of pictures in 1980 (Tom Horn and The Hunter), both decent-sized hits that might have hallmarked a comeback, but that wasn't to be.  Just over three months after the release of The Hunter, Steve McQueen would be dead.

(Spoilers Ahead) But before we get into that, let's get into the height of his career, at least commercially.  The Towering Inferno was a landmark movie in terms of its box office in 1974.  In the previous years, films like Airport and The Poseidon Adventure had found a formula for success-put a bunch of famous stars, including at least a few studio system legends that can scoop up a supporting acting Oscar nomination, and place them in an insane disaster situation, one that will have at least a few of them die, but the audience can look on in horror as we wonder who from this insanely-stacked call sheet might be safe.  This film is no less than these, and arguably has the starriest cast  of the bunch, but is much more in the vein of Airport (which I did not enjoy) than The Poseidon Adventure (which I did enjoy, in large part due to Shelley Winters' solid work).  The film has the tallest building in the world on fire, and all of our characters, including architect Newman and firefighter McQueen, fighting to stay alive as more-and-more paths to the ground floor are forfeited.  Along the way, some live (including, surprisingly, conman Fred Astaire), and some die, most shockingly Jennifer Jones, who in a morbid twist would be flung from the top of a giant building in the movie two years before her daughter would commit suicide in exactly the same way.

If only the movie was any good.  Technically, this is impressive-the set design, effects, and especially the stunt work are out-of-this-world, but the film spends no time trying to develop the characters, giving us two-dimensional feats from genuinely talented actors.  It's not like someone like Faye Dunaway or Paul Newman can't add a bit of three-dimensionality to their work, but there's no call for it.  Our star of the month, Steve McQueen, feels almost ancillary to the plot of the picture even as he's supposed to be the hero.  Fred Astaire would receive his only competitive acting Oscar nomination for this movie, and man is it unnecessary-he barely has anything to do, other than shout for a dead Jennifer Jones toward the end of the picture.  It feels weird to live in a world where Fred Astaire (whom I love) never got a competitive acting nomination, but, like...over John Cazale in The Godfather, Part II or John Huston in Chinatown...let's not be ridiculous here.

As I said above, Steve McQueen would disappear from movies after this, having a bit of a nomad period where he just went out into the country in a motor home, in the process turning down parts in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Apocalypse Now that might've dramatically changed his legacy.  But his health by the late 1970's was in terrible shape, and he developed mesothelioma (likely due to asbestos exposure from his time in the Marines).  The National Enquirer, at that point most famous for its ongoing coverage of the death of Elvis Presley rather than the right-wing attack ads that it would become known for to modern supermarket shoppers, broke the story that McQueen was dying shortly before his death (he'd been trying to keep it a secret), and McQueen attempted a number of experimental procedures, including a surgery to remove a tumor from his liver in Mexico, a procedure he couldn't have performed in the United States because no doctor would do it (since it would kill him).  12 hours into the surgery, the American doctors were proven correct, and Steve McQueen died at the age of only 50 from a heart attack.

Next month, we're going to talk about a man who was good friends with McQueen, even if they also had something of a professional rivalry during McQueen's early stardom.  Like McQueen, he also would die young, but unlike McQueen, that death would cement his legacy in a way that would in many ways outlast any films he made in life...and would become the source of near constant conspiracy theory in the decades to come, in ways that would haunt his family for generations.

OVP: The Untouchables (1987)

Film: The Untouchables (1987)

Stars: Kevin Costner, Sean Connery, Charles Martin Smith, Andy Garcia, Robert de Niro

Director: Brian de Palma

Oscar History: 4 nominations/1 win (Best Supporting Actor-Sean Connery*, Art Direction, Costume Design, Original Score)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Sean Connery: click here to learn more about Mr. Connery (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We're going to cover two Connery films today as I missed last week, but didn't want to short-change him, so we'll talk through both his time in the 1980's and, this evening, the 1990's.  Connery was, by the early 1980's, a movie star but not a consistent box office presence.  While he had made hits (Time Bandits dwarfed its production costs in 1981), nothing he had done had, quite frankly, approached what he had achieved with James Bond, and as a result Connery was talked into making his final installment in the franchise in 1983 with Never Say Never Again.  This was something he did without Eon Productions (traditionally the production house for Bond films), and he did so in a head-to-head competition with Roger Moore, who had Octopussy out that year.  Both films were huge successes at the box office, though Moore's film ended up on top.  Connery hated the experience, and stuck to his commitment to "never again" after this one (he would never appear in a Bond film again), and indeed wouldn't even make a movie for two years after this.

(Spoilers Ahead) Connery probably could've played his types of middling, increasingly aging rogues & fictional knights forever for the rest of his career, the memory of Bond so appealing to nostalgic movie producers who grew up idolizing him, but it was today's film that truly changed the course of his career & legacy.  The Untouchables is a film where Connery gets second billing to Kevin Costner, not remotely as famous as him at the time, but it was a smart move to choose a supporting part.  The Untouchables is a highly-fictionalized look at Eliot Ness (Costner), the federal agent who led the efforts to take down Al Capone (de Niro), and features Connery in a role as a rogue cop, one who is brought in as part of Ness's operation, which is ultimately successful in beating Capone (or at least sending him to jail), but (because this is a Brian de Palma film) not without a lot of very bloody corpses along the way.  Like most of de Palma's films, I struggled with this.  Costner's one of the blandest leading men of his era, gorgeous but blank-faced and rarely a compelling figure in the lead (and if we're judging solely on looks, Andy Garcia is even prettier than him at this point), and Robert de Niro is actively terrible in this movie, a hint of the many cash-grabs the acting icon would have in the decades to come.  The best part of the movie, for me, was Ennio Morricone's score (and that flawless Giorgio Armani tailoring).

Connery is solid, though, not nearly as good as he is in, say, The Man Who Would Be King, but he's winning and very good at embracing the role of "aging sexy guy who mentors a younger star," something that he'd started with Christopher Lambert in 1986's Highlander, and which would become the bulk of the remainder of his career.  For much of the catty press he took back in 1983 for Never Say Never Again, about how he and Moore were far too old to be believable as aging action stars bedding women young enough to be their daughters, it did feel like Connery's place as an action star would soon fade.  But here, he showed how well he could fit in-he was a tough guy, someone who was grizzled but had "one last go in him" and this would be something he'd ride for the next 15 years or so, but also would carve out for others like him.  Action stars, because of Connery's work in this and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade a few years later, had a path for a second act, one with a lot of box office (The Untouchables was a massive hit, the sixth highest-grossing film at the domestic box office in 1987, and made 3x as much as de Palma's now much-obsessed Scarface), so the paydays (and movie stardom) could continue even as the stunt work became less intense.

It also would define Connery's career because it made him one of the only action stars to date to win an Academy Award.  In the 1980's, with a lot of Golden Age actors aging to the point where they were near death, we saw a lot of the leading actors of that era winning "sentimental" Oscars.  Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, Geraldine Page, Don Ameche, Paul Newman, & Jessica Tandy would all take home Oscars at the time, and with this movie, Connery would as well.  Connery's win is one that it's hard to fault the Oscars (it's cool that he won a sstatue, even if I don't know that I'm going to agree with them in the 1987 OVP), and certainly they did worse in the era, but it gave him a nobility that would become a trademark the remainder of his life, and gave him a further distinction over future James Bond actors none of whom (to date) have ever gotten so much as a nomination.

OVP: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Film: The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (1939)

Stars: Bette Davis, Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Donald Crisp, Alan Hale, Sr., Vincent Price, Harry Stephenson, Nanette Fabray

Director: Michael Curtiz

Oscar History: 5 nominations (Best Art Direction, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Sound, Scoring)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2026 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the men & women who created the Boom!-Pow!-Bang! action films that would come to dominate the Blockbuster Era of cinema.  This month, our focus is on Errol Flynn: click here to learn more about Mr. Flynn (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Errol Flynn lasted as a movie star for decades, but as one who was pretty much unimpeachable in terms of his box office, this period lasted roughly from 1935-1942, at which point he was oftentimes the biggest star on the Warner Brothers lot, give or take Bette Davis & James Cagney.  During this time, Flynn was married to the same woman, actress Lila Damita, but he had a history of womanizing.  Like Gary Cooper before him, he had an affair with Lupe Velez, and would get drunk off of William Randolph Hearst's vodka.  This reputation as a party boy was in stark juxtaposition to the men he'd play onscreen, frequently honorable scoundrels, or in the case of today's movie, a truly honorable man stuck in an impossible situation between two women.  This would also pair Flynn with both of the actresses that he'd be most associated with in his career: Olivia de Havilland, whom he would have a largely amicable relationship with, and Bette Davis...with whom he would not.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is a glossy historical melodrama, one where facts should not get in the way of a good monologue.  Private Lives is about an aging Queen Elizabeth (Davis, in de facto kabuki makeup), who is clearly desperately in love with the handsome, popular Earl of Essex (Flynn), but cannot have him in the way that she wants because it would put at risk her power.  She instead constantly finds herself at odds with him, usually in open court, and has fights with him, using her lover as a pawn in a number of battles, oftentimes risking his life as punishment for not returning her love in the way that she wants, because he's also power-hungry.  This all happens while the beautiful Lady Penelope (de Havilland) is also pursuing the Earl, which in the film's final moments we're led to believe was nothing, and that Elizabeth was his own true love.  Of course, at that point Elizabeth has publicly demanded the Earl's head for trying to be her equal, and there is no way out for the Queen, doomed to forever remain unmarried & unloved (except by England).

This is territory we've been to cinematically-Elizabeth's inability to find love because she is not beautiful and demands power instead has been informed by everyone from Helen Mirren to Glenda Jackson to Cate Blanchett to Margot Robbie (even Bette would go to this well twice).  Davis, at the peak of her power and beauty, wears intense makeup that makes her look, well, hideous (and years older than she was), in some ways foreshadowing her later triumph in Baby Jane Hudson.  But the movie, despite looking divine (the costumes, art direction, & cinematography are all a triumph, though why it got a special effects nomination at the Oscars is beyond me...the Scoring nomination is a bit cheeky given there's a song sung by Olivia de Havilland's character written by the actual Walter Raleigh, here played by Vincent Price in an early role), is kind of a snore.  Davis overacts to the rafters (with diminishing returns), de Havilland is fun but too small of a part, and Flynn's performance is a bit underwhelming.  Flynn is so grand in swashbuckling roles, but (as we'll see in the coming weeks), he was a somewhat limited actor when it came to going beyond that ken.  He is breathtakingly beautiful in this-it takes an actress as confident as Davis to appear in this kind of makeup against Flynn, who looks like a Raphael painting in some scenes, and risk being thought ugly, but I don't think he can land some of the scenes, save for the last 15 minutes, when he's betrayed by Davis & they both seem to be in a much better movie.

Offscreen, Davis and Flynn were not close in the same way that he was with de Havilland, and it's hard to pinpoint the exact nature of their relationship given that Davis would outlive him by decades, and therefore be able to go on talk shows (and discuss in memoirs) what she thought of him, and regularly change her mind.  She seemed to not like his ethics as an actor (finding he preferred celebrity more than the serious craft that Davis believed screen-acting), and also thought it beneath her to share billing with him in the film (you'll note, watching it now, that Davis, not Flynn, gets top billing, which makes sense in retrospect given her legend, but at the time would've been a genuine debate as both were equally valuable to Warner Brothers).  Davis wanted Laurence Olivier, who wasn't famous enough to get a role like this in 1939 (Wuthering Heights had not come out when production was in motion), and at one point (according to Hollywood legend) actually slaps Flynn for real in one scene, rather than faking it as would be typical on a production, which caused Flynn to become ill.  Davis, though, had kinder words about Flynn than I do in this movie, conceding that she thought him very good years after the fact while watching the movie, and telling de Havilland "he can act!"

OVP: Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Film: Interview with the Vampire (1994)

Stars: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Stephen Rea, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater, Kirsten Dunster

Director: Neil Jordan

Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Art Direction, Score)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

All October long, The Many Rantings of John is running a marathon dedicated to the Horror classics of the 1960's-00's that I'm seeing for the first time this month.  If you want to take a look at past titles from previous horror marathons (both this and other seasons) check out the links at the bottom of this article.

The 1990's were really the last decade that was indisputably about the movie star, and even horror, a genre famous for having B-Grade names and a willingness to tackle unknown actors, was not immune to trying to use big names to guarantee major box office.  One of the biggest hits of the mid-1990's, in fact, was a horror film starring two of the most important movie stars on the planet, Tom Cruise & Brad Pitt. The film is, of course, Interview with the Vampire, and while I am a huge Brad Pitt fan (he is maybe my favorite working American actor?), this has been the most glaring gap in my viewing filmography of his (it is my 38th Brad Pitt film, putting him squarely in the Top 5 most-viewed movie actors ever for me).  The movie was nominated for two Oscars, keeping with our trend this month of favoring Oscar-nominated horror movies, but let's be honest-this is all about the gigantic stars at the center of its cast, facing off in the only movie they have made together (to date).

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is told in flashback, here by Louis (Pitt), a centuries-old vampire who is telling Daniel Molloy (Bale) the story of his life.  The film goes back to Louis beginning as a vampire, when, widowed and with a dead child, he wants to die, but a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) has other ideas, and turns him into a vampire, initially as his companion.  This becomes a problem when Louis cannot stomach the constant murder that comes with being a vampire, living off of rats & chickens rather than humans like Lestat.  He finally breaks with the orphaned girl Claudia (Dunst), who is dying of the plague, and as a treat, Lestat turns her into a vampire too.  The problem is that she cannot age, and will remain a young girl forever, which makes her angry and restless, blaming Lestat for her condition.  She and Louis try to kill Lestat, and flee to Europe, where they meet a band of vampires including Santiago (Rea) and Armand (Banderas).  Santiago tries to kill them both for the "unforgivable crime" of killing a vampire, which they think they did to Lestat, in the process killing Claudia but not Louis (who gets his revenge by killing all of the vampire coven except Armand).  The film ends with us back to the present day, where Daniel begs to become a vampire, Louis realizing in the process that he has learned nothing (human beings will always want immortality, no matter the price), and Daniel, fleeing, runs into Lestat, who bites his neck, and offers him "a choice" indicating that he will have to choose whether to die or become a vampire, the same choice that was once offered to Louis.

The movie's horror elements are pretty minimal.  Other than Lestat's jumpscare at the end with Daniel, it's honestly not even scary, and I don't know that it's meant to be-it functions in a lot of ways like a very dark gothic novel, perhaps more Alexandre Dumas than Bram Stoker.  Its horror tag is solely based on the vampire aesthetic, which is good.  The Oscar nominations are totally earned-I loved the shifting cities and looks of the vampires (the way that they continually seem themselves, slightly out-of-place, no matter the century they're in), and the Goldenthal score is both extravagant and a bit cheeky, which works with the picture.

That's because while it's not a good movie (it's too decadent and ridiculous to actually be good), Interview with the Vampire is a fun movie.  Cruise is delicious, and honestly kind of a riot as Lestat, forever being a total bitch to everyone.  Both of these characters (as well as Banderas's) are obviously intended to be gay (or at least sexually fluid), but only Cruise has the balls to actually play him that way, not just when he seduces a young fop (that looks comically like him), but also just in general-he's flirting with Louis like a married couple the entire movie.  The best performance in the film is Dunst's, which shows a real range.  She was nominated for a Golden Globe for this (she missed with the Oscars), and it shows why-just a child when it happened, she showed a remarkable ability to feel like (toward the end) she is channeling a bratty teenager or young woman who is constantly frustrated by her inability to grow up.  It's good stuff, and makes her cruel fate even harder to stomach-she never stood a chance.

1920's: The Golem, The Phantom of the Opera

1930's: The Black Cat, The Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, Dracula's Daughter, Frankenstein, Freaks, The Invisible Man, Mad Love, The Mummy, The Old Dark House, The Raven, Son of Frankenstein, Werewolf of London

1940's: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Cat People, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Dracula, The House of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man Returns, The Invisible Man's Revenge, The Invisible Woman, The Ghost of Frankenstein, Invisible Agent, The Mummy's Curse, The Mummy's Ghost, The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, Phantom of the Opera, She-Wolf of London, Son of Dracula, The Uninvited, The Wolf Man

1950's: Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, Abbott & Costello Meet the Mummy, Attack of the 50-Foot Woman, The Blob, Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Creature Walks Among Us, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, It Came from Outer Space, Revenge of the Creature

1960's: The Devil Rides Out, The Innocents, The Masque of the Red Death, Night of the Living Dead,Village of the Damned

1970's: The Amityville Horror, Black Christmas, Carrie, Dawn of the Dead, Don't Look Now, Flatliners Halloween, The Hills Have Eyes, The Omen, Phantom of the Paradise, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, When a Stranger Calls, The Wicker Man

1980's: Altered States, An American Werewolf in London, The Changeling, Child's Play, The Evil Dead, The Fly, The Fog, Friday the 13th, Gremlins, Hellraiser, The House on Sorority Row, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Pet Sematary, Poltergeist, Poltergeist II: The Other Side, Sleepaway Camp, The Thing

1990's-Present: Arachnophobia, The Blair Witch Project, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Candyman, Flatliners, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Paranormal Activity, Scary Movie, Scream

OVP: Art Direction (1999)

OVP: Best Art Direction (1999)

The Nominees Were...

Luciana Arrighi & Ian Wihittaker, Anna and the King

David Gropman & Beth Rubino, The Cider House Rules

Rick Heinrichs & Peter Young, Sleepy Hollow

Roy Walker & Bruno Cesari, The Talented Mr. Ripley

Eve Stewart & John Bush, Topsy-Turvy

My Thoughts: We are finishing off the visual categories today with Art Direction (yes, back in the day, young Oscar watchers, it was not called Production Design but something far more confusing to explain to your non-Oscar affiliated friends).  As I pointed out, this is virtually the same lineup as the Best Costume field (links to all other races at the bottom of this article), and the one new name isn't new at all, but one of the primary competitors for Best Picture.  So I don't have a lot new to say as a preamble, and think we should just dive in.

I'll be honest-starting with Anna and the King to get it out of the way feels about the best decision of this bunch.  The movie is so forgettable, I doubt even Jodie Foster really thinks about it anymore, and that is true for the set decoration.  Nothing in this picture is super distinctive, and it doesn't help that this story has already been told multiple times on the stage and the big-screen, including a more memorable musical in 1956.  I guess for me, if I was hoping for something that would set this story apart, and this version doesn't have that-it very much stays in the wheelhouse of its predecessors in terms of its look.

Sleepy Hollow, on the other hand, defines its century-old story with one of Tim Burton's most distinctive styles.  Much of Burton's films that would follow would borrow a similar aesthetic, to the point where you might forget that the first one was unforgettable, a gothic horror town that feels both true to history but with little indulgences to keep you in Burton's universe.  Love the way that it folds in with the cinematography...everything about this movie feels meticulous and moody, like you're building some sort of idea from scratch.  Particularly love the way that the trees play a role in the story (a production design becoming plot).

The Talented Mr. Ripley is one of those situations where I don't entirely know how much I should give credit to the production design, and how much I should give credit to Roman architects from 2000 years ago.  Much of the magic of Ripley's look comes from location scouting, giving us a view of Italy that is moneyed and appropriately dazzling in enrapturing our titular Tom.  But that doesn't mean this team isn't doing some heavy-lifting.  Look at the the chic, dripping-with-wealth looks of Dickie's flat, both minimalist and still very much something only someone with access to money could afford, the gorgeous tables feeling like they're pulled from future interior design photo shoots...Mr. Greenleaf is a NepoBaby with taste and a bank account.

Topsy-Turvy is, once again, really a wonder in terms of its realism while also maintaining an artistry in the design.  I love that this always feels like a 19th Century London theater company, the wood damaged and the sets not pristine, but instead it's carved by hands that don't have the same tools their modern counterparts have access to...which makes it all the more impressive when the staging does end up looking truly special.  I love the gorgeous set designs that they bring onstage, filled with red and gold coloring to make it really pop (while still being obviously in the confines of a theater).

The final nomination is for The Cider House Rules.  This could be one of those nominations that happens when you have a period film in the Best Picture field, but it's actually a little bit better than that.  This is a series of New England farmhouses and doctors' clinics, yes, but it also does have some detailing that feels story-building.  I love the way that the doctor's office gives no sense of privacy, which illustrates just how much the characters are intertwined into each other's lives.  They don't do enough of this when Homer leaves the orphanage, though, as you frequently see scenes where all the apple pickers are in one cabin, and yet somehow you can't hear through the curtains, even if the production design is designed to imply that there are no secrets here.  Good, but inconsistent stuff from the production team in terms of working with the writers.

Other Precursor Contenders: This was during the era when the Art Directors Guild was only having one category for feature film, and they gave their statue to Sleepy Hollow against American Beauty, Anna and the King, The Matrix, and Titus, while the BAFTA Awards also went with Sleepy Hollow while American Beauty, Angela's Ashes, The End of the Affair, & The Matrix were the losers.  In sixth place, it's gotta be a battle between Titus (the Best Costume Design nominee, and in this case one that landed a precursor, so it should be seriously considered) or American Beauty (which was the Best Picture winner, and landed both precursors).  I don't think there's any other names that would fit here (Star Wars and The Matrix might make sense, but their reliance on CGI would've been a hindrance circa 1999), but between these two...honestly no idea who was next up-flip a coin?

Films I Would Have Nominated: I have no such qualms about nominating visually-assisted works, and cannot help but be in love with Toy Story 2 for a category like this.  The way that we get looks at an old-west TV show, a cavernous toy store, and a tribute to the world of Barbie...this is a sequel that knows how to lean in on its initial design with more inventiveness.  If Oscar ever considered things like animated film for art direction, this would've been the place to do it.

Oscar’s Choice: Oscar continued the trend of the season-Sleepy Hollow was a big deal in 1999, and it beat out probably Topsy-Turvy(?) for the win.

My Choice: I am not going to be a contrarian here-Sleepy Hollow is in a class by itself, and the best look of any of Tim Burton's pictures.  Behind it, in order, would be Topsy-Turvy, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Cider House Rules, and Anna and the King.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Is everyone feeling good with getting into Ichabod Crane's lair, or does someone want to advocate for another nominee?  How much should really good location scouting (like in The Talented Mr. Ripley) factor into how you consider a nomination in this field?  And was it Titus or American Beauty that was in sixth place here?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1999: Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously, in 1999

Past Best Art Direction Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

OVP: The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964)

Film: The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964)

Stars: Debbie Reynolds, Harve Presnell, Ed Begley, Jack Kruschen, Hermione Baddeley

Director: Charlie Walters

Oscar History: 6 nominations (Best Actress-Debbie Reynolds, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Scoring, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Debbie Reynolds: click here to learn more about Ms. Reynolds (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

By 1964, Debbie Reynolds had been America's Sweetheart for about a decade, and similar to the two other women that we've talked about this season (Audrey Hepburn & Doris Day) who reigned alongside her with that crown, she was about to have that title (and her position as a box office queen) put into question.  But before that, Reynolds got something that clearly meant a lot to her: an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress.  Reynolds is generally considered to be a really winning screen presence, but I'll be honest-I don't see a lot of people praising her for her acting ability, or at least that's not the leading reason that people talk about her.  She is oftentimes praised as "charming" on the big-screen, or that she is a damned fun celebrity, but save for Singin' in the Rain, none of her movies during this time frame enjoys a really solid critical reputation, and she's far more in Day's ballpark than Hepburn's when it comes to acclaim.  I had seen parts of The Unsinkable Molly Brown years earlier, but had virtually no memory of it (to the point where I decided it should count as a "never seen it" qualifier for this series), and was curious for the one Oscar nomination that Reynolds did get, was the public (and to some degree me, who likes her but doesn't think of her as a "great" actress in the same way as peers like Hepburn or Elizabeth Taylor) underestimating her?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about Molly Brown (Reynolds), a woman who grew up from nothing and then became a fixture in high society at the turn-of-the-century, though it has to be said that this is a highly fictitious telling of her life story.  She starts as a backwoodsman, raised to be a tomboy by her adopted father Seamus (Begley), but she soon falls in love with Johnny Brown (Presnell), a lazy drunk and mining prospector who tries to woo her first on his own terms, and then on her terms (she wants to be a wealthy society woman).  They strike it rich, becoming "new money" but are not accepted by Denver's elite.  To get around this, she befriends multiple royals while galavanting around Europe with Johnny, and comes back with these royals in tow.  She now has the friends to make it in polite society, but Johnny isn't happy, and they grow apart.  While aboard the Titanic, she keeps spirits alive on a lifeboat, and is proclaimed a hero by the town, and comes back to Johnny, their love rekindled, now with them being themselves once more.

The movie is overstuffed, overlong, and far too silly for my tastes.  The beginning of the film is basically just Calamity Jane, complete with the adorable Reynolds with her face covered in dirt and her hair cut short.  But this part, like most of The Unsinkable Molly Brown, lasts too long.  The entire film is basically just a series of mishaps between Molly & Johnny, trying to understand why they won't be accepted in polite society, and changing everything about themselves to get there.  It's not that different than The Beverly Hillbillies, which makes the Oscar nominations feel weird, though they aren't all bad.  The cinematography is oddly good, particularly in the singing scenes (in many ways it recalls some of the outdoor singing shots of Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music), and the costumes & art direction are splendidly colorful and over-the-top (the grand staircase in the mansion is particularly gauche and features heavily into Molly's return from Europe).  But the music isn't strong, either in terms of sound or in terms of it being memorable (I saw it yesterday, and I can't remember one number from it), and Reynolds...she's not great.  Reynolds worked best in MGM musicals because she was spunky and you liked watching her fall in love.  But this film shows her limitations-she can't elevate a bad movie, and she swings for the rafters too much.  This very much feels in the vein of Pillow Talk and The Blind Side, where an actress who had charmed audiences (and the box office) for years gets her thank you from the Academy, even if it isn't earned.

There is one really weird part of The Unsinkable Molly Brown, though, and it's the complete lack of her time on the Titanic.  If you asked any modern audience member, the only thing they'd know about Molly Brown is her surviving the Titanic, and I'll be real-I suspect that would've been the case in 1964 as well.  Yet in the film's 135 minutes, just over two of those minutes take place during the Titanic sinking.  All you see is Reynolds walking the deck during the iceberg hit, one shot of the ship sinking, and Molly keeping everyone on the lifeboat alive.  It's such a tiny part it honestly feels like a joke...as if they ran out of money during production and didn't save anything for the most famous part of her life.  Reynolds is actively bad in the lifeboat scenes as well...trying to shame the women crying on the ship as their husbands are dying just a few hundred meters away.  It's such a strange scene, and worth noting if you're watching this movie because you're an amateur Titanic historian looking for more movies about the subject...because man is it weird & far shorter than it should've been in a movie that otherwise stretches too long.

OVP: How the West Was Won (1963)

Film: How the West Was Won (1963)

Stars: Carroll Baker, Lee J. Cobb, Henry Fonda, Carolyn Jones, Karl Malden, Gregory Peck, George Peppard, Robert Preston, Debbie Reynolds, James Stewart, Eli Wallach, John Wayne, Richard Widmark, Spencer Tracy, Walter Brennan, Agnes Moorehead, Thelma Ritter, Russ Tamblyn, Raymond Massey, Mickey Shaughnessy

Director: Henry Hathaway, John Ford, & George Marshall

Oscar History: 8 nominations/3 wins (Best Picture, Original Screenplay*, Film Editing*, Sound*, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Score)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Debbie Reynolds: click here to learn more about Ms. Reynolds (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

We cannot do a month devoted to Debbie Reynolds without talking about one of the most famous scandals of the Classical Hollywood era, her relationship with Eddie Fisher.  Fisher was a major singer at the time, on-par with acts like Fabian and Elvis Presley in terms of his popularity, and even had his own hit television program.  The two were the equivalent of what today we'd think of as Zendaya & Tom Holland (or for you older people, Brad Pitt & Jennifer Aniston)-America's Sweethearts, the boy and girl next door who had married each other.  Their marriage was rocky when it wasn't on the front pages, though, with Fisher a serial philanderer, including an affair with Playboy Playmate Pat Sheehan.  But it was when he had an affair with Elizabeth Taylor, the rare celebrity at the time on-par with Reynolds & Fisher, that the entire world paid attention.  Taylor, who had recently been widowed after the death of producer Mike Todd, was best friends with Reynolds, but still ended up in bed with her husband.  The scandal was sensational, one of the biggest celebrity news stories of the decade, and it had bizarre implications for all involved.  Reynolds, of course, was canonized as the scorned woman, and would have five movies come out in 1959 alone.  Elizabeth Taylor, the mistress, normally would've been the one to pay the price in the public's eye, but she was fine career-wise.  Within a year she was clutching her first Oscar, and a few years later would become the highest-paid actress in film history (and the centerpiece of an equally-famous affair) on the set of Cleopatra.  Instead it was Eddie Fisher who actually paid a career price, with his show being cancelled and his music career largely being destroyed.  It's hard to grasp now, but at the time Fisher was as big of a deal as Reynolds & Taylor were...now, he's nothing but an asterisk compared to the two women, who famously years after they'd both left Fisher reconciled and even starred in a film written by Fisher & Reynolds' daughter Carrie.

(Spoilers Ahead) During the wake of the scandal, Reynolds got a lot of career mileage and a number of hit movies, one of the biggest being today's film How the West Was Won.  The movie is less a cohesive story, and more a series of vignettes that tell the tale of how the American West began as well as how it ended, but the centerpiece around the film is Reynolds, who despite not getting top-billing (it went alphabetically for all of the main stars) is the movie's main character as Lilith Prescott, a woman dragged to the wilderness by her parents (Moorehead & Malden), and then when they die, she ends up making the west her home, marrying a scoundrel (Peck) who ends up making good, and eventually settling in the West with her nephew (Peppard) after most of the rest of her family dies.  In the meantime, we get pirates (led by Walter Brennan), the growth of the railroad, and, oh yeah, the Civil War.  

The movie is BIG, and it's not afraid of it.  There's a reason it has three directors and 17 (not a typo, I counted) Oscar-nominated actors on the call sheet.  But the thing is-it's not very good.  None of the actors are giving particularly good performances, and given who they are, that's a crime.  The best in the cast might be...Wallach, only because he gets to play a villain?  Honestly, even that feels like a stretch to me.  It's more a cavalcade of cameos, each seemingly doing John Ford a favor by appearing in a movie that would be such a big hit it'd be a weird case of it being one of their signature movies of the 1960's despite only Reynolds being in very much of the picture.  It deals a lot with cliche, and trying to shove what would've been a miniseries today into a couple of hours of celluloid.

The film won eight Academy Award nominations, and they're a mixed bag, but definitely not all bad.  The movie's screenplay win is abject silliness (it barely runs together as a plot!), and the same can be said for the editors, who probably got this nomination because it was a novel concept to have unrelated stories start to blend this way, but just because it's unique doesn't mean it's good.  The art direction & costume nominations are better, but less inspired.  The art direction feels more a tribute to the beauty of nature in the film, which is definitely on-display (also, because this is shot in Cinerama there's a lot more art direction than you'd normally expect), and the costumes are fine though nothing stands out in particular.  It's the last three nominations that worked best and felt most-earned.  The film's cinematography, capturing the beauty of the west (lots of this was shot off a studio lot), and it also works really well in conjunction with the stunt and effects teams (the Civil War & river rapids sequences, in particular, are the stuff that makes you wonder why it's taken so long to get a Stunts Oscar).  This also works for the sound work, with a lot of the action set pieces feeling really in-your-face, and it works well with the film's high musical quotient.  And of course Alfred Newman's score, generally considered to be his best work, is spectacularly grand.  All-in-all, there's a lot of elements of a classic here...if only the movie itself were any good.

OVP: Production Design (2023)

OVP: Best Production Design (2023)

The Nominees Were...

Sarah Greenwood & Katie Spencer, Barbie

Jack Fisk & Adam Willis, Killers of the Flower Moon

Arthur Max & Eli Griff, Napoleon

Ruth de Jong & Claire Kaufman, Oppenheimer

James Price, Shana Heath, & Zsuzsa Mihalek, Poor Things

My Thoughts: We're going to finish off the Production Design nominees with a conundrum for me.  The nominees in this category are all solid.  This is maybe the only category in the 2023 Oscars where I'd give all of them at least three stars on my (admittedly tough) Oscar ranking scale.  That makes it one of the better lineups of the 96th ceremony...but it also is one of the duller ones.  The 2023 Oscars continued a trend that has been going on a while, but became super pronounced in 2019 with virtually all of the nominees coming from the same movies.  With one exception, all of these films got at least 8 nominations, and this list is the exact same lineup as the Best Costume category.  That's dull, and while I will applaud some of these nominees (and duplicate some myself)...they should've tried harder.

Napoleon is the only one of these movies that isn't in the Best Picture race, and unlike all of the other contenders, this is our last dance with it.  In a similar fashion to its costumes, this is one of those situations where it's mostly just pretty dressing that doesn't add enough to the picture for my tastes.  This isn't a bad-looking movie.  I quite liked the drawing rooms, and thought that they played a bit on the trope of Bonaparte's height (look at how often they seem to dwarf a man who would attempt to conquer the world).  But there's not enough there for me, and I wanted something more distinctive for this round (we've been here before-to paraphrase Jonathan Hyde in Titanic "give me something new to print").

Poor Things is the other film that I felt a bit flummoxed by with its production design.  Similar to my judgment of its editing, the CGI is too much for me, and I wanted something a bit more organic to the picture (some of the backgrounds in the movie, according to moi, are simply too glossy & garish).  But unlike Napoloen, there is one set-piece that stands out as having a lot of flavor, and that is the ship.  I admire the way that the designers make it feel like a combination of a luxury liner while also giving us a sense of the limitations (it's a finite amount of space) of the place.  I also am going on a cruise in three weeks, so maybe I'm just enamored with boats as I'm writing this.  Like Oscar, you do have to make choice in the moment without foresight of how you'll think about this category for the next 40 years.

The remaining three are the same Top 3 from Costume, and like Costume, I could honestly give to any of the trio and sleep well tonight.  In all three cases, part of my love for it was the use of an actual set.  Barbie easily could've been a set design that was just CGI (like, say, every recent MCU film), but instead it uses an actual set, and it makes all the difference.  You can tell these actors are walking around this world, sometimes slightly too big for it (just like a real Barbie house), and it feels like your toys have come-to-life.  I loved it-every second inside this Barbie world achieved an effect like stepping back to the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter worlds where the director understood that you could tell the difference between a green screen and true sets, and it all just sparkles.

The same is said for Jack Fisk's studied work in Killers of the Flower Moon.  This is another movie without a green-screen in-sight, and uses a solid combination of built sets and actual existing structures along the Oklahoma landscape.  What I think is so fascinating here is the use of outdoor vs. indoor work (this is Fisk's speciality, and when are we getting him an Honorary Oscar because no one does this like him & he still hasn't won yet?).  I love that we get the overwhelming expanse of the prairie, one where there is nowhere to hide, but he also pulls that off in interiors with the short, small rooms.  Whether it's a case where you're overexposed or you simply have nowhere to hide, the approach in the production design is the same-the women that are the targets of the titular killers have nowhere left to run.

Our final nominee is Oppenheimer.  Christopher Nolan's level-of-authenticity gets us a film that is bereft of CGI shots, and so we get ghost towns along the desert border.  The reconstruction of an entire town, one that feels both settled (the men live there for months) and impermanent (much like not just the desert surrounding them, but in general in a world where nuclear weapons reign, nothing is counted upon) is so smart.  I think having that place, the place of discovery, feeling like the one that is most exposed while the other decisions are made in glossy dining rooms and literal hypothetical classrooms shows an ingenuity to Nolan's message.  This all looks great (like Flower Moon and Barbie), but it's punctuating a larger homage to the plot through visual storytelling.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Art Directors Guild spread their nominations between Fantasy, Period, & Contemporary designs.  Contemporary rarely keeps inline with Oscar, and that was true this time with Saltburn beating Beau is Afraid, John Wick: Chapter 4, Mission Impossible 7, and The Killer.  The other categories did get some Oscar overlap, with Poor Things taking Fantasy against Barbie, Dungeons & Dragons, The Creator, & Wonka while Oppenheimer picked a nomination up against Asteroid City, Killers of the Flower Moon, & Maestro (weirdly no fifth nomination, particularly odd given Napoleon, The Color Purple, & The Zone of Interest were all options).  BAFTA gave its statue to Poor Things, and duplicated Oscar's lineup with the exception of Napoloen instead selecting The Zone of Interest.  In sixth place, I am going to go out on a limb and think that the mega-box office power of Wonka showed up in a category somewhere, and this was the place it happened, though The Color Purple or The Zone of Interest probably make more sense.  Sometimes, you have to pick the oddities, though, because it's not always the safe choice in sixth place (because it's also not always the safe choice in fourth or fifth).

Films I Would Have Nominated: One name I didn't mention above, but certainly should've made it somewhere was Ferrari.  It's frequently thought of that the production design is just the sets, but it's more than that-it's also the objects on-display, and the use of the cars, alongside memorable spots in the picture (think of that opulent mausoleum or the wealthy city apartments of a 1950's Rome) is really spectacular, and I loved how it felt shiny and sexy.

Oscar’s Choice: Poor Things took one of the few Oscars that Barbie had a shot at outside of Song, and yes I do think it was Barbie and not Oppenheimer in second.

My Choice: I'm going to give it to Barbie, and I'll be real here-I think this is a case where Oscar missed something really special by ignoring it because it was super popular.  Behind it will be Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, Poor Things, and Napoleon, but I am very much with Greenwood & Spencer...this should've been a slam dunk.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you also steaming pink that Barbie didn't win, or do you understand the pretty colors of Poor Things being Oscar's choice?  Are we ever going to see Jack Fisk holding an Oscar to match his wife's?  And was it Wonka, The Color Purple, or The Zone of Interest in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Art Direction Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Little Women (1949)

Film: Little Women (1949)

Stars: June Allyson, Peter Lawford, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, Rossano Brazzi, Mary Astor, Lucille Watson, C. Aubrey Smith

Director: Mervyn LeRoy

Oscar History: 2 nominations/1 win (Best Cinematography, Art Direction*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on June Allyson: click here to learn more about Ms. Allyson (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Last week we missed June Allyson, because I was in the office all week & it was the Oscars (which as you can imagine, is quite the event around my house), so today you're going to get a double dip of Ms. Allyson, both films from 1949.  Circa 1949, you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger name in Hollywood than June Allyson.  Allyson's lack of an Oscar nomination relegates her to a category of actress that isn't super discussed today (we'll talk about this in a couple of weeks, but a few decisions late in her career also contributed to this decline in stature), but she was a big deal on the MGM lot, rivaling figures like Judy Garland or Joan Crawford (at a competing studio) as one of the most noteworthy actresses in Hollywood.  One of the biggest films she made at the time was the all-star rendition of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, one of four big-screen studio incarnations of the story, and arguably the one with the most buzz-worthy cast.  In a lineup that included Mary Astor, Peter Lawford, Janet Leigh, and Elizabeth Taylor, it was Allyson who got top billing & the leading role.

(Spoilers Ahead...though do you really need a spoiler alert for Little Women?) The movie is about the four March sisters: headstrong Jo (Allyson), dutiful Meg (Leigh), vain Amy (Taylor), and sweet Beth (O'Brien) who used to be rich, but now live in relative poverty (relative being the operative word here given their house is pretty swanky in this film) with their nurse mother (Astor), while their father is out away fighting for the Union in the Civil War.  The film unfolds with these four women trying to live their lives, at the center of it a love square between Jo, Amy, handsome-and-rich Laurie (Lawford), and handsome-and-studious Professor Bhaer (Brazzi).  Love, tragedy, and even death ensue (we all know that Beth dies), but it's a family drama with all of the trimmings...I could go into it more, but let's be honest, you've either seen one of the movies or read the book if you're on this blog.

I will own that I've never really gelled with this story.  Even the recent critically-acclaimed movie by Greta Gerwig I was just in the middle of (let me tell you-my 3-star review of that picture stands OUT compared to my friends on the platform).  But watching this, I get why Gerwig's film enchanted so many, as it takes a relatively formulaic story and gives it life, particularly through the performances from Timothee Chalamet & Florence Pugh.  The 1949 film has no such luck, giving us little invention, and as a result, playing all of the characters as flat.  Star power will get you a little bit (Elizabeth Taylor is delicious if nowhere near as good as Pugh, playing pretty Amy), but the rest is a struggle.  Jo March is a tricky heroine (she bucks convention, frequently makes somewhat cruel mistakes about people, and spends much of the film not knowing what she wants), and Allyson doesn't know how to land her.  The first and second halves of the film feel like separate Jo's entirely.

The movie won several Oscar nominations, and here I'm onboard.  The technicolor cinematography looks divine, with all of these beautiful actresses framed perfectly in snow-covered houses and richly-detailed libraries.  The art direction in generally is also strong-I get why this, with these houses that actually have personality, won the statue.  I'm surprised, honestly, that it didn't get in for costuming too, which is fun (particularly Elizabeth Taylor's gown in the film's final scene) and lovely.  But there's not enough life in this film to make any of these lush decorations truly sing.

OVP: Art Direction (1931-32)

OVP: Best Art Direction (1931-32)

The Nominees Were...

Lazare Meerson, A Nous la Liberte

Richard Day, Arrowsmith

Gordon Wiles, Transatlantic

My Thoughts: We are finishing off the visual categories (after only two categories-this year is going to come at you fast, my friends) with Art Direction, and again we have only three nominations.  The fascinating thing about production design in the 1930's is it really is a crapshoot.  There's less outdoors sequences, almost everything is a stage set, and while realism is important, originality isn't necessarily part of that conversation.  Oftentimes Oscar was recognizing either newness, uniqueness, or Best Picture nominees (he always likes Best Picture nominees).  This year we have three different films trying varying approaches, all at least a solid approach, if not all successful.

A Nous la Liberte holds a pretty grand distinction as the first non-English film to be nominated for an Academy Award.  When that happens, you have to assume it's for a pretty good reason, and honestly...here it is.  I don't know that I've seen somethign this esoteric this early in sound filmmaking, and the production design is the cornerstone of this indictment on capitalistic impulses (and the way they eat through men).  It plays with the concepts of assembly lines, mess halls, and cavernous walls in a minimalist way, using the set design as a character (one of the first films to do this) to underscore how bleak the characters' existence is.  The film clearly inspired Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times (there would even be a lawsuit over it) if you want an idea of what we're looking at-it's really bold, using repetition & banality to make a point.

A Nous la Liberte's production design is so famous amongst cinephiles that people kind of throw out the actual Oscar winner in the process, but I do think that's unfair (and more a result of people having never heard of the winner than direct comparison).  Transatlantic is quite impressive set design too, even if it was something that had been done before.  The use of the cruise liner as a sort of metaphor for both constant luxury and being abandoned at sea is well-constructed, and the opening scenes, especially at the beginning, when we get a 7-minute guided look through the ship as passengers board, show the way that they have meticulously created this ship as an important visual component for the viewer.

Arrowsmith is our final nominee, and a better indication of what Art Direction meant to the Academy in the early 1930's than the inventive work of the the other two nominees.  This isn't necessarily bad (I like the way that they put some untidiness into the film when the characters are a mess), but it's mostly about "more" than "best" with a series of different locations.  Unlike the other two movies, nothing in this is memorable, and it all just sort of blends into the movie.  It's not bad, but it's also not distinctive.  You could show me pictures of the set here and I could never tell you this was from Arrowsmith, which is simply not the case with the other two films.

Other Precursor Contenders: As we already said, there was no such thing as a precursor in 1931-32, so we don't have other films that were in the conversation.  I will say I'm surprised that Grand Hotel wasn't nominated (and I'm guessing it was close) given that it was the Best Picture winner, and the location (i.e. the set) is literally in the title of the film.  Generally when the actual location of the film is in the title of a Best Picture winner (An American in Paris, On the Waterfront, Titanic), the film wins this category, much less gets nominated.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I mean, the Frankenstein castle would be up there amongst the most impressive film sets in the history of the movies.  Even early on, Oscar clearly had a horror bias that it needed to get past.

Oscar’s Choice: I have no idea if it was a close race, but the giant drawing rooms & seafaring decks of Transatlantic took the prize.

My Choice: History is correct-A Nous la Liberte is something else, and deserved this prize even if the more conventional work on Transatlantic makes a worthy second place (Arrowsmith, take your bronze medal and leave the runway).

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you with Oscar and his love of cruise ships, or would you like to fight the powers-that-be with me & my French brethren?  Why do you think A Nous la Liberte was the first subtitled film to get onto Oscar's radar?  And how did Grand Hotel miss for a category it feels so well-suited?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1931-32: Cinematography, Previously in 1931-32

Past Best Art Direction Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022