OVP: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Film: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Stars: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, Billy Campbell, Sadie Frost, Tom Waits

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Oscar History: 4 nominations/3 wins (Best Art Direction, Costume*, Sound Editing*, Makeup*) 

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

All October long, The Many Rantings of John is running a marathon dedicated to the Horror classics of the 1960's-90'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.

More than any other film monster, the vampire seems to be always a part of the horror & romance genres on the big-screen.  From Nosferatu to Edward Cullen, vampires have taken up the cinematic imagination for over a century.  But no fictional bloodsucker has gotten quite the press of Count Dracula, Bram Stoker's singular creation based on Vlad the Impaler.  Francis Ford Coppola, as a followup to his Best Picture-nominated (but critically-mixed) The Godfather, Part III decided to go in a totally different direction by taking up a romanticized version of Stoker's novel.  In the process, he gave one of the most Oscar-winning horror films of all-time (three statues in his corner, the same amount that would be won by Coppola's magnum opus The Godfather), and a film that is still parodied on television today, especially for the makeup it uses on Gary Oldman.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film starts with us seeing Vlad the Impaler (Oldman) lose his beloved Elisabeta (Ryder) to suicide after she's informed he is dead.  He blasphemes himself in front of a Priest (Hopkins), and turns himself into a vampire by drinking blood pouring from an alter (he's had a day).  Centuries later, Vlad is now known as Dracula, and is meeting Jonathan Harker (Reeves), a young solicitor who is going to help finish a business transaction started by his former colleague Renfield (Waits), who is now insane.  He meets Dracula, and Dracula summons his wives to trap (and presumably kill) Jonathan, so that Vlad can go to London to seduce Mina (also Ryder), whom he believes to be the reincarnated soul of his lost Elisabeta.  While in London, he also seduces Lucy (Frost), whom he turns into a vampire.  Before Lucy is lost & beheaded, her fiancé (Elwes) calls up Professor Van Helsing (also Hopkins) to cure her, and while he doesn't cure Lucy (she dies and is beheaded), he does save Mina.  Mina is turned into Dracula's bride while they are having sex, but she is eventually saved when Jonathan, Lucy's fiancé, and Van Helsing go to kill Dracula.  Mina finishes the job, and reunites Vlad & Elisabeta in heaven, with her vampirism gone now that she has destroyed the man who turned her.

I think the first thing that you should know about Bram Stoker's Dracula is that there's not a lot of humor in this...and it probably needed some.  Oldman is going for 11 here, and that's not the worst approach for an iconic villain, but it does get hammy, as does the dialogue itself.  The movie also miscasts Reeves, who cannot do a proper English accent (something I suspect he'd own up to), and quite frankly neither can Ryder.  The year before she would win her first of two Oscar nominations for another maligned English-accent role...her Bay Area accent is, well, pretty prominent.  I don't mind a lot of overstuffed plotting & acting, as that's kind of the calling card for horror movies (and lord knows the near constant sex was welcome...you gotta love a movie with a bunch of people constantly on the verge of an orgasm), but Ryder & Reeves are bad enough that I just...I struggled.

That said, I admired the look of the movie.  I get why this was doused in Academy Awards.  The sound work is strong (I love how you heard the spilling of blood...the film is into its bodily fluids), and the sets are fantastic.  The scrumptious gardens, Lucy's elaborate (and ridiculous) white coffin, the horny drawing rooms-the movie is a portrait in every way, and that extends to the oil painting cinematography.  The costumes as well, particularly Sadie Frost's post-vampire look, are on-point.  Best of the bunch is the makeup.  I'm not entirely sure what Gary Oldman's gorgon-mutant look is accomplishing by having him look like a freak during the nighttime as Dracula, but, well, it stands out, and looks realistic-within-the-movie.  I think it works-horror movies are about making moments, and this does.

Past Horror Month Reviews

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, Halloween, The Hills Have Eyes, The Omen, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, When a Stranger Calls, The Wicker Man

1980's: Child's Play, The Evil Dead, The Fly, Friday the 13th, Gremlins, Hellraiser, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, The Thing

1990's-Present: Arachnophobia, The Blair Witch Project, Candyman, Scream

OVP: Actor (2020)

OVP: Best Actor (2020)

The Nominees Were...

Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal

Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom

Anthony Hopkins, The Father

Gary Oldman, Mank

Steven Yeun, Minari

My Thoughts: I really enjoy the online film community, particularly the ones that focus on awards races.  I know there can be toxic elements to it (you're taking your life into your hands a bit when it comes to certain fandoms, but honestly that's true of every corner of the internet).  But as a result of this, there are times when I have to admit to liking or disliking a performance that universally was dismissed.  That is what we're going to start with, and I'm just going to rip off the bandaid right now: I liked Gary Oldman in Mank.  Quite a bit.

I feel like Oldman, once revered as something of an acting god akin to Christian Bale & Johnny Depp before they became Oscar mainstays (and lost a lot of their actorly mojo), has really lost all of his steam with audiences since he won his Oscar for the underrated Darkest Hour (primarily since he's not as good as Timothee Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name).  But Oldman works really well within Mank, finding a boozy charm that fits him.  Mank as written is a character that clearly has talent, but also has something to prove to himself.  You can see in the way Oldman plays him with a ticking behind the metaphorical walls...he knows what he's doing is good, probably the best thing he'll ever write, but doesn't have the confidence or the fortitude to quite say it out loud until he's certain he's made a masterpiece.  I loved that combination of bravado, clarity, and ugliness that make this central character so compelling.

Two actors similar in some ways to Oldman prior to his 2011 Oscar nomination that won their first Oscar nominations in 2020 were Steven Yeun and Riz Ahmed.  Of the two, I think I preferred Yeun more.  It's difficult to standout in a great ensemble (which is ultimately what Minari is), but he brings so much ambition to his soft-spoken, hard-working farmer.  There's something so unsaid about his character, particularly as we see much of this world through the eyes of young Alan Kim-this father that was almost mythical in his eyes (as almost all fathers are to young sons) and the way that he is casually fleshed out as the film progresses is really a testament to Yeun's restrained work in the lead.

Ahmed has been building to this nomination for a while (he'd win the following year for Live Action Short) after his breakout role in Nightcrawler (his best work to date, imho).  Here he is able to give a lot of physicality to his role as Ruben, but I don't think he gives us enough depth.  We get a sense of the tragedy of this situation (a musician losing his ability to hear the thing that brings him the most joy), but there's not enough beyond that, either in the screenplay or in the way that Ahmed plays him.  Paul Raci is better at this, giving us a world-weary approach that gives Ahmed a counter (and some of his best scenes), but I don't feel like I left hearing Ruben's story so much as a story, and that's because Ahmed doesn't define him enough.

That's certainly not the case for Chadwick Boseman.  Despite the title, this is decidedly the story of Levee, not Ma Rainey.  Boseman owns the screen, giving us a young black man of great promise...promise that will only be exploited & never rewarded.  We learn as the film goes that Ma is the exception, the only exception in this story, but Levee doesn't understand until it's too late that there isn't room for two at the top.  The film's final moments are such a huge payoff for him as an actor-he's been building this quiet anger, a righteous reaction to the world dismissing him from his first breaths, and it pays off with his desperation as he throws away what future he might've had, even if it was never a fair one.  Easily the best performance of Boseman's career, and in almost any other year he would've been a surefire, sentimental winner at the Oscars...

...except Anthony Hopkins came along.  Hopkins, of course, already had one Oscar, but it was long enough ago that a second trophy didn't feel like a stretch.  To beat Boseman he needed something beyond, and that's what you get in The Father.  Hopkins owns the screen, quickly enveloping not just a character that cannot know where he (or the audience) are standing at any given moment, but one who has to find his footing every moment.  Hopkins' Anthony proves the cruelty of good days & bad days...that even the good days are fleeting, and when your mind is your own prison, you won't get to remember them.  The Father sometimes plays as a horror movie, but there's no hints of Hannibal Lecter or Robert Ford...this isn't the heightened genre work that made Hopkins a matinee idol.  Instead, it's a fully-encapsulated star turn from one of the great actors of our time.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama picked Boseman against Hopkins, Oldman, Ahmed, & Tahar Rahim (The Mauritanian) while Musical/Comedy favored Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat 2) atop Andy Samberg (Palm Springs), Dev Patel (The Personal History of David Copperfield), James Corden (The Prom) and (somehow) Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton), despite that feeling VERY much like a TV special.  SAG went with a carbon copy of Oscar's lineup except Boseman won, while BAFTA went with Hopkins as their victor atop Boseman, Ahmed, Rahim, Mads Mikkelsen (Another Round), and Adarsh Gourav (The White Tiger).  In sixth place, I am going to guess Oldman (who was losing steam fast right before the ceremony) bested Mikkelsen, whose Another Round succeeded in the Best Director race unexpectedly and probably meant he was breathing down Oldman's neck.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I don't entirely know if Franz Rogowski was eligible for his singular work in Undine, but at some point the Academy needs to recognize that he might be the most promising new actor of the past five years.  His work here is yet another fantastic achievement.

Oscar’s Choice: In one of the biggest recent shocks at the Oscars, Joaquin Phoenix quietly read "Anthony Hopkins" name when all of America (and especially Steven Soderbergh) was expecting a win for Chadwick Boseman.

My Choice: It's Hopkins, and it's not close.  The only way Hopkins wins here is if he's giving a performance SO good that it's simply impossible to argue with, and this is not only the best performance of 2020, it's the best performance in at least the last four years.  Behind him I'll go Oldman, Boseman, Yeun, & Ahmed, in order.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone think that this was Hopkins, regardless of his past win (and this being a way to cap Boseman's legacy?), or do you think someone else deserved it?  Why do you think that Oscar is so particular about which posthumous awards are handed out (it's very rare)?  And how close was Mads Mikkelsen from getting his first citation (you know a nod is coming at some point)?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2020: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2020

Past Best Actor Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

OVP: Actor (2017)

OVP: Best Actor (2017)

The Nominees Were...

Timothee Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name

Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread

Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out

Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour

Denzel Washington, Roman J. Israel, Esq.

My Thoughts: We are going to, after a week off from the blog, hit the Big 4 categories at the Oscars & finish it off with a My Ballot look at 2017 this week.  The 2017 acting races were largely focused on Best Picture, like so many fields for Best Actor recently (only one of these nominees doesn't show up again in our remaining categories), but I will admit out-front that unlike many fields for Best Actor, this one has some differentiation even if it's only Best Picture citations, and is one of the better fields in recent memory.

For starters, only one of these five figures is playing someone in real life, Gary Oldman.  Oldman's performance in Darkest Hour for reasons that are both obvious & a little bit undeserved has not aged well.  Placed against young performers who have delivered on that promise & an acting icon who has (so far) stuck with his plan to not come back from a second retirement, Oldman's prosthetics-driven work as Winston Churchill is generally name-checked as a "bad" acting win, but I'll be honest-I don't see it.  Oldman takes on the guise of a character actor, becoming near unrecognizable as Churchill in appearance and manner, but still having the measured energy that makes an Oldman performance so special.  I loved the way that he plays Churchill as a man-of-history, but also a man who understands politics (Churchill enjoyed winning in all aspects of life), and I think this is a good performance that doesn't get all of its grace from simply "looking like" Churchill.

Based on the title you'd assume that Roman J. Israel might actually be a real person, but he's not.  Instead, he's from the creative mind of Denzel Washington, and more of our real-life people should be based on Denzel if this is the case.  Despite its unusual (SNL-mocked) title and a plot that doesn't really work, Washington plays the twists in Dan Gilroy's story excellently.  This might have read like a filler nomination when it came out, but it's very good work from the two-time Oscar winner.  He finds so many layers into the loneliness that Roman experiences, and makes the greed he feels authentic as he finds success after a lifetime of failure.  It's hard to have the center of a movie realize a new facet of their life and not also totally upend the character, but the Roman we meet at the beginning of the movie is the same man throughout, a testament to Washington's investment into small character details.

I have in the years since found Daniel Kaluuya performances (specifically Judas) that I can sign onto, so I am going to admit (and bury in the center of this article) that I didn't really get the hype around his work in Get Out.  I liked this movie, and the script was very good (though, as I said two weeks ago, Us is much better & more fully-formed), but I think that Kaluuya's very reactive performance in this film never takes off for me.  For me it's because he's not really asked to undergo a traditional narrative arc in terms of "learn what he's like, then we see how he handles the main problem of the story."  Instead, all of his performance is trying to reflect how uncomfortable he is with the story.  He's good at this, but it feels limiting to my understanding of this character-I feel like he's the one character not given enough room to breathe, which serves the narrative, but also makes this feel like a weird performance to cite.

There are moments initially where this feels like it might be the case for Timothee Chalamet.  After all, so much of the first thirty minutes of this movie is him reacting to the world around him, including his new crush Oliver.  However, as the film goes, we get a sense of not only young love, but young love that doesn't know that there's a ticking clock on this relationship (and how special it is).  Chalamet goes full throttle, making his Elio impetuous, reckless, protective...every emotion feels like it's being felt through-and-through even if it's not entirely understood.  Wonderfully, sometimes prickly chemistry with Armie Hammer helps a lot, but Chalamet takes this film to another level with his best work.  He hasn't been as good since, but honestly-how many actors top work like this even if they get fifty years of career?

Our final nomination is for Daniel Day-Lewis, who in Phantom Thread gives us a potential sendoff to a storied career.  Day-Lewis is always marvelous, even if you just observe him from a technical aspect (no actor does the kind of character legwork the extreme method actor puts into his creations).  His Reynolds Woodcock is an angry man, clearly starved as much for perfection (which he's able to make with his creations) as he is for something to disrupt his world...a challenge the actor can't entirely overcome.  The movie takes some weird detours with Alma, and I wouldn't say even DDL can pull off some of the twists late in the game, but that's a ridiculously high bar to ask an actor to achieve, and overall the performance here is a grand testament to a great performer.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes of course break out their nominees between Drama and Comedy/Musical, so we have ten names from their ceremony.  Drama went with Oldman (who, like Janney & Rockwell before him swept the precursors), besting Chalamet, Day-Lewis, Washington, and Tom Hanks (The Post) while Comedy/Musical went to James Franco (The Disaster Artist) against Kaluuya, Steve Carell (Battle of the Sexes), Ansel Elgort (Baby Driver), and Hugh Jackman (The Greatest Showman).  SAG went with Oldman atop Chalamet, Franco, Kaluuya, & Washington while BAFTA favored Oldman against Day-Lewis, Kaluuya, Chalamet, & Jamie Bell (Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool).  In terms of sixth place, it was Franco, who had a late-breaking scandal that derailed his nomination, and as it would turn out, his entire career.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I try not to use an actor's personal life in picking who should win or be nominated for these awards, so I definitely would've found room for Armie Hammer in Call Me By Your Name.  Like Chalamet, he has never been as good before-or-since, but he finds a strange amount of sadness in his Oliver, a man who will never experience the world he's briefly being given insight into during a summer in Italy.

Oscar’s Choice: Some will frame this in years since as a closer race between Chalamet & Oldman, but the latter was so far in front that it's probable he won a majority rather than a plurality.

My Choice: Chalamet, hands down.  My favorite performance of 2017, possibly my favorite performance of the 2010's.  Just superb work.  Behind him I'll go Oldman, Day-Lewis, Washington, & Kaluuya.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Do you want to stick with Timmy & I, or do you think Oscar got it right with Winston Churchill?  I'm the only person who has actually seen Roman J. Israel, as it feels like more a poster than a movie at this point?  And who would Franco have ejected if his scandal hadn't broken (I know most would say Washington, but I kind of think it was Kaluuya in fifth)?  Share your thoughts below in the comments!

Also in 2017: Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2017

Past Best Actor Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019

OVP: Mank (2020)

Film: Mank (2020)

Stars: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Arliss Howard, Tom Pelphrey, Sam Troughton, Tom Burke, Charles Dance

Director: David Fincher

Oscar History: 10 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture, Director, Actor-Gary Oldman, Supporting Actress-Amanda Seyfried, Production Design*, Cinematography*, Costume Design, Makeup & Hairstyling, Score, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

It has been said by many that Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all-time.  It is so storied in the pantheon of classic cinema that you'd be forgiven, upon viewing it for the first time, for wondering if it can live up to the hype, and for some modern film fans it doesn't.  I am not one of those fans.  While "greatest of all-time" might not be the phrase I'd name-check, Citizen Kane would rank toward, if not into, my all-time Top 10, and I think it's breathtaking, and the sort of movie that gets better with every repeat viewing.  As a result, having David Fincher, one of the best directors working, tackle the movie & its bizarre behind-the-scenes politics, felt like a wish fulfilled, but it also presented a problem.  Mank for me is what Citizen Kane is for many-a movie with such astronomical expectations (particularly after a cinematic year with more middling pictures than outright successes), that it'd be impossible to exactly live up to them.  After all, if Citizen Kane can't live up to its own hype despite being basically flawless, how could any other movie live up to Citizen Kane?

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie plays a little bit with the truth, so I'll establish what happens onscreen.  The film alternates between the "present" where Herman Mankiewicz (Oldman), a storied screenwriter (though not always credited, he was the man behind film classics like Dinner at Eight and The Wizard of Oz, and was a producer on most of the Marx Brothers' best pictures) is writing a screenplay that we understand to be Citizen Kane, while alternating back to what led him to being in a shack, writing what would be a career-killing script.  The script is an issue for the writer because it's obviously inspired by William Randolph Hearst (Dance), one of the most powerful newspaper men in the country, skewering both the publisher & his mistress actress Marion Davies (Seyfried).  As the film goes on, we learn some of the sources of Mank's hatred of Hearst, as well as studio chief Louis B. Mayer (Howard), stemming from their involvement in the 1934 California gubernatorial election, which pitted conservative Frank Merriam against socialist icon Upton Sinclair, with Sinclair losing in part because Hollywood studio bosses forced their talent to make propaganda films against him, even though they supported his campaign.  The movie ends with Mank, despite the problems it would cause him, demanding screen credit for the film, thus ending his working relationship with Orson Welles (Burke), but winning him his only Oscar.

Mank is a beautiful movie (it's criminal, and I can't even really stomach it, that this movie won't be seen by most on the big-screen as Eric Messerschmidt's cinematography is moody & glossy & glorious); in a year of less-than-inspired camerawork, this stands out so hard it's difficult to see a way that Messerschmidt doesn't get his first Oscar nomination, and probably a win.  The costumes are splendid, the sound work impeccable (creating so much atmosphere)-Mank is the sort of movie that comes about from having both money & taste.

The film pays homage repeatedly to its inspiration.  I have seen Citizen Kane more times than I can count, so I don't know what it would be like to see this movie without it as a touchpoint, but I suspect it won't read as magical.  Mank recalls certain key scenes from the original movie without always underlining it-things like the long dining room table or the cacophonous sound work, the way that everyone keeps pointing out that Marion is the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane's second wife, but that Mank's wife Sarah is hinted at in Kane's first spouse...Jack Fincher's script combs through the movie and along with Messerschmidt's work, gives us visual cues to the original film that have just a hint of malice (if you don't notice the clear parallels that Fincher also gives to our modern political climate & of course Donald Trump, you're not paying attention).

Like I said above, it's impossible to try to be Citizen Kane and not fall short-Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time for a reason, and it's hard to compare it to other movies without them found lacking, and Mank is not perfect.  The ending in particular feels like you need a Film History major to understand it (which luckily for you I have).  Orson Welles is backgrounded as an almost mythic creature throughout most of the movie, and that the climax relies so heavily on him & the famed claims of Pauline Kael that Welles deserved minimal credit for the screenplay of the film (that it should have gone entirely to Mankiewicz) is where fact & Hollywood lore blend, and it makes the final payoff feel a little bit like Fincher didn't keep watching the dailies to know who had become the villain of his picture.

But up until that point Mank delivers in every conceivable way  It's a cruel noir, one with lots of gems & tiny performances.  Amanda Seyfried has been getting much of the credit for the acting in the film, and she deserves for being best on the call sheet (she knows how to make Marion the smartest person in the room even when she's pretending to be the dumbest), but the cast is uniformly good, filling out every corner of the screen with solid, brief cameos.  Oldman feels born to play this part, his boozy charm radiating even through Mank's ugliest moments.  And as a result, Mank is the rare movie this year that lives up to the hype, that feels like it'll escape 2020's grasp as a classic to be revisited, a picture confident enough in its own quality that it can stay firmly in the shadow of a greater movie without losing its luster.

OVP: Darkest Hour (2017)

Film: Darkest Hour (2017)
Stars: Gary Oldman, Ben Mendelsohn, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Ronald Pickup, Stephen Dillane
Director: Joe Wright
Oscar History: 6 nominations/2 wins (Picture, Actor-Gary Oldman*, Costume Design, Production Design, Makeup & Hairstyling*, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

I always feel strange when I like a film that is pretty much the textbook definition of Oscar-bait.  Traditional films, ones that are in the Academy's wheelhouse are oftentimes criticized for being too staid, too "old, white, traditional," and because I watch so many Oscar-nominated movies, they tend to grow stale in my memory.  After all, you can only watch the same thing so many times before it becomes a bore (this is why the Marvel Cinematic Universe has started to tire me, and why I'm a bit apprehensive about my inevitable screening of Black Panther even with the raves).  That said, I am a firm believer that every genre can produce great or compelling cinema, and that includes even the most worn-out of Oscar films, the war biopic.  While by no means a masterpiece, Darkest Hour is still a worthwhile picture, with a brisk pace & two central performances that lend itself well to the film's ambience.

(If you need a spoiler alert, read a history book) It says something about how the movie industry may be tired, but is clearly not a monopoly (yet...give Disney time) in that we have two films about the Dunkirk invasion in the same year, nominated for Best Picture, but it does save me on telling you too much about the plot.  Suffice it to say Winston Churchill (Oldman) is about to enter the annals of history with a great speech & by saving Britain from Hitler.  The film ends just as World War II begins, with Churchill giving his iconic "We shall fight on the beaches" speech before Parliament, so we are saved a miniseries' worth of time with Churchill (this would have become overtired on HBO), but along-the-way we've had several interesting crisis-of-fate meetings, particularly between Churchill and King George VI (Mendelsohn).

If you think this is a story that you know by heart, you're probably right  Few personalities of the 20th Century loom larger than Churchill, and few give actors more ability to swing wildly for the rafters, landing bon mots and enjoying a taste of immortality for a few hours.  Just last year we had a memorable experience with John Lithgow playing Churchill in the final throes of his career in The Crown, so it's interesting to see what Oldman does and doesn't do in the lead role.  A brilliant if controversial actor, Oldman is too good to not add some flourishes on Churchill, but I like that he finds a nice balance between Churchill the man and Churchill the icon, leading with the icon instead of waiting for it during the moments where history made him one of the great beacons of the mid-century.  We slowly get to know Churchill the man through a series of confrontations he has with his new secretary Elizabeth Layton (James...whom I always confuse with Lily Collins until they start acting & I remember that James is the one with talent) and then as he starts to invade the upper-ranks of Parliament.  I loved some of the scenes where clearly Parliament hasn't realized that "the people" want something different than what we're expecting of them (but Churchill is more than aware of this), and the ways that Oldman slyly, mechanically, calculates in the moment.  It's hard to add something to a character so many people have played, and indeed Oldman doesn't make this the "definitive" Churchill (a consummate performer in real-life, the "definitive" Churchill took a curtain call 53 years ago), but it's very watchable and compelling and though this isn't his best role, I've made my peace with it since Gary Oldman deserves to win an Oscar at some point and he's very good here (this is hardly Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman, even if I expect people to cattily say that on Sunday).

Joe Wright's direction, though, is probably the best part about Darkest Hour.  I loved the underground bunker moments, and how he uses the film's structure to have big, Classical Hollywood-style moments with the added benefit of a modern camera.  Look at the way that we see a humanized King George VI (Mendelsohn, who is excellent in the film and I'm surprised didn't get more awards consideration...perhaps the memory of Colin Firth in this role is too soon?), something we couldn't possibly have watched in the 1950's, combined with patriotic speeches toward Churchill about nerve (something we surely would have seen in the 1950's).  I also (and I know others HATED this scene), got quite misty-eyed during the train sequence even if it's realism was absurd.  I go to the movies to be entertained, and in an era of Trump it's nice to imagine for a brief moment someone who actually listens to the people, and not just the voices in his head.  Plus, Oldman's clearly having a blast in that scene, and that reverberates.  Wright's use of populism in the film (while never veering toward propaganda) and a tight, focused camera lens adds another interesting chapter to his impressive (save Pan) filmography.  I just wish the man who created Briony Tallis and a marvelously modern Anna Karenina had had more for his female characters to do.  James is good in her role, but is meant so clearly to be an audience surrogate that it's hard to relate to her as a person herself, while Kristin Scott Thomas is doing light-lifting with a sharp but surface-level performance as Clementine Churchill.  This could have been a remarkable film if occasionally we'd learned a bit more about these women's lives.  As it is, though, it's far better than critics, perhaps chagrined about having to write about yet another war film in the Best Picture lineup in a year where AMPAS took some big risks in that category, were willing to admit.

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Golden Globes

We have not discussed the Oscars very much in recent days, partially because I'm not quite sure how to handle this year's awards season, and partially because I'm not entirely sure I'm feeling this year's awards season to begin with.  It always bears some repeating to those who know me in real life as an Oscars hounds, but the Oscars are in some ways a means to an end.  Don't get me wrong, they are one of my favorite nights of the year, and more importantly Oscar nominations are probably my favorite day of the year, but that's because I love the movies.  I don't love awards shows, exactly (I rarely watch, say, the Emmys anymore and never watch the Grammys), but I love movies and the Oscars are one of the few times of year that people around me want to talk about good movies, so of course it's like my Christmas in that regard.  That being said, the campaign of Oscar season is upon us, and while I'll have my predictions up around Sunday or Monday of this week (I'm going on vacation next week, so I'll want this to be done in advance), I figured with the Globes happening Sunday, I'd weigh in on some of the major races and what (if any) impact the Golden Globes had on this year's ceremony.

1. The Best Picture Trophy is Still Up for Grabs

I was texting my brother about this Sunday night, but I do still feel like the Best Picture trophy is up-for-grabs.  It is commonly assumed that the winner of the Globes Best Picture also wins the Oscar, and that may have been true in the 80's/90's, but only five out of the last twelve Globes ceremonies have crowned the eventual Oscar winner (Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist, Argo, 12 Years a Slave, and Moonlight, for the curious), so in one of the most wide-open races in recent history, I don't know that the film that will win the Oscar necessarily emerged last night.

Now, don't get me wrong-these were big wins for Lady Bird and in particular Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.  The former had very strong competition in the form of Get Out and I, Tonya, both in the hunt for the Oscar (the former being my prohibitive favorite up until last night), while Three Billboards put itself in a great place for the rest of the season.  With Three Billboards, one could argue they now are the frontrunner simply because it's a strong possibility to win the SAG Best Cast award, making it appear like a runaway train of sorts.

But don't discount that the Oscars like their Best Pictures a bit more traditional, and though it stars Frances McDormand, this movie is not a Coen Brothers film.  This is the rare moment, perhaps, where a delayed campaign strategy could work out for The Post.  Spielberg is a big deal with the Academy, and with the sheen largely off of Dunkirk (I honestly wonder if Nolan is fretting over whether he'll be excluded once again), the two-time Best Director winner's flick is almost exclusively going to appeal to an older, more conservative bloc of voters that still likely dominate AMPAS voting (it's hard to get a gage on such things since they don't release membership numbers very often, but I'd assume that even a burst of diversity in recent years isn't going to shift the Oscars overnight).  It's also worth noting that Get Out is still a threat considering it's the film that most captured the zeitgeist this year, and that helps.  But this race isn't over, even if Three Billboards got at least something of a leg-up last night.

2. Best Actress is Also Anyone's Guess

Honestly, the one person who could have won last night and cemented the Best Actress race felt like Margot Robbie.  I haven't seen I, Tonya yet (it's on the agenda for Saturday, along with The Post as I all but wind down Oscar season), but Robbie had pretty much everything going for her in this race.  She's deglam, right in the sweet spot in terms of age for Oscar (AMPAS tends to honor women in their 20's and Robbie is 27), she's playing a real person, she's in a Best Picture contender that won't actually win Best Picture, she's incredibly beautiful, and she clearly really wants to win.  Some of those appear surface-level sexist because they are, but reality is an important thing to acknowledge in politics, and recent winners like Jennifer Lawrence, Brie Larson, and Emma Stone show that Robbie would be in their wheelhouse.

But the problem is that I, Tonya still lacks the prestige one normally associates with this category, and Robbie still needs momentum & an acknowledgement from another awards show that this is worthy of Oscar's credibility.  Unlike some of the other women in this category, she's never won a statue and can't get in on name alone for the win-people are going to have to give the okay to Oscar that she's worthy of this honor ahead of time.  Without a Globe nomination, she's going to have to take bets on SAG doing that for her, otherwise she'll likely be a bridesmaid this season with AMPAS.

Which means that we have a wide-open race, leading off with last night's winners Frances McDormand and Saoirse Ronan.  McDormand, one could argue, would also be a frontrunner, albeit one who clearly hates being in that room (that she was at all proves she's out to win this thing this year), but McDormand already has an Oscar and that's going to hurt her a bit against Ronan, who would be on her third nomination in another Best Picture contender, and like Robbie is beautiful and in her twenties.  Ronan has to contend with playing a role that would be basically unprecedented to win Best Actress (though they skew young with this category, when was the last time someone won for playing a teenager onscreen...if ever?).  The SAG Awards could still throw a monkey wrench into this lineup (Sally Hawkins, anyone?), and if The Post takes off Meryl's always a possibility.  And it's still not out of the question that Judi Dench bests any of these five women with her contingency at the Oscars and makes a seemingly five-person race a four-person race (Dench won't win).  But Margot Robbie missed her shot at a stampede Sunday night, and as a result we might not know the winner of Best Actress until Oscar night.

3. The Supporting Categories Feel About Right Here, Don't They?

While two categories got less predictable, two others felt more solidified.  While nominations in Best Supporting Actor & Actress are still anyone's guess (both have about eight names that feel in the hunt), the winners at the Dolby in a few weeks sure seem like they'll look like Allison Janney and Sam Rockwell.  They gave big speeches, and the audience seemed to really like both wins, showing that this might be a rally behind two longtime character actors who have always felt Oscar-adjacent, even if they've never been given the roles that would catapult them to such recognition until now.

Rockwell is arguably the less solid of the two, if only because he was the underdog before last night (I've been saying for months that Janney is winning this trophy).  He's still got to defeat Dafoe at the SAG Awards and one could argue that he might split the vote with his costar Woody Harrelson, who is getting enough awards press that I wonder if he might be up for Oscar (he's nominated at the SAG Awards).  But Rockwell is more publicly gregarious than Dafoe and while the latter leans into the subtle, Rockwell goes for the gusto and Oscar has proven that they like such things.  Rockwell's also in a film that probably will be a major Oscar Best Picture contender so they'll want to honor it somewhere even if they don't go with the top prize; that might be Best Screenplay, but Supporting Actor is an easy place to do it.  Plus, he's basically the co-lead in the film, and he's worked with virtually everyone in Hollywood-I'd say he's the out-front frontrunner right about now.

Janney, on the other hand, is impossible not to love.  She's incredibly famous but never won these kinds of film awards, she's shooting for the rafters in I, Tonya, and she's going to give great speeches all season long.  Yes, she's missed out at the critics prizes, but that didn't matter the second CJ Cregg stepped on-stage and everyone was reminded why we love watching Janney win prizes.  Metcalf is a very good actress, and could still gain plaudits based on that, but she's not as famous as Janney & she's not playing as bawdy of a character.  I'd be absolutely stunned if Janney doesn't steamroll through this season, as it was always going to be Metcalf looking over her shoulder from the pole position considering their roles and celebrity statuses, not the other way around.

4. Gary Oldman's Past Comes Back to Haunt Him?

I think when it comes to Best Actor, last night probably cemented Oldman's march to the Oscar.  This is the sort of Oscar-bait role that no one can ignore, and it's not like James Franco is winning for The Disaster Artist (I mean, right?).  However, it's worth noting in the environment of #MeToo and #TimesUp, that Oldman's publicist could become the hardest-working person in show business in the next few weeks, and that may impact this race more than anything else.

After all, Oldman's record with women and with avoiding controversy is hardly spotless.  In his 2001 divorce proceedings, his then-wife Donya Fiorentino alleged that Oldman beat her with a phone receiver (allegations that Oldman vehemently denied).  Oldman also has a long history of defending unfortunate actors (Mel Gibson being at the top of that list), and using incendiary language when it comes to persons of color, LGBT communities, women, and Jewish people.  Frequently these are meant to come from more an academic than an accusatory angle (saying "what if I used term X" rather than "you are an X" situations), but it still tows a line that could be rife for digging up in a press that seems to cater to such controversies.

I'm not saying these things should factor, but it's easy to assume that they could.  One could argue that it might not matter-Mel Gibson was an Oscar nominee just last year, and last year's Best Actor winner Casey Affleck also has a questionable past.  But perhaps what will matter most for Oldman is if no alternative emerges.  Franco, one could argue, has similar potential demons in his closet, Kaaluya is very young & based on his dour expression last night is wholly uninterested in this celebrity cavalcade, and Washington/Hanks/Day-Lewis all feel like bridesmaids, not brides.  About the only contender that could give him a run-for-his-money is Timothee Chalamet, who is very, very young to win an Oscar for Best Actor (in Best Actress, this would be a different conversation).  As a result, Oldman may be in a situation where he simply can't win, particularly if CMBYN misses in Best Picture.  But I'd be stunned if these past incidents don't become a conversation.

5. Greta Gerwig is Getting Nominated

For all of the wonder of Oprah's speech (I'll go there tomorrow if I have time), no non-competitive winner may have made a bigger impact on the Oscars last night than Natalie Portman.  Following Winfrey's speech, Portman snuck in a cut about the Best Director field, stating before Ron Howard started the list of nominees that these were "the five all-male nominees."  In a year that has focused intently on honoring the voices of women, it cannot be denied that the bosses on film sets are still predominantly men, as is evidenced by no female nominees this year.

I think that Hollywood and the director's branch is going to take note of that and nominate the one viable contender in their field (sorry, Ree Dees, but Netflix bias is too much to overcome here): Greta Gerwig.  She headlined a film that is almost certain to be nominated for Best Picture, and has proven even with one picture that she has an auterist voice that could be the markings of a new, great filmmaker.  Oscar has been resistant to women nominees for Best Director in the past, and despite their penchant for actors-turned-directors, have been particularly averse to actresses-turned-directors, ignoring the likes of Barbra Streisand, Angelina Jolie, and Jodie Foster in the past (yes, Sofia Coppola is technically under this lens, but even in 2003 few thought of her as an actress and more as a writer).  Streisand herself said the fact that she is the only woman to have won Best Director at the Globes is ridiculous, and I quite agree (and I think AMPAS will too).  Oscar loves nothing more than self-congratulations, and while this is doing the bare minimum (most directors with Gerwig's profile and Best Picture contender would make it), they'll still take the applause, and Gerwig will get her nomination.

Predicting This Year's Oscars

We have not talked a lot about this year's Oscar race, because, well, it's not that exciting.  While it's true that no major films have emerged, I'm going to be honest-film in 2017 has not been my jam.  It's not that there haven't occasionally been the good elements in a movie, and admittedly I haven't seen a truly awful movie yet in 2017, but nothing stands out as a wow this year for me.  I've been hearing a few movies I'm very excited to eventually partake in, and I will of course make year-end lists, but by-and-large I'm just "ehh" when it comes to the cinematic annum at large.

That being said, I'm about to take a hiatus from the blog (you hopefully won't notice too much, as there will be a bunch of articles that will be coming out, hopefully a lot but that will depend on how productive I am in the next three days), and I wanted a time capsule of sorts to look upon laughingly when I still thought all of the races were up-in-the-air, so I'm going to briefly predict seven of the major races, looking at nominations, but more taking a peak at the potential winners.  Without further adieu...

Best Picture

There are still a lot of movies in this race, but honestly-I think most of the studios badly misjudged this year.  The year-end glut in 2017 is something to behold.  So many titles, including major contenders like The Shape of Water, Call Me By Your Name, Last Flag Flying, and The Post are opening late that I kind of wonder if none of them will be able to grab momentum to actually win.  Sure, there will be nominations a-plenty, but films that have already gathered steam seem more likely to win.  After all, no film has been released in December (like The Shape of Water and The Post, two of the more likely nominees thanks to buzz and pedigree surrounding them) and won Best Picture since The King's Speech.  It's actually something of a misnomer that you need to be decorating for Christmas to win an Oscar in the top category.

As a result, I'm going to go with Dunkirk.  I think that Get Out is a stretch, quite frankly; I'm still not convinced it's the Best Picture lock so many others do, as The Silence of the Lambs and The Sixth Sense (it's only recent horror movie predecessors) had more famous leads and weren't as overtly political, which could turn off older Oscar voters.  So, in that vein, I think that the Best Picture winner may well be Dunkirk.  This far out, it makes the most sense: it's a war film from a longtime (some would say) neglected director on the periphery with Oscar, a beautifully-shot film that was critically-acclaimed, and most importantly this year, it's had time percolate in people's minds as a theoretical masterpiece.  Combine all that against a field that seems pretty lacking, and you have the frontrunner.

Best Director

It is difficult for me to see a world where Christopher Nolan doesn't win but Dunkirk does.  Though Nolan isn't exactly an Academy favorite (he's never been cited for Best Director), he's had a nominated Best Picture in Inception and movies like Memento, The Dark Knight, and Interstellar were remembered when it comes to AMPAS.  As a result, I think this could well be his Schindler's List or The Departed moment-a way of acknowledging, "yes you're worthy of this" even if a teensy bit of the trophy is more for a collective career than anything else.

That being said, occasionally that "collective career" trophy gets stampeded (just ask David Fincher), and if there is another contender, it could well be Guillermo del Toro.  While not as adored by Oscar (really only Pan's Labyrinth has been a hit with AMPAS previously), del Toro has a signature style and will surely be nominated this year.  If they want to go with an Alfonso Cuaron-style "we're not comfortable with this getting Best Picture, but we're aware you're a visionary" type win, I wouldn't be stunned, but honestly-this feels like Nolan's trophy even if Dunkirk gets thrown off in the top category.

Best Actor

When was the last time that Best Actor was this thin?  Even in a year where none of the categories (so far) scream BEST IN AGES, Best Actor is unusually weak.  The nominations field is genuinely a guessing game, with oft-neglected Oscar nominees trying for a comeback (Jake Gyllenhaal), frequent nominees who could get in by default (Denzel Washington, Daniel Day-Lewis, Tom Hanks), potentially dual leads from the same film (Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston), or hell, even someone under 25, a true departure for Oscar (Timothee Chalamet).  I've even heard of a random "career recognition" nod for the likes of Sam Elliott or the late Harry Dean Stanton.

All of which is unfortunately where the suspense ends because Gary Oldman is winning this trophy.  Like, there's no competition.  I'm not sure if Oldman just got tired of waiting or if it's a happy coincidence he's in the most Oscar-bait role he could possibly find, but a real-life figure in a World War II epic where he wears prosthetics and gives large-and-impressive speeches is not going to lose.  Certainly not when being played by one of the great actors of his generation, someone nearly everyone from the next generation cites as an influence (actors ranging from Brad Pitt to Matt Damon fall over themselves praising Oldman), and who has inexplicably never won an Oscar, and in fact has only been nominated once (in a year, for the record, I thought he should win).  Oldman's taking this trophy to the bank unless he starts wearing a MAGA hat on the red carpet.

Best Actress

Actress is supposedly a much better category if you believe the buzz, though I'm a peon in Middle America so I can't vouch for this fact, since no one's bothered to open most of these movies where I can see them.  That being said, the pedigree of the names this year is much higher.  I think in a different year Kate Winslet might have been able to take it-word is she's marvelous in Wonder Wheel, but Woody Allen's controversy is still so toxic (and Winslet isn't great when it comes to tricky public statements the way Cate Blanchett was in 2013), so I think that she's probably out, maybe even a surprise snub for a nomination.

While there's a number of other stars making a play for actual nominations (Dench, Robbie, Ronan, Stone, perhaps even Gadot), the actual winner is going to be either Sally Hawkins or Frances McDormand.  Hawkins has an edge in that she's in a bigger film, one certain to be on a lot of Best Picture ballots, and despite a few solid performances she's never won a trophy, but sci-fi/fantasy is such a hard sell when it comes to Oscar winners.  Alec Guinness, Ian McKellen, Sigourney Weaver-it's a short list even of actors that have even gotten nominated for such films, and the only recent example of an actor taking the trophy for a fantasy-style film is Heath Ledger, who won as much for dying as he did for the actual work (I'm still not convinced that Ledger would have beaten Philip Seymour Hoffman had he been alive to campaign for that trophy).  As a result, until I see proof otherwise I'm going with McDormand, an unlikely second trophy winner, but not one that feels wrong for the victory.

I have to note, though, how moronic Sony was not to release The Wife this year.  In a field where there's no obvious frontrunner (and where, despite the pedigree of some of these women, I have to say we're looking at a less impressive field than the last couple of years), a six-time Oscar loser could have turned this race into her own private My Trip to Bountiful.  It'd be one thing if The Wife wasn't good, but the critics I've read who talked about say it was a certain nomination, perhaps even a trophy.  Considering how much Close has wanted this victory (and the fact that there's no guarantee next year will give her such an opening), this may well be her saying goodbye to her only shot at a competitive Oscar.

Best Supporting Actor

Hmm, this is the first field I genuinely don't think there's an obvious frontrunner.  The other four seem pretty straight-forward to me, albeit I could buy arguments to the contrary.  Of the main six, this is the field that I think could go any way, though if past awards seasons are any indication they'll probably stick to just one aging character actor and give him the Globe/SAG/BAFTA/Oscar even though it'd be so much more interesting if they spread the wealth.

I guess that aging character actor thing most accurately describes Richard Jenkins, whom I'm guessing is the victor here based solely on an Oscar points system.  He's in a Best Picture frontrunner (points), he's straight but playing gay (also points), and he's a former nominee who has never won (again, points).  Other leading contenders like Willem Dafoe, Michael Stuhlbarg, Kevin Spacey, and Laurence Fishburne could also be in the race, but none of them has all of the clear advantages that Jenkins does.  Dafoe's an unhonored former nominee, but is in a considerably smaller film, Fishburne has to share the spotlight with two other leading men, Stuhlbarg has never been cited before so the nomination may feel like the victory (plus, he's the youngest of the contenders), and Spacey already has two Oscars even though he has the baitiest role.  All-in-all, Jenkins is the good-on-paper contender, and occasionally that's enough (see also Jim Broadbent, Mark Rylance, Alan Arkin).

Best Supporting Actress

I have been saying for YEARS that Allison Janney will eventually win an Oscar nomination and that Laurie Metcalf is too good of an actor to ever miss with AMPAS if someone would just give her a role.  Both actresses are probable nominees this year for I, Tonya and Lady Bird, respectively, and in Janney's case, I think she might well have the Oscar in the bag.

After all, Janney is playing a gorgon scene-stealer in a film that is getting mixed reviews but everyone says she's enormous in (cough, Renee Zellweger, cough), and she's one of the more popular actors in Hollywood.  Giving her the Oscar will guarantee a string of clever, YouTube-friendly speeches, and recent years have seen the return of the character actress to this category even against the ingenues (Octavia Spencer, Patricia Arquette, Viola Davis).  Janney makes sense, and much like JK Simmons a few years ago is the sort of actor who could win the first award of the season and everyone says "that's about right."

Should I, Tonya prove too trashy (perhaps she'll only a get a Patricia Clarkson in Pieces of April kind of nomination), it's difficult to say who will pick up the baton.  Metcalf could be a threat, but I feel like her role might be too light (same with previous winners Holly Hunter or Octavia Spencer).  Melissa Leo hasn't gained enough goodwill since her crazy campaign last time, and Lesley Manville is too unknown with Oscar to win on her first try.  Arguably the best shot for the win is Kristin Scott Thomas of the remainders, but the long-supporting wife is more of a nominee at this point in Oscar history than an actual winner (otherwise Helena Bonham Carter could have emerged in 2010).  All of which is to say, I struggle to find someone more likely than Janney.

Best Animated Feature Film

I only bring this race up because the actual winner seems SO hard to pin down.  I can name a few films that are probable nominees such as Coco and The Breadwinner, and there are some movies that I think could steel their strong box office into nominations despite reviews (The Boss Baby) or past trepidation about the franchise (The Lego Batman Movie), but it's nearly impossible to find a movie that will actually win this trophy.

Coco is the most obvious contender, but here's a scary thought, and one that we should ponder considering how bankrupt Pixar's creativity has been in recent years-at what point does Pixar make a truly uninspired original film, one that's on-par with Cars?  It could well happen, and while Coco looks beautiful in trailers, so (quite frankly) did Cars, which surprisingly lost to Happy Feet that year.  If Coco flails, there's virtually no other realistic contender to take this trophy.  Could we FINALLY see an independent movie make it like The Breadwinner?  The only time we've had that happen was in 2002, when Spirited Away was so obviously better than all of the other nominees that no amount of "lack of box office" could prevent it from winning, and even then it won with Disney as its domestic distributor, something The Breadwinner can't boast.  I would bet still on Coco, but honestly-if it falls, there's not really a precedented movie to catch it.  And man did Laika pick the wrong season to take the year off.

Those are my predictions-weigh in with yours-who do you think ends up the winners in these seven categories this far out?  Share your theories in the comments!