OVP: Supporting Actress (2015)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2015)

The Nominees Were...

Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

My Thoughts: While category fraud has been prevalent and growing at the Oscars for decades, one has to wonder looking at 2015 if this was the straw that broke the camel's back, for the good or the bad.  In 2015, there was no pretense about the category fraud of two specific contenders (Rooney Mara & Alicia Vikander), both of whom are leads in two-lead films, one of which (Vikander) doesn't even have the recent excuse of "no two leads from the same gender in the same movie."  I'm strongly against this category fraud, not least of which because I'm a huge classic movie buff, and wouldn't want to deprive the world of the fame achieved by the likes of Thelma Ritter, Agnes Moorehead, Walter Brennan, and Claude Rains by getting Oscar nominations for their best roles.  As a result, I usually knock anyone that is a clear violator of category fraud of one "star" in the ranking of how I would vote for them here.  That doesn't always mean that I don't end up giving this trophy to a lead performance when they're miles above the rest of the field (see here for example), but it does mean that they have to work harder since they're already starting with a clear advantage.

This has to be said because Rooney Mara is sensational in Carol.  It's very hard to play an introverted character, unequipped with the language to express what she's feeling, particularly in a period piece where she's starring opposite an actress who gets both of those tools to deliver a performance, but Mara does it.  There's something so meticulous in her Therese.  Look at the way that she unpacks speeches she wants to give to Carol but says them to other people (Jake Lacy's Richard, for one) instead, or how she has to express so much through her face that her words and body can't.  Mara isn't an actress I would have gone to when she made her big splash in The Social Network a decade ago as someone who would have made a great silent film star, but here she shows that ability, acting out complex emotions that are alien to her character with a complete effortlessness.

Vikander is also swell in The Danish Girl.  2015 was a banner year for the actress, and if she doesn't start straightening out her career choices, might be the only banner year in her career, but she deserved the kudos she received for this and other films that year.  There's an ease to her Gerda, a comfortable nonchalance that hides the insecurities in her relationship with Einar/Lili, and she more than makes up for Redmayne not really getting his character.  I would have liked to have seen more of what happens to her as the story becomes entirely Lili's toward the end, and she's pushed to being the supportive wife, but Vikander is much better than cheeky Twitter commentators would let you believe when they discuss The Danish Girl.

When we get to the three actual supporting parts, we sadly don't see the consistency that Vikander & Mara bring to their work.  It is very hard to begrudge Jennifer Jason Leigh an Oscar nomination after all of these years of waiting, but did it really need to be for Quentin Tarantino's worst movie, and not just that, but one of the worst movies of 2015?  Her performance here is completely one-note, and one of the lesser examples of "I'm the only girl in a cast of all men" which feels about how she got noticed here (also Tarantino does have a strong history of landing at least one of his actors with Oscar).  She gets some fine asides in against Russell, but there's nothing special or interesting happening here, and it feels a lot like Stanley Tucci's nomination for The Lovely Bones a few years back in that they just desperately wanted to honor this specific actor while they had the chance.

Speaking of "I'm the only girl in a cast of men," we have Rachel McAdams, who like Leigh is landing her first (and so far only) Oscar nomination for Spotlight.  Unlike Leigh, who most people just assume was finally getting cited after years of rejection, McAdams appears to have her defenders in this role, but I'm not one of them.  I've come around to her as an actress (Disobedience being my "oh, right" moment), but here she does nothing with her Sacha Pfeiffer, taking introverted to just mean one-note and reserved.  Leigh at least brings some life to her character, but McAdams only occasionally has a spark, her eyes flickering when an interview says something interesting, but there's nothing special going on here, nothing that would warrant a nomination, and one wonders if Hollywood (who has always loved McAdams more than she seemed to love it back considering the press she gets compared to the roles she's done), just wanted to encourage her a little more into being in memorable pictures.

Our final nomination is for Kate Winslet, a proper supporting part and one that actually brings it.  Winslet had the longest absence with Oscar since she'd first been nominated (a seven year spread), and this was a welcome reminder of how good she could be.  Joanna Hoffman could just be observational, there for expositional conversations with Steve Jobs to move along Aaron Sorkin's life, but Winslet fills her with such passion and knowledge you understand why she's the only person who can tell Steve off without having to explain it.  That final scene, where she gives Steve a lecture about what it means to be a father could have been SO hokey (that's how it was written), but she sells it because she's put in the work throughout the film without you realizing it, and that "or you can contact me, at my new job working anywhere I want" line reading where she not only chastises him for his misuse of his daughter but also of her (reminding him that she is also a catch and could work literally anywhere and walk away at any time) may be the best line reading of any actor in 2015.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes in a wonderful touch put Vikander & Mara in the lead categories where they belonged, and as a result we had room for Helen Mirren (Trumbo) and Jane Fonda (Youth), as well as substituting out McAdams for Vikander in Ex Machina (a proper supporting performance).  Winslet would take the trophy, setting her up as the obvious second place to Vikander throughout the year.  The SAG Awards were bound to the category fraud due to their rules (you have to vote for what the studio submits, rather than the Globes or Oscars where it's at your discretion).  Here Vikander won, and the only person thrown out was Mirren in place of Leigh.  Leigh was at the BAFTA Awards, however, as the two that were thrown out were Vikander for herself (she was cited for Ex Machina while The Danish Girl competed for Best Actress) and McAdams, who was replaced with Julie Walters (Brooklyn).  I have to assume that Leigh, McAdams, and Mirren were in some sort of genuine battle for inclusion here, though it's not out-of-the-question that if Vikander had gone lead (very possible), she would have been double-nominated.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: Well for starters I'd put in Vikander for the right role-not only is she supporting in Ex Machina, she's better, and in fact better than this whole field.  Rose Byrne is marvelously campy in Spy, and a nomination would have been an acknowledgement of all of the brilliant work she's been doing in comedy over the past decade.  I'd have found room for Kristen Stewart's crown jewel of a performance in Clouds of Sils Maria (she has emerged as one of our finest actresses in the past few years), and finally I would have kept Jane Fonda for that devastating cameo in Youth, arguably a role that would have best illustrated how absurd it is to have Vikander & Mara in this field.

Oscar’s Choice: In what was probably a closer matchup than you remember between Vikander and Winslet, Oscar went full-in on the category fraud.

My Choice: For me it would be between Mara & Winslet, but with Winslet being a proper supporting performance, I'm giving it to her.  Mara follows, with Vikander, Leigh, and McAdams behind.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Are you in concurrence with Oscar on Vikander, or does the category fraud make you go for Winslet? Do you think that Leigh or McAdams will ever be nominated for better work, or will this nomination suffice for the reminder of their careers?  And who will Helen Mirren be doomed to show up to precursors for the rest of time, never actually getting back to the Oscars?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2015: Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

Song to Song (2017)

Film: Song to Song
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Patti Smith
Director: Terrence Malick
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Few once-lauded directors have become easier punching bags in modern pop culture than Terrence Malick.  The deeply-private (he doesn't care for being called a recluse, though it might not be far from the truth), director has a style unlike pretty much any other filmmaker's working today, creating complicated, occasionally frustrating but always fascinating visual poems for the screen.  I am an ardent admirer of his work, and am currently in the process of trying to see everything he's ever done (anyone who can point me in the direction of a way to see Voyage of Time is about to become my new best friend), and have not given into the fashion of slamming his three most recent films, considering To the Wonder to be a masterpiece and Knight of Cups to be a fascinating if occasionally (too) boundless movie.  His most recent film Song to Song seems to have been the final in a trilogy of this experimental style (Malick has stated his next picture, which is somewhere in its production, will have a tighter narrative structure, though considering this is Terry we're talking about that could mean anything...it could also mean the movie won't be out for another twenty years, though it's rumored for a Spring 2019 release).  Either way, we do have Song to Song thankfully, and as I finally just caught it, I figured it was due a review on the blog.

(Spoilers Ahead) Like so many of his pictures, trying to define this in terms of actual plot is impossible.  The movie, though it has names for its characters, doesn't really use them-I think the only time anyone uses their name is Rooney Mara's Faye, and it's simply mouthed softly rather than something you can hear.  The movie takes a look at a romance between Faye and BV (Gosling), too aspiring musical artists, the latter of whom is enjoying more success than the former.  They enter the world of a record producer Cook (Fassbender), who promises to make all of their dreams come true and shows them in lavish, impossibly-gorgeous mansions and situations, but instead their relationship starts to drag apart.  In between that time, we see all three explore relationships with other people, with BV entering into an ultimately tragic romance with a waitress named Rhonda (Portman), and Gosling romancing Amanda (Blanchett, who I believe was uncredited despite a pretty substantial role in the film by Malick's standards, certainly more so than Holly Hunter's blink-and-you-missi-it performance as Portman's mother), but ultimately he returns to both his simple life on a drilling rig and Faye returns to him, their love sustaining them in a way their musical careers could not.

Song to Song has considerably more structure than Knight of Cups, so critics being divided on this film while seeming to prefer the former on such grounds feels a bit absurd.  The dialogue here isn't as crisp or as meaningful as his previous pictures, and in many ways Song to Song proves that it was To the Wonder that started a trilogy rather than The Tree of Life, the 2011 movie that restarted Malick's career but has considerably more narrative force than any of his three later (fictional) pictures.  The movie has a heavy use of cameos, including Val Kilmer as a mentally-ill rocker and a number of real-life musicians, including a terrific bit by Patti Smith as herself, inspiring the young guitarist Faye.

The movie's best moments are when Malick is using extended visuals to tell the stories rather than his heavy reliance on narration and shorter film cuts, as it's clear the lack of a traditional screenplay forces Mara, Fassbender, and Gosling to all say things in voice-over that feel like something you'd find on a coffee mug you buy from Hallmark.  Still, there's a lot to offer here.  I think the acting is improved from both of its companion pieces, particularly Mara & Blanchett (until I wrote that sentence it didn't occur to me that this was a Carol reunion...sadly they don't share the screen at all here).  Fassbender's story gets lost, but Gosling & Mara make their relationship work.  This isn't the masterwork that Malick is capable of, but it's not the obvious, easily derided work that so many people thought it was, and Malick is distinctive enough for a proper cinephile to find certain sequences brilliant, particularly when they seem to borrow a visual style from To the Wonder and Knight of Cups to make all three feel like Warhol-esque versions of the same picture.  I do hope that his next film finds something new to say within his distinctive style, but Song to Song, like all of Malick's works, is gorgeous and worth the investment.

OVP: Lion (2016)

Film: Lion (2016)
Stars: Dev Patel, Rooney Mara, David Wenham, Nicole Kidman, Sunny Pawar
Director: Garth Davis
Oscar History: 6 nominations (Best Picture, Supporting Actor-Dev Patel, Supporting Actress-Nicole Kidman, Cinematography, Score, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each Oscar season, especially after the nominations were announced, there's a movie that people in my life who don't know movies super well but who know I like movies, ask me about.  At the beginning of the nominations, and especially after the Globes wins, that movie was La La Land, which is likely to soar into Best Picture this Sunday, perhaps gaining an historic 12+ victories.  However, I should note that another film has all but usurped it in terms of people asking me about "what did you think?" and while this is anecdotal, it does perhaps hint at what screeners might be getting to the top of the stacks of AMPAS voters, and that is Lion.  Considering I still have eleven Oscar-nominated 2016 films that I've seen but not yet reviewed (ARGH!!!!), I figured I'd make a point of at least getting the buzzed-about titles onto the blog and my thoughts on it out before it perhaps wins a surprise trophy?

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is told in two parts, with very few flashbacks in-between so the narrative isn't quite what you'd expect.  The first half focuses on Saroo (Pawar, Patel as an adult) when he is a young boy in India, and who gets on a train one night with his brother (despite the fact that his brother doesn't want to take him).  Saroo, through a coincidence of circumstances, is forced away from his brother while he's taking a nap, and ends up on a train halfway across of India, a thousand miles from his home, not speaking the language.  He is put in an orphanage and is eventually adopted by a Tasmanian couple named Sue (Kidman) and John (Wenham), and is raised alongside a more tempestuous brother.  The film cuts twenty years into the future with Saroo now a young man with a thick Australian accent, and who is struggling to come to terms with his family that never knew what happened to him.  Through a series of investigations (and what appears to be a solid advertisement for Google Earth), he ends up finding his parents, but along the way comes to terms with his complicated relationship with his adoptive parents and his girlfriend and his sense of identity.  Like most true stories, the film ends with a look at where Saroo ended up (and how his actual name was Sheru, which means lion, hence the title).

It's a lovely movie, I must say, and one that holds up somewhat despite a heavy dose of schmaltz.  The first half of the film is riveting, and grounded by a strong piece of work by young Sunny Pawar, probably the best child acting performance of the year, or at least in any of the Best Pictures.  The film doesn't shy away from a lot of complicated questions, particularly around identity, and I've never seen Dev Patel be better (or, quite frankly, be more attractive, though unlike the rest of the internet I've noticed Patel before-I always like guys with stuck-out ears).  I will say, though that his acting abilities eluded me before and while I don't think this is Oscar-worthy stuff, he has tremendous promise in this role and I hope people give him more to do after Lion.

But I couldn't love the film.  I cried, don't get me wrong, but this is a sad and moving story-I think only a statue doesn't end up crying by the end of it.  However, the film itself never really is as interesting as it wants to be, and the adult half of the film never quite recovers from the gargantuan task set before it in the first half of the movie.  I didn't love Kidman's performance-I thought it was lived-in and I'm a big fan usually, but her major scene reeked of someone who deserved less sympathy than we would have afforded her (the white savior complex may be real, but it's hard to imagine that she viewed herself that way and it wouldn't have come back to bite her in terms of her sons at some point), and otherwise she just sort of is in the background of the film-the Oscar nod was a bit much.  The movie never knows what's going on with Patel's relationship with Rooney Mara (Mara, a hit-or-miss actress for me, can't figure out her character at all), and the ending, while moving, is completely anticipated throughout and there's very little drama in the last half hour.  It's one of those movies that brilliantly handles "we know how this is going to end" for the first hour but then loses that lens in the second half, trying to be a thriller where the reveal is already there.

Those are my thoughts on Lion, a fine if not superb movie.  What were yours?  I'm guessing most people have seen it by now, so am I in the majority or is this the Oscar nominee everyone feels was kind of more Oscar-bait than Oscar-worthy?  And where do Patel/Kidman rank in your personal ballots?  Share below!

The Best Films of 2015

Whew!  I went on a bit of a movie-watching bender over the past 36 hours, trying to scoop up as many of the missing films of 2015 that I could, and am officially ready to announce my Top 10 for the year (I already announced my Bottom 5 a few days ago on the blog).  Like with the worst of the year I didn't put them in a ranked order (they're alphabetical), but I highly recommend that you investigate all ten of these if you like to laugh, cry, and most of all enjoy fine cinema.  You'll note that every single one of these films has a female protagonist, which is unusual for me (I've never done that before with a film year), but appropriate considering this was clearly the year of the female-driven film, even if Oscar disagrees when they eventually crown Spotlight or The Revenant.  Without further adieu...

45 Years (dir. Andrew Haigh)

A deeply moving look at the hierarchies and intricacies of love and marriage.  Andrew Haigh has proven himself, with Weekend and Looking, a sharp observer of relationships and here we get the devastation of second guesses and suppositions.  Both Tom Courtenay and especially Charlotte Rampling dominate this in subdued, marvelous acting.

Brooklyn (dir. John Crowley)

Romance, especially big, complicated, straight-dramatic romance had largely gone out of fashion at the cinema until 2015, when films like Brooklyn brought it back.  Saoirse Ronan graduates to adulthood with the same level of ease that she portrayed in Atonement, and it pays off with a coming-of-age story that feels fresh, modern, and yet fully in its time-and-place.

Carol (dir. Todd Haynes)

I have never loved, but only liked, the films of Todd Haynes.  Until now.  Carol is the movie that made me a convert, and it's not hard to see why.  The film is that rare romance where you genuinely can't figure out how it will end until the movie actually gives us that answer (props to Phyllis Nagy on the wonderful screenplay), though all along you're breathlessly hoping that Carol and Therese end up together as Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara make a beautiful pair.

Clouds of Sils Maria (dir. Olivier Assayas)

This is what great acting and writing can accomplish-truly moving mountains.  Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart create something breathtaking in this look at celebrity, relationships, and aging.  The film came out so early in the year you'd be forgiven for thinking its time has passed, but Clouds lingers and comes back at you as it's too perceptive to disappear.

Ex Machina (dir. Alex Garland)

This was a wonderful throwback to the Science-Fiction films of the 1970's, where instead of battling aliens or zombies, we instead find ourselves at battle with ourselves and our own hubris.  Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, and Oscar Isaac create a terrific acting trio, frequently one-upping each other with second agendas and the introspection of forced claustrophobia.

I'll See You in My Dreams (dir. Brett Haley)

Age was a great supporting player in a lot of the best films of the year, and none more-so than I'll See You in My Dreams, a film that meditates on when we stop experiencing newness in our lives and when we pack up the adventures and risks of our youth.  Blythe Danner has never been better (and Sam Elliott never sexier) than in this romance about two people trying something learned and making it feel rich and unexpected again.

Mad Max: Fury Road (dir. George Miller)

The most vibrant action film I've seen in years.  Brimming with lush visuals (John Seale deserves a standing ovation to go with that Oscar nomination), the film is raw, humming with energy, and a complete shock after a year where Jurassic World brought a franchise's heat crashing down.  Everything works, and you find yourself eagerly awaiting every single impending scene.

Room (dir. Lenny Abrahamson)

Based on the amount of tears that came down my face, this was not the smartest date movie I've ever selected.  That's really the only complaint here, as Room is about as wonderful as movies can get, with a perceptive look into the world both of a sheltered, innocent child like Jack (Jacob Tremblay) and a magnificent turn as a woman who doesn't know what to do with her lost youth in Joy (Brie Larson, finally getting the kudos her career has been demanding for years).

Spy (dir. Paul Feig)

The funniest movie I've seen all year...the funniest movie I've seen in several years.  I literally could not stop laughing, and that only happens when you have Melissa McCarthy in top-form (and during the first half of the film, in a form I've never seen her embrace on the big-screen) and a supporting cast of Rose Byrne, Alison Janney, Miranda Hart, and (particularly surprising and delightful) Jason Statham all showing ridiculously well-honed comedic chops.

Testament of Youth (dir. James Kent)

When I keep internally saying the words "Waterloo Bridge" you are doing something right onscreen.  This is one of the most romantic and fully-felt films I've seen in years, with breathy and airy romantic gestures between Kit Harington and Alicia Vikander, who in a year where everyone was awed by her work in The Danish Girl and Ex Machina, won my heart personally forever with her Vera, so defiant and full of ambitions bursting to find their purpose.

And there you have it folks-my top ten of the year!  Share your thoughts on these films (and if you haven't seen any of them, it's time to start clicking that 'Add' button on Netflix) along with your Top 10 lists in the comments!

OVP: Carol (2015)

Film: Carol (2015)
Stars: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Kyle Chandler, Sarah Paulson, Jake Lacy
Director: Todd Haynes
Oscar History: 6 nominations (Best Actress-Cate Blanchett, Supporting Actress-Rooney Mara, Score, Cinematography, Costume, Adapted Screenplay)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 5/5 stars

Trying to live up to hype is a difficult task, to be sure, but no film has had the staggering task that Carol has had in the past few weeks as I waited impatiently for it to finally arrive in my local community.  The Oscar Twitter community (particularly the gay Oscar Twitter community) has been raving perpetually about the film, and I couldn't help but wonder if it could possibly be as good as everyone said it was, or if I was going to be left in the dust on this film.  After all, I have never loved a film of Todd Haynes before.  Far From Heaven and I'm Not There were both fine films, bordering on the great, but aside from clearly good performances from principle cast members I couldn't get behind the movies themselves and part of me wondered if Carol, this elusive movie that felt more cerebral in a year where I've oddly embraced warmer films, could find a way into my heart in such a mood.  However, only an hour home from my family Christmas I couldn't wait any longer and finally arrived at the movie, which, to me, was the event of the winter season.

(Spoilers Ahead) To try and sum up all of the feelings I had while watching Carol may be a hard thing to do, so I'll focus first on the look of the movie, which is divine.  Edward Lachman, who won his only Oscar nomination to date for Far From Heaven, spends much of this film trying to recreate scenes in the way Edward Hopper painted.  We see less of the 1950's melodramas that populated the previous Julianne Moore film and instead see an homage to the American realist period of art.  As a result, we get one of the most beautiful films of the year, a real treat to state considering Mad Max, The Revenant, and Creed are keeping that bar pretty damn high.  There are actual scenes you can picture yourself hanging on the wall, such as the now famous shot of Rooney Mara against an indigo evening backdrop or Cate Blanchett being clutched by Kyle Chandler.  It's a wonderfully-felt and gorgeous movie, and the aesthetics of the Art Direction, Costume, and scoring all add to that as well.

The acting is something to behold.  It seems like with Cate Blanchett right now we're in a period similar to Meryl Streep in the 1980's, where every single performance seems to come with a sense of wonder and "how did she do that?"  It says something that Blanchett's penchant for playing insanely privileged, oftentimes oblivious white women (Elizabeth, The Aviator, Blue Jasmine, Cinderella, Truth) can result in such diverse shades.  Her Carol is a complicated creation, someone that clearly understands the danger of acting on her romantic impulses with Abby (Paulson) and Therese (Mara), but she can't help herself and is willing to risk a whole lot of her life to live because she's aware of the ramifications of not acting on her own impulses.  Mara is giving a completely different, albeit equally complicated performance as a woman who is for the first time in her life understanding love and passion in a way that she never felt would be opened for her in the past.  There's a scene where she asks, somewhat comically to some in my uncomfortable audience (older audiences are a godsend in terms of not talking during movies but their politics sometimes show when they automatically assume an uncomfortable scene about sexuality should be met with laughter), her boyfriend Richard (Lacy) if he's ever been in love with a man.  It takes a mountain of will for Mara to not make this seem just about her but actually like genuine curiosity if what she's feeling is unusual or something everyone has encountered, but she does it.  Kyle Chandler, Jake Lacy, and Sarah Paulson are all good in supporting roles, but none of them are given anything particularly fascinating to say or do, even Paulson who clearly is playing her character with a lot more planning than you'd expect from such a passing part.

So the question here is whether or not I loved Carol, and I genuinely can't decide, and perhaps that's for the best.  I think it's a wonderful piece of film, probably the best I've ever seen from Todd Haynes and surely would be a worthy Best Picture nominee, but Carol isn't exactly meant to be loved, is it?  It's not Boyhood or Gravity with a lot of moments for uplift, but that doesn't mean it's not superb and I won't grow to love it over time.  I adore the ways that everything in the decision-making patterns of Carol and Therese are so deliberate and have so much weight.  They understand that, given the era and the time, they may not find a situation quite like theirs (particularly Carol, weighed down by middle age in the back of her mind) with ease and they also realize that if they truly love each other (which they clearly do) that there will be significant, incredible sacrifices that will come along with that.  Carol is giving up her family, Therese is giving up her ability to have one, and those are big decisions, especially in 1952.  Haynes understands this as he has an honest-to-god debate over whether they will end up together, a question that you genuinely cannot feel the answer to until the very last scene.  That's a testament to the fine writing, and to the deeply introverted performances of the two leading women, especially in the second half of the film where the movie is at its best.  Carol is a movie that lives up to the hype, and thankfully adds a truly intriguing voice to this year's cinematic discussions.

Those are my thoughts on Carol, the Oscar film of the moment.  What are yours?  Did you love the movie, or was the hype too much for you to bare?  Are you rooting harder for Mara or Blanchett, or are you hoping for a tie in Best Actress?  And in a world where warmer cinema, especially in awards-friendly fare, is celebrated, can something as chilly as Carol find a way into the conversation?

7 Random Thoughts on the SAG Nominations

All right, I have been watching the film awards game for about twenty years now, and I don't think I have ever seen a slate quite like what the SAG Awards threw out this morning.  Honestly-I remember City of God getting its random Oscar nominations a few years back and thinking "there will never be anything like this again," but apparently I was dead wrong.  Here are seven random thoughts I had while looking through this morning wackiness.

1. Sarah Silverman-WTF?

Easily the biggest surprise for me was Sarah Silverman for a film that I hadn't even heard of, and certainly had never seen.  The comic actress, best-known for her work on television, randomly gets into Best Actress for I Smile Back over Lily Tomlin, Blythe Danner, Carey Mulligan, Charlotte Rampling, Emily Blunt, Maggie Smith, and Jennifer freaking Lawrence?  How is that even possible?  I genuinely thought they had made a mistake with the slides and Silverman was actually nominated for a TV movie I'd never heard of before.  The fact that she is now a SAG nominee for film acting is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen at one of these announcements.  Does this translate to Oscar?  Who the hell knows, and quite frankly even if it doesn't it's hard to imagine there being a stranger citation this cycle.  And yes, like all of you I'm going to have to find a way to see this now.

2. Helen Mirren is the Queen of Everything

In any other year Dame Helen Mirren's random two nominations for Woman in Gold and Trumbo would be the shocker of the morning, but nothing is going to beat out Silverman's spot.  That being said, this is a trickier proposition for Oscar conversation, as Mirren is actually quite beloved at the Globes (remember, she randomly got cited last year for The Hundred-Foot Journey).  In fact, it's totally within the realm of possibility if Woman in Gold is somehow deemed a comedy that she could be double-nominated by HFPA as well.  This doesn't necessarily mean an Oscar nod (Mirren herself is aware of this-she was nominated for both a few years back for Hitchcock), but no one has ever been doubly-nominated at both awards and not gotten at least one Oscar nomination.  That could well be in supporting (lead seems impossible, even with Harvey behind her), considering...

3. Trumbo is Now a Thing

With three major nominations, including one that looks plausible for Oscar in Bryan Cranston, it's time to start considering whether Trumbo, which was middling at best but has lots of Hollywood hooks in it, may be an Oscar contender.  The film came-and-went without a peep, but perhaps we've been spoiled the past few years with movies like 12 Years a Slave and Birdman winning the top honors-lest we forget it wasn't that long ago that movies like The Cider House Rules were major Oscar players, and that sort of mid-level drama could be attractive to older members of the Academy (whom, I'm guessing, loved this movie).  Plus, Cranston is a hot name that hasn't been invited to the world of movies quite yet and Mirren is always a threat for awards love (apparently).  While I'd like to see a little bit more breath off of this, this might be the film we all underestimated this season.

4. Category Fraud is Only Sort of SAG's Fault

Alicia Vikander and Rooney Mara both made the supporting lineup, principally because SAG is required to go with studio designations (this is why people like Jennifer Connelly and Benicio del Toro went lead here in the past while they went on to be supporting at the Oscars-mistakes with where they were submitted).  Since the Globes, if they go for either tomorrow, will not be putting them in supporting (they have already deemed this inappropriate), it makes me wonder what their campaigns will be like.  Mara in particular has gained loads of attention for this being a dual lead with Blanchett-could this be a straw that broke the camel's back situation?  Considering that Larson, Ronan, and Blanchett seem like the only sure things there, she could easily pull a Winslet in The Reader and make it into lead at the last minute.

5. Best Actor is Not Strong This Year, But It Is Varied

With the exception of Cranston, the Best Actor field feels about right, though there's still the likes of Michael B. Jordan, Michael Caine, and Matt Damon to consider against Cranston as it seems unlikely that they all three miss with Oscar.  Still, Leo, Johnny, Fassy, and Eddie all sank a necessary basket this morning, and though The Revenant didn't make Best Cast, against this competition it kind of feels like they're giving it to DiCaprio, right?  Damon and Caine appear like his toughest competition, and they now have big debits against them going into Oscar night.  The fanboys look like they will have their reward...

6. Supporting Actor is Confusing

I still can't get over that Spotlight didn't get what should have been an easy nomination for supporting actor, instead only giving in to Rachel McAdams who now seems like a pretty good bet for the Oscars (though it's worth noting that The Hateful Eight didn't release screeners so Jennifer Jason Leigh could still make it with AMPAS).  With Ruffalo and Keaton out of the way, some other names like Michael Shannon (99 Homes-another film I need to make room for on my viewing docket), Jacob Tremblay (speaking of category fraud), Christian Bale (is he best-in-show in that movie, because if he is I think this could happen?), and Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation) all moving into the conversation.  Of these five, unless The Big Short is a late-breaker in the race that I didn't anticipate, I think that Elba is the one we should all start locking into our predictions.  He's a huge star right now, his film is heavy and Netflix is pushing hard, and he's also the best chance this year of a person of color getting nominated for an Oscar.  All that added together sort of makes this a no-brainer.  I wonder, quite frankly, whether it could be Elba v. Mark Rylance for the win.  Also, congrats to Bleecker Street, who produced both Beasts of No Nation and Trumbo-the champagne must be flowing there!

7. SAG Has a Female Problem

This has been noted by everyone on Twitter, but it needs to be repeated-in a year where pretty much everyone agrees the Best Actress field is better than Best Actor, and the female-led films have been the topic of most conversation, SAG chose all films for its top prize where the casts are predominantly male.  In fact, of the 38 actors nominated for Best Cast, only 6 are female-84% of the Best Cast nominees are men.  It's also worth noting that three of those six nominees (Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, and Diane Lane) come from Trumbo-Beasts of No Nation and Straight Outta Compton don't even have female nominations (for the curious, Marisa Tomei and Melissa Leo in The Big Short and Rachel McAdams in Spotlight are the remaining nominations).  Congress has a greater percentage of women than the SAG Awards do, and that's pathetic.

I don't know enough about television to really complain about the nominations there, though I am stunned Oscar Isaac didn't make it for Show Me a Hero (I suspect he does tomorrow at the Globes though) considering his rising star and HBO's guiding hand.  In SAG's defense, I love that this was not what we'll see with the Oscars-that's exciting, and I long for a year where there's chaos around who will win/be nominated, and that we don't have the same four people collecting trophies every weekend.  I just wish that they'd picked better movies to toss into the conversation.  In terms of Oscar, I think that while certain films probably got hurt today (namely Youth, Suffragette, and I'll See You in My Dreams) others like The Martian, Spotlight, and Joy will probably make up for their lack of nods here tomorrow at the Globes.  In the meantime, weigh in on your thoughts about this morning's bizarre SAG nods.

The Globes' Category Fraud Mic Drop

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association yesterday threw one of the bigger wrenches in a while into the Oscar race.  The voters behind the Golden Globes, arguably the most significant film award not to feature a shiny gold man decided that Rooney Mara (Carol) and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl), two of Oscar's frontrunners for a Best Supporting Actress nomination, were actually leads in their respective films and would be considered as such at the Oscars.  Considering the press that being a Golden Globe nominee elicits, and that Globe nominations happen prior to AMPAS voting, it made me wonder what effect this would have on the Supporting Actress race at the Oscars.

This is a pretty big deal, in terms of awards season, and seems to be in response to a years-in-the-making push against category fraud.  While category fraud (where lead performances are marketed as supporting performances in hopes of bettering a film/actor's chances at a nomination) has been around for decades, a backlash happened in particular in 2007 when Casey Affleck, the title character and most significant person in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was cited in supporting despite the most screentime and the crux of the story's plot centering on his character.  Since then, we've seen a bit of a backlash when actors market clearly leading performances in the supporting category, and occasionally we've seen the Academy reject this out-of-hand (see Kate Winslet in 2008's The Reader, where she won supporting trophies at the Globes and SAG Awards before competing in lead at the Oscars).  This year there was an uproar amongst Oscar pundits when it was announced that Vikander and Mara, who are considered by most people who have seen their pictures as above-the-title characters, would still campaign as supporting and it appears that HFPA is having none of it.

The Academy isn't bound by Globes decisions, or even campaign decisions, as Kate Winslet illustrates above, and so this doesn't necessarily doom Vikander and Mara in the supporting races.  Catherine Zeta-Jones, notably, was nominated for Best Actress for Chicago at the Globes and still went on to win the Oscar in the supporting field that year.  However, this sort of category confusion occasionally has major effects on the Oscar race, most notably in 2003.  That year Scarlett Johansson was cited for leading actress for both Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring at the Golden Globes, but her campaign for Lost in Translation (considering its Oscar haul, clearly the more likely candidate that year) greedily switched to supporting at the last minute despite her being a main character, and as a result almost assuredly cost her a nomination in what was a very chaotic Best Actress race.  Vikander and Mara's campaigns may look at the Globes, and wonder if being in lead at the Globes and supporting at the SAG Awards would hurt their campaigns and just end up changing at the last minute in a move similar to Ian McKellen a few years back for The Lord of the Rings (which paid off nicely-McKellen won an Oscar nomination in the process).

If Vikander and Mara either aren't in the Oscar conversation due to losing out on their nominations or they move to lead, the entire Supporting Actress race kind of turns on its head.  Both of these women are considered significant frontrunners for the trophy (particularly Vikander) at this juncture, and taking them out would give us no real obvious contender for the win.  While it's questionable whether or not either would make Lead Actress (Mara specifically could have issues there considering her costar Cate Blanchett is also a contender), Supporting Actress would be thrown into a bit of pandemonium.  Assuming that certain random names like Rachel Weisz (Youth), Phylicia Rashad (Creed), and Helen Mirren (Trumbo) don't pop up, there are essentially eight additional names that seem to be amongst the nominees for Supporting Actress in a world without Vikander/Mara; these women are Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight), Joan Allen (Room), Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs), Diane Ladd (Joy), Rachel McAdams (Spotlight), Elizabeth Banks (Love & Mercy), Julie Walters (Brooklyn), and Jane Fonda (Youth).

Looking at these women there are clearly names that will have a better shot at a nomination (Winslet, McAdams) than others (Ladd, Walters), but the race seems relatively open amongst these women as none of them are ironclad at the moment and I wouldn't say any is guaranteed.  You can take someone like McAdams (who is the only female in a likely male-driven Best Picture nomination, which is usually a solid way to get noticed), and remember that she's never been in Oscar contention before, and this theory falters occasionally (see Vera Farmiga in The Departed or Margot Robbie in The Wolf of Wall Street).  The same goes for the rest: Kate Winslet is in a movie that flopped, Julie Walters and Elizabeth Banks are in tiny films, Joan Allen and Jane Fonda have small roles that could be ignored, and Diane Ladd/Jennifer Jason Leigh are in pictures no one's seen yet, so we have no clue on their actual feasibility.  All-in-all, these eight could make for a (hopefully) madcap spread-the-wealth year if we can't have category fraud.

And of course, there's the question of the winner.  Winslet's won recently and hasn't really done anything since to deserve a second trophy, Fonda's won twice and is in a slim role, Walters/Ladd/Leigh/Allen are all actresses with long pedigreed careers but no one thinks of them as "destined for Oscar" anymore (even though admittedly no one thought that about Patricia Arquette until last year), and McAdams, probably the nominal frontrunner in a field like this, isn't getting the standout raves for Spotlight that the male players are and has never been in Oscar contention previously.  All-in-all, if the Globes (thankfully) have broken back the tide of category fraud this year, we could have a truly exciting race amongst the supporting ladies.

Pan (2015)

Film: Pan (2015)
Stars: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Adeel Akhtar, Amanda Seyfried
Director: Joe Wright
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Yes, I had read the reviews, and I still went in anyway.  I have loved JM Barrie's story about the boy who doesn't grow up since I was a kid, and that love has grown through the year's, what with PJ Hogan's masterpiece in 2003 (if you haven't seen it, get thyself to thy Netflix queue) and just generally how the story has so many classic elements.  As a result, with actors like Garrett Hedlund and Rooney Mara, brilliant director Joe Wright, and the Pan lore, I couldn't miss this movie even with its giant splat of a tomato over on RT.  That was clearly a faulty logic considering what I ended up viewing, but there it is.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film has so many problems it's hard to know where to begin.  I think what might be the first and worst problem is the beginning.  The Peter (Miller) here is pretty nondescript, and not someone with any sort of real personality, which is sort of appropriate-Peter Pan is not known for being one of your deeper protagonists.  However it shows when you put him center stage and not Wendy, so thoughtful and full of contradictions.  Peter here is seen as an imp, but considering he's under the control of a cruel pirate nun (it comes across as ridiculously as it sounds in what is surely the worst portion of the film, though that's not for a lack of competition) it's seen as totally justifiable.  After the nun sells the boys to the pirate Blackbeard (Jackman), things get even weirder.

It must be discussed, since it's arguably the sequence that people have eye-rolled the most over, but the entire Nirvana/Ramones scenes are just terribly bad.  I'm not sure if Joe Wright spent too much time watching Mad Max, but I don't get why we had an elaborately-staged musical scene in a film with almost no other musical scenes, in the middle of the movie where Jackman and all of the Lost Boys perform Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" like we've just entered the Thunderdome.  Did Wright not realize that we would be getting another Mad Max movie this summer that would clearly make this parallel not only ridiculous but also people would pick up on it?  Either way, the entire scene is jarring in a bad way and doesn't jive with the rest of the film, and sort of puts you off of Jackman's Blackbeard during his very first scene.  While admittedly I am not nor have I ever been a Hugh Jackman fan, Daniel Day-Lewis himself could not sell this scene.

Jackman's performance is appropriately hammy given its nature, though it never finds the calculating brilliance that Jason Isaacs brought to Hook in 2003's Hogan adaptation (again, I would have nominated him for an Oscar that year-for real).  While Isaacs played his character as a cartoonish human, Jackman just goes full-on cartoon, a narcissist who doesn't really play on his narcissism, who is willing to ruthlessly dig up Neverland just to extend his rather pointless seeming life.  He isn't aided by much else in the film though.  We have Rooney Mara eyeing the racism line pretty hard as Princess Tigerlily.  While she never explicitly is stated as being a Native American, her father clearly is and considering Mara is white in real life, I feel like the filmmakers made a grave mistake here not casting an actual Native American actress to play the role (which PJ Hogan did #justsaying).  Mara's performance, like a lot of her work, is pretty hit-and-miss here (click the tag below for my complicated history with the admittedly-talented but not always consistent Oscar nominee), as she plays the role as too straight and kind of boring.  Garrett Hedlund, an actor I more consistently admire and follow, isn't much better, especially in earlier scenes where he seems to go from zero to ninety in terms of Captain Hook's lunacy.  The script does him no favors in this regard, it's worth noting; despite us knowing him as the future nemesis of Peter Pan, we get very few hints aside from fourth wall-breaking winks as to why Hook would eventually come to despite Peter.  Instead we get a horny, cranky, and manic piece-of-work from the actor, and the entire time I just kept thinking "but he was SO good in On the Road!"

The production work is sort of in the vein of How the Grinch Stole Christmas-there's so much of it that you want to think it's good, but in reality it's mostly gaudy and awful.  The steampunk design of the clothes is the sort of costume work that is showy, and maybe even wins accolades, but it doesn't fit with the film's motif, particularly when you compare it to the docile World War II sequences and the Hook-inspired Tigerlily and her tribe.  The Visual Effects are also bloated and gross-the Neverbird in particular is a weird creature, one you can't tell if it's good or evil, but just that it looks like the creature from Up!.  All-in-all even the visuals, which should have been a silver lining, are atrocious.

All-in-all then this is a failure.  I would normally bemoan this fact since Peter Pan is such a wonderful story, but as I've pointed out several times this has already been done, and quite well, by PJ Hogan so we have a definitive version of this tale.  Apparently we also needed a prequel for some reason, or so some now-fired studio executive thought.

Six Biggest Questions for the Best Actress Race

If there's one thing about this past year and upcoming season of movies that I am thrilled about, it's that the Best Actress field looks amazing.  Seriously-I cannot tell you the last time I was this excited about all of the gourmet prospects set to hit me in the face and the wonderful little movies that I've already had the pleasure of encountering earlier in the year. There's a plethora of names from Oscar-winning stars to longtime character actors getting their due to up-and-coming players to a newcomer that seems to be in literally every film this year.  All-in-all it's a great time if you love women at the movies (and if you don't, what the hell is wrong with you?), but it also begs a few questions.  After all, while great film is by far its own reward, it's worth pondering which of this avalanche of names manages to make it to the Kodak as one of the five lucky contenders for a shiny gold man.  I'm less concerned right now with winners (though it's also exciting that at least as of now there's no one that has clearly positioned themselves at the front of that line either), but more on nominees, which is more exciting anyway (it's only every four years or so that this category is remotely competitive).  The below six questions seem to be the most critical in deciding who will be translating their buzz and reviews into a little bit of Oscar immortality:

1. Who is Committing Category Fraud?

Recent nominees Helen Hunt, Julia Roberts, and Hailee Steinfeld can all agree that getting a nomination is easier if you lie about your role in the film, and despite appearing in a vast majority of their most-recent Oscar-blessed movies, all three of these women scored dubious nominations for their "supporting" work onscreen (Roberts in particular still sticks in my craw since she's in more scenes than Streep who did go lead, gets the final scene, and is one of the biggest movie stars on the planet and could well have gained a lead nomination if she wanted to, letting the likes of her costars Margo Martindale and Julianne Nicholson maybe have a huge career boost from such a citation).  This year seems more than open season for potential category fraud, with the likes of Ellen Page (Freeheld), Rooney Mara & Cate Blanchett (Carol), and Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) all oddly positioned to go either lead or supporting, though critics say they should all be competing in the lead race.  Blanchett has a bit of a history with going supporting when she shouldn't (she had nothing to say about such a thing when she did it for Notes on a Scandal), and no film has been nominated twice for Best Actress since Thelma & Louise in 1991 so Carol in particular seems susceptible to fraud.  While I'd love for some campaign to say "screw it" and shoot for the stars (trust me, it would be far better for press for a film like Carol if both Mara and Blanchett were competing against each other in lead, and probably help them much more in gaining actual votes because of the "competition" angle), I'm doubtful.  The question is which of these women decide to go supporting.  In the case of Vikander in particular, this could be a make-or-break moment for women like Kate Winslet, Rachel McAdams, and Jennifer Jason Leigh who are going to be making a play to actually win the supporting trophy (Vikander would start out with a huge advantage considering her film's buzz and the year she's had).  It's also worth noting that a confusing campaign could hurt these women (look at Scarlett Johansson's big miss in 2003) or the Academy could ignore it (Keisha Castle-Hughes and Kate Winslet in The Reader comes to mind).

2. Which Cate do we pick?

Assuming that Blanchett doesn't go supporting for Carol, the Academy is left with its biggest conundrum in this category since perhaps 2001, as Blanchett will have two films that are in contention, not just one.  Both Carol and Truth are star vehicles for Blanchett, who is probably due for an afterglow nomination after her major triumph in Blue Jasmine, but she could end up missing for both because of vote-splitting.  It's worth noting that in 2001 Nicole Kidman was skipped at the SAG Awards for her work in both Moulin Rouge! and The Others, and many people thought that Tilda Swinton or Nia Vardalos might earn a nomination by technicality as Kidman had active campaigns for both films potentially splitting her support.  While Kidman ended up with her first nomination that year, Scarlett Johansson wasn't so lucky two years later.  Blanchett could try the route employed by Kate Winslet in 2008 (pushing one to supporting), but that still only resulted in one nomination for The Reader as the Academy refused such nonsense.  How Blanchett's campaign pans out could play a major role in whether she gets to the Final Five either in lead or supporting (or both).

3. Is the Academy sick of Jennifer Lawrence and David O. Russell?

I can't tell right now whether or not the public is sick of J. Law-it's hard to know, though it's been a while since we have had a movie star that demanded this kind of polarized reactions.  Still, this could be a big moment for the Academy as Joy is clearly designed to continue Russell's amazing consecutive run of Best Picture nominees, and Lawrence could make history as the youngest actor to score four nominations, besting Jennifer Jones.  The question is whether or not this will work for her-if the slight stench coming off the X-Men and Hunger Games franchises (diminishing returns, both commercially and critically) hurts her, she could be in for a surprise snub.  However if she continues to be the star of the moment, it feels like Joy will be yet another chance to reward her (perhaps even with a second trophy).

4. Will the Buzz Translate?

Right now there are four actresses who are clearly critical favorites but who have not had their Oscar moment that could potentially change all that in a few months (again, remember that we don't really have a frontrunner quite yet).  Brie Larson (Room), Emily Blunt (Sicario), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn), and Carey Mulligan (Suffragette) have not won much in terms of hardware (and only the latter two have scored with the Oscars), but they're all in positions in their career where a nomination could happen, and all have strong reviews coming out of their respective film festivals.  The question here is what happens as a result of that.  People can go from festival buzz all the way to the Kodak (look at Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone or Gabourey Sidibe in Precious) or they can be completely forgotten like Elizabeth Olsen in Martha Marcy Mae Marlene.  The campaigns for these actresses, as well as public reaction to their relatively small films will be critical, but I would be stunned if 1-2 didn't end up in contention later this year.

5. Time for an Oscar Favorite?

Occasionally Oscar gets a little nostalgic or repetitive, and decides it must have a certain former winner back in the fold for whatever reason.  In 2009, despite Emily Blunt making far more sense on paper (up-and-comer, real-life person, never honored, Globe nominee in Drama) for The Young Victoria, the Academy decided that it must have Helen Mirren randomly nominated for The Last Station, a nomination I am guessing even Mirren herself forgets happened.  Marion Cotillard last year trumped Jennifer Aniston for a similar sort of situation, though here she at least had better reviews.  The question becomes which "longshot" former winner might be invited back for another round in the fifth slot?  I am not counting Blanchett and Lawrence here since they seem more-than-likely to be in the conversation regardless and fifth-slots never actually win the trophy (which both of these women seem like strong possibilities to do), but instead Sandra Bullock (Our Brand is Crisis), Julianne Moore (Freeheld), Maggie Smith (The Lady in the Van), and even Cotillard again for Macbeth.  Bullock probably has the best shot considering the prestige behind her project (from the men who brought you Argo), but any of these women could theoretically make it if they get good enough reviews and Oscar's feeling it.  And then of course it's always unwise to totally discount Meryl Streep, whose work in Ricki and the Flash was light, but then again so was her performance in Music of the Heart and that still got through.

6. Will Anyone Get an "It's Time" Nomination?

One of the sadder things about the Best Actress race is that, unlike the Best Actor field where the likes of Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke, and Frank Langella all managed to score late-in-their-career "you should have been an Oscar nominee by now" sorts of nominations, the Best Actress field rarely does this, going instead for the tried-and-true former winners/nominees and the PYT's.  This year, however, three women could be looking at their very first trophy, two of them their very first nomination.  Charlotte Rampling (45 Years), Lily Tomlin (Grandma), and Blythe Danner (I'll See You in My Dreams) all three have gotten plaudits from festivals and critics, and in the case of Danner she even got a bonafide hit.  If they were men with the careers they had, we'd likely be pushing them hard for nominations, but this year is ultra competitive and this category isn't as kind to "career achievement" style first nominations.  I suspect that all three will get pushes from their studios, but the question is will any of them catch fire?  Tomlin in particular has been having a major career moment what with the Kennedy Center Honor and a recent TV series/Emmy nomination.  Part of me wonders if she might actually be able to win the thing, if she can land the nomination.

And there you have it folks-the six biggest questions for this year's Best Actress race.  What are your answers to these questions and what five women seem most likely to succeed?  Share your thoughts below!

OVP: Her (2013)

Picture: Her (2013)
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, Olivia Wilde, Chris Pratt
Director: Spike Jonze
Oscar History: 5 nominations/1 win (Best Picture, Original Screenplay*, Score, Art Direction, Original Song-"The Moon Song")
Snap Judgement Ranking: 5/5 stars

I am not even going to get into the whole "I haven't posted a while" diatribe because, as I mentioned in the Jan Brewer post, it's been a rough month and I am determined to make March better.  That starts with me finishing off the many OVP films from the past year-I will get us a bit closer to finishing up the 2013 l (loyal readers will wonder aloud what happened to the 2009 OVP...and to them I cower in the corner, contemplating why writing about Randy Newman songs is so hard).

But on with this film, one of our last two remaining Best Pictures of 2013 to be reviewed, and easily my favorite of the two.  Most of you have likely seen the film, but for those that haven't here is that most necessary of tools: SPOILER ALERT.  The film takes place in the not-so-distant future, so not-so-distant that you could easily assume it was the present and I don't think anyone would question it.  I mean, everyone has a more meaningful relationship with their phone than the people around them and we all are far more interested in dating some version of ourselves than another, complicated human being?  Let's be honest-this is basically what our iPads have done to us.

Theodore Twombly (Phoenix...and isn't that a spectacular moniker?) is a man adrift.  A man who writes letters for lonely people incapable of expressing their feelings, he himself lives his life in isolation.  Abandoned by his childhood sweetheart (Mara) in a bitter divorce, he spends his days having dates with women who want a life he just can't seem capable of giving.  Instead, he simply devotes his life to work, video games, and the occasional hangout night with his platonic friend Amy (Adams...and doesn't it throw you when actors play characters with their same names?).  Basically, he sounds like almost every single male friend you have over the age of 28.

Eventually he decides to have a relationship with an OS (operating system) named Samantha (Johansson), which changes his life.  Here is a "woman" who is everything he always wanted-uncomplicated, real, and programmed by him.  It'd be misogynistic if Samantha didn't evolve into a fully-formed individual of her own, which she does.  As the film goes on, we see Samantha move past being Theodore's confidante into being his lover and best friend, and then eventually, being something more-a person who no longer needs him to define herself.  If it weren't for the fact that she was an OS, this would be a standard fare romantic drama about how we evolve past one another as we age.  However, the fact that she is a machine adds a fascinating element to the endeavor.

It's this element of what is real and what needs to be real that Jonze paints so well in the movie.  Frequently we find Theodore's real-life interactions with women seeming almost unnecessarily complicated.  His ex-wife cannot handle his juvenile attitude toward life.  In one of the best scenes of the movie, he has a disastrous first date with a woman named Amelia (Wilde), who is charming, beautiful, and smart.  She's a great on-paper match for Theodore, and their date goes well until she shows that she's more than the real-life Samantha: she's a woman who wants a future and doesn't want him to take advantage of her (which he seems intent on doing by sleeping with her without thinking about commitment).  It's a really odd scene in the movie until you frame it against the Samantha character and Theodore's interactions with her.

This is because the Samantha character eventually does something very similar to Theodore when she leaves him to spend her time in a universe beyond the humans.  In this case, Samantha realizes that she wants what is best for herself, and leaves Theodore, the complicated, imperfect individual, alone in the world.

The movie asks a host of rich questions throughout, and isn't afraid to try and answer them.  They want to know if someone can truly love a machine, and while that may seem absurd, think of how many people who fall in love with someone they've never met on the internet.  We have the comfort of knowing that there is someone on the other end that is a human being, but things like Cleverbot have made even that assurance seem a bit questionable.  The reality is that if we aren't already encountering some version of Samantha, many of us have facsimile relationships with a person quite similar to her.

The film also asks less hypothetical questions, though.  The movie desperately wants to know if something feels real, is it?  That's the essence behind Theodore's relationship with Samantha and how he works his way past the shame of the relationship to start to truly enjoy it.  In a world where everyone increasingly lives through computers and machines and is isolated, if we feel something is real, is it?  Or do we all have a person like Mara's ex-wife to splash cold water and bring us back to the truth?

And then of course, if you take away the technological aspects of the film, we are left with an even more important question, and one quite cliched, yet eternally unanswered-what is love?  And in this case, can it exist even if it's fleeting and possibly imaginary?

These are big questions, and Her tackles many of them in moving and beautiful ways, even if the unanswerable questions remain that way.  The film follows in the footsteps of other similarly-minded films like Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Once, and Weekend, and like those films, it manages to find the balance between deep meaning and personal discovery without straying into twee-ness or existential garbage.  Suffice it to say, it earned that spot at the top of the Oscar heap, and since it was not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination, I'm glad AMPAS found room for this tiny wonder.