That hasn't, of course, stopped me from writing about them, but this year, especially, I'm actually qualified in many ways, with a number of surprises. So here's my little run-down on each of them, and some predictions/rankings.
Note: I do think Inside Llewyn Davis should have been nominated. I'm biased toward the Coens, of course, but even so- they've nominated ten in the past, and I don't see how it missed out this year. That said, it's the last I'll mention it (til perhaps the end). (Rundown in no particular order)
* Captain Philips (Directed by Paul Greengrass) Captain Phillips is perhaps the most "based on a true story" of what's an entire field of them (literally, in some way, nearly all of them are). I have not done the work to research the veracity of each movie- that would be a disservice to their artistry- but Captain Phillips feels the most real. That's probably because it takes place just a few years ago. Most of the viewers probably remember when Somali pirates took an American freighter captain hostage, leading to an eventual rescue by Navy seals. Other than having Tom Hanks in it, that's a recipe for an overwrought, poor film in my mind. But Captain Phillips managed to keep my attention, all the way through. It rarely dipped into "we're america, we're so great" territory that modern war/action films so often do. In fact, it actually let the Somalis be humans, and not just bland antagonists. On top of that, it's incredibly well shot, with some absolutely gorgeous at-sea shots. The bigness of everything contrasted with the smallness of the humans is pure artistry. It's probably the second best edited film in the bunch- it is the rare film that uses its editing to create the feeling for the viewer. So often, even the best films try to bludgeon the viewer with the actual shot's content- not its composition. Captain Phillips could have done this- and probably well. But Greengrass actually made a film out of the story, not just a fictionalized, dramatized documentary dedicated to how great our military is. It was the most surprisingly good movie of the lot.
*American Hustle (Directed by David O'Russell) There was a time when American Hustle was probably the best picture favorite, but that was a time when we were all a little hopped up on Christmas cheer or something. It's not a bad movie by any means. In fact, it's quite good. But it's really a very well-made, pretty well-acted comedy, and little more. There's nothing particularly great about it- it's just that there's nothing particularly bad either. Maybe it's the most perfect movie of the bunch, but it might also be the least interesting from an artistic standpoint. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence is great and the rest of the cast does not disappoint. But the plot is a sterilized, glamorized, and predictable take on the 70's disco-heist-steve-mcqueen sort of thing, without the action. I did enjoy American Hustle, but it's a great sum of its parts, and an average total film.
*Her (Directed by Spike Jonze) A dystopian film where technology reaches frightful heights is nothing new, and likely won't get nominated for best picture any time soon. But that is exactly where Her went at the outset. Where it ends up though, is quite separate from its message. It is easy to read right through Her. It's a simple movie about how disconnected our technology makes us- I can tell you that from the trailer. But the romance between Joaquin Phoenix and his OS (Scarlett Johansson) is actually touching and real in astounding, heartfelt ways. It is a film about how we long for human contact, but the OS is not a sad replacement. It's a film much closer to REM's "Everybody Hurts" than The Wachowski's Matrix. It's more Lost in Translation meets Lars and the Real Girl than Terminator meets Steve Jobs. If that combination, Lost in Translation +Lars and the Real Girl sounds like an absolutely beautiful study in humanity, you are correct. And it's not just an incredible and beautiful story and subject matter- it's a beautiful film. The colors, the landscapes, the close-ups and long-shots- it would be beautiful on mute.
*Dallas Buyer's Club (Directed by Jean-Marc Vallee) This is the best edited film I've seen in quite some time. I don't know if it will win the award for that- it's not like it has a lot of special effects or jump cuts. But it fits together perfectly. It is an intertwining of characters, issues, plots, and art of the highest order. It reminded me of Paris, Texas, if that movie were made with Oscar hopes in mind. Some say the best art shows humanity at its truest. That could certainly be said of Dallas Buyer's Club- but not just because of its heart-strings, geo-political, global economic-spin. Those are all worked in- in a lot of ways, it is an issues-movie. But it's the sort of issue movie that makes you see the world a certain way despite yourself. That's not to say it strong-arms the viewer- quite the opposite: it simply tells a story of people in a way that makes you feel for them, because they are humans: not because they are people with Aids. In many ways, it is the anti-Rent. I like Rent, but this is better. Much better. But: It does portray Rayon, the transgender character (Jared Ledo) in a highly stereotypical manner: she's a transgender charicature (that they commonly refer to as "he"...); that's a problem the rest of the film manages to help me overlook.
*Philomena (directed by Stephen Frears) Before I start, I will say: I enjoyed this movie a lot. In fact, it's quite emotional and powerful. But I have no idea how it got nominated. It's hard to get through without some tears, and it has some genuinely funny moments. But it is an average piece of art with an overt, over-the-top message it never stops trumpeting. I am somewhat biased against message movies, and the Academy is somewhat biased toward them- but this is a dressed up documentary, at best. I liked it, I really did. But it has no place in the best picture race, if the best picture race celebrates excellence in film-as-art-making. It's not that it's not art-- it's just that it's a few tiers lower than the rest. I can't remember a single memorable shot for anything but the plot happening in it. That should never be the case with a best picture nominee.
*The Wolf of Wall Street (directed by Martin Scorsesee) Yes, it is controversial (because it's art and not a moral tale..oooh), yes it is long (the longest best picture nominee by nearly an hour). But it is the most entertaining movie I've seen in a long time. It is hilarious. In a way opposite from American Hustle though, it's not just funny situationally or because of the lines: it's actually shot in a way that maximizes the humor. More than that though, it breathlessly builds up the plot, then breathlessly pulls it all down: it takes 3 hours, but it feels like 3 minutes: it moves at such a clip, there's nothing boring about it, ever. It is crass, but that's the point. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers an astounding performance: it's like he was made to play a ruthless, amoral wall street criminal. Like Her and Captain Phillips, it gives you a true sense, as a viewer, of the manic situation through its editing and angles, not just its shots' content. I loved this movie.
*Gravity(Directed by Alfonso Cuaron) Before the majority of the rest of the nominees had even made it to most (all?) theaters, I knew Gravity would be nominated. It has some flaws: there's practically no plot aside from a (very touching) backstory told entirely through lines, with no visual aid. In a lot of ways, it's just a rote disaster movie, set in space (a sort of realistic space, at least). But it is the best space movie since 2001. The shots are massive and breathtaking; space is huge and lonely. It ends well too: that last shot is burned into my memory for life. In some ways, Gravity is just a spectacle: but film is a visual artform- I'd rather have a shallowly plotted spectacle than a by-the-book fictionalized documentary any day. Everyone needs to see Gravity once, if possible while it's still in this Oscar revival run in theaters. I'm not sure seeing it twice is necessary, but it is worth any price to experience, in any way possible.
*Nebraska (Directed by Alexander Payne) If Gravity is the "biggest" film of the bunch, Nebraska is the "smallest." I think it's a dark comedy about a man who thinks his "you could win 1 million dollars" certificate is legitimate. But I'm convinced it's a deep meditation on aging in the 21st century, trapped in middle America. I, of course, have not aged really, not past 26 at least, so I could be wrong. But it is a story about home and a story about failure. It's a story more about all of us, ultimately, than most movies ever allow. It's the exact opposite of escapism, whatever that means. It's also the obligatory black and white movie this year. But it's a beautiful black and white. You might think there's nothing to see in the state of Nebraska, but the landscape shots in this film beg to differ. Whatever Dallas Buyer's Club is missing from the Paris, Texas analogy, Nebraska delivers. If either film wins this year, it means Paris, Texas would have run away with the award given this specific set of voters and this field. It should be noted that if you haven't seen Paris, Texas, you're missing out.
*12 Years a Slave (Directed by Steve McQueen) Back in August, I heard of this movie like people hear of high school quarterbacks on youtube. It was a legend before it was ever in theaters anywhere near me. It did not live up to that billing, but that doesn't mean it's not a remarkable film. It must be said that it shows America what the bloody and horrendous smear Slavery really was on our past- though it does perpetuate the good-slave-owner fallacy to a degree. That's somewhat unforgivable (See: Beloved by Toni Morrison), but if you get past it, it will break your heart in the right ways. It does not shy from a single shot. Perhaps most powerfully, it reminds the viewer how beautiful the American south was and is, and then, reminds them, in the very next shot, that slavery was an ugly and dirty thing. Maybe that's a metaphor for how great America is as an idea, but how we let slavery exist for 85 years and turned a somewhat blind eye as a nation. I don't know. I know I liked it a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if it won. But I don't want to hear praise for it from anyone who criticized the racial elements of Django Unchained. It's the same movie without Tarantino stylization- indeed, Tarantino makes the viewer much more uncomfortable with slavery. We can't be glad to be uncomfortable with it in the more palatable, less swear-word (but just as many n-word) 12 years a slave, then dog on Django Unchained. 12 Years a Slave lets you believe there are good slave owners. Django Unchained punishes every single character who at all places themselves above a black person for reasons of race. If this wins, it means Argo was better than Gravity and Her, because this movie is not better than Django Unchained in any respect, even its message. At least that's what logic says: in reality, it would just be another instance of how we like our movies to shock us with the truth, but not too much. Even so, 12 Years a Slave is a good movie. It really is.
Part II: Outcomes
So, how does it all shake out? I'm not an Oscars voter, and I think most of them don't know how to watch movies. But I'll give you two lists: one, my rankings (so #1 is who I think should win). The second, my rankings on likelihood of what I think will happen.
My Perfect World:
9. Philomena (It's just pretty average, really)
8. American Hustle (It's just a really pretty average)
7. Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks is great...it lacks the oomph)
6. Gravity (It's a great spectacle, but does it stand the test of time like a winner should?)
5. 12 Years a Slave (Like I said, it's good- I just prefer Django Unchained)
4. Nebraska (Beautiful, but slightly misses out)
3. Her (If museum curators voted....)
2. The Wolf of Wall Street (It hits on all cylinders for 3 hours: that's its own accomplishment)
1. Dallas Buyers Club (A truly great piece of film-art, its problems with transgender portrayal aside)
What I think Will Happen: Because the world isn't perfect (and it wouldn't be even if I did run the Oscars)
9. Nebraska (just too many old voters, who, ironically enough, would see it as too untraditional)
8. The Wolf of Wall Street (it takes a down year for Scorsessee to win, and that's a shame)
7. Gravity (Sci-Fi doesn't get Oscars)
6. Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks is great, but "the issues! the issues!"
5. Philomena (You simply don't leave out Inside Llewyn Davis if this didn't get a monstrous amount of votes)
4. Dallas Buyers Club (Aids and homophobia are issues: but no one is going to feel like they're supporting them by voting for this, and that's a shame)
3. Her (Cognitive bias slotting it the same? Maybe. But ScarJo is powerful)
2. American Hustle (Everyone loves JLaw!)
1. 12 Years a Slave (But not as much as they love sticking it to Tarantino)
I do think 12 Years a Slave wins- it has the biggest mass-appeal across the voting categories, and it absolutely tugs at the heart in ways people can't deny. I can see people failing to vote for the aids movie or the Catholic-church-is-corrupt movie. But no one has a good argument for slavery. So- it's getting to the top of the issue-movie heap. It's just good enough artistically to carry the rest of the votes. And Brad Pitt is in it, alongside some other astoundingly good performances.
But I'll be rooting for Dallas Buyer's Club. It's what I thought was the best movie of the last year.
Note: I would have ranked Inside Llewyn Davis 5th in my list (and Saving Mr. Banks 9th, with Philomena 10th).
Now, we wait and see what happens...
-Zack
"Can't stop thinkin, bout my own breathin
Everytime I wake up I feel"
-Arcade Fire
