#could do a whole analysis on the way gender dynamics could have impacted his and rikos relationship if he were born a girl

[johnconstantinesdick]

I could do SO much with Kevin Day’s gender and his relationship to his mother you have no idea

[polandspringz]

RWBY Actually Has Good Writing: A Thematic Analysis

I may be a stickler for desiring more Ozpin content, and occasionally I do feed into RWDE posting when I get caught up in some of the more negative opinions, but RWBY’s writing really isn’t as atrocious as people are making it out to be, and after Ozpin’s speech this volume, I thought about highlighting why. One of the key points in this is Ironwood’s character, as many people who defend him have said his character has been destroyed by the writing and people against his actions have said the opposite, that he’s always been an irredeemable dictator. This split also applies to those who side with Ozpin or Team RWBY, in the now overdone debates about whether Ozpin was justified in lying and so forth. Something that has really frustrated me is the ignorance people seem to be showing in regards to how characters are supposed to be characters, and are supposed to do bad things or make mistakes for the sake of the narrative. We all knew Ironwood was going to turn for the worse this volume, although we were happy to see him resist it for the majority of it. However, while he may be making horrible decisions that are jeopardizing the safety of the kingdom, does that make him inherently an evil character?

“But fear itself isn’t worthy of concern. Its is who we become while in its clutches. Will you be proud of that person? Will you forgive them? Will you understand why they felt the need to do the things they did? Will you even recognize them? Or will the person staring back at you be the very thing you should have feared from the start? I suppose we all find out, sooner or later.”

There is a difference between an antagonist and a villain. Ironwood is definitely not a villain, and the same goes for Ozpin. They don’t have evil motivations, they are not trying to completely destroy the world like Salem is. They have caused problems for the protagonists, yes, but they are not the villain of the series. Ironwood has only been the antagonist for this Atlas arc, like how Roman was for the first three volumes. The reason they have transformed into these roadblocks though, in the words of Ozpin, is because of fear, and this is something that RWBY has never failed to deliver on, and in fact has been building up this theme beautifully since its world-building in the first volume, because...

The Grimm are attracted to fear.  Plain and simple, that is one of the first concepts we are introduced to. The heroes fear failing in their respective paths, although that’s a constant fear in any story set in an action-adventure like this. Ironwood fears Salem like everyone else, but his fear also stems from more than just being annihilated or killed. His fear stems from a lack of power. We know this because of his speech to Oscar in the vault earlier in volume 7, how he felt small and powerless when Salem took control at the Vytal Festival, when the Queen piece was placed on his desk again, he snapped because he feared that he had already been usurped and lost the upper hand. He lost his leverage and power over Salem’s forces. Now, RWBY may be in a fantasy world, but because of its trope heavy nature, it is not a stretch to say that Ironwood’s fear of Salem having power over him could also be gender motivated.

I first thought about this in regards to Ernest Hemingway’s works. The Sun Also Rises, in particular, but any of his works have a similar theme of war and masculinity. In The Sun Also Rises, the main character is made impotent because of an injury in war, and the long and short of that is whole theme coming to fruition is that war is emasculating because there was no story-book manly victory in war. War is fearful and terrifying. Additionally, the main female character in the book is shaped by her masculine appearance (due to the trends at the time of the 20s) and her personality and lack of stereotypical femininity leaves no place for the men to need to behave stereotypically masculine, but with those two forces emasculating them, what are they left with to be men with?

It’s not nice to think that sexism exists in a fantasy world, but because RWBY by nature has always has such an emphasis on girlhood and women, from the main characters being a group of girls to the villain being a woman, it is very interesting to have a theme of sexism be so subtle. Because RWBY isn’t about sexism, if anything, it’s about women being able to carry on where men couldn’t, being able to move forward and be stronger then men in all different ways. If we look at Ironwood in this case, he is a man of war and military, but he is already in a way emasculated by his previous injuries, (although he may have the same strength with the robotic prosthetics, that did not happen overnight, that was still likely a shocking injury), and now with the other destroyed arm, he is weaker once more, at the most crucial time too. His allusion to the tinman though, of not having a heart and being stone cold, that removes typical features of femininity in an effort to be more mature and masculine. When Salem comes and he devolves into fear, he reverts to that coldness for more than the sake of allusion. He is doing it to find strength in the fear, but it is making him fall. But besides all of this, at his core, Ironwood is a military man, and stereotypically, men are in control in the military and government, women are not.

But what about Winter? Well, very simply, she is a subordinate to Ironwood. She doesn’t have power over him. What about Cordovin? She’s not a member of the military, but Ironwood still is of higher rank than her and she’s not a part of his arc. What I’m really getting at here is that there is an indication that part of Ironwood’s fear and desperation to fight Salem might be motivated by sexism and this fear of emasculation. His main motivation might be to stop her out of fear that she will destroy humanity, but subconsciously, there is more bothering him about that Queen symbol that the show doesn’t need to explore because it is crafted in there so perfectly that it doesn’t need an obvious scene of characters explicitly telling us this. The only person who was ever above Ironwood was Ozpin, another man, and while Ozpin can be said to have more feminine traits in his softer and more compassionate approach in volumes 1-3, he was still a man, so for Ironwood, it’s excusable.

So where does this leave us? Well, this sort of theme about gender in the show isn’t likely going away, as it is probably going to be how the Atlas arc closes. Ironwood is going to fail, and Team RWBY is going to have to pick up the pieces. We’ve seen this before in almost every dynamic between a female or a male character in the show. It happens even when Ozpin is exposed for lying. He is revealed to have messed up, he fails and hides away. Team RWBY keeps moving on though, they push on to Atlas with the relic despite Ozpin’s failure. Qrow keeps stumbling through life, falling back into depression and alcoholism, but Ruby and Yang just push past it and keep going, they do not let it drag them down. When Raven left, Taiyang was hurt, but Summer entered the picture and helped him, and then when Summer left, Taiyang was so broken, and it was up to Yang to pick up the pieces and raise Ruby. This isn’t to say the girls in this show are fixing the men, but rather they are stronger and more able to fix what the men could not.

There are some interesting cases though where we see more of this divide between the men and the women in terms of their power and ability to control the situation though. With Adam especially, he was unable to move on from Blake and chased after her. Blake was able to move on for a while, but Adam was the one dragging her down (with fear). She was able to free herself with the help of the other female characters in the show. The White Fang had good leadership under Sienna, but when Adam killed her and took over, he failed and the organization continued to collapse, now Blake and Illia are picking up the pieces and pushing forward. Even with Salem, Ozma’s failure was dying to a simple illness. She perhaps could have learned to move on if the Gods hadn’t granted her immortality and cursed her. She had no power over them even when she tried to attack them with her magic the first time. They made the decision to punish her in that way, to knock her down because she tried to hold power over them, but that caused her to move forward in a different direction (maybe not necessarily towards the light/good, but she kept moving forward while the Gods abandoned the planet).

To finish up though, I wanted to touch upon Oscar, Ren, and Jaune because now we have the question- well why haven’t they failed? Well, they have, and the women of the show have moved past their failures too, but they are characters with more feminine traits, which is what gives them power over the men in the show like Ironwood and Qrow who continue to stumble and fall. Jaune and Pyrrha- Jaune’s failures are the entirety of the Beacon arc, his semblance issues, his lack of combat training, Pyrrha does try and help him, and their bond in a way does contribute to Pyrrha’s death in the narrative, plus it leaves an impact on Jaune as one of his failures. However, he’s managed to get stronger since then, but he’s not the main character, Ruby is. And as such, during much of Volume 4 Ruby was the real leader of the group and Jaune did not mind it. Ren’s closed off nature is being more explored currently and will continue to be explored in the coming volume it seems, but we’ve seen how he’s damaged his bonds with Nora because he’s trying not to fall. He is viewing his closeness to Nora and sensitivity as a weakness, which is why he falls when he bottles it up and cries when Neo disguises herself as Nora. He needs to learn to accept that part of himself to stop himself from falling. And in Oscar’s case, he is tied to Ozpin, so starting with what happened with Jinn and everyone turning their back on him is a part o Ozpin’s failure, not really his.  However, there were a few posts discussing how Ruby was somewhat of Oscar’s mentor in Ozpin’s absence, and that has had an effect on Oscar character too. But, even if Oscar learns how to not fail and not give in to fear, he is not the main character, so he will likely still stumble and will not be the one to get the final hit in, because Ruby is the protagonist. That isn’t to say his character won’t be reconciled, it will be. His arc will be completed and he won’t stumble when the time comes to defeat Salem, but he won’t be able to do it alone, because the show’s themes and its direction hinges on having our hero be the one to do that. And the hero is Ruby and she’s a girl with the most iconic, simplest depictions of femininity in her willingness to embrace her emotions and her strength to keep moving forward where the men fall to their knees. 

[queenofthefaces]

*slams down paper* Give a thesis on Stanny boy. :D

I finished all my exams so LETS FUCKIGN GO!!! A lot of this is personal interpretation combined w hc character development 👌 I went kinda off topic bc y’all apparently like my analysis!! So here u go!!

1) sexuality hc: I love exploring queer themes w Stan sm ;;o;; I think he’s an incredibly relatable character and fandom tends to focus on his good morals so he’s the kinda character we’re more comfortable exploring like that :0 (unlike Eric who’s Problematic or Kyle who’s pretty morally gray and who has some questionable interactions w the ppl he’s had romantic interactions w)

And I love portraying Stan’s exploration into his sexuality as a very...slow kind of journey? Like Stan being someone who’s pretty ignorant but earnest, and appreciating when someone is able to help guide him (like Kenny or wendy)

But to the question: I hc Stan as bi!! Like a lot of ppl do :0 again w the slow journey, I see Stan as being the kind of person who would get into queer issues, and just being curious in general and asking questions, alongside wanting to explore w other people—like feeling a romantic/sexual tension w/ another boy but not knowing what it means, and only after he’s had someome start to guide him does he connect the pieces. Like Stan realizing “oh all those times I had a CRUSH on that guy I didn’t just admire him” sort of thing

And it’d be a very personal journey as well, I can’t imagine Stan being open or talking abt his sexuality while he’s still tryna figure it out, mostly bc he isn’t sure abt himself and he doesn’t feel secure enough to be open, plus he’s probably shy abt that kinda thing in the beginning.

And honestly I prefer Stan exploring his sexuality with Wendy or Kenny—I have a whole hc that he’d be uncomfortable with talking to kyle about it, not bc he has anything against Kyle—it’s just that Kyle sometimes gets too in his own head, gets uncomfortable with serious conversations, can sometimes leave Stan behind, and can think he knows Stan best/talks over Stan. I can’t see Kyle being someone patient enough to let Stan talk without adding in his own two cents and confusing or frustrating Stan, and Stan needs someone attentive and non-judgmental to talk things through

Wendy (esp w Wendy as a v knowledgeable queer person) is a good choice to help Stan out bc she’s very compassionate, emotionally sensitive, and wants to help.

(Going into hc-zone:) wendy might also fall into the thing Kyle does where she talks over Stan, in that she knows *so much* she thinks she can guess what Stan feels and kind of flood him with too much information unintentionally. It’s not a bad thing to try and inform him about gender stuff and bi/pan/ply/omnisexualities but Stan isn’t ready for all that yet. And I think Stan is also the kind of person who wouldn’t be super comforted by labels and facts the way Wendy is. Where Wendy likes having specific definitions to explain how she feels, Stan is overwhelmed by those labels bc he’ll overthink them and doubt himself

...which is why I prefer Stan exploring this stuff with Kenny, bc I have a really elaborate kind of relationship development between those two that could blossom if they let themselves grow closer, esp during times where Eric and Kyle are off doing Their Thing. Kenny being someone who’s incredibly sure of who he is, being a great listener, very emotionally sensitive, able to keep a secret, and able to read people well and handle situations between people. Ken is the type who can listen to Stan w/o judging him or making him feel overwhelmed, and knows when to ask questions and when to back off, etc. I have a whole thing abt how their developing relationship can be incredibly mutually beneficial but Yanno that’s for the next bulletpoint 👌 basically Kenny could be someone Stan can explore himself with, and not be pressured

And then there’s Stan’s gender identity which I also Love. I love nb Stan. Just in the kind of nb where he doesn’t want to give himself a specific label, he just wants to Be Himself, whatever that means. I hc Stan as primarily male-aligned nb, in that he’s most comfortable with being a guy or being perceived as a guy and generally presenting masc, but a lot of that is in Stan being more *socially* comfortable presenting that way, instead of him feeling more “like a guy.” I hc Stan to primarily use he/him pronouns but to also be ok w/ she/they depending on the situation. I think Wendy and Kenny would also help him w this, in hc’ing both of them as nb as well (though of course their identities manifest in different ways and they’re comfortable doing different things than Stan)

(Also I love Stan using goth stuff to explore his gender and presentation....using a more feminine name like Raven?? Being able to use nor androgynous ways of dressing?? I lov him sm ;;o;;)

(Plus I have a big hc I love where Stan tries to come out to his parents and he’s bracing for impact for the response and BOTH TIMES his dad STEALS THE SPOTLIGHT bc it’s like “ugh, what is it with kids these days coming up with FAKE TERMS for stuff that’s JUST NORMAL. It’s NORMAL to think about wanting to kiss other guys Stan duh” and Sharon and Stan just. “No....dad....straight men don’t want to kiss other men wtf” and later it’s “ok Stan I believe you about the bisexuality thing but this nonbinary thing?? Again it’s NORMAL!! To feel like a bit of both and want to be seen as a woman sometimes” and Stan’s just pinching his nose again.

He was afraid of becoming his father but. Not like this. Nb bi KINGS)

2) Otp: STENNY!!!!! I love stenny sm. (But I’ll get into that in a bit but first)

S/tendy is also really really cute, but imo it’s the pinnacle of school love. I feel like Stan and Wendy can be good together and genuinely like each other’s company, but I feel like their life goals and ambitions would stray, and they wouldn’t be completely compatible in a way that would be really sustainable as adults. It’s not a bad thing, and I think they could absolutely remain close friends w/o necessarily needing a romantic relationship

Anyways. I adore Stenny. A lot of it again revolves around some development hc stuff I have, mostly in how compatible and mutually beneficial the relationship can be. I like imagining them growing closer and more intimate w each other in a very private kind of way. Like them hanging out one on one, and eventually that evolves into texting, calling, sleeping over w just the two of them, etc, until they have this entire close relationship that’s all their own

And with compatibility, I think both Kenny and Stan are incredibly compassionate, sensitive, thoughtful people who can just sit and enjoy some silence. Unlike Eric and Kyle, who need constant mental stimulation—who need to be DOING things—Stan and Kenny can just...relax. And I think their sensitivity can also lead them to be able to support each other emotionally. Both of them can listen to each other, both of them are capable of having serious conversations and being patient through those conversations, both of them are perceptive and sensitive enough to recognize what the other is feeling and to have some idea of what to do about it. I think they’re both good at knowing how to take care of people (rather than someone like Kyle, who likes taking care of others but doesn’t really know how to do it very well; he’s like his mother in that way, he’s good at obvious stuff like injuries and crying but he can be kinda overbearing, presumptuous, and indelicate abt the quieter stuff but ENOUGH abt Kyle AHJSKDKF)

I think stenny is strong also in how the two can help one another. Kenny is realistic but careful and can provide support for Stan when he’s going through a rough patch. Kenny shows up to Stan’s room in the middle of the night with water and snacks and listens to Stan rant or just *is there* to show Stan he’s not alone. Kenny answers Stan’s 2am texts when Stan can’t sleep and stays on the phone with him all night to keep him company

And Stan is earnest in how much he cares abt his friends and would just...really easily show he cares w/o any judgement. Stan saves seats for Kenny, sends him “be safe!” texts when Ken goes home, offers his bed and his home to Kenny and Karen when they need a place to stay, and it never has an air of pity or self-righteousness about it—it’s just Stan genuinely being nice. And that kind of attention and care is a breath of fresh air for Ken, whos usually forgotten

And both of them are just. They’re a shoulder to cry on, or a pillar to lean against. And that’s smth they need—Stan to feel listened to, Kenny bc he takes on so much stress. They can be a rock for each other.

3) brotp: I love Stan making friends honestly ;;o;;

like I said in my kyle analysis I love the super best friends a lot ;;o;; they really care abt each other and don’t want to lose each other which is really nice. I just...love them being best friends + brotherly towards each other

But I also like Stan making friends outside of the m4—with the girls or the goth kids or even with someone like Tweek. (Though I cant really see him hanging out w “Craig’s gang” mostly bc there’s this air of exclusivity w the “groups,” like an established dynamic that no one really likes to cross, bc they’ve all jus Known each other for so long and have solidified those groups + dynamics—though I can see him also befriending the individual members of Craig’s gang, esp token or jimmy)

His friendship w the goth kids means a lot to me HONESTLY I love the idea of them remaining friends bc they vibe together well—esp when they get a better hang of mental health stuff, and they can talk abt gender and coping mechanisms and cool movies they’ve watched ;;o;; i think being with the goth kids could be a really important part of Stan forming his personal identity and while I don’t think they’d be *best friends* I can still see them as ppl he’d invite to his parties or to the movies and stuff

4) notp: s...st/yle, bc like I said in my kyle analysis I just. Can’t see it. I think kyle hurts Stan too much and that they need to work on their friendship, and that they’re much more compatible as friends than as anything else. I much much prefer a brotherly relationship where they’d feel weird even thinking about kissing each other lol

My other notps for Stan are less about me not liking the ship and more abt me like. Not wanting the characters w anyone else but who I already ship them with. I don’t like Stan with Craig or Tweek bc I can’t see those two w anyone but each other, for example. (Plus I have a lotta hc’s abt craig and his feelings for Tweek ;;o;; craig is a one man kinda guy lmao)

Though I do think Stan is extremely compatible with lots of characters. Idk why ppl ship Kyle w everyone when I don’t think kyle is v compatible with ppl—Stan is def someone who could date like. Just abt anyone. I don’t like Stan ships that aren’t stenny or st/endy but I can at least understand them. Stan is just really nice and approachable and can get along w a lotta people

5) First hc I think of: oh I love the hc that Stan sometimes writes his own music, but he’s kinda shy abt his voice so he doesn’t sing very often.

Or hc that he has a bit of a “dad bod” when he gets older. And the chubbier he is, the happier and more relaxed he is ;;o;; (Bc if Stan is too aware of his body and trying to work out to get the “perfect” figure, he’ll stress over it)

Or Stan growing up to breed service dogs ;;o;; (thank u magnus burnsides for this PERFECT idea)

6) how I relate to this character: I’ve kinda incorporated my own gender stuff into my interpretation of Stan (though I relate more to my gender-interpretation of Kenny)

But I think.....hm. It’s kinda hard to pick out a way I relate to Stan bc I’m so invested in seeing him grow and develop it doesn’t feel like it relates to me. Probably tho I relate to his weird balance of loyalty vs exasperation. Stan loves his friends and family and will do a lot for them. But my god. Sometimes they’re all so stupid. Randy being randy is obvious but remember when Kyle had a breakdown over the fucking Facebook farm game?? Stan is so tired

7) what gives me secondhand embarrassment abt Stan: uhhhh hm. Well, sometimes he’s kinda ignorant and goes along w what everyone else is doing, but honestly I don’t really cringe over Stan. He’s learning and trying and I can’t really fault him for that so much

8) cinnamon roll or problematic fave: cinnamon roll ;;o;; Stan is someone who’s usually pretty genuine and I love his role as the “straight man” in a lot of the stories. He’s been through a lot but I want him to just...be happy ;;o;; I love portrayals of Stan where he can be happy?? Like yeah he can be a cynic but he’s also really compassionate and I jus ;;o;;

[thenicedolphin]

Oscars Analysis With Biting Commentary: 2019 Edition!

We are BACK, with the 7th annual Oscars post from The Nice Dolphin (see links here for 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013), where Matt provides insightful, quality analysis while Alex texts some thoughts from his iPhone about how Lego Movie 2 was robbed of a nomination even though it’s not even eligible this year. As always, Matt is in regular font, and Alex comes in with the BOLD.

 You know what? Lego Movie 2 WAS robbed this year! Just like how Lego Movie should’ve been nominated for Best Picture in 2015 and didn’t even get nominated to be in the ghetto of Best Animated Feature. Horseshit. We haven’t even gotten to the first category and I’m already PISSED.

 Best Picture: “Black Panther” “BlacKkKlansman” “Bohemian Rhapsody” “The Favourite” “Green Book” “Roma” “A Star Is Born” “Vice”

 I’ll start by noting this wasn’t my favorite years for Oscar nominees. The top picks aren’t as good as Get Out or Lady Bird (or Phantom Thread) from last year. Or Moonlight and La La Land the year before. But there are a few great films in here, along with some mediocre picks.

 Nice try sneaking La La Land in there -- should’ve at least gone with Argo. I do agree that it’s a weak year. Lady Bird would’ve jobbed out almost all the other movies this year, and it was like the third best movie from last year (behind Get Out and Phantom Thread). Honestly, just go back and read last year’s post.

I’d go to bat for Roma for sure. It’s a great film. It certainly is a masterpiece of visuals and a writer/director getting to tell his personal story. It certainly felt like a movie event to watch it in theaters.

 Certainly.

 The sound was really creative (surround sound to make the neighborhood and events feel alive). The visuals were beautiful and poignant, as one would expect with Cuaron. He really put all his effort in telling this story, paying homage to his childhood and to the live-in maid who so strongly influenced his upbringing.

 Roma starts slow, but it builds, and I became enraptured with it during the second half. Some of the sequences are intense and well worth the previous groundwork. There’s a 10-15 minute sequence (just an estimate) that left me shook and in awe at the filmmaking (the scene starting at the furniture store). Another scene gave such emotional catharsis and helped close the movie really well. Roma also has some fun tangents and moments (I think of everything around New Year’s Eve) that some may find meandering. I dug them.

 While Roma was a technical masterpiece, I’m still not sold on it as a story. Literally nothing happens for the first 100 minutes then we get some things that are completely unnerving, including one image that does not feel entirely earned, to put it mildly.

 TASTELESS SPOILER ALERT

 Cuaron is like “yeah, let’s focus on some dog shit for two hours. Enjoying that? Well, here look at this dead baby for like 15 minutes straight.” Dude was on screen for EONS. Thought he was gunning for a best supporting nom.

 SPOILERS OVER

 Roma is definitely a loving portrait of Cleo, a personal ode to the women who raised Cuaron, and an astute look into the intersection of economic class and gender in 1970s Mexico, but I can’t tell if those well-made pieces combine to make a truly great movie.

 Otherwise, I’m not sure how much I’d want to rewatch this film or revisit it in entirety, but I really admired it and thought it was great. It is the frontrunner, and it would deserve Best Picture.

 I’m a little worried that because of its Netflix standing and that weirdness. For example, AMC and Regal didn’t include Roma in their best picture marathons/showcases because it didn’t meet the distribution requirement for those theaters. Does that affect voters too? It seemed to with a few previous prestige Netflix films, but things do seem different now. So let’s talk about the next upset contender right now: Green Book.

 Green Book is an interesting movie to me. It’s fairly polarizing because of the way it treats racial issues and the friendship between Viggo Mortensen’s white Italian character (Tony Lip) and Mahershala Ali’s black character (Don Shirley). You may have seen some of the controversies, such as how Shirley’s family wasn’t consulted on the film and disputes some of the representations of Shirley’s relationship with his family (deserving of criticism in my opinion). There has been criticism of director Peter Farrelly’s past on-set antics, or co-writer (son of Tony Lip) Nick Vallelonga’s tweet history (less of an issue to me to criticize the film, but still, not great, Bob).

 First and foremost, FOCK this movie. Tony Lip is racist as hell! Like REALLY racist. You can tell it was written by his son, because the movie treats Tony like he’s the perfect man who was just a touch unexposed to other cultures. He never really learned or grew, especially with the whole “You’re not even black!” rant at the end. He just goes from being super racist to not(?) racist because he’s getting paid to hang out with Dr. Shirley for a few weeks.

 Green Book has two great leading performances and some wonderful friendship moments. It has some funny Italian moments (is this racist?), and it has some great moments of strength by Don Shirley in rougher times racially. But man… I just can’t get over some of the key aspects of the film.

 The film really leans into the dynamic of hey, you’re black, I’m white, we’re different, but hey, we’re not so different! It feels antiquated, and this year, other films handled race relations better while being better stories overall (examples include Sorry to Bother You, Blindspotting, and If Beale Street Could Talk). Green Book’s lack of nuance reminds me of Crash and Driving Miss Daisy. Hell, the movie is called Green Book, and they barely mention it! They should have just called it something else.

 I get that little Nicky V. wanted to make a film about what a big man his daddy was, but it really only should’ve been loosely based on the Lip-Shirley friendship, and it could’ve avoided all the embarrassing fallout about Shirley not actually being estranged from the family/culture.

 The flipside of this is whether or not Green Book is an entertaining, good movie. And in some ways it is. The friendship is fun. The banter is entertaining. I really liked Wesley Morris’ analysis of this on a podcast with Bill Simmons, who discussed how, when you take aside race and the message, the friendship is well-portrayed and some of the editing and scenes work well.

 The first 30 minutes of this movie is some of the worst stuff ever recorded. Not even in terms of movies, but like, anything. It’s just Tony and his family being super racist, him entering into a hot dog eating contest (lmao what) and hacky banter between Tony and Dr. Shirley. Tony having to explain the concept of fried chicken to Dr. Shirley was a low point in a year that featured the existence of 15:17 to Paris. LOOK AT THE BABY CHICKEN LEG SPENCER

 But Green Book is trying to talk about race. It’s what the film emphasizes and it’s what the creators of the film emphasized during their awards run. And if you handle that clumsily, it’s hard for me to separate that from my enjoyment of the film. I don’t need to see more stories about white guys thinking black people are deplorable, and then well, you meet a black guy, and he isn’t so bad! That’s not a great story! Ultimately, Green Book is a solid film with some troublesome messaging that weighs it down. And the film isn’t so amazing story/acting wise to overcome those issues. It’s just kinda… vanilla.

 I’ll speak more on the leads in later sections, but if it wasn’t for Mahershala Ali’s deeply nuanced portrayal of Don Shirley, this movie would be completely irredeemable. Fortunately, he’s actually given a character with some agency, but everything about him is all done in service of the white man’s story about his “growth” as a person, which is really just him learning to be less of an asshole -- not exactly a hero turn!

 Also, how many fucking times did they need to cut back to Tony shrugging in the Orange Bird? Geez, we get it already.

 One more point to rant on: the fact that Tony’s son co-wrote the screenplay, and then Don Shirley’s family came out strongly against some of the story points REALLY rubs me the wrong way. Let’s put it this way: if a friend of mine did a story about his friendship with me, emphasizing inaccurately that I didn’t know how to eat Korean BBQ and had initially thought the idea of it was gross, and that I was estranged from my family but considered him and his family to be my family instead??? Dawg… I would haunt you from my grave for that shit.

 /quietly deletes “The Nice Dolphin” screenplay

 A Star is Born seemed like a heavy contender when it came out. It crushed the box office, critics and audience members seemed to love it, but it seems to have cooled off bigtime v. Roma and Green Book (really??? Green Book???). Well, I loved it, so let me sing its praises.

 A Star is Born was good, but not that good. A hugely entertaining first hour followed by some terribly-paced sequences and a weirdly undefined Jack Maine (I didn’t realize how he spelled his name until that concert poster at the end) combine for an enjoyable, but uneven film.

 Star is Born coulda gone poorly. Cooper trying to direct/sing/play music, Gaga trying to act, original soundtrack, and remaking an old story. Well, it works. The music is on point, the two lead acting performances are strong. There are some magical moments in this film… the scenes where they meet and flirt, where they write music together, when they perform Shallow… it’s so good! The film is good throughout, and the ending packs a wallop. I really like Star is Born, and I hope it can get more love than its likely Best Song win.

 I will admit, I knew the ending before I saw it, so some of the impact was lessened and it also basically ruined that scene with Jack and his counselor. Also it was really late at night and I was pretty cranky, so by the third or fourth scene of her lumbering around the dance studio, I was ready to call it.

 Still, Gaga and Cooper have great chemistry, which made the early scenes pop. However, the movie seemed like it didn’t really know what to make of Jack. Was he truly a troubled poet, or just a raging asshole using his art as an excuse for being an awful person? Was he a big country star selling out amphitheaters or a washed up, piss-soaked loser? What the movie was trying to claim as nuance really just came off as equivocation.

 I am pleasantly surprised that The Favourite got as much Oscar buzz as it did. Alex can elaborate, but Yorgos is definitely a more out there director, and The Favourite seems to work really well as a pivot for him. It’s a little more mainstream, but not completely. It’s not a sell-out. This movie is still probably too weird and rated R for some people.

 As a true Yorgite, I am THRILLED that my man is getting more mainstream love. The Favourite and Black Panther are my two favorite Best Picture nominees this year, despite them basically having no shot at winning.

 Even going a bit “mainstream” here (this is the most natural-sounding dialogue in the Yorgos filmography), Yorgos sacrifices nothing about his unique, vicious style. This movie is as nasty, biting, and hilarious as anything else he’s done, and the entire cast (especially the three leads) delivers.

 I really liked it. The performances were great, the story was really fun (Mean Girls but in a royal setting, or All About Eve, which I haven’t seen), the camerawork was interesting. I like how unconventional it was in some ways, like the ending just sorta sneaking up on me.

 I saw this in a packed theater and I could definitely tell it was a lot of older couples who thought they were in for something along the lines of “The Crown” or “Downton Abbey,” and not heavy lesbian erotica. Also, despite what he says, I don’t consider Matt a true Yorgite, so it’s no surprise he wasn’t ready for that ending. My first thought when them bunnies hit the screen? “Yorgos, you’ve done it again!” A true masterpiece.

 People are worked up about Black Panther getting a nomination, and I’m like… have you seen Bohemian Rhapsody or Vice? And you’re mad about Black Panther?

 People being mad about the Black Panther getting nominated and Green Book getting legit Best Picture love? If only there was some common thread here...

 First, I’ve definitely had friends surprised because for them, Infinity War was better… but I mean, they’re big Marvel fans so IW was a bigger deal to them storywise. Meanwhile, a lot of friends also told me how amazing Black Panther was, how it was their favorite Marvel movie, how it was so much more than a superhero movie, etc. Critics gave it strong reviews deservingly in my opinion, and it crushed the box office because it resonated with a lot of people. Just because it’s not as critically good as Roma and it’s a superhero movie doesn’t mean that it’s only in because it’s about race or that it doesn’t deserve it.

 Black Panther absolutely deserved the nomination. Despite Avengers: Infinity War being a more crucial story to the MCU, Black Panther was a better, more cohesive film. IW was basically one long chase/fight scene, which I loved, but it can’t really stand on its own.

 Black Panther built an entire world, populated it with fascinating characters with complex motivations, and had some badass action scenes all within the span of like two hours.

 Also, come on guys. This is the same show that’s given nominations to… Bohemian Rhapsody. And Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (did anyone actually see that?). The Post, American Sniper, Philomena (does anyone remember that?)... I mean, does a movie only deserve to be nominated because it was about an Oscar-type of topic? I say nominate more of these blockbuster movies (IF they are good). Why did Mission Impossible and Crazy Rich Asians and Game Night not get nominated when Bohemian Rhapsody did? They were better reviewed.

 First of all, I take umbrage to you including American Sniper with that trash. Also, Game Night didn’t get nominated because it wasn’t that good (it’s still better than Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody, but you get it). Crazy Rich Asians and Mission Impossible were both fantastic. Actually, here is an incomplete list of movies that are better than Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book that came out this year, but didn’t get much, if any, Oscar love:

Annihilation Bad Times at the El Royale Crazy Rich Asians Deadpool 2 The Equalizer 2 (didn’t actually see this, but it’s got Denzel) First Reformed Halloween Lego Movie (still) Mission Impossible: Fallout A Quiet Place Searching Sorry to Bother You Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse (got some love, deserved more) Widows

 Honestly Teen Titans Go! To The Movies and Venom were better than that trash too.

 Anyway, Black Panther rules. It’s got an awesome cast of characters, it represents culture well, Coogler crushes the direction, the story is fun, and the villain is super compelling. People loved the ending scenes of Black Panther. This movie is worthy. Also shoutout to that last scene between Boseman and Jordan. Seriously, so good. Honestly, Black Panther had at least 4 scenes that were just as dramatic AND better-done than BR.

 That sounds impressive until you realize that BR had zero well-done scenes. Seriously, every time I think about that movie I hate it more. It’s the opposite of Phantom Thread. It’s the Terrestrial Thread.

 Bohemian Rhapsody is probably one of the worst movies to be nominated for Best Picture in recent years. Look, if you like the movie and find it entertaining, that’s totally fine! Just don’t tell me Black Panther didn’t deserve it when it’s better in every technical aspect.

 The editing is bad. The story of the movie is a censored version crafted by the living band members of Queen to paint them in the best light. Freddie Mercury is portrayed like more of an immature punk than he deserves, and the other band members seem like the grown-ups. The dramatic scenes are not very good. It’s just fine. The acting is solid. The movie is fun when the band is playing music or making music. But it really drags at parts. A solid B- crowdpleaser. NOT an Oscar movie.

 The only time this movie is entertaining is when Queen is playing/making music. Just save yourself the trouble and watch some old concert DVD or whatever. Every “based on a true story” movie is going to take some liberties with the facts, but this is the first movie I can recall that makes the true story MORE boring. This is literally the exact same movie as Straight Outta Compton, except that one was better -- and didn’t even get nominated! Straight Outta Compton is the Lego Movie of musical biopics.

 BlacKkKlansman was a powerful movie, though I’ll say it isn’t peak Spike Lee for me. It is really good in moments, and it’s also weaker in stretches. Basically, whenever the main character is infiltrating the KKK or working with his partner, the movie works. The scenes about the civil rights movements are really good, especially a scene where Kwame Ture gives a speech. The movie is slower when it tries to delve into Ron Stallworth’s personal life and romance. The movie is probably 15-20 minutes too long, which would be my main critique. And the ending is a bit polarizing (it worked for me, but I can see the argument against it).

 15-20 minutes too long? Sounds like peak Spike to me. Hey-ooooooooooooo!

 I really dug BlacKkKlansman, but man the capitalization of the title is infuriating. I agree that it’s a bit scattered (and not in a way that actually serves the story), but overall, I think Spike put together a film that is entertaining, exciting, and sadly all-too-relevant in today’s world. The scenes from recent news at the end might’ve come off a bit clunky to some, but it really brought the message home that in some ways the movie might’ve had a “happy” ending, but in no way is the big picture a positive one.

 Vice. Man. I was really looking forward to this one and I was disappointed. It felt like Adam McKay took all his tools from The Big Short and used them to excess. The Big Short was crisp and covered one specific story. Vice tries to cover a lot of years of Cheney’s life without much cohesion. I wish the movie had focused more on the VP years, which were the best parts of the movie and far too short. The Big Short’s narrator was a main character who explained a lot of complicated concepts that related to his character. Vice tried to have a random character with tons of narration, and it was all over the place without really having a reason for being in the movie. McKay also tries a few other ambitious things that don’t work as well when your movie isn’t strong. Basically, the riskier decisions stuck out more poorly. I wanted to dig this movie, but it just wasn’t very well-made, and I’m underwhelmed by its nominations.

 I didn’t get around to Vice, but there’s something comforting about knowing that I’ll never see all of the Best Picture nominees. Not that I’ve ever let that stop me from providing commentary before. Besides, after Matt’s SCATHING review, I probably made the right call.

 An interesting theme that pervades several of the Best Pic noms this year is the movies being directly at odds with their “true stories” in ways that actively hurt the movies. Green Book, Bohemian Rhapsody, and BlacKkKlansman all suffer from this. Maybe Vice too? Who knows.

 Generally, I try to separate the movie from the real events it’s based on. Real life is rarely as entertaining as a Hollywood flick, so I totally get why Die Hard didn’t have a third act of Carl Winslow filling out paperwork. HAVING SAID THAT when the true tale gets twisted into something totally unrecognizable, is it fair to criticize the movie for that? Green Book completely mutated the character of Dr. Don Shirley to fit a narrative of friendship triumphing over racism; Bohemian Rhapsody mischaracterized the relationship between Freddie Mercury and his bandmates to create a non-existent redemption/comeback arc; BlacKkKlansman ignored all the ways Ron Stallworth sabotaged the pro-Black movement in Colorado in service of painting police as the true heroes of equality.

 I don’t have all the answers here, but these three examples feel like particularly egregious warpings of reality. However, I want to use this opportunity to praise YORGOS, who took enough from history to give The Favourite some context, but was up front about his editorialization enough to where the historical inaccuracies didn’t matter, and it didn’t feel like watching some ol boolshit.

 I wish First Man and If Beale Street Could Talk had gotten in over Vice and Bohemian, or in addition to (since the nominations can go up to 10).  Hell, if you had just added these two to make it 10, this crop would look stronger. The follow-ups for the directors of La La Land and Moonlight, neither film was as strong as the previous outings, but both were quality art. First Man sometimes had less impressive action with its use of shaky cam in the cockpit (which made the theater experience dizzying at times), and it mostly lost the mainstream audience because it was less adventurous than movies like The Martian or Interstellar. It also chose to try to portray Armstrong as an ordinary, less romantic type of hero, which may have been to its detriment for entertainment purposes. But I really liked the story of Neil Armstrong and NASA, warts and all. It felt more authentic and well-acted compared to, oh, I dunno, BR. And the moon landing scenes were breathtaking.

 Beale Street struggled for me with its back-and-forth narrative, and some characters who I wish had more to do but some of the scenes were so good, and the art of it was beautiful. I also wish foreign films like Cold War and Shoplifters could get some Best Picture love too, but I’ll talk more about them below.

 Cinematography: “Cold War,” Lukasz Zal “The Favourite,” Robbie Ryan “Never Look Away,” Caleb Deschanel “Roma,” Alfonso Cuarón “A Star Is Born,” Matthew Libatique

 (edit: We put these categories here as a little TND protest for when the Oscars weren’t gonna air them on the regular telecast. But we’ll leave them here still, because these categories rule.)

 The presumed favorite appears to be Roma, with Cold War as a potential dark horse. After Cuarón’s go-to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (three-time consecutive Oscar winner at one point, including for Cuarón’s Gravity) left, he pulled a Thanos and decided to do it himself. Roma’s photography has all the marks of a Lubezki/Cuarón joint. He did well. Some of the shots may be a bit much (as one friend asked, why so many dog poop shots?). But the tracking shots are glorious and usually worked well for art. Following the lizard around on a random day, Cleo running along the street, the shot of the men training, the forest on New Year’s Eve… and of course, the aforementioned furniture store and beach sequences.

 I didn’t see Cold War, but it’s fine because Roma will win. Roma does look great, but damn can Cuaron get another trick besides panning ten feet in either direction after the natural conclusion of a scene? Seriously, he does it like every twenty minutes. I guess this is world building? “You see, here’s what’s happening to our characters. And there’s also more stuff happening...slightly to the left.”

 I was very curious about Cold War after it got a best director nomination as well. The cinematography was beautiful too. And it also deals in black-and-white like Roma, and with different camera framing (I’m not technical enough to explain that). It had some great shots too, in particular a shot with a mirror that really impressed me. Of note, Cold War beat Roma in the American Society of Cinematographer Awards.

 A Star is Born had some good camerawork and cool concert shots.

 Great camera framing when the guy pisses himself. You really *feel* the piss.

 The Favourite was worthy of a nomination too, using some unique camera angles and fisheye lens shots that could have been distracting but ended up working really well for the movie. I have not seen Never Look Away, but the trailer looked good.

 Those long hallway shots in The Favourite were superb. Robbie Ryan is a true Yorgite.

 Film Editing: “BlacKkKlansman,” Barry Alexander Brown “Bohemian Rhapsody,” John Ottman “Green Book,” Patrick J. Don Vito “The Favourite,” Yorgos Mavropsaridis “Vice,” Hank Corwin

 LOL Bohemian Rhapsody. See the aforementioned link about the bad editing in it. I mean, I guess the montage while they recorded the title track was really fun, but cmon! I also had a lot of fun during some scenes of Venom, and I didn’t see that get a bunch of noms!

 Well maybe it should have! Matt made me watch that clip of the first record exec convo from Bohemian Rhapsody, and it’s so bad it wasn’t until like my third viewing when I realized Matt was trying to point out how poorly edited it was. Seriously, I couldn’t even get past the dialogue: “Queen...is for losers” “Well I’m sold!”

 Vice seems to be a favorite on Gold Derby. The movie was too all over the place for me, and I guess it would win for the most editing, because there are all sorts of jumping around and montages and random things the film does. Bohemian is the next favorite, so I don’t really care for this year’s winner. Maybe this year it SHOULD be on commercial break. Jk.

 I didn’t see Vice, but I agree with Matt that more editing definitely doesn’t equal better editing. I think Billy Walsh would agree that sometimes it’s about the cuts you DON’T make.

 I would vote for The Favourite. It’s crisp and efficient. Green Book’s editing is probably a strong suit too, admittedly. BlacKkKlansman could have been shortened some, but the editing during some of the back-and-forths (I think of the KKK meeting versus the black students’ meeting at the end) was really good.

 I agree* that all three of these films were well-edited. It’s a shame that apparently they have no chance at actually winning this award.

 *I think I’ve already set a record for most times agreeing with Matt in an Oscars post. We’re like one of those old married couples that gradually turn into the same person over the years. Sure it might make for a boring post, but at least we’re RIGHT.

 Director: Spike Lee, “BlacKkKlansman” Pawel Pawlikowski, “Cold War” Yorgos Lanthimos, “The Favourite” Alfonso Cuarón, “Roma” Adam McKay, “Vice”

 Cuarón is the presumptive favorite, and he would be very worthy. He shepherded this project to fruition, he told the story he wanted to tell, and he kicked ass. I’ve heard Spike Lee is a possible surprise here, but I’d rather see him get the Screenplay win. As mentioned, BK is not his strongest work for me, and doesn’t quite compare to Do the Right Thing.

 Finally Matt says something stupid! Okay because BlacKkKlansman wasn’t as good as one of the greatest films of all time, Spike doesn’t deserve a win here? I’m not even saying he should win, but if he doesn’t, it’s not because he made a better movie in 1989.

 Cuaron will probably take home the gold, and it’s well-deserved, as he really put his signature style on every aspect of Roma. It’s obviously an extremely personal project for him, but he never lets it dip too far into “diary” territory, and ultimately allows the audience inside of his perspective instead of forcing us to observe from a distance.

 It’s dope that Pawlikowski got nominated sorta out of left field. He really crafted an interesting, powerful story, and it was creative and unique. Yorgos deserves props for his nomination, managing to combine his style with someone else’s script (first time using a script that wasn’t his!). I’m glad Peter Farrelly didn’t get the nod here, but I wish Cooper had gotten it in over McKay. Vice is not that impressive, but I really dug some of the decisions made in Star.

 This might come as a surprise, but I’m quite happy Yorgos got nominated and would love for him to get the upset victory over dog dookie Cuaron. Shoutout to both guys for being able to direct the hell out of some nudity though.

 Lead Actor: Christian Bale, “Vice” Bradley Cooper, “A Star Is Born” Willem Dafoe, “At Eternity’s Gate” Rami Malek, “Bohemian Rhapsody” Viggo Mortensen, “Green Book”

 My Cooper support continues! I hope he wins, and it sounds like some people want him to be a surprise upset here. I thought he really built this role up and nailed it. This could have gone poorly. He could have sounded like Russell Crowe in Les Mis, his voice could have been weird, and he might not have been so likable on screen. But he was! He really became Jackson Maine and crafted this interesting, romantic, tragic character. I thought he was terrific.

 *big sigh*

 I agree with Matt again. Cooper was fantastic in playing a could-have-been-thankless role of a guy who does terrible thing after terrible thing, but still needs the audience on his side at the end. His singing was more than serviceable in the movie, as it was mostly done in live concert scenes where him being a little ragged fit the character/moment. Just uhh, don’t pull that shit up on Spotify.

 Rami Malek is the frontrunner here, which surprises me. Again, I don’t like the movie, but I also like Malek. But Malek has impressed me much more in projects like Mr. Robot and The Pacific. Here, I feel like he is doing a solid impersonation, but he’s not blowing me away like DDL in Lincoln. I feel like he was also limited by the weak script/story. I wish he had had more powerhouse scenes and dialogue, but he just didn’t.

 Oh he didn’t blow you like DDL in Lincoln? That might’ve been the greatest biopic performance of all time. “Malek was good, but his acting wasn’t as good as Spike Lee’s directing in the 80s.”

 Not to defend Malek, dude is just up there doin a little bucky beaver impression -- and I like Malek! Shit was limp and lame. IAWM (I agree with Matt) in that the rest of the movie was so bad, Malek was never afforded the opportunity to rise above being a Halloween costume. Still, he did next to nothing, even with scant material.

 Bale obviously made an impressive transformation in weight/look for Vice, and I always am a fan. He was pretty good here, and I’d be fine with a win, but it wasn’t his best work.

 Viggo was good, but part of the problem of the movie is the fact that Viggo was the lead instead of Mahershala, as the film would have benefited more from being through the lens of Shirley’s view, and not Tony Lip’s.

 Yeah, it pisses me off that Viggo (lol never realized how funny of a name that is until I just typed it) is even in this category. Sure he did a fine job playing a racist guy...maybe a little too fine of a job? I’m surprised Liam Neeson wasn’t clamoring for the role of Tony Lip, so he could do a little method acting.

 As for Dafoe… I don’t know anyone who saw this film, and I wasn’t hyped enough to go see it. Hell, the idea of a 60+ year old playing a guy who died at 37 was enough to not get me hyped, even if the makers tried to say he would have looked like Van Gogh because of the circumstances of the times.

 I obviously didn’t see this movie, but wow that is a hell of a paragraph. Are most people hyped by an old man playing a younger man? Actually, I heard that the producers were worried that Dafoe didn’t look old ENOUGH and were going to CGI in Christopher Plummer. Still though, “circumstances of the times?” I know 2019 seems awful, but this is a helpful reminder that the world use to be a literal hellscape.

 I would have liked to see Ethan Hawke here for First Reformed. He carried the movie, he was awesome in it, and it was definitely unlike the normal Hawke performance I’ve seen before.

 Matt, put a backhanded compliment warning there, sheesh. Hawke was fantastic in First Reformed and absolutely deserved a nomination ahead of Viggo, Malek, Fat Bale, and Benjamin Button-ass Dafoe.

 Gosling here would have been good too. Also would have been cool to see an indie lead, whether Lakeith Stanfield in Sorry to Bother You or John Cho in Searching.

 Stanfield and Cho crushed it in their respective roles. Funny story, Cho initially passed on Searching, but the filmmakers basically stole his phone number and hounded him until he agreed to do on the condition that they leave his ass alone afterwards.

 Lead Actress: Yalitza Aparicio, “Roma” Glenn Close, “The Wife” Olivia Colman, “The Favourite” Lady Gaga, “A Star Is Born” Melissa McCarthy, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”

 Glenn Close is supposed to win. It’s apparently a lock. This definitely feels like another career honor, since this is her 7th nomination and she hasn’t won. Close is pretty good. The movie is OK and she has a delicate, graceful, but powerful performance here. I mainly just feel like it was the least memorable role here.

 I didn’t see The Wife, but for some reason I’ve got love for Glenn, so I’m happy she’s getting a win.

 Colman wasn’t necessarily the lead of the film, and it was really a three-headed monster (apparently Stone’s character has the most screentime), but she was awesome. She nailed this crazy, sad, bigtime character. I’d pull for her, and I think she has a small chance.

 Colman might’ve had less screen time than Stone, but as the raunchy queen, she commands the audience’s attention much like she commands love from Stone and Weisz. Everything is in service of the queen and Colman puts every ounce of emotion and feeling into a role tightly balanced between needing fealty and needing love.

 Gaga was a contender for a while, and I really liked her and was impressed with her rising to the occasion and taking on this lead role, weaving in her real life story with this fictional character. I think she didn’t always quite hit the acting level of Cooper, but she was close.

 Gaga was good for a rookie, but cmon. She basically had like two expressions the entire movie (dumbstruck and covering half her face/sad and covering half her face).

 I was really into McCarthy’s performance and thought this was a legit good indie film. Small story, really focusing on her character, and she carries it well! The Wife and this are smaller indie stories, but I was more wowed by McCarthy. She handles a sad sack of a character, self-loathing, mischievous, witty. I think she’s a great actress who sometimes ends up in unfortunate movies. This was a good one.

 Shockingly I didn’t see Can You Ever Forgive Me?, but I’m glad McCarthy is getting love. She’s a great actress, but always finds herself in shitty movies.

 I’m so glad Yalitza Aparicio got a nomination! She wasn’t quite as strong to me as Colman or McCarthy, but she has to be good for the film to be good, of course, and she is. I think the technical aspects of the movie outshine her performance in some ways, but she deserves merit.

 Yalitza’s gotta be straight up laughing at all the love for Lady Gaga. Another first time actress, she actually does a great job in the film instead of just getting points because she has hit single songs. The range of emotions on her face when confronted by the nude ninja alone made her worthy of a nomination.

 Who else would I have wanted? Maybe Joanna Kulig for Cold War. She’s a star, and she dances/sings/acts in terrific fashion. Also shoutout to Natalie Portman for Annihilation and Elsie Fisher in Eighth Grade. No one’s gonna remember The Wife in 5 years, but Eighth Grade will stand the test of time.

 Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali, “Green Book” Adam Driver, “BlacKkKlansman” Sam Elliott, “A Star Is Born” Richard E. Grant, “Can You Ever Forgive Me?” Sam Rockwell, “Vice”

 Mahershala is expected to win, and he’s really good as Don Shirley, so I’m cool with it. He is such a magnetic actor, and he carries Shirley well. It’s a pretty different type of character from Juan in Moonlight. Juan’s performance leaned in on charisma, masculinity, and tenderness. Shirley is a character reliant on dignity, sophistication, and inner rage. He nails both. He’s really good. For all the faults I have with the making of Green Book, I do really like Mahershala here. It’s pretty wild that he’s about to get his second Oscar, but hey, good for him!

 You mean an actor played two different roles? Wauw.

 Mahershala completely carried Green Book and filled Don Shirley with so much nuance, complexity, and integrity that he himself should’ve gotten nominated for Best Picture. He IS the movie. It’s such a shame his character was relegated to the supporting role because there’s so much awesome internal logic to Dr. Shirley that he’s fascinating to watch and Ali does a great job of bringing all of that to the forefront without having to resort to speechifying his thoughts or emotions.

 I really like Driver and always like his work. He’s a unique, compelling actor in whatever role he’s in. He has more to do in BK than John David Washington’s main character, and he’s not weighed down by the romance story. There’s something really convincing in any role Driver portrays, whether it’s Kylo Ren, Adam in Girls, or his performance in Silence. I thought his performance was pretty key to the BK story.

 Driver definitely brings a fun presence to BlacKkKlansman helping to achieve the delicate tonal balance Spike was looking for. I mean, not as good as the tonal balance JGL brought to Lincoln, but I digress.

 Grant was really wonderful and charming, and he really carries the movie along with McCarthy. Elliott doesn’t have a ton of scenes in A Star is Born, but each scene of his was a highlight for me. His relationship with Cooper is key to the film, and I really dug it. I don’t really see why Rockwell had to get a nom here. He’s not too essential to the film, and he does a good W impersonation, but this just pales in comparison to his role last year in Three Billboards.

 Ha I only skimmed that last paragraph and just furiously googled “Sam Elliott Three Billboards” because I was confused as fock. Yeah that last conversation between Cooper and Elliott was fantastic, and Elliott is great throughout as the older brother who never got quite as much ass as Jackson Maine.

 We couldn’t have thrown a nod here to Michael B. Jordan instead, for his compelling (albeit polarizing) acting job in Black Panther? I also loved Brian Tyree Henry’s character in If Beale Street Could Talk. Similar short screentime to Rockwell, but way more impactful and memorable. Henry’s scenes in Beale Street are some of the best work you’ll see from last year.

 Was that acting job really polarizing? We have a term for people who have negative things to say about Black Panther. They’re called...Vallelongas. Brian Tyree Henry is one of my favorite actors, so I have no doubt that he was great in Beale Street. I do want to shout him and Daniel Kaluuya out for their performances in Widows. For a story about four strong women coming together to wreck some shit, Henry and Kaluuya stole the show. And my heart.

 Also want to shout out my man Beast! Not saying he should win, but his scene to hilarity ratio in The Favourite was easily 1:1. Everything in The Favourite popped, but his presence made it even poppier.

 Supporting Actress: Amy Adams, “Vice” Marina de Tavira, “Roma” Regina King, “If Beale Street Could Talk” Emma Stone, “The Favourite” Rachel Weisz, “The Favourite”

 I really like Regina King, and she’s pretty good in Beale Street, but I’m sorta surprised that she became the consensus pick. She doesn’t quite have as memorable a performance for me as Mahershala’s or say, Brian Tyree Henry in the same film. She’s a great actress, but there’s not a ton for her to do, and I didn’t leave that film being like WOW, that character!

 Stone and Weisz seem to negate each other, unfortunately. They are both terrific. I didn’t love Stone in La La Land but she’s really fun and vicious here. Weisz is great too and has a lot of fun. I would probably give the edge to Weisz, but I’d strongly praise either performance.

 Weisz was amazing as Sarah Churchill. She is definitely the centerpiece of the film, and does a wonderful job providing an axis for all the wild shit that goes down. What really elevates her performance is that she doesn’t fall into the trap of merely being the straight woman (no pun intended, seriously), and still imbues her character with loads of cunning, fire, and personality.

 Stone was great as well, and I’ll say I didn’t enjoy her in La La Land either, but that’s mostly because I was watching La La Land at the time.

 Amy Adams is awesome in general and good in Vice. Marina de Tavira is really good in Roma, and her nomination was a nice surprise too. Her character as the mother is really pivotal to the story, and I thought she was good at being overall likable even while sometimes being harsh.

 De Tavira gives a great performance in a role that would’ve been easy to gloss over if played by another actress. She never allowed herself to become a background character or only appear as Cleo’s boss. Her story is just as dynamic and heart-rending as Cleo’s, and with less attention given to it, only a great performance would give it the weight it needed and de Tavira absolutely delivered.

 Original Screenplay: “The Favourite,” Deborah Davis, Tony McNamara “First Reformed,” Paul Schrader “Green Book,” Nick Vallelonga, Brian Currie, Peter Farrelly “Roma,” Alfonso Cuarón “Vice,” Adam McKay

 The Favourite seems to be… the favourite for this category.

 Nice.

 It’s a fun, witty script based on historical events (and it seemed to do a decent enough job being similar enough to real life!). Updating a story for the modern times in film format is no easy feat, and I really enjoyed this story.

 Like I mentioned earlier, The Favourite does a great job of drawing just enough historical context while still keeping things fresh and honest, without making the story feel bastardized.

 This is Paul Schrader’s first nomination, which is pretty crazy when he’s had films like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. First Reformed has a unique, fascinating, compelling premise and story arc. It does remind me a good bit of Taxi Driver in some ways but is its own story too.

 Really happy First Reformed got a little love. In a time when we’re getting nothing but remakes and sequels, a truly original story is always welcome.

 I don’t want Green Book to win. As mentioned, this shit wasn’t vetted by Shirley’s family, which seems kind of important! And it’s a bit cheesy throughout. Technically speaking, it seems like the directing/editing would be better than the writing here. Vice… that story was so all over the place. McKay’s script for Big Short was way crisper and stronger. Roma is a great film, but I don’t put its screenplay up as strongly as its other technical achievements. Eighth Grade should have been nominated here and been a contender. It won at the Writers Guilds Awards (Bo’s speech is really funny too), and Bo Burnham made a brutally vulnerable, honest story about adolescence and technology.

 I usually make a joke here about how movies based on actual events should be in the Adapted Screenplay category (since they’re adapted from real life!), but I guess Nick Vallelonga really took that to heart because he basically removed any shred of reality from Green Book. May as well give Bohemian Rhapsody a nod here too lol

 Adapted Screenplay: “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs,” Joel Coen , Ethan Coen “BlacKkKlansman,” Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmott, Spike Lee “Can You Ever Forgive Me?,” Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty “If Beale Street Could Talk,” Barry Jenkins “A Star Is Born,” Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper, Will Fetters

 The rules for adapted are always funny. A Star is Born is based on three previous versions, and Buster Scruggs apparently has some adapted short stories but other completely original short stories. Weird. I wouldn’t feel too strongly about Star’s screenplay since I feel like the quality in its update is more in the acting and music, versus the writing. Buster Scruggs was a mixed bag for me, with some awesome and some meh stories.

 Bro, which stories were meh? Name names! There wasn’t a bad one in the damn bunch.

 BK seems to be in the lead, which would be a cool win for Spike Lee (he previously received an honorary Oscar). Apparently the movie changed a lot, which I imagine was positive for movie action/plot intrigue. I feel like whatever the screenplay did with the romance didn’t really play, but I’m not really sure what else I would push alternatively.

 Matt is really hating on the romance angle in BlacKkKlansman. I’ll be honest, I barely remember that aspect of the movie, so the hate is probably warranted.

 Beale Street was a worthy effort, but I felt like the narrative was all over the place and wonder if Jenkins could have done a better job conveying the story in movie form. I don’t think it was an easy book to adapt, as I’ve heard with Baldwin fiction, but the product in the end doesn’t measure up to BK. As for Can You Ever Forgive Me?, I thought it was a stellar story, and also apparently people don’t think the original memoir itself was very good, so I guess it gets points for that!

 Go ahead and give Jenkins the win to make up for that L* L* L*nd/Moonlight mix up back in 2017.

 Best Documentary Feature: “Free Solo,” Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi “Hale County This Morning, This Evening,” RaMell Ross “Minding the Gap,” Bing Liu “Of Fathers and Sons,” Talal Derki “RBG,” Betsy West, Julie Cohen

 I’m not a big documentary guy, but they have gotten more popular (Won’t You Be Me Neighbor, Three Identical Strangers, Free Solo, and RBG all were box office documentary hits this year), and I’ve ended up checking a few more out. Won’t You Be My Neighbor was one of the most noted snubs when nominations came out, and it’s a shame it didn’t get nominated. It was beloved and had a notable cultural effect last summer, and I thought it was terrific and charming. I didn’t see Three Identical Strangers yet, but I’ve heard it considered to be a snub too, which Alex can elaborate on.

 Shit I had this whole paragraph written up about Mr. Rogers, but Matt just reminded me that it didn’t get nominated. Basically the punchline was that I watched it with my parents and they just clowned Fred the whole time, which I think explains a lot.

 Three Identical Strangers was great, but apparently I’m the only person who either didn’t know about the second twist or didn’t think it was that shocking/big of a deal. I gotta say, capitalizing on your 15 minutes of fame by opening a celebrity restaurant in New York City is probably the most 1988 thing ever.

 Also, no love for the Pope Francis doc? Guess I’ll see the Academy in hell...as I look down from Heaven!

 The betting odds seem split between Free Solo and RBG, with Solo slightly ahead. I am all about Free Solo, and I hope it wins. It’s an incredible, fascinating story. Is this guy insane for making this climb? How do we feel about him with his girlfriend? How do we feel about his girlfriend with him? How do we feel about the documentary crew filming him? Are they enabling him? Deterring him? These are really interesting dynamics throughout the story. It’s helpful that everyone involved in the story is inherently likable, and they are wondering about these same dynamics. Also, although I think most people know the fate of Alex Honnold’s climb before watching, the feat is so extraordinary and ridiculous that you will still be stressed out, nervous, and fascinated watching it.

 The climbing footage is awe-inspiring. The filmmakers do a great job explaining the audacity and absurdity of the climb so that the average viewer can understand what’s going on. This is such a good documentary.

 RBG the person is awesome, and I’m a big fan. But RBG the documentary is just… good? I feel like voters must have been split between this at Won’t You Be My Neighbor, and it’s hard not to compare the two, since they came out around the same time and are both about revered figures. WYBMN has really good editing and panache, and an inherent charm in talking about Mr. Rodgers’ legacy and his past. RBG feels more by-the-numbers and with less impressive editing and focus. It felt a bit short and all-over-the-place. I could have used more time on her advocacy versus her time exercising or becoming a cultural meme.

 WYBMN also benefited from having tons of footage from the TV shows. RBG by comparison doesn’t have as much old footage, and with RBG alive, they do a lot more interviewing her or following her around. It’s an interesting glimpse, but doesn’t work quite as well for me. It’s a good film, and I enjoyed getting more of a look into RBG’s life. But I don’t want it to win.

 Minding the Gap is the other film I saw out of this batch, and it had caught my eye after being on a few critics’ best movies lists at the end of 2018. It’s on Hulu, and it definitely wouldn’t become a box office hit. It has an indie vibe for sure, as Bing Liu, a young filmmaker, follows two friends as they grow from teenagers to young adults, along with examining his own life. The film delves deeply into masculinity, physical abuse from childhood, and identity in the Midwest. It really builds and gets stronger and stronger towards the end. There are some deep emotions that this film can evoke in the viewer, and I really felt for the story by the end. Also, a bonus is that the footage of them skateboarding is really beautiful and whimsical.

 Best Foreign Language Film: “Capernaum” (Lebanon) “Cold War” (Poland) “Never Look Away” (Germany) “Roma” (Mexico) “Shoplifters” (Japan)

 Roma is the clear favorite here. I almost wish that if Roma was definitely getting best picture, they could just retract its nomination here so someone else could win!

 Ha that’s actually not a bad idea. These other flicks don’t stand a chance when Roma is going toe-to-toe with the entire field of movies.

 I really liked Cold War and Shoplifters. I didn’t get a chance to see Capernaum or Never Look Away. Never Look Away seemed to have mixed reviews, which makes me wish that Burning (South Korea! Steven Yeun!) got the nom instead. While in the lobby post-Cold War, my friend and I saw a bunch of people left Capernaum in tears, so… that seems like it must have been good and sad?

 Bro, people were crying because it SUCKED. Jk, I’m sure it’s wonderful. Also, has a foreign language film ever been nominated that wasn’t a totally depressing tearjerker? Do countries besides the U.S. and France make comedies? I know there isn’t much to laugh about in Turkmenistan or wherever, but I’m just asking.

 Cold War is by the previous winner of Ida, another excellent black-and-white film. While Ida was smaller scale in time, Cold War spans a romance of two musicians over some years. It similarly tackles the repercussions of WWII and the titled Cold War on Poland. The two main characters are really captivating and dynamic to watch. The music portrayed is super fun. The challenges of the times are fascinating. My one gripe is that the film felt a bit weirdly paced at times, partly because it was covering a multitude of years, and the characters’ decisions were sometimes a bit too dubious for me.

 I really dug Shoplifters too. It’s a lovely, beautiful film that ponders what a family is. The characters aren’t conventional good guys, mistakes are made, and these characters try to keep their version of a family together. Sometimes the movie is beautiful and optimistic, sometimes it’s sad and heartbreaking. I also liked how the movie was intentionally confusing about some details, to add to the storytelling aspect.

 Animated Feature: “Incredibles 2,” Brad Bird “Isle of Dogs,” Wes Anderson “Mirai,” Mamoru Hosoda “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” Rich Moore, Phil Johnston “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman

 SPIDER-VERSE. All the way. That movie could have gone poorly. There is definitely a lot of Spider-man content out in the world in recent years, and the movie worked by both leaning into that and truly creating its own story to stand on. Miles Morales was an awesome main character. Peter Parker was a great side character (that was definitely a risk in storytelling). Miles’ family characters were well-portrayed (shoutout Brian Tyree Henry and Mahershala Ali, AGAIN. Those dudes kill it).

 Spider-Verse might be my favorite movie of the YEAR. #2 this decade behind Moonlight and all of the X-Men films. Everything about this movie is fantastic. The characters are well-drawn (emotionally and literally), the stories are engaging, and the humor, while appropriate for all ages, doesn’t include any lame juvenile shit (unlike this blog post). Folks (myself) were legit getting emotional in the theater. Looked like a screening of Capernaum in there.

 The animation was awesome. It was new and unique, making the movie feel like a comic book come to life. I think the movie had a poor box office opening because of market saturation, but it ended up grossing a respectable amount based on word of mouth and audience reception. Good! Can’t wait to see what’s next.

 I’d literally never seen anything like Spider-Verse. The animation was crazy dynamic, constantly shifting between more realistic and more cartoony depending on what the situation called for. Everything about this movie from the animation, to the music, to the voices is completely fresh and inspired.

 The Incredibles 2 seemed to take the box office by storm, and by the time I saw it a month or so later, I was a bit let down. The movie is a bit unsatisfying in originality after so many years. It’s still good! I had a lot of fun, and some of the action sequences were pretty exciting. It’s just not as good as Pixar’s best or the first Incredibles.

 No desire to see Incredibles 2. Incredibles 1 is massively overrated and all anyone wanted to talk about from part 2 is how hot the mom was. I’m good, homie.

 Isle of Dogs was really fun and charming. It was a solid Wes Anderson joint. I do wish it had more agency for some of the Asian characters, and it’s still sorta funny to me that Wes just kinda dropped in with his crew + one Asian writer for the script. But yeah, it was a really fun movie. I haven’t seen Ralph since I hadn’t gotten to the first one yet. Mirai looks like my kind of jam, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. Spiderverse all the way.

 Isle of Dogs is racist as hell! Why will no one talk about it??? I feel like I’m going INSANE

 Original Song: “All The Stars” from “Black Panther” by Kendrick Lamar, SZA “I’ll Fight” from “RBG” by Diane Warren, Jennifer Hudson “The Place Where Lost Things Go” from “Mary Poppins Returns” by Marc Shaiman, Scott Wittman “Shallow” from “A Star Is Born” by Lady Gaga, Mark Ronson, Anthony Rossomando, Andrew Wyatt and Benjamin Rice “When A Cowboy Trades His Spurs For Wings” from “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” by David Rawlings and Gillian Welch

 Shallow is such a heavyweight here. That song is the classic from a soundtrack of lots of good songs. It’s perfect for their relationship in the story, and it’s the best scene in the film when she comes onstage to sing it. I hope they crush it live on stage. Get it, Bradley!

 Would’ve loved for “Why Did You Do That?” to get an ironic nomination here. Man that song was ass. “Shallow” is a good song and plays an important role in the movie, so I’m not upset at all if it wins, but yo that part where they’re just like “Sha-la-la-la-la-low” is weak as hell. Should’ve ponied up for Jason Isbell to get the late checkout time, maybe he could’ve done something there.

 Hot take: “When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings” is a MUCH better song.

 Man, the Mary Poppins’ new songs were pretty disappointing. Maybe they should have gotten Lin involved in the writing. The Buster Scruggs song is pretty goofy and funny, and All the Stars is a fun anthem.

 All the Stars is a fresh track, I wouldn’t be mad at it pulling an upset.

 Original Score: “BlacKkKlansman,” Terence Blanchard “Black Panther,” Ludwig Goransson “If Beale Street Could Talk,” Nicholas Britell “Isle of Dogs,” Alexandre Desplat “Mary Poppins Returns,” Marc Shaiman, Scott Wittman

 Feels like First Man got snubbed here bigtime. That score was really good, and it seemed like a favorite before nominations came out. I’d root for Brittell’s score. His work was beautiful in this (and in Moonlight), so a win would be cool. I generally like Desplat’s whimsy, but I don’t remember much about the score here. Black Panther’s was cool, though I feel like it was more about the songs on the soundtrack versus Ludwig’s score. Ludwig is the man though. I wouldn’t hate him getting it.

 Good point about Black Panther’s strength lying in its songs instead of the soundtrack. Really disappointed in Sicario 2 overall, but especially in its score. Sicario 1 had the hottest score of the year when it dropped, but much like everything else about Sicario 2, it didn’t deliver.

 Sound Editing: “Black Panther,” Benjamin A. Burtt, Steve Boeddeker “Bohemian Rhapsody,” John Warhurst “First Man,” Ai-Ling Lee, Mildred Iatrou Morgan “A Quiet Place,” Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl “Roma,” Sergio Diaz, Skip Lievsay

 Sound Mixing: “Black Panther” “Bohemian Rhapsody” “First Man” “Roma” “A Star Is Born”

 This confuses me every year. Here’s a good article for the differences. Basically, sound editing awards effects (think, creating gunfire/explosion noise for a war/action movie). while  sound mixing awards the soundscape/all the sounds mixed together.

 So with that in mind… these categories seem to have less predictable winners, and I see that the sound editing leaders are currently First Man and A Quiet Place. I’d give props to First Man here, for doing work with the space exploration. A Quiet Place is interesting since it had to use its sound so effectively and specifically.

 How you gonna award A Quiet Place for its SOUND? Smh

 As for sound mixing, I really dug watching Roma in theaters. You could hear sounds, birds chirping, and it felt like you were on the street in the neighborhood of Roma.

 It’s almost like you can really *hear* the dogshit squishing between the kids’ toes on the pavement.

 Now, it appears that Gold Derby leans towards three options: A Star is Born, First Man, or Bohemian Rhapsody. I feel like BR relied a lot on pre-done recordings unrelated to filming, so I’m not sure about that one (though I suppose that’s the point of sound mixing, I dunno… look, I just don’t want it to win -- lmao same bro). A Star is Born had to deal with live music! It’s way more worthy.

 Visual Effects: “Avengers: Infinity War” “Christopher Robin” “First Man” “Ready Player One” “Solo: A Star Wars Story”

 This is easily Infinity War. Relying on Thanos as a main character meant a ton of work, and if you remember his cameos in Guardians or the Avengers post-credits, you know that he looked better here and much more fully realized. He was a mammoth, a threat, and the visual portrayal was well done. His fight against Hulk, his fight against Doctor Strange, some awesome FX. Having to weave in tons of comic characters was no easy feat too, with Falcon and War Machine fighting in the sky while Groot, Rocket, and Cap are on the ground against those bad guys.

 Avengers all the way. Having a lame-looking Thanos would’ve nuked the whole movie (people are STILL talking about Superman’s CGI shave), but they knocked it out of the park. Infinity War had to be a huge undertaking, as it’s a million superheroes pulling out all the stops for like 6 hours. Kinda surprised Black Panther didn’t get any love here for similar reasons.

 Ready Player One had a lot of fun effects too. It had to rely a lot on video game storytelling, and the adventure of it was pretty fun and well-done. Solo was fine.

 I honestly had to ruminate for like five minutes to remember if I saw Solo or not. I think “fine” is the most accurate possible description of any aspect of Solo.

 First Man was quality. I dug their comments on how there is no way they could have faked the moon landing considering how hard it is now to even try to demonstrate that in a fictional film.

 That’s what they want you to think, sheeple!!!

 Christopher Robin? Wasn’t that bear real?? What are you trying to say???

 Realest bear since the one that took Leo’s ass in The Revenant.

 Production Design: “Black Panther,” Hannah Beachler “First Man,” Nathan Crowley, Kathy Lucas “The Favourite,” Fiona Crombie, Alice Felton “Mary Poppins Returns,” John Myhre, Gordon Sim “Roma,” Eugenio Caballero, Bárbara Enrı́quez

 Costume Design: “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs,” Mary Zophres “Black Panther,” Ruth E. Carter “The Favourite,” Sandy Powell “Mary Poppins Returns,” Sandy Powell “Mary Queen of Scots,” Alexandra Byrne

 Black Panther was sick. Weaving in futuristic elements with African culture. The sets were wild. The costumes were fantastic. The Favourite did a good job doing the royal vibe too. The NASA production that they had to recreate in First Man made it feel really authentic. Same for Roma. Lots of good stuff here.

 Agreed on Black Panther for all the reasons Matt mentions, but I think you gotta go with The Favourite here. Those people looked like they STUNK. Just fucking gross all the way around -- and it was PERFECT.

 The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and Roma had great design as well. As an anthology, Buster Scruggs had the added degree of difficulty of making sure every story appeared distinct enough while maintaining the overall look and feel of the movie.

 Makeup and Hair: “Border” “Mary Queen of Scots” “Vice”

 I mean, you saw Christian Bale as Dick Cheney. Lock this up.

 Clink-clink!

 Animated Short: “Animal Behaviour,” Alison Snowden, David Fine “Bao,” Domee Shi “Late Afternoon,” Louise Bagnall “One Small Step,” Andrew Chesworth, Bobby Pontillas “Weekends,” Trevor Jimenez

 “Weekends” by Trevor Jimenez sounds like a banger of an R&B album.

 Best Documentary Short Subject: “Black Sheep,” Ed Perkins “End Game,” Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman “Lifeboat,” Skye Fitzgerald “A Night at the Garden,” Marshall Curry “Period. End of Sentence.,” Rayka Zehtabchi

 Best Live Action Short Film: “Detainment,” Vincent Lambe “Fauve,” Jeremy Comte “Marguerite,” Marianne Farley “Mother,” Rodrigo Sorogoyen “Skin,” Guy Nattiv

 Bao was a fun, sweet short that had some nice Asian representation… that’s all I got.

 I’ll be watching the documentary shorts the night before the Oscars, but wanted to get this post up before then, so if you want my thoughts on those nominees, holla at ya boy.

 As for everything else? I probably agree with Matt.

[yukiminamoto]

Elizabeth Midford: Character Analysis Part 2

I tag these people for the amazing things they do for the Kuroshitsuji fandom! I hope this analysis on Elizabeth Midford is to everyone’s liking! I did my best. Please enjoy! Ya’ll know when to inspire someone me! Thank you all the fan-artists, the bloggers who do AMAZING META in their respective fandoms, and the people who support this girl in general! YOU GUYS ARE AMAZING. I dedicate this whole blog post to you guys!

@shinigami-mistress @nobodysuspectsthebutterfly @his-fiancee @sieglinde-sullivan @a-bitter-master @skania @queenzelda @eecmidford @cielizzydefencesquad @lizzy-phantomhive @lizmidford @thedarkestcrow @otakusiren @darkspellmaster @dorkshadows @silyabeeodess @akuma-de-shitsuji @i-like-phanime

I’m currently spending my Friday writing up this post for the last 4 hours, getting my thoughts together.  I’ve never thought that I would write something this big with this many references to Elizabeth Midford posts from other bloggers who love her as much as I do, including pictures, screencaps, and manga caps, but what can you do when inspiration hits you like a truck? 

I should be doing my weekly blogs for my classes and getting ready for my NUMEROUS group projects in all of my classes, but no I decided to spend 4 hours in the college library writing this bad girl up like it’s a final report that’s due in 30 fucking minutes. Fuck My life. 

And yes, I’m citing my sources. Dear god, it’s like a fucking final report on who Elizabeth is and how she fits into the story. Jesus. You guys better be happy that I’m doing this! I worked hard on this damn it! 

And thank you to all the bloggers that I used as references & adding more character analysis on my golden haired bae than I could ever cover on one blog post. 

Kuro Chapter References:

Ch. 37  | Ch. 51 |  Ch. 58 |  Ch. 66 | Ch. 117 

Elizabeth Midford Posts (more character analysis if you can’t get enough and want more):

Chapters 58 & 117 by @skania

A Second Look at Madam Red's Advice to Lizzy by  @shinigami-mistress

How Precious Lizzy is to Ciel by @otakusiren

Ciel’s Precious: Elizabeth by @otakusiren

Ciel and Lizzy: something special that happened on the boat… by @darkspellmaster

About Elizabeth by @dorkshadows

Reminder about Elizabeth by @lizmidford

Reflecting on the Kuroshitsuji Easter Chapter: by @silyabeeodess

Kuroshitsuji Positivity Day   @akuma-de-shitsuji

Rant: Respect Elizabeth Midford @i-like-phanime

I should write a fanfic about her thoughts (we rarely see her at all during the Lizzy Kidnapped arc). And when Lizzy does show up, she only gives us more questions. I hope Yana-Sensei does her justice. My girl deserves it.

I mean, it’s hard and easy at the same time to see WHY she’s agreeing to go with Mr. Strange ( I keep forgetting his name honestly.)

Yeah, it’s going to be a LONG ASS POST. Sit tight and grab a drink and some food. I’m heading deep into Elizabeth Midford’s character in Kuroshitsuji. She’s so underappreciated in this fandom, I swear. 

Superficial and bubbly on the outside, deep as fuck with huge angst hidden behind a mask on the inside. 

It hit me that EVEN HARDER (in this mangacap in Chapter 133) she does care about Ciel deeply and even very misguided in her attempts to make him feel open to his feelings/trauma about his past when he was kidnapped as a child.

People tend to forget that Elizabeth is a teenager with TONS of baggage on her hands as well. The way many fans in the Kuroshitsuji fandom treat her as an annoyance and bother really gets under my skin.

If you had to go through society’s expectations of being a proper woman and at the same time feeling pressured to protect your future husband later down the line, you would feel very conflicted and confused at best.

EVERYONE needs to know that she is a teenager who lives in a society where if you are a noble girl from a very prestigious family, you are going to have to get married at one point or another (spinsterhood was look at with horror and revulsion). At a very young age, Lizzy path was already set for her: See chapter 58 for more information.

Hell, Frances sympathizes with her daughter, even if she disagreed with not continuing her training. Her mother slaps her for speaking out.

And yet, Frances knows what path she’s forcing her daughter to walk since she was born in the Watchdog family. This rare, and touching moment between mother & daughter is so significant. Frances knows how important this sort of training is to Lizzy as a mother and aunt. It’s unconventional training, but if Lizzy can survive being the Wife of the Watchdog, then she’s going to train Elizabeth the hard way. 

Frances only wants to protect her kids and Lizzy accepts her fate with tears in her eyes. At that moment she knows that Lizzy can’t run away. She has to continue her training no matter what. This was the pivotal moment she choose to make that vow to protect her beloved cousin. 

At the very least, she grew to love Ciel as a person and feared that if she showed that she was more powerful/masculine (gender dynamics were pretty strict back in the day too.) he wouldn’t love her. It goes to show how much of an impact Ciel made on her as a child.

She cared for what he thought of her so deeply, that she took those words to heart later on in the years.

She wanted to help Ciel and protect him to the best of her ability. She knows what she’s doing is wrong (in her own eyes and her family’s eyes) but she feels very strongly that this is the only way to save him.

See Chapter 117 for more information.

Her has two personalities at this point: cheerful,immature, bright, VERY socially aware of her surroundings, and slightly overbearing, but chapter 117 shows us that she has another side to her she hides extremely well. 

See Chapter 51 as reference. 

With her fight with Sebastian, she uses EVERY OUNCE OF HER TRAINING TO NOT GO BACK. She has to stay no matter what. It shows that she’s not as air headed as she portrayed herself. She can be stubborn, selfish, headstrong, and conflicted.

Like, A FUCKING 14 YEAR OLD WENT UP AGAINST A DEMON. A DEMON. YA’LL DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH I FEEL WHEN SHE FOUGHT AGAINST SEBASTIAN. HOLY SHIT. Why is the fandom not crying out with joy about this? I know Lizzy fans were freaking the fuck out when ch. 117 came out.

It shows so much of her character in that chapter, I wanted to hug my girl and never let go.

I was inspired by this AMAZING POST. Check it out! I mean from Ch. 58 to Ch. 117 compare the two please:

Before

After

Elizabeth Midford has changed so much throughout Kuroshitsuji. It’s funny really how Yana-sensei slowly shows who Lizzy is subtly until it hits everyone in the face in Chapter 57.

At first, we thought the same thing as Ciel: She was kind, overbearing, and very forceful in getting what she wants. That was how Lizzy wanted to be seen as.

She’s in-tune to how Ciel feels as early as chapter 37 when she visits.

When she figured out that Ciel was bedridden from Soma, she was worried about Ciel not opening up to her.

Sebastian reassured her that Ciel was all right and Lizzy was relieved and slightly skeptical. 

Even if the fans didn’t see it initially, when she slowly integrated herself within Ciel’s inner circle, she’s very much emotionally intelligent from the get go. Even if her ways of cheering up Ciel was a bit much, she admitted it to Sebastian privately.

It’s funny how Ciel shortly AFTER the Campania Arc, in chapter 66 he was also tricked by Lizzy despite “knowing”  and accepting Elizabeth for who she was strength an all.

It’s ironic, seeing that Ciel felt successful in tricking her in order to make her happy, Lizzy knew something was wrong the moment he “remembered” their Easter tradition.

She then wonders what happened to him during that month he was kidnapped.

It’s obvious that he’s changed into a completely different person because of the trauma he went through.

She knows that he’s changed and she’s trying her best to see him smile again despite the fact that forcing him to be happy/cheerful isn’t very good for his mental, emotional, and physical health over all.

But when you’re also broken, conflicted in where you stand in life, especially at such a young and impressionable age and a girl at that, it’s “hard to pick up the pieces” after someone who’s also suffered trauma in an untold amount.

What I personally want is an heart-to-heart conversation between the two of them. They’re both trying to push the other person away while at the same time, they’re both conflicted at how emotionally, mentally, and physically different they are from each other.  They’re both flawed characters who misunderstand what the other wants.

They really don’t know how to open up to each other and are hiding things that can be detrimental to their relationship.

Ciel is hiding and closing Lizzy away from his lifestyle in order to protect her from the dangers of being in the Watchdog’s family; a life she’s, ironically enough has been training all of her life for.

While Lizzy is trying and failing at making Ciel happy while at the same time trying to figure out where she stands with him as a person. She has a HUGE complex within herself in how to become a perfect Victorian Lady and how to be a woman who can protect the person she loves the most.

They’re both complex, broken, and fragile. At the peak of this arc, I hope that Lizzy finds herself as a person, not as Ciel’s fiancee she’s been told all throughout her life. I hope that Ciel is at least honest with her on how he feels about her and to reassure her that she’s fine the way she is.

I want them to talk without Sebastian or anyone on the outside to interfere with their relationship and I know that’s almost never going to happen.

And what do you guys think about Lizzy and the pressures she has to go through to conforming while simultaneously trying to hide who she is underneath?

I’m gonna quote George R.R. Martin since it matches Elizabeth so well:

My skin has turned to porcelain, to ivory, to steel.—  George R.R. Martin, A Storm of Swords

[bluewatsons]

Richard Garside, Is It the Economy?, Criminal Justice Matters 32 (2004)

Bill Clinton famously had 'It's the economy stupid!' pinned to the wall in campaign headquarters during the 1992 presidential election as a reminder of the pivotal role it played in the fate of US presidents. The American economy went into recession under George Bush Senior and Clinton won.

It is generally accepted that economic decisions that lead to such disfunctions as poverty, inequality and exclusion do have an impact on the propensity of individuals to commit crime. What is less well understood is the degree to which general economic trends might determine crime levels.

Economic trends and recorded crime levels

In order to understand economic trends and their potential impact on crime levels we need to distinguish between long-term trends (measured in years and decades) and short-term oscillations (measured in months and years). From the early 1950s to the early 1970s the long-term trend of the British economy was of expansion and growth. The economy - that is the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - grew at an average annual rate of 3 per cent, with relatively mild short-term oscillations of growth and recession during that period. From the early 1970s long-term growth rates have slowed down to 2.3 per cent per year. The oscillations of growth and recession during this latter period have also been more exaggerated (Kitson, 2004). Three recent historians of the British economy have characterised the earlier period as the 'Great Boom' and the latter period the 'Great Slowdown' (Armstrong etal, 1991). Since the 1950s recorded crime levels in England and Wales have increased, rising particularly rapidly since the early 1970s economic slowdown. In 1950 the police in England and Wales recorded around 1300 crimes per 100,000 of the population, doubling to around 3,000-3,500 by the early 1970s. By 1980 the rate had increased over 5,000 per 100,000 and peaked at some 10,500 by 1991 before declining again for the rest of the decade.

In summary, recorded crime rose relatively slowly from the early 1950s to the early 1970s during the 'Great Boom' period. During the 'Great Slowdown' from the early 1970s on, the rate of increase in recorded crime accelerated notably. This does not mean that the economic slowdown was the 'cause' of the rise in recorded crime in any simple sense. Many factors influence crime rates. Moreover, it is possible, though not inherently plausible, that the rising crime rate caused the economic slowdown. Alternatively, the changes in the crime rate and economic trends may have been affected by a third, unknown, factor. However, the correlation between rising crime rates and falling economic growth is suggestive, and has been considered so by others.

Understanding the relationship

In his seminal 1990 study, Simon Field, former head of economics at the Home Office, proposed that economic trends and levels of property crime (burglary and theft) operated in an inverse relationship to each other. Periods of economic growth tended to depress levels of property crime, according to Field. Fewer people would be motivated to steal the goods they wanted because in periods of economic growth more of them had the resources to acquire such goods legitimately. Conversely, during periods of economic recession property crime grew as fewer people could afford to buy consumer goods. (Field used changes in consumer spending (personal consumption), rather than GDP growth, as the measure for economic growth. It is a matter of dispute whether GDP, personal consumption or unemployment is the most accurate way of correlating economic changes with crime rates (see Pyle and Deadman, 1994; Hale, 1998.)

Though influential, Field's 1990 study was not without its limitations. As Field himself pointed out, his analysis helped to explain short-term fluctuations in levels of property crime, but "the full relation between long-run economic growth and growth in property crime is as yet unclear, it seems that the effects identified in this study have only a limited bearing on this issue" (Field 1990).

Subsequent work by, among others, Hale, Pyle and Deadman, has attempted to map the longer-term relationships between economic trends and crime levels. In an attempt to integrate the analysis of short-term economic trends and crime rates with a longer- term analysis, the Home Office also published a revised study by Field in 1999.

In this latter study Field argued that long-term crime levels - what he dubbed the 'equilibrium level of crime' (Field 1999) - were determined by the stock of available goods to steal (i.e. the more videos, televisions, mobile phones and iPods we all buy, the more there is in circulation for others to nick) and by demographic changes. As young males, according to Field, committed most crime, crime rates would also be influenced by the proportion of young men in the population. Field estimated that each one per cent increase in the stock of stealable goods translated into a two per cent rise in property crime while every one per cent rise in the number of young males in society led to a one per cent rise in property crime. Taken with his earlier study mapping short-term crime trends, Field argued that it was now possible to describe the "full impact of economic trends on crime" (Field 1999).

Thinking ahead, Field also speculated on the implications of his model for predicting future property crime trends. He was not optimistic, arguing that both theft and burglary were by 1997 below their long term equilibrium levels. "We may expect some renewed upward pressure on the recorded crime figures in coming years," he concluded (Field 1999).

Picking up where Field left off, Dhiri et al attempted in 1999 to project property crime rates through to the end of 2001. Their conclusions reflected Field's gloomy assessment, projecting a 25% increase in burglary between 1997 and 2001 and a whopping 40% increase in theft during the same period.

Critical reflections

Levels of recorded crime do not follow changes in growth and recession in a mechanical or simple fashion. This is not least of all because all sorts of factors influence levels of recorded crime, from criminal justice policies and police recording practice to labour market structures, housing patterns and gender dynamics. Nonetheless, the analysis of the relationship of economic trends and crime levels does offer a new dimension to our understanding of the causes of crime, and one that is regularly overlooked.

That said, such analysis often raises as many questions as it seeks to answer, and I conclude here with three reflections.

First, and whatever the power of such models for elucidating past crime patterns, they have generally been pretty inaccurate when used to forecast future crime trends. Property crime, for instance, did not increase in the way that Dhiri et al predicted. The Home Office is currently developing more sophisticated models. But there is little doubt that the predictive power of current models is at best unproven.

Second, the predominant focus on recorded crime is at best partial, and at worst hopelessly ideological. Since the British Crime Survey started to be produced in the early 1980s it has been clear that police recorded crime figures provide a far from accurate picture of crime levels. Moreover, a whole range of crimes, from white collar fraud and business crime to environmental crimes and state crimes, rarely if ever figure in police recorded crime statistics. Linking economic trends to police recorded crime rates means both ignoring trends in 'real' crime rates and constructing a partial and biased picture of what crime really is. An attempt to understand, for example, the relationship between economic trends and the propensity of companies to rip off their shareholders, of manufacturers to pollute the environment, or of men to beat up their wives and girlfriends, has not been a notable feature of such analysis.

Third, and despite the important insights offered by the work of Field and others, this work has tended rather uncritically to assume some of the questions it should be asking. Chief among these is a critical analysis of the nature of British capitalism in its current neo-liberal phase, and of its possible impact on levels of crime. If economic trends from the 1970s did contribute to increases in crime levels, was this simply because of the economic slowdown? Or did other factors, such as the radical restructuring of the welfare state and the casualisation of labour markets, contribute to the material insecurity in which crime can flourish? If, as David Byrne has argued, social exclusion "is a necessary and inherent characteristic of an unequal post-industrial capitalism founded around a flexible labour market" (Byrne, 1999), in what sense can capitalism be said to create crime? As a critical discipline that seeks to analyse crime and society in all its complexity, rather than simply providing the raw material to inform government policy, reflection on the impact of economic systems on levels of crime should be central to the criminological enterprise. _

References

Armstrong, P., Glyn, A. and Harrison, J. (1991), Capitalism since 1945. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Byrne, D. (1999), Social Exclusion. Open University Press.

Dhiri,S.,Brand,S., Harries, R. and Price, R. (1999), Modelling and predicting property crime trends in England and Wales. HORS 198. London: HMSO.

Field, S. (1990), Trends in Crime and their Interpretation: A Study of Recorded Crime in Post-War England. HORS 119. London: HMSO.

Field, S. (1999), Trends in Crime Revisited. HORS 195. London: HMSO.

Hale, C. (1998), 'Crime and the Business Cycle in Post-War Britain Revisited.' British Journal of Criminology 38, 681- 698.

Kitson, M. (2004), 'Failure followed by success or success followed by failure? A re-examination of British economic growth since 1949' in Roderick Floud and Paul Johnson (eds), The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain, Volume III: Structural Change and Growth,1939-2000. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 27-56.

Pyle, D. J. and Deadman, D. F.(1994), 'Crime and the Business Cycle in Post-War Britain.' British Journal of Criminology 34,339-357.