#oscarssodiverse | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

notbemoved-blog · 8 years

Text

#OscarsSoDiverse: “O.J.,” “13th,” and “Negro,” Focusing on the Color Line

#OscarsSoWhite is suddenly SO last year, as The New Yorker’s cover this week announces. Now it’s #OscarsNotSoWhite, as diversely pigmented actors and actresses populate some of the year’s most memorable feature films. From Fences to Hidden Figures to Moonlight, an array of stories about race and its impact on lives both real and imagined filled the screen and have the opportunity to compete for some of 2016’s most sought-after movie prizes—best actor and actress, best film, and even best director.

For my money, though, the most interesting category from a race-in-America perspective goes to Best Documentary film. Three of the five nominated films in the DOC category try to get at the question of the role of race in American life, and each one succeeds in various ways of pointing out the perennial problem of America’s original sin. I am Not Your Negro, 13th, and O. J.: Made in America—all three made by black film makers—push the boundaries of our understanding of the issues African-Americans face in our society and demonstrate the enduring legacy of chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the devaluation and twisted logic fraught in the social system based on judgment of human beings based on the color of their skin.

Perhaps the most fascinating of these three films is Ezra Edelman’s O. J.: Made in America. This seven-and-a-half-hour-epic traces the life and legacy of fallen American hero everyone came to know simply as O.J. From football legend in the 1970s to TV ad man (running through airports for Hertz) and B-grade actor in the 1980s to alleged wife killer in the “Crime of the Century” in the 1990s, O. J.’s story is a cautionary tale about race, class, and privilege in glitzy L.A. and how the lens of racial bias colors all of our judgments, no matter which race you are classified as belonging to.

This well-worn story of the murder of Simpson’s wife, Nicole Brown, and the unfortunate Ron Goldman—a waiter who was simply returning a forgotten item from the restaurant he worked at—would seem an odd choice for making a film documentary for a contemporary film maker. But Edelman, the bi-racial the son of Marian Wright and Peter Edelman, perhaps had it in his DNA to deconstruct the most talked about trial of his youth and disentangle the threads of racism, sexism, heroism, and any other -ism tied up in this tragic tale of woe-all-around.

I was not inclined to spend the time watching a series of five 1.5 hour-long episodes to get to the bottom of whether or not O.J. was guilty. I had lived through the “Year of Living Dangerously” as the crime was reported on and sensationalized, and as the trial was broadcast daily by breathy journalists and pondered over nightly by millions of Americans. But while attending the Washington Ideas Forum put on by The Atlantic this fall, I heard Ta-Nehisi Coates call the film the best documentary of the year and then interview Edelman about the making of the film. I became intrigued and wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

It is not a pretty story. It takes us through the allegations that Simpson, a black man, had killed his sexy and glamorous white wife in a jealous rage one night and then jetted off to a motivational speaking engagement. The details are horrifying, and Edelman does not back away from any of the gore or titillating facts of the case. We are re-introduced to the entire cast of characters: the sly defense attorney Johnnie Cochran (“If it [the glove] doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”), the hapless prosecutors Marcia Clark (white) and Christopher Darden (black); O. J.’s friends and detractors, who regularly were paraded into our living rooms back then thanks to the rise of daytime talk shows; the uber-bad-cop Mark Fuhrman whose reputation and career took hit after the media portrayed his as the fall guy; and perhaps most notably the grieving father of Ron Goldman, whose dogged determination to nail the SOB finally brings Simpson to his knees and knocks that cocky smile off of his face.

But the film is so much more than a seedy whodunit. Edelman takes the opportunity to explore how O. J.’s family got to California (the Great Migration), how he rose from lower-class circumstances as a result of his athletic gifts to become the classy “new black” role model, one that whites could readily embrace, and how he attempted to erase race from the equation—expecting people to judge him based on his abilities, not on his skin tone. It is also a story of how celebrity culture kills the soul, of spousal abuse and how women’s claims about their abusive husbands are consistently devalued, and how the lived experience of race in America could so completely color the way one looked at the O. J. trial. If you were white, O. J. was obviously guilty; if you were black, there were no end of explanations as to why he was innocent and being framed.

Most of the players are still around and offer “color commentary” on their roles throughout the trial phase of the film. We see footage of them then and now. We also hear from some of the jurors who (spoiler alert!) found O.J. innocent mostly because they were not going to give their sainted hero up to Whitey after all of the bad things they had experienced at the hands of “the Man” throughout their lives. It is shocking, mesmerizing, absorbing TV (the series aired on ESPN), and I can’t say I’ve ever seen anything like it. Most of all, as Time Magazine called the O. J. story, it is “An American Tragedy,” played out in five parts.

Ava DuVernay’s 13th takes as its subject the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the one that outlawed slavery—and demonstrates how what might seem as a throw-away phrase in this two-sentence amendment has become a catalyst for mass incarceration and the ruination of the lives of multiple generations of black American males. The film boasts an impressive array of talented scholars and social commentators, including Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, CNN talking head Van Jones (who predicted the Trump victory), New Jersey junior Senator Cory Booker, and 1970s radical activist Angela Davis, to name but a few.

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime . . . shall exist within the United States. . . .”

13th could be called a more “standard-style” documentary, providing insight and information on a topical subject in about 90 minutes. Documentaries of this sort are the fondue of modern American intellectual life. You can become conversant on any subject by dipping into a melting pot of ideas—stirred regularly by experts on the matter—and emerge feeling satisfied (knowledgeable) but craving more.

The inspiration for 13th in part comes from Michelle Alexander’s breakthrough book The New Jim Crow, which provided the first mass-marketed insight into mass incarceration when it was published in 2010. The book became a New York Times bestseller and inspired a fresh look at America’s prison industrial complex through a racial lens, leading to a call for criminal justice reform that continues to this day.

DuVernay features Alexander prominently throughout the film, citing statistics and historical developments that led to our current situation whereby every third black male in America can expect to spend time in jail as compared to every seventeenth white male and where 40 percent of our entire prison population is black. The film is full of harsh facts like this, often presented in stark black and white graphics, almost like a teacher writing notes on a chalk board. It shows how our prison population grew from 370,000 in 1970 to more than 2.3 million in 2014—a vast increase during a time when crime was actually going down. The causes for this development—Bill Clinton’s 3-strikes policy, mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, the militarization and over-funding of the police force—all conspire to take judgement out of the justice system and lock up more of our (mostly black) citizen and for longer periods of time, often for minor offenses.

13th is a whirlwind tour of our “crimigration” system—as young black men are moved from urban blight to prison in a few easy steps. We hear about the school-to-prison pipeline and the prison industrial complex run often by private corporations for profit. We get history lessons, from Nixon’s call for “law and order” to Reagan’s criminalization of drug abuse to Obama’s plea in 2015 for massive changes in how we deal with the growing crisis (and costs) of nearly five percent of our population being locked up—the highest percentage of any nation on earth. All of this is presented to the soundtrack of hip hop, with Public Enemy coming out looking like prophets for calling out these social outrages at the dawn of the rap era. DuVernay’s film is shouting at all of us. “We are tolerating this,” one of her many guests says. We are all, therefore, complicit. 13th is a damning documentary of the American justice system, and no one is spared its fury.

I am Not Your Negro, on the other hand, serves its bile cold, which makes it all the more difficult to swallow. It chokes in your mouth and you want to vomit. This spoken word documentary, directed by Haitian-born filmmaker Raoul Peck, apparently recounts word-for-word the 30-paged treatment that author James Baldwin created to sell his publisher on his idea for another blockbuster book in the late 1970s when his star seemed to be waning.(Excerpts from Baldwins other works are also included.) The pitch hangs on the fact that Baldwin was friends with the three most lionized American black martyrs of the 1960s—Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and works its way through Baldwin’s grieving over their deaths and what each man meant to him and to the American black civil rights movement.

Though the book was never completed (and McGraw-Hill sued Baldwin’s estate for the $200,000 advance Baldwin received), the treatment itself is its own mini-masterpiece of analysis of the black man’s plight in modern American life. Baldwin was such a character, such a force on our country’s incessantly race-obsessed scene in the 1950s and 1960s. His articles and books were devoured by the literati and bohemian crowd alike for their sharp, acerbic insights into white American consciousness. And the film shows wonderful clips of Baldwin during his heyday, most tellingly when he debated William Buckley at England’s Cambridge University in 1965 and when he appeared on the Dick Cavett show in 1968. Baldwin’s fire proves too much for his white counterparts—the lost look on the face of the typically unflappable Cavett when the incendiary Baldwin lets off a riff about how blacks are treated is alone worth the price of the ticket.

Actor Samuel Jackson gives voice to Baldwin’s prose as a jazzy aural backdrop infuses the proceedings with a “Birth of the Cool” vibe. But the author’s prophetic vision is what dominates the film as Baldwin tells how his conscience urges him back to America from his Paris expat hangouts as the country begins its long-overdue civil rights saga. And he recounts in detail where he was and what he felt when each towering figure was gunned down and how he felt compelled to visit their wives and families after each assassination. He doesn’t speak of the toll these visits took on his own consciousness. He doesn’t need to. The pain and outrage inform every sentence of this sharp, acid script. It is a wonder that the man didn’t just self-immolate on screen, so full of passionate observation and Cassandra-like foreboding was he, desperate to make white America understand what it was doing to its own citizens and its own self.

Of course, I was particularly taken by the photographs of Jimmy Baldwin with Medgar Evers and his children. Having now met the grieving widow and daughter, having stood on the very driveway where Evers was executed, having touched the places where the bullet entered his home and rested on the kitchen counter, I was choked with emotion to see those scenes replayed. “Why is our history so sad?” I wondered. “Why must we relive this nightmare again and again?”

James Baldwin and Medgar Evers in the carport of the Evers home in Jackson, Mississippi, where Evers would be gunned down several months later.

These are the questions Baldwin seems to wrestle with, as well, and his answers point not only to government policies, but to the culture itself. Baldwin, it turns out, was a film buff from an early age. And this is where the film offers some relief but also some context. We see film clips of such varied fare as Birth of a Nation (the film also makes a brief appearance in 13th), Imitation of Life, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, as well as Doris Day’s and Gary Cooper’s works (films Baldwin hated for their sickening portrayal of pathetic white innocence).

Baldwin’s mother and his auntie would frequently take him to the picture shows when he was young to escape their daily drudgery. There, at the age of 5, Baldwin was enthralled by a tap-dancing Joan Crawford and fell in love with Bette Davis, who possessed similar “bug eyes” just like his. He later came under the spell of his white school teacher who mentored him, brought him books to read and took him to various cultural events all over New York City. Because of her, “I could never hate white people,” he reveals, which make his dire predictions of where America is headed all the more heart-rending. “To look around America today,” he tells us from the grave, “is to make the prophets and the angels weep.”

James Baldwin’s words writ large at the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, DC.

It's hard to tell which of these films (if any) will be showered by Oscar’s gold tonight. All three are deserving. Perhaps, as often winners are wont to say, “It’s an honor just to be nominated in such good company.” Baldwin’s takedown of Hollywood kitsch may cost Peck the Oscar; DuVernay’s rage at the institutional racism that pervades our current justice system may come on too strong for most Oscar voters (most of whom, as we well know, are not black); so perhaps it’s the languorous, complex, perfectly-attuned-to-our-times O. J. film that Edelman serves up that will win the honors. There’s also the distinct possibility that these three “race films” will cancel themselves out and one of the other two nominated films (one on autism, the other on refugees) will take home the prize.

No matter. The Academy of Motion Pictures has finally broken through the color barrier and nominated three exceptional studies of black American life. This in itself is worthy of celebration. Perhaps now that we see the problems more clearly we can begin to make some progress? I can hear Jimmy Baldwin’s wry, hoarse, infectious, catty laugh all the way from heaven. “Don’t bet on it,” he’d say.

#James Baldwin #I Am Not Your Negro #Ava DuVernay #13th #Ezra Edelman #O.J.: Made in America #Malcolm X #Medgar Evers #MLK #Martin Luther King #Oscars2017 #OscarsSoWhite #OscarsSoDiverse #OscarsNotSoWhite

1 note · View note

noorenazarnews · 3 years

Text

Five things to watch for at the Oscars

HOLLYWOOD (AFP) – Travelers passing through Union Station in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday might notice a slight commotion -- for one night only, it is doubling as the venue for the Oscars. While passengers jumping on a train most likely won’t get a glimpse past the tight security, here are five things that movie fans watching the 93rd Academy Awards from home should look out for: ‘Nomadland’ sweep? Going into Sunday, "Nomadland" is the clearest best picture Oscar frontrunner in years. So barring a dramatic shock, the question may be just how many Oscars Chloe Zhao’s road movie can win. If the heavily improvised film lands the prize for best adapted screenplay early in the night, a serious sweep could be on the cards. And Zhao -- who would be the second woman, and the first of color to win best director -- could equal another remarkable record. Nobody has won more Oscars in a night than Walt Disney’s four in 1953. Zhao is up for golden statuettes for editing, screenplay, directing and as a producer for best picture. Eighth time unlucky? Of course, there is a big difference between landing multiple nominations and actually winning -- just ask Glenn Close. From 1983’s "The World According to Garp" to 2019’s "The Wife," Close has been nominated but failed to win on seven previous occasions. If she comes up short again on Sunday, she will be tied with the late Peter O’Toole as the Academy’s most reliable runner-up. Unfortunately the odds don’t look great for Close -- while her transformational performance as a tough-as-nails grandmother in "Hillbilly Elegy" was praised, the film drew widespread scorn. #OscarsSoDiverse? When last year’s nominations were announced, it looked like years of activism and pledges for reform driven by the #OscarsSoWhite campaign had come to nothing -- 19 of the 20 actors were white. But this year’s crop of stars have set new records for diversity, including nine actors of color on the shortlists, and the first Asian American ever nominated for best actor (Steven Yeun of "Minari."). Two women were nominated for best director, for the first time ever. And it is not just the Oscars -- earlier this month, the Screen Actors Guild selected non-white winners in all four film categories. That quartet -- Chadwick Boseman, Viola Davis, Daniel Kaluuya and Youn Yuh-jung -- could well repeat on Sunday. McDormand three-peat? Frances McDormand has long been an Academy favorite, and she anchors this year’s frontrunner "Nomadland" with a characteristically unglamorous portrayal of a grieving widow living in an old van. If she takes best actress honors on Sunday, she will become only the second woman in Oscars history to bag a trio of wins in that category -- after the peerless Katharine Hepburn, who has four. The Oscar would put her at the pinnacle of a triple-winners actress club also including Meryl Streep and Ingrid Bergman, who each have two lead actress Oscars and one supporting actress prize. Masks, movie shots and more? Oscars co-producer Steven Soderbergh and his colleagues held a press conference last weekend where they set out their vision for a ceremony intended to look more like a feature film than a TV show -- without saying anything specific at all. For instance, will the stars wear masks? "Masks are going to play a very important role in the story of this evening... If that’s cryptic, it’s meant to be," Soderbergh said. With so much under wraps, one thing is sure -- the night is the first major Hollywood gathering in more than a year, and without pesky journalists and studio executives around to disturb them, many stars will be ready to party. "After the show, we’ll go to the post-show, probably more alcohol on the post-show, but it’ll be free, so it’ll be great," joked co-producer Jesse Collins. Read the full article

#FivethingstowatchforattheOscars #HOLLYWOOD

0 notes

kiradurbin · 6 years

Text

IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO SAVE THE OSCARS!!!

How to make the Oscars better...

Dear Academy: PLEASE don’t pull those categories from the air. Put them back in the roster and listen to me. It’s not too late! Here is how you can save the show and MAKE THE OSCARS BETTER...

1. Do they need a host? YES. Why? Because it’s not the COMEDY awards it’s the Academy Awards. Which means none of the films themselves are funny. So you need a few jokes to break things up. Emphasis on the word “few.”

2. Get over the ratings obsession – it’s called cord cutting. So stop trying to court other viewers. The people that love the Oscars and love film are going to watch no matter what – just accept that as your audience and make your show the best it can be for them.

3. I mentioned the need for a few jokes... To be clear: a good joke is a good joke, and a good call back is a good call back – that’s fine. But running jokes are a waste of time, and there’s zero excuse for a giant bit. Save it for the after show.

4. Give the nominees some sage advice: If you win and your film has a political bend, make your point concisely and quickly and use that as a promotion for the film... because the film is why you just won an Oscar!! (You did not win an Oscar for your political views.) If you still feel the need for a political rant; hello its called social media... or if you are capable in writing in sentences and paragraphs; hello its called a blog.

5. Instead of cutting categories from being aired, if you really want to save time, CHUCK THE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES. Is this the Grammys? NO IT IS NOT.* Do any of the other categories get to perform? NO THEY DO NOT. Keep the music confined to the always exceptional orchestra and that’s it. This will save at least 20 minutes and save us from having to hear bad songs. (Seriously I don’t know who picks the song nominees.)

6. Make the short films available for everyone to see. We will be so much more excited (translation: actually care) if we are able to see them. Short films are important in many ways. And we can assume that they are good if they got nominated for an Oscar. So let us watch and root for our favourite.

7. Please have someone who commands attention – perhaps the Rock? – explain to the nominees what a TIME LIMIT is. Suggest to them that they get prepared in case they win by meeting with speech coach or a writer. (yes, I will help you.) Unless you’re hilarious, no one wants to hear you ramble on and on and on... or preach (see point number four.)... or fumble mumble (awkward!!)

8. Speaking of time limits, please also have the Rock explain to group nominees how to SHARE time. It is SO FRUSTRATING as a viewer to watch multiple winners have one person who has no clue how to SHARE and then the other people get left in the dark, or worse, speaking into the mic with no sound.

9. The stupid ranking system for best film has GOT TO GO. This is the only category that does this and it’s dumb. Everyone thinks it’s dumb. The voters think it’s dumb, the filmmakers think its dumb, the audience thinks its dumb... IT’S DUMB! (Did I say dumb enough times?) Make your nominees, and have the voters choose one. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

10. And finally... Quit talking about diversity and include films / performances / creators that ARE DIVERSE. How do they accomplish this? By taking ACTION instead of constantly being in REACTION to negative press. In my opinion the Oscars should represent the highest achievement in filmmaking... yet over and over again films that are fresh and move the conversation and art form forward are left out because they don’t appeal to old white men. (Yeah, I wrote that out loud.) They need to take a much more serious look at the voting members. Obviously voting is subjective... But having a diverse group of voting members makes the chances of having a diverse group of nominees much higher. (And hopefully the winners too.)

So get on it Academy!!!

(*original joke by my friend B)

#oscars oscarssobetter oscarssodiverse academy academyawards sag dga wga pga

0 notes

kevzdg · 8 years

Text

#OscarsSoDiverse: My 2017 Oscars Predictions

How could I begin telling you how positively different this year’s Oscar nominees are without being too dramatic? Well, I guess I would begin by saying: diversity. Yes, they have recovered quite a bit from 2016’s controversial #OscarSoWhite extravaganza and, being an avid Academy Awards fan since 2010, the year where a foreign language film won the prized Golden Statuette for Best Picture, The Artist (2012), I have been defending the Oscars from all the criticism and let me tell you: this year, I never had so much to say to defend it since the Oscars did not need the defense; they made it themselves. “How so?” one might ask. First, they have started inviting new members for the Academy, sending out more than 500 invitations to esteemed young and new actors such as Andrew Garfield (Spiderman), song writers such as Sia Furler (Zootopia), and foreign language film directors László Nemes (Son of Saul). This move was made after the criticism of the Oscars being only a “gentleman’s club”, literally, because almost 75% - 85% of the members of the Academy are, to quote the naysayers, “white old men,” hence the recruitment of a fresh new batch of women, young filmmakers, and people of color. Such a ploy paved way for a diversity in the nominee line-up: more women represented (most notable is Joi McMillon, the first ever woman, and a woman of color at that, to ever be nominated for Best Editing for the heartfelt movie Moonlight), and more people of color (Ava DuVernay for 13th). True enough, the nomination for most is not made only to show that the Oscars are noticing them, but that most of these people are also exhibiting great craftmanship in their particular field of expertise. And that, I guess, is how I begin my 2017 Oscar Predictions: an ode to the minorities now having a chance at getting the elusive and exclusive Golden Oscar Statuette.

Enough about that, I will get right into it:

Make-up and Hairstyling

Less is More, a saying most people use in their daily lives; a quote which earned a second nomination for Eva von Bahr and Love Larson (first in the work for The 100-Year old Man Whou Climbed Out of the Window and Disappeared) in their minimalistic work in A Man Called Ove (also nominated for best foreign language film) making the effect of a man losing hair and simple design through makeup as it competes with Suicide Squad and Star Trek Beyond: both big-budgeted Hollywood blockbusters whose prosthetics is extremely detailed and delicately applied. Who won me over? I think my soft spot for underdogs made me call it out: I go for the less-budgeted one.

Would Win: A Man Called Ove

Could win: Star Trek Beyond

Costume Design

Period films and fantasy films dominates this category and this year is not an exception. Period films Jackie, Allied, and Florence Foster Jenkins made it as well as J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, whose costume were made by Oscar quasi-favorite Colleen Atwood, known for her work in Into the Woods. The surprise here, at least for me, considering the many period dramas and fantasy features came out last year, was La La Land. I don’t know about your choice but mine would have to be Jackie because of its well-woven Pink Chanel Dress, resembling the actual one Jackie Kennedy wore on the day JFK was shot in their car. What comes close is Fantastic Beasts because, well, of Colleen Atwood and her reputation.

Would win: Jackie

Could win: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Sound Mixing

The sound categories confuse people so here’s how I go about explaining it: sound editing is the making of the sound heard, sound mixing is how it is synced/synchronized to the scenes. For this one, I went to vote La La Land for its hypnotic tap dancing sequence and, conclusively, almost every scene that had made use of those neat sound mixing. I must admit I almost went swinging my vote for Arrival for its sequences of encounter with the other-worldly creatures, but I didn’t.

Would win: La La Land

Could win: Arrival

Sound Editing

Ah yes. The sound made for film. I almost thought I would go for the simplicity of the sounds in La La Land yet there’s something about war films that takes you on a different light, hence my vote goes to Hacksaw Ridge.

Would Win: Hacksaw Ridge

Could win: La La Land

Music (Original Song)

Most people ask me why this category is here, well, it just is, I guess. This year’s feud is between two musicals: La La Land, two song nominations, and Moana, one song nomination.

Would Win: How Far I’ll Go (Moana)

Could Win: Audition (Fools Who Dream) (La La Land)

Music (Original Score)

La La Land could have swept through this category easily, having Passengers as one of its contenders but here comes the unexpected-expected Jackie, whose score was made by Mica Levi, notable for her work in Under the Skin. There is kind of a difficult choice between a musical score of an actual musical and a drama because on the one hand, you have a performed one, on the other you have one that lacks lyrics but contributes to the overall feeling and emotion of scenes.

Would win: La La Land

Could win: Jackie

Documentary Feature

The diversity in this category is spectacular: 3 of the 5 films nominated are directed or written by African-American directors and writers. One of those writers is a prominent figure in the formation of novels and literary pieces that center of African-American issues, James Baldwin (I am Not Your Negro). Another is the longest feature film to ever be nominated for an Oscar (467 mins or 7 hours), O.J.: Made in America, and one is directed the biggest snobs of the Oscars 2915 Ava DuVernay for her amazing directing for the powerful Selma, 13th. The biggest contenders are, without bias, are the 3 said films namely I Am Not Your Negro, 13th, and O.J.: Made in America. That is not to say that Fire at Sea and Life, Animated, are not great but their story, although they are equally heartfelt and sweet, is overpowered by the former. For me, the film 13th makes the more gritty and eye-opening experience for me as an individual: it’s not even about the black community anymore at some point; to me, it’s about how we view ourselves as people of a community and the role we play in it, how the institution of the powerful continues to oppress the powerless and strips them off of any of it. Moreso, it analyzes the US in its mass incarceration of criminals, mostly African-American, and how, in its history, specially during the Jim Crow, it is able to procure slavery in this particular form (I know it sounds like a propaganda but trust me, it’s not. This film is available for viewing at Netflix if you want to check it out). I am Not Your Negro is poetic for me and I don’t think the Academy would go for something like it; O.J.:Made in America is equally gritty as the 13th but it’s really too long for me. This battle is a true nail-biter.

Would Win: 13th

Could Win: O.J.:Made in America

Animated Feature

The frontrunners for this category are neck-and-neck in their fight as there are three of them. Zootopia tackled the sensitive issue of racism and community bias. Moana feels so close to people living in the Pacific (and the animation of the sea and beaches are beautiful). Kubo and the Two Strings is so beautifully animated in stop-motion that it was nominated for best visual effects. “Do I go for story or do I go for animation?” that is the question. I guess it’s high time that Laika win for their stop-motion animated feature.

Would Win: Kubo and the Two Strings

Could Win: Moana or Zootopia

Foreign Language Film

You know what wins me over almost every single time in this category? COMEDIES! And Toni Erdmann (Germany) is one! Yes. I have nothing to say other than it made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants (kidding). However, I have to also praise The Salesman (Iran) and A Man Called Ove (Sweden) for its dramatic takes, and Land of Mine (Denmark) for a heart-crushing experience. I would also like to acknowledge the first ever film to be nominated from the Oceania, Tanna (Australia)!!!!(I’m just sad that Elle from France was not nominated in this category but I’m glad for its best actress nomination)

Would win: Toni Erdmann (Germany)

Could win: The Salesman (Iran)

Visual Effects

The Jungle Book vs. Kubo and the Two Strings is how I see this category running its course, although the other nominees, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Deepwater Horizon, and Doctor Strange are not to be missed. I decided to choose the realistic talking, breathing, and running wildlife animals of The Jungle Book over the gorgeous visuals of Kubo.

Would Win: The Jungle Book

Could win: Kubo and the Two Strings

Production Design

Like the costume design, this one is heralded massively by the period films and fantasy films. This year is quite different, as one period frontrunner, Hail, Caesar! is challenged by the beloved musical La La Land. The former boasts spectacular set design as it shows the peak of Hollywood’s film industry: the big-budgeted studio-shot films during the mid to late 20th century whereas the later focuses on the matching of costume design to the setting with matching light engineering. As much as I love the set design of Hail, Caesar! since I’m a film enthusiast, I would have to put my hands down for La La Land’s neat and palatable serving.

Would win: La La Land

Could win: Hail, Caesar!

Editing

Three films are winning me over here: Moonlight, its sharp editing that showed the three stages in the life of one black gay man, Hacksaw Ridge, its bold cut that showed a blood-bathed battlefield, or La La Land, its sleek edit that showed beautiful musical numbers one after the other. I went for THE musical.

Would win: La La Land

Could win: Moonlight

Cinematography

If only Lion did not win that American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) Award for Achievement in Cinematography, I would have easily went for La La Land. I thought for sure it would win now I’m having second thoughts since ASC is like the best predictor for this Oscar category. Not to set aside, also, is Silence and its picturesque visuals perfect for a somber visual experience. I hope I set my heart to the right choice. What I loved about La La Land is that it incorporated cinemascope, reminiscent of the mid-to-late 20th century camerawork and mixed it with contemporary digital cinematic maneuvers.

Would win: La La Land

Could win: Lion

*Side note: here now, are the major awards of the Oscars*

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Moonlight or Hidden Figures? Both great. Both spectacular. Both impactful. Do I go for the coming of age story of a gay black man or the true-to-life story that presents the African-American women behind NASA who are responsible for the test flights back in the time where there still was Jim Crow?

Would win: Moonlight

Could Win: Hidden Figures

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Among the nominees, I really had so much praise for 20th Century Women but, admittedly, it all boils down to Manchester by the Sea and La La Land. Sure you have two great stories but which one garners the coveted prize? I like Manchester because it is timid but painful since it tackles the story of death; another thing about it is that it made the characters feel so three-dimensional: like you know them as people, something far too few films have ever accomplished. On the other hand, I like La La Land because it placed a familiar story in a familiar setting yet still summon what’s so different and peculiar about it: the enigma of the story that happens in it, the sheer coldness, the sparkling sun, and yes, the interplay of the characters. In a perfect world, I hope Manchester by the Sea gets it, however, the Academy loves La La Land so much they might just let it steal this one.

Would win: Manchester by the Sea

Could win: La La Land

Best Supporting Actor

Michael Shannon has been the surprise here as he portrayed a cancer-stricken police officer. However, much has been said and much has been heard, Mahershala Ali for his performance in Moonlight is put on the pedestal and the only one seen to garner this prize. To me, Ali’s performance lingers long after he’s gone in the film: he only appears around the first 15-20mins but the impact Ali and his character portrayal has left behind trembles and creates a rippled effect that is felt even long after the film finishes, and what a stellar sighting that is.

Would (and should) win: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)

Could win (in an imprefect world): Michael Shannon (Nocturnal Animals)

Best Supporting Actress

No one can take this prize away from Emmy and Tony award-winning character actress Viola Davis and her heartfelt portrayal of an African-American mother, wife, and companion.

Would win: Viola Davis (Fences)

Potential Spoiler: Michelle Williams (Manchester by the Sea)

Best Actor

Oh my! The true nail-biter of this year’s category is this one. Casey Affleck or Denzel Washington. I hate saying it but Affleck did a better job than Washington. The reason why there is so much fuss because of the allegations of sexual harassment by Affleck which affects his chance at winning the Oscar. The main reason, in my humble opinion, why Washington is the one in the two frontrunners is the line delivery (since the lines are almost 24 sentences long because the film is an adaptation of a theatre play).

Would win (hopefully): Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)

Could win: Denzel Washington (Fences)

Best Actress

Isabelle Huppert played an assaulted corporate executive, Emma Stone played a romantic actress-wannabe, Meryl Streep played Florence Foster Jenkins, a music enthusiasts who believes she hits the perfect notes even though she doesn’t, Ruth Negga played an African-American woman shunned for her marriage with a white man (back in the Jim Crow) whose case won the right for interracial marriage in America (true story), Natalie Portman played Jackie Kennedy: who then made the most out of here role? For me, it was Portman and Huppert. For the Screen Actor’s Guild, however, it was Stone. True enough, SAG awards predict the best actress quite precisely, and they moved me to consider Stone’s performance which led me to witness La La Land for the second time and truly immerse in her portrayal, and what a spectacle it really was.

Would win: Emma Stone (La La Land)

Could win: Natalie Portman (Jackie)

Direction

I seriously doubt if anyone can argue for a better winner that Damien Chazelle of La La Land for this category. He had created such a great vision and translated it magnificently into the La La Land that we have witnessed. A craftmanship like his is unmatchable this year.

Would (definitely) win: La La Land

Best Picture

The highest award of the night for me goes to...

La La Land, not because of its hype but because of its near-perfect mixture of elements that blend well together as well as reviving an almost-forgotten genre of musical in film. The revitalization of everything in this film is fresh as it is neat. There are other great entries in this category as well, my top favorites being Manchester by the Sea, Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival, Hidden Figures, and Moonlight. The others, Lion and Hell of High Water are also both intriguing. However, there still is something about La La Land that makes it stand out above all the rest: the direction. If not for this direction by Damien Chazelle, such a film would not be possible.

There you guys go! Here are my predictions for the 89th Academy Awards. Although I am not fully confident with the predictions I wrote, I hope you have as much fun with it as I do. This year’s Oscars awards nominations give me great hope in the future of this award giving body and I hope it continues its current course. Here’s to the honoring of the best in 2016’s films! Cheers!

Watch the Oscars February 26, 2017, 5:30 PM PST (9:30 AM February 27, 2017 Manila Time)

#oscars #film #film review #movie #movie review #oscars 2017 #awards #motion picture #award #films

3 notes · View notes