I especially loved the part when Oppenheimer said, “I have become death, destroyer of award shows.”

The 96th Academy Awards came and went and in my opinion, it was probably the best one in years. A return to form if you will. I liked how they paid homage to the history of Hollywood with previous winners presenting the nominees, music from famous scores playing to underscore the events of the night, and just homage after homage to the storied history of Hollywood.

As for the winners, it went how I predicted and how it should have gone.

Oppenheimer took home Best Supporting Actor (Robert Downey, Jr.), Best Actor (Cillian Murphy), Best Director (Christopher Nolan), Best Editing(Jennifer Lame), Best Cinematography (Hoyte van Hoytema), Best Score (Ludwid Göransson), and the coveted Best Picture.

I maintain, Oppenheimer was the best film of the year and it’s not even close. Barbie fans were mad the film didn’t pick up any key nominations or awards, but honestly, it didn’t deserve it. To me, an Oscar film elevates the genre, the craft, and/or shows us performances from brilliant actors that we’ve never seen before (Joaquian Phoenix as Joker, Hilary Swank as Margaret Fitzgerald, Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump, Forrest Whitaker as Idi Amin, Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris). If it’s a middle of the road, run of the mill film that we’ve seen before, it’s probably not Oscar worthy. Oppenheimer was an event and a challenge to take such a complex topic, with complex individuals, simplify it without killing the soul of the story, and turn it into a film worth watching. It’s Nolan’s best. A culmination of all his brilliant years as filmmaker.

Well deserved. I’ll watch it again this week.

Poor Things and “Stylish Cinematography”

Wide angle lens = cinematography. Apparently.

Emma Stone got a well deserved Best Actress win for Poor Things. A film that was visually impressive, but didn’t win the nod for Best Cinematography. I’ve heard people rave about the cinematography of the film, but I found it indulgent.

There is a difference between stylish and effective cinematography. I haven’t heard this talked about at length, but in short, Poor Things falls into the trap of what I call “stylish” cinematography. Lots of visual flair and flourishes that don’t necessarily improve or support the narrative. It’s just chosen because it looks cool. I could film a scene of two actors arguing and put the camera on the ceiling and shoot at a downward angle, but doesn’t mean it’s “effective”. In comparison, Oppenheimer utilizes “effective” cinematography. No fluff, just beautiful imagery that supports and improves the narrative. Shallow depth of field, wide angles, etc. are all chosen with purpose and don’t distract from the action on screen. Poor Things is riddled with moments where the camera goes to a random place for no reason other than to be like “look at this cool shot we did”.

This sort of preference for “stylish” cinematography is something you see YouTube filmmakers praise and gush over, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. Yeah it’s cool you can do rotating camera shots, but is it necessary? There are many great films with little to no camera movement. Think about the script, the scene, and plane your shots around that. Not because you have a cool new camera and want to show off.

Some film study for you is the brilliant, No Country for Old Men. Simple and effective cinematography that supports the narrative, not the cinematographer’s ego.

Emma Stone and Poor Things

Emma Stone(aka Best Emma) got another Academy Award for her brilliant performance in Poor Things. What I especially liked is the physicality she brought to the role. It wasn’t just how she delivered dialogue, but her childlike, stilted movements that were part robot, part toddler. While I loved Stone’s performance, I didn’t like Poor Things. I think it was regretably feminist in all the worst ways the movement has been depicted in modern cinema. No accountability, her character is just great at everything, no consequences for her actions, all the men are bumbling idiots except the minority, etc.

And the overall concept doesn’t hold up to scrutiny soon as you turn your brain on. Spoiler, her character is the result of a scientific experiment. Her “father” found her pregnant mother dying after a botched suicide attempt. Desperate to save the baby, he removed her infant brain and put it in the place of her mother’s brain. So now she’s a baby within an adult body and all the gross implications that has when you think about a child that looks like a grown woman having promiscuous sex with countless men. Brave huh. Okay, then the fact that at the end of the movie, her father is dying and instead of, I don’t know, taking his brain out of his head and putting it in another body (which the film has already established can be done), no, she just lets him die. It’s a dumb film that tries to be smart. 6/10. But the actors are great. Emma Stone and Willem Dafoe being the standouts.

Bradley Cooper and Maestro

Bradley Cooper failed to win anything for Maestro. A try-hard, Oscar-bait film that did nothing to humanize Leonard Bernstein. It was pretentious in every sense of the word. The biggest crime this film commits is we learn NOTHING about Bernstein’s music, his process, or his creative inspirations. It’s just his sexcapades, in spades. I’m sure there was more to the man that what he did with his penis. But we never learn any of that.

Cooper’s performance wasn’t one of passion, but desperation. And it shows. Carrey Mulligan is a delight in the film. Beautiful, poised, nuanced, and she captivates in every scene. If Emma Stone didn’t win, Mulligan would have been my other pick. Don’t get me wrong, I like Bradley Cooper, but I think he has to take a less obvious approach for the Oscar. Just go do a film you’re passionate about, not one because you think it will get you the Oscar. You’re better than that.

Robert Downey Jr.

A well deserved win for perhaps the best performance of Downey, Jr.’s career. It was nice to see him distance himself from the creative black hole that Marvel/Disney has become and start doing roles with depth. Roles that will add to his legacy as an actor. No more fluff for children. And he was rewarded for it. His performance of Lewis Strauss was so good, I started to despise him. Everytime his smarmy mug would come on screen, I found myself agitated. He nailed it. Congrats sir.

Cillian Murphy

The role of a lifetime and Murphy’s best performance. This was a Daniel Day-Lewis-esque performance. Nuanced, quiet, measured, but gripping and captivating. This wasn’t a loud performance with lots of yelling and screaming to be considered “acting”. It was sophisticated and mature akin to Chadwick Boseman’s performance as T’Challa in Black Panther. You don’t have to scream or cry to win an Oscar. Just glue us to our seats by your presence on screen. I’m very happy for him because this was a film Murphy carried. He’s featured predominantly throughout the film and doesn’t miss a beat. No powerful co-star to bounce off of throughout, he has to carry us through this story. The weight of carrying a film can get to an actor, especially one used to lower-profile roles, but Murphy rose to the occasion and gave a virtuoso performance.

My Only Gripe

No one thanks the audience. They didn’t thank the fans for seeing their film and supporting their projects. Just “I’d like to thank the Academy and all my fellow actors blah blah blah”. Thank your audience you ungrateful snobs! It’s a small thing, but it would be good to feel like the general public matters. I mean they are watching the Oscars at home and bought tickets to all the films being honored.

Overall a great show that I hope is followed up with an even better one next year. Bravo to the Academy. 7/10.