Predicting the Oscar isn't an exact science. Yet since I started doing it myself on this blog ten years ago an entire cottage industry has popped up on the internet trying to turn it into one. But it can't be done. I've studied the Oscars as close as anyone for over fifteen years, and now even talk about the Oscars for a living, but yet here are my prediction results from the past three years: 16 for 24, 16 for 24, and 21 for 24. Good enough to probably win you your Oscar pool, but bad enough to show that it's basically impossible to predict EXACTLY what a small, insular, idiosyncratic group of largely old white people will do in any given year.
Yet, like always, I'll give it my best shot:
Visual Effects
The inside of a black hole, a friendly and virtually all-powerful robot, a planet made entirely of water, an alternate dimension inside an infinite number of bookcases - even just describing the most memorable special effects in
Interstellar is a reminder of how ridiculous the plot was. But the special effects were so well-done and the movie LOOKED so good it almost didn't matter that it didn't make a bit of sense.
Inception won this, and
Interstellar will too.
Will Win:
Interstellar
Should Win:
Interstellar
Sound Mixing
Sound Editing
Alright, let me do my quick take on
American Sniper here and be done with it. I kind of hate how now
everything has to be something we take sides on. The products we buy and the media we consume have always said something about who we are, but now its gotten so binary and so extreme. The car we drive, the beer we drink, the movies we see are all now either red or blue, and we just stand in our respective corners and yell at each other about them. Can't I just go see a fairly standard war movie that doesn't even totally know whats it's trying to say and judge it on its merits as a film without getting involved in some larger cultural battle? The answer is no; no I can't. It's impossible to experience anything now without viewing it through the lens of your political affiliation. Thats just the way it is. And that kinda sucks. But also, does it means we're becoming more conscious and engaged people? And isn't it a good thing that theres real debate and discussion about a movie that treats one side of a war as savages and killing them as heroic? That's something that wouldn't have caused controversy ten or even five years ago, and that feels like progress. Debate and deeper examination should be why we're here. So while I kind of hated that I couldn't just watch
American Sniper as a piece of entertainment, maybe that's just the price of living in a more enlightened society.
Anyway, no one really knows how to judge sound mixing or sound editing or even what the difference between the two are. So since
American Sniper needs to win something, and since it certainly had
a lot of sound to be mixed and/or edited it's taking these two awards.
Will Win:
American Sniper
Should Win:
American Sniper
Live Action Short
Like 99.999% of the population I haven't seen any of the short film nominees this year. So all I really have to go on is descriptions of the movies, reports from people who
have seen them, and historical precedent.
People seem to be picking
Boogaloo and and Graham here because it's the only light hearted nominee, and that makes sense. Plus it's name is
Boogaloo and Graham. But
The Phone Call checks off even more boxes: it's (also) in English, it's made by an established director, and it features known stars (Sally Hawkins and Jim Broadbent). A film with a similar profile lost this last year, but still, actors make up a majority of the Academy and
The Phone Call is supposed to be a real acting showcase. It's my pick.
Will Win:
The Phone Call
Should Win: Who knows
Animated Short
Feast is made by Disney and produced by John Lasseter. The winner is
Feast.
Will Win:
Feast
Should Win: Who knows
Documentary Short
Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 seems to be the pick here - it's about veterans, it's the only uplifting nominee, it illuminates an important issue. And that's all sound reasoning. But I don't think two of the short film winners will both be about crisis hotlines. And I don't think the veteran thing necessarily carries as much weight behind closed doors in liberal Hollywood as people might think it would. So I
do think that the door is open for something else to win.
These films aren't just viewed by old people who have the time to go to screenings any more - now screeners are sent out to all voters. But still, the Academy membership skews old. So a movie about motherhood and mortality would seem a good bet.
Joanna is just that movie. I think it pulls the upset, if there can even be such a thing in the short film categories.
Will Win:
Joanna
Should Win: Who knows
Production Design
Crazy, dubious fact: Wes Anderson is not his own production designer? How is that possible?? His movies ARE production design. And his directing is as much art directing as it is directing directing. Yet according to the official Oscar website the art designer for
Grand Budapest Hotel is someone named Adam Stockhausen? Is that just a pseudonym for Wes Anderson? Is Adam Stockhausen his version of
Roderick Jaynes?
Also how has Wes Anderson/Adam Stockhausen never won this before? Thats like when Martin Scorsese had never won Best Director. Well, this is the year that's remedied.
(BTW, here's something I wrote in LAST year's Oscar preview in the production design section: "congrats to Wes Anderson for winning next year for his work on
The Grand Budapest Hotel." See told you I know what I'm talking about.)
Will Win:
Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Win:
Grand Budapest Hotel
Costume Design
Is there a historical epic involving royalty nominated? Not this year, which means I actually have to put some thought into it. Anna B. Sheppard is the only nominee who hasn't won before, but she's not a big enough name for that matter. Normally I say when in doubt go with Colleen Atwood, but maybe not this year. Instead, I think there's real enthusiasm for
Grand Budapest Hotel and all elements of its visual style. This feels like they year the Academy tries to make it up to Wes Anderson for not getting into his aesthetic sooner. Plus those costumes
were great.
Will Win:
Grand Budapest Hotel
Should Win:
Grand Budapest Hotel
Makeup and Hairstyling
You would think big budget movies with crazy characters and complex makeup usually win this, but you'd actually be wrong. Just in the past three years
The Iron Lady beat
Harry Potter,
Les Miserables beat
The Hobbit, and
Dallas Buyer Club beat
The Lone Ranger. Memorable but realistic hair and makeup works seems to beat more fantastical work more often than not. And hair and makeup wise what was more memorable and realistic this year than Steve Carrell's nose and Mark Ruffalo's hair? They can both partially thank the
Foxcatcher hair and makeup department for their Oscar nods. Hopefully an Oscar
win for that department will be thanks enough.
Will Win:
Foxcatcher
Should Win:
Foxcatcher
Film Editing
Linklater: "Here ya go. Here's 12 years worth of meandering slice-of-life footage, now make a coherent movie out of it."
Editor: "You crazy for this one Rick!"
Will Win:
Boyhood
Should Win:
Boyhood
Cinematography
Remember that incredible six-minute tracking shot in Emmanuel Lubezki pulled off in
Children of Men and how everyone was crazy for it and how it's a travesty he didn't win an Oscar just for that shot alone? Well
Birdman is that shot stretched out to the length of an entire movie. I realize there were subtle hidden cuts throughout, but still, pulling off the cinematography of
Birdman is one of the most impressive technical and aesthetic achievements in film history. At this point its really Lubezki's world, we're just living in it.
(Better luck next year
Dick Poop)
Will Win: Lubezki!
Should Win: Lubezki!
Documentary Feature
It's
Citizenfour. It's definitely
Citizenfour. Over the past 15 years this has turned into a super interesting, competitive, and important category. With all due respect to
Citizenfour, what the hell happened this year? Please tell me we're not running out of real-life stories to tell.
(Spoiler alert: we're not)
Will Win:
Citizenfour
Should Win:
Citizenfour
Foreign Language Film
I haven't seen any of these nominees so I wasn't sure what to pick here until I read that
Ida "deals with the aftermath of the Holocaust". You had the Academy at "Holocaust"
Ida. Thanks for playing everyone else.
Will Win:
Ida
Should Win: IDK,
Ida?
Animated Film
With all the justified outrage over
The Lego Movie being snubbed in this category people are missing the bigger issue. Forget Best Animated Feature, it’s an outrage that
The Lego Movie was snubbed for
Best Picture. If a comedy as smart, funny, daring, and original as
The Lego Movie can't get nominated for Best Picture then lets just do like the Golden Globes and make a separate category for comedy, because clearly a straight up comedy is never cracking the Best Picture race.
It wasn’t always this way. In the early days movies like
It Happened One Night and
You Can't Take It With You WON Best Picture. Even as recently as the 70s and early 80s movies like
M.A.S.H.,
Heaven Can Wait,
Tootsie and
Annie Hall (which won) were in the Best Picture race. But in the past 25 years here's every movie up for Best Picture that could remotely qualify as a comedy:
Four Weddings and a Funeral,
Babe,
Fargo (stretching it),
The Full Monty,
As Good As It Gets,
Shakespeare in Love (really stretching it),
Little Miss Sunshine,
Juno, and of course
Crash. If you wanted to be generous you could include
The Artist and
Life is Beautiful, two movies technically billed as comedies but that didn't evoke a single actual laugh out of any person on earth. And I guess you could also include
Up,
Toy Story 3,
Silver Linings Playbook and
Scent of a Woman depending on if think Al Pacino’s performance was INTENTIONALLY funny. But that’s it - 14 movies in 25 years if you stretch the definition of comedy to its absolute breaking point. But really, would you call any of those movies straight up comedies? Maybe
Four Weddings and a Funeral and
The Full Monty? Maybe. So, it would seem now that “Best Picture” really means “Best Dramatic Film”, comedies need not apply. Because apparently comedy is not an art form on par with drama. I would say ask the Greeks and Shakespeare how they would feel about that statement, but then knowing about the origins of the dramatic arts might be a little much for an organization that watched
The Lego Movie and thought, “eh, it’s no
Boxtrolls”. I can almost guarantee you that no human being outside of the Academy, not even the director of
The Boxtrolls, thought that. But unfortunately in this case the Academy is all that matters. And that’s why awards are so dumb. It’s just the opinion of one small, biased, insular group of mostly old white people. I know this. And yet still I care. I care deeply. Because honoring art is important. And awards shows are still the best way we have to do that. So while there are much bigger issues this year (all white acting nominees, a distinct lack of women) than a massively successful movie about toy blocks not getting nominated for Best Picture, if
The Lego Movie can't get nominated for even Best Animated Feature, then the Academy has failed at its mission. It cannot properly honor art because it has lost its fundamental understanding of what constitutes art. And that is anything but awesome.
Will Win:
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Should Win:
The Lego Movie
Original Song
Speaking of awesome..."Glory" is a fine song, and a respectable choice, and
Selma should have "Academy Award Winner" attached to it's name somehow, but how, well, awesome would it be if "Everything is Awesome" won instead? Lonely Island rushing the stage would be the best thing at the Oscars since Three 6 Mafia rushing the stage.
Oh well, at least the performances this year will be great.
(As a side note: did you know that Common's real name is Lonnie Lynn? Remember when Fox News tried to make him out to be some scary radical cop killer? He should have just released a statement that his real name is Lonnie Lynn and all of that would have gone away instantly.)
Will Win: "Glory"
Should Win: "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME"
Original Score
Did you know Alexandre Desplat has never won an Oscar? I feel like Alexandre Desplat is synonymous with "tasteful Oscar-friendly scores". Also, possibly, I need to get out more. But indeed Alexandre Desplat is nominated (twice!) again this year. Yet, I think once again he goes home empty handed. It'll be close because his
Grand Budapest Hotel score was very good and support for that movie is strong. But it seems like Johann Johannsson is going to take this for
The Theory of Everything. It won the Golden Globe. It's the most memorable score of the year other than
Birdman (not nominated) and
Interstellar (memorable for all the wrong reasons). And his name is JOHANN JOHANNSSON. Really his parents should win an Oscar for that one.
(And yes, I understand
how Icelandic names work, but just let me have my joke).
So while it's gonna be a tight race, unless support for
Grand Budapest Hotel is even stronger than we realize Desplat is, like always, just going to have to wait til next year
Will Win:
The Theory of Everything
Should Win:
Theory of Everything
Adapted Screenplay
How are these the five best adapted screenplays of the year? And how is
Whiplash an ADAPTED screenplay? It's adapted from a shorter version of the same movie. How can the source material for your adapted screenplay be an earlier draft of
the same screenplay? That makes no sense. But whatever. As long as Jason Hall doesn't win for a screenplay that has no ending and no idea what it was trying to say I really could care less what happens here. This is thoroughly uninspiring.
Will Win:
Whiplash
Should Win:
Whiplash?
Original Screenplay
Now THIS on the other hand, is a screenplay competition! (But again, how is
Foxcatcher an ORIGINAL screenplay? It's based on true events the writers had to buy the rights to. How is that
original? Whatever.)
The monologues in
Nightcrawler were incredibly written,
Grand Budapest Hotel was the very definition of original,
Birdman was more original than that, and
Boyhood was the most original thing to ever be original-ed. So deciding here is very tough.
Foxcatcher is out, because what is it doing here?
Nightcrawler is out because despite good writing, the plot is ridiculous and heavy-handed.
Grand Budapest Hotel could easily win, and Wes Anderson is certainly overdue, but the remaining two nominees are slightly stronger to me.
So, is it
Birdman or
Boyhood?
Boyhood is the better movie, but is its
screenplay better? The question with Richard Linklater movies is always what
is the screenplay? His films always feel like he just gives the actors an outline and some words they can say or not say and then he pieces it together later.
Birdman however is clearly scripted within in an inch of of its life. That's a screenplay that was slaved over, as the fact that it has four writers shows. But does the fact that it has four writers hurt it when every other nominee has only one? That somehow makes it feel like less impressive of an achievement doesn't it?
I could really go either way here. But I think the restraint and subtle humanity
Boyhood has in its screenplay is maybe more of an achievement than the imagination and flash of
Birdman's screenplay. I think the Academy will disagree. But I'm really fine either way.
Will Win:
Birdman
Should Win:
Boyhood
Supporting Actress
So look, if there are two things I’m deeply in the tank for its feisty, caustic, damaged women and Emma Stone, so there's really no way for me to talk about this rationally. But just know that Patricia Arquette winning here is going to go against pretty much all recent historical precedent.
The old men who make up the majority of the Academy voters
love them some attractive young women. Especially in this category. This is where Kim Basinger beat Gloria Stuart and Juliette Binoche beat Lauren Bacall after all. In fact this award could be renamed the Hot Young Starlet of the Year Award and the winner list wouldn't even retroactively have to be changed too much. In the past twenty years only Marcia Gay Harden and Melissa Leo have won when there was also a viable hot young nominee competing against them. I'm not saying things SHOULD be that way, just that they are.
Also, I'm a little unclear what is so awards worthy about Patricia Arquette's work in
Boyhood that she's such a lock to overcome such strong voter predisposition. Other than her final scene it seems like a performance nearly anyone could have given. At no point watching
Boyhood did I think "I am watching the best supporting actress performance I will see this year!" It's fine work, but is it as praise-worthy as it's become? I just don't get it.
But then again, I'm not, nor never will be a mother. Just like the women I have talked to by and large seem less enthusiastic about
Boyhood than the men, I think there might be gender component to fully appreciating Patricia Arquette's work. And while men make up the majority of Academy voters, it's (fortunately) not by as much of a margin as it used to be.
So although I don't quite understand it, it looks pretty clear that Emma Stone is just going to have to settle for just being the world's most charming, talented, and attractive young actress as her consolation prize. Somehow I think she'll soldier on.
Will Win: Patricia Arquette
Should Win: Emma Stone
Supporting Actor
Maybe it's no 1992 or 1994, but you know its a strong category when Robert Duvall's performance in
The Judge is bringing up the rear of this category as barely even an afterthought. I can come up with at least ten different years that any one of these guys would have won in a landslide. But as an actor sometimes you just happen to give a great performance in the wrong year. Because it's been clear since Sundance over a year ago that this was gonna be JK Simmons' year no matter what.
Now, I don't know that I bought JK Simmons in
Whiplash as an actual human being. I know there are people LIKE his character, but the extreme he and the script took it to I didn't find believable as realistic human behavior. Also, as any actor knows, anger and aggression are the easiest things to play. Still, the performance was so powerful and visceral and what made the whole movie work that it's kind of hard to deny him the win here. As a MASSIVE fan of Edward Norton's work in
Birdman I went into
Whiplash totally ready to pick Simmons' performance apart. But he won me over, and winning over someone who actively wants to dislike you is the ultimate test.
So while I think Edward Norton gave maybe a better and more interesting performance, JK gave the performance that was showier, more memorable, more crucial to his film, and for all those reasons and more he's going to win. And I think I'm OK with that. Maybe sometimes it's alright if the Oscars aren't about "the best" per se but about "the most Oscar-worthy". Those are, after all, two different things.
Will Win: JK Simmons
Should Win: JK Simmons (by a hair)
Actress
It seems strange that Julianne Moore is finally going to win her Oscar for such a minor unseen movie as
Still Alice, but then that also seems very Julianne Moore of her. Un-flashy, professional, all about the work, easy to take for granted - thats not just Julianne Moore and her films, but a good description of her work in
Still Alice. Compare the work Julianne Moore does in
Still Alice to the work with the work Eddie Redmayne does in
The Theory of Everything. You're always aware Eddie is acting; with Julianne you never are. Eddie's feels like a performance designed to win awards. I'm sure on set the word Oscar came up more than once. Julianne in
Still Alice is simply living a life, awards be damned. Its the kind of work only a consummate professional who has been at this for 20 years could do. To be that real and unvarnished you have to have absolute faith in yourself and your work. Faith that can only come from doing this as long as Julianne Moore has and from doing it as
well as she has. Her performance in
Still Alice could have gone wrong in a million different ways and she avoids them all. She doesn't care about showing us what a good actor she is; she just cares about living an imaginary life as truthfully as she possibly can. And it's absolutely heartbreaking to watch.
It's almost the exact opposite of Cate Blanchett from last year, but it's equally overdue and equally well-deserved.
(Shout out to Reese Witherspoon though, who was great in
Wild and who I'm positive during filming thought she would win an Oscar for it. And most years she would have. But the Oscars are as much about luck and timing as anything else. And this is Julianne's year. But nice to see you back on the nominee list though Reese, and congrats on being runner up. No small feat.)
Will Win: Julianne Moore
Should Win: Julianne Moore
Actor
How is it that this feels like a strong category yet I'm not enthusiastic about any of the nominees? Cumberbatch is too mannered, Redmayne is too showy, Carrell is too same-y, Cooper is too
American Sniper-y and Keaton I dunno, his performance lacks a certain je ne sais quoi for me. I would vote for David Oyelowo if I could. I thought he was far and away the best, most powerful, most transformative and explosive performance of the year. The fact that there's not more outrage or even mention about his omission from this list speaks to a whole host of problems both with the Academy and of the world at large. It's also a bit inexplicable that Carrell got nominated over Jake Gyllenhaal for playing basically the same type of character only with less complexity, flash, and screen time. But since you can only go with the hand you're dealt, I guess Keaton is the pick. His movie has more support and he's the heart of it. It's a role that Oscar voters can deeply relate to. And Keaton is an overdue nice guy who has worked at some point with half of Hollywood. It seems weird to win Best Actor for a movie in which you only give the third best performance in, but maybe that's just a testament to how good the acting is in
Birdman. But maybe it's also a big part of the reason he's running neck and neck with the inferior work of Eddie Redmayne.
Eddie Redmayne has the showiest part here by far, and definitely does the MOST acting, but that's part of my problem with it. It seems bipolar to honor Julianne Moore's subtle and unshow-y work and then turn around and also honor Eddie Redmayne for acting with a capital A. He ages, he develops an extreme physical handicap, he has a big crying scene, he's portraying a real person - it's just all so self-consciously actor-y. I'm not saying performances like that can't be great, and indeed Eddie is very good, but you're kind of always aware he's acting. You can see the work rather than getting lost in it.
Also, Eddie Redmayne would be one of the youngest people to ever win Best Actor. Are we sure he's worthy of that distinction?
The Theory of Everything is really only his third major film, and while he was very good in the other two (
My Week With Marilyn and
Les Miserables) does it really feel like he's headed for a career as one of our finest actors? What are the odds "Best Actor Winner Eddie Redmayne" sounds ridiculous 20 years from now? Pretty high, right? The only three men younger than him to win this award in the past 30 years are Adrien Brody, Nicolas Cage, and Richard Dreyfuss and it kind of ruined all of them (seriously check out
Dreyfuss' credits post-1977, they're shockingly undistinguished). The supporting awards are whatever, but my take on Best Actor and Best Actress is that they're the pinnacle of the profession, and unless there are no other reasonable options let's make sure the winners have truly earned them. Besides the fact that I think his work is slightly better, it just feels like Keaton has earned the right to be a Best Actor Winnner; I don't think Redmayne is there yet.
(And it's statements like that that are the reason people think the Oscars are dumb. Seriously, why are you still reading this? I'm part of the problem.)
Will Win: Michael Keaton
Should Win: Michael Keaton (but really David Oyelowo)
Director
Ava Duvernay's exclusion here is the real story and the fact that her snub didn't lead to a similar reaction as Ben Affleck's snub two years ago says a lot about Hollywood.
Clint Eastwood's exclusion is the opposite of that.
As for the people who
were nominated: One of the five best directors this year was Morten Tyldum? That's an absurd statement and it's unclear how or why the directors branch, which usually does a great job, voted that way. My guess: Harvey Weinstein.
Bennett Miller is a more defensible choice, and
Foxcatcher was certainly
directed, but was it
well directed is a different matter. Maybe? I'm still undecided.
So that leaves the only three people with any real chance of winning. Wes Anderson isn't winning this year, but he's finally cracked the nominee list and it's not inconceivable that he'll win someday. He's officially gone from quirky indie auteur to mainstream brand name while still retaining essentially the same style. And he just keeps getting better at what he does with each passing movie. His eventual acceptance speech is going to be whimsical as shit. But it's not happening this year. (Not in this category anyway.) So in what is the tightest race on the entire board and likely one of the closest votes in Oscar history, my gut says Alejandro Inarritu squeaks this one out over Richard Linkalter.
Birdman clearly has a ton of support within the Academy. The votes for Best Director and Best Picture are tabulated differently and this category favors passion over consensus. And while
Boyhood would seem to have more general support,
Birdman seems to have more passion behind it at this point.
Most importantly though, we're talking about direction here. Richard Linklater's strength, his signature really, is what's going to do him in. In
Boyhood he always keeps things simple and unfussy. He doesn't go for big moments or fancy camera work. He wants to make it seem like you're watching real life. His direction is by design unobtrusive. And it's that restraint that allows the movie to ultimately make the emotional impact that it does. But it's also why it's going to be hard for him to beat the HEY I'M DIRECTIN' HERE! work Alejandro Inarritu does in
Birdman. Every second of
Birdman "wow, I can't imagine how hard this must have been to make" is in the back of your mind. It's just a staggering directorial achievement that any person who has ever made a film would be jealous of and inspired by. And that's just it:
Birdman feels like an achievement,
Boyhood feels like an accomplishment. Subtle but massive difference.
Boyhood is content to just be a great movie,
Birdman cries out for awards. And it's going to get them. At least in this category anyway.
Will Win: Alejandro Inarritu
Should Win: Alejandro Inarritu
Picture
My approach to deciding Best Picture is which of these will stand the test of time as the best movie of the year. When people 100 years from now look at a list of Best Pictures winners which of the nominees will make the most sense to be on that list. Which of these movies is the best movie of 2014, not just right now but forever? Approaching it that way would prevent the in-the-moment groupthink like "We feel bad for Ben Affleck" (
Argo) "a silent movie, how novel!" (
The Artist) "gay people make us uncomfortable" (
Crash) "Harvey Weinstein paid us off" (
Shakespeare in Love) and "we had a collective brain aneurism" (
The Kings Speech) that lead to winners that already start to seem absurd the day after they're announced (or sooner).
So with that criteria in mind let's run through these.
The case for
American Sniper is that it made a lot of money and is very popular. It's not
Titanic or
Gone With the Wind-level popular so that popularity isn't going to single-handedly carry it to classic status. And take away the box office and the controversy and it's a pretty straight-forward war movie the likes of which we've all seen before. It's out.
Grand Budapest Hotel is great, but 100 years from now is it going to be the first, second, or even third most beloved Wes Anderson movie? Does it even seem THAT different from any of his other post-
Rushmore movies? It's out.
100 years from now will people be able to say with any certainty which movie is which between
The Imitation Game and
The Theory of Everything? Can they
now? They're out.
Whiplash is well made and well and and very entertaining, but at the core it's a simple two person character study - a mentor/mentee showdown. Movies like
Whiplash have existed since film began and will continue to be made until the sun burns out. Good Picture, but not Best Picture.
So that just leaves the three movies which for me, and many others, stood apart from the pack this year. Important without being cloying, well-made without being slick, powerful without forcing it, and spoke to today while still remaining timeless. Any one of
Selma,
Birdman, or
Boyhood would be a respectable choice for Best Picture of 2014. But only one can be. So which is it?
Selma is twice as good as it needed to be to get a Best Picture nomination, so the fact that that's really all it got is just criminal. It could have easily floated in on being the first major MLK movie and being released in a year when it's subject matter couldn't be more timely, but it didn't do that. It was masterfully made and brilliantly constructed and did everything right every step of the way. It was one of those movies where even the actors with just one line were great. And it was emotionally and socially resonant without ever leaning on or acknowledging its timeliness. Which was the best decision the filmmakers made. Because just like you can always stage a production of
Trojan Women or
Tartuffe or
You Cant Take It With You and make it feel timely,
Selma will (sadly) always be relevant. Especially because it didn't try to be. But for the purposes of deciding what wins this category, unfortunately the story and the way it is told, while powerful, are a little too conventional and straightforward when compared to the remaining two nominees. I would be willing to listen to arguments to the country, but unfortunately they wouldn't matter, because
Selma isn't winning this. The Academy is too conservative. This is an Academy that seems to be fine with the fact there's not a single non-white acting, directing, or writing nominee. This is an Academy where a member just said about
Selma "having the cast show up in T-shirts saying 'I can't breathe' — I thought that stuff was offensive. Did they want to be known for making the best movie of the year or for stirring up shit?" And this is an Academy that allowed the conversation around
Selma to become "is the main white guy in the MLK movie portrayed heroically enough or not". Because of course. Plus
12 Years a Slave just won last year. And if you think that doesn't matter, well, hello and welcome to America, I hope you enjoy your stay.
Anyway, sorry
Selma.
So then there were two. To get into the nerdy details, no film has lost Best Picture after winning the SAG, PGA, and DGA awards in over 20 years. But I still think
Boyhood is going to take down
Birdman. Unlike Best Director, in Best Picture consensus matters more than passion. And with the older more conservative Academy I'm sure there are many people who didn't "get
Birdman", found it difficult and challenging, and ranked it towards the bottom of their ballot. Whereas I can't imagine anyone watching Boyhood and not putting it in their top three. Also never forget that the guilds skew way younger than the Academy because to even get in the Academy you have to have been in the business a long time. I personally know tons of people in SAG, the WGA, and the DGA; I dont know anyone in the Academy. I'm too young to. So anyway, thats the nitty gritty of why I'm riding with
Boyhood. But I'm also riding with it because I want it to win. Because it's the better movie and because it's going to stand the test of time better.
Both movies are remarkable innovative achievements the likes of which we have never seen before and maybe never will again. It's a shame they have to go up against each other when there are years when things like
The Artist win by default. But
Birdman is a movie about making movies;
Boyhood is a movie about life. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't work in the entertainment industry finding
Birdman relatable; I can't imagine anyone alive not relating to
Boyhood. It connects us all by showing how universal the experience of life is. The specifics are unique to each of us but the beats are all the same for everyone. Like a song thats clearly about a specific incident but that yet every listener feels like is about them,
Boyhood somehow feels more universal because it is so specific. If Linklater had tried to tell a more general story it wouldn't have hit as hard. But by watching what was clearly autobiographical for one man and yet recognizing in it feelings and thoughts and experiences that
I had, it made me realize that my own life wasn't unique. Everyone goes through the same things. We all have our differences, but aging is what connects us. Time is the tie that binds.
Birdman says to voters - look at me, aren't I important.
Boyhood says to them - aren't we all.
Now I loved
Birdman, and this is not meant as a knock on it, but the creativity and innovative filming style of
Birdman will seem ordinary someday. People will build on it, imitators will arise, it can be topped. But nothing will ever be like
Boyhood ever again. Yet it doesn't win just for being first. And it doesn't win just for being singular. It wins because it will never lose its effectiveness as a film. It will never not be great. Because the passage of time will never dilute time's power. Time will always win. And the Oscars should be no exception.
Will Win:
Boyhood
Should Win:
Boyhood
