Just how filthy are the 10 Best Picture nominees???

Just how dirty are the Oscars? The Academy Awards have attempted to paint themselves as more diverse and inclusive in the past few years, and this year’s best Picture selection does partly reflect that. There is one Asian film (Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s Drive My Car) and two films made by women (Jane Campion’s Power of the Dog and Sian Heder’s CODA). But how thought-provoking, subversive and downright filthy are these films in reality? Are they just more of the same, or do they challenge some old orthodoxies? Read what our writers have to say about each one of the 10 nominees and decide it for yourself!

The films are listed alphabetically. Just click on the film title in order to accede to each individual review:

.

1. Belfast (Kenneth Branagh):

by Victor Fraga

In this largely autobiographical and historical tale, Kenneth Branagh illustrates a short segment of the Troubles that afflicted Northern Ireland for nearly four decades from the perspective of nine-year-old Buddy (Judy Hill), the director’s very own proxy (Branagh was indeed the same age as Buddy when the story takes place), and his protestant family. The action begins on August 15th, 1969, as Protestants attack Catholics living outside their unofficially designated areas. Molotov cocktails, and shattered glass fly everywhere, with arson soon ensuing. Buddy hides under the kitchen table, while his terrified mother (Caitriona Balfe) scrambles to find his brother.

This almost entirely black-and-white drama is highly theatrical, most of the action staged either inside or near Buddy’s house. The establishing shots showing a large, highly industrialised city come at the first sequence, before we deep dive into the small world of Buddy’s family. The simple and relatively straightforward story is mostly predictable, with audiences well aware that Kenneth Branagh grew up in England. The movie continuously attempts to climax, every time Protestants and Catholics collide. It does not side with either religion, instead focusing on the emotions of the child and his family. The conflicts however feel too staged and contrived, failing to move viewers. The performances are lukewarm and the script is lacklustre. Branagh fails to turn a personal story into a universal one. Not even Dame Judi Dench and a rendition of power ballad Everlasting Love lift this mostly tedious movie. The majority of viewers were left feeling cold and bored. I watched it in a fully-packed Estonian cinema and audiences barely reacted to the story.

.

2. CODA (Sian Heder):

by John McDonald

CODA stands for Child of Deaf Adults. The film revolves around a girl called Ruby (Emilia Jones), an able hearing teenager who lives with her deaf parents and deaf older brother. She must juggle working on her dads fishing boat – acting as an interpreter for him as well – and her dream of becoming a singer, which is quite ironic as her family have no idea how good she really is.

The writing is powerful and emotional, projecting itself through the heavy exchanges. It sends a meaningful message about the perception of deaf people. It also dances around the idea of selfishness and ignorance, just because Ruby’s parents can’t physically hear her talent, does it make them these things? The sound editing is impactful and ingenious, much like Sound of Metal. When the silence fades in and out of Ruby’s performance, it creates a great sadness for her family. That’s because they cannot enjoy her gift like everyone else can. An unbelievable sequence for our viewing pleasure.

There is something magical about films highlighting deafness as a gift instead of a hindrance, specifically targeting ignorance and a lack of knowledge about the subject. Of course, deaf people do miss so much, but they also see the world from a totally unique perspective. This is both beautiful and eye opening.

.

3. Don’t Look Up (Adam McKay):

by Dan Meier

That lack of self-awareness pervades every aspect of the movie, constantly distracted by the very topics it deems trivial; celebrity culture, social media and the private lives of scientists. When the liberal characters enlist a pop star (played by Ariana Grande) to help raise awareness for humanity’s doom, the irony is entirely lost on the filmmakers who have done exactly that. In essence, McKay is the Ariana Grande character, warbling on and on about how we are all going to die in front of a massive Hollywood party.

Don’t Look Up proves good advice over two hours and 20 minutes of stock footage, A-listers improvising themselves into corners and plot holes the size of craters. This nonsensical narrative does not stem from some prescient absurdism à la Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976), nor does it have the political savvy of a film like In The Loop (Armando Iannucci, 2009). McKay’s shallow attempts at satire sail past their targets like comets made of toilet paper, his level of commentary and insight comparable to scrolling through memes circa 2018.

That such a poorly received feature should be nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay confirms there are certain non-qualitative factors (namely Meryl Streep and liberal grandstanding) that guarantee Oscar buzz, the hum of flies drawn to the stench of free Netflix accounts. The only comfort to take from all this is that if a 5km meteor does come hurtling towards Earth, then Adam McKay’s ego should absorb most of the blast.

Don’t Look Up is also pictured at the top of this article.

.

4. Drive my Car (Ryusuke Hamaguchi):

by James Luxford

Historically, films not in the English language have struggled to compete for the big awards at The Oscars. After all, the Academy Awards are the ultimate symbol of Hollywood’s fascination with itself, meaning anything outside of its bubble is ushered into the Best International Feature Film category. Times are slowly changing, however, and the success of Parasite a couple of years ago means a wider breadth of filmmaking has a shot at the hallowed Best Film award. A welcome addition to this year’s contenders is Drive My Car, a Japanese drama that more than merits the distinction.

Director Ryusuke Hamaguchi’s follow up to the fascinating Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy (2021) is the story of Yūsuke Kafuku (Hidetoshi Nishijima), a celebrated theatre actor mourning the death of his wife Oto (Reika Kirishima). Two years on from the loss, he is approached to direct a production of Uncle Vanya. He is given accommodation around an hour’s drive from the rehearsal space, in order that he practice lines from a tape recorded by Oto before her death. The company requires that he have a driver, reserved young woman Misaki Watari (Tōko Miura).

Where many prestige dramas require scenery chewing, Hamaguchi’s film has a gentleness that feels devastating. The messiness of life, and the absence of resolution in grief, are core themes within a multi-layered story that doesn’t stray too long on any one of its plotlines. While the friendship between Yūsuke and Misake is the backbone of the narrative, Yūsuke’s tempestuous collaboration with Okada’s disgraced star Kōji Takatsuki is just as compelling. A climactic scene between the two in the back of the titular Saab 900, where Kōji talks about looking completely into a person’s heart, is quietly mind-blowing. Meaning hides within meaning, with so much more said that what is on the page.

.

5. Dune (Denis Villeneuve):

by John Bleasdale

Timothee Chalamet plays Paul as a sexy Hamlet, floppy hair, dark clothes, and the angst that comes with having a father and mother like Rebecca Ferguson and Oscar Isaac. How can he possibly live up to them? Then there’s Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck, who trains him to fight and Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa), an older brother of sorts and tough guy who Paul hero worships. Everyone is training Paul for power: his mother teaches him the Voice, a form of manipulation that can cause people to do anything while his father has him sit in on councils. Add to this that the Bene Gesserit sisterhood have been spreading rumors that he might be The One, and you can understand why the young guy looks like he has the weight of several worlds on his shoulders. Of course, things starts to go wrong as Stellan Skarsgard’s Baron unleashes his nephew ‘the Beast’ Raban on the Atreides and there are further betrayals in store which will risk the destruction of Paul’s family and House.

Villeneuve takes all of this seriously. There is no camp, no space opera. Or if it is, it demands the kind of suspension of irony necessary for opera to work. There are two jokes in the whole picture and no zingers, the likes of which pepper Marvel films to such an extent that the winking begins to look like Herbert Lom towards the end of the Inspector Clousseau series. And if you are willing to take it seriously then there is so much in this film. The universe created is one where medieval social structures and belief systems are matched by technology that retains a hint of necromancy.

.

6. King Richard (Reinaldo Marcus Green):

by James Luxford

King Richard tells the story of Richard Williams (Smith), a father of five living in LA’s Compton neighbourhood. Determined to keep his offspring off the streets, he sets out a plan for his daughters Venus and Serena (Saniyya Sidney and Demi Singleton) to become tennis stars. Coaching them himself using little more than books and tapes, he forces his way into the insular world of tennis to get them to notice two of the brightest talents in the sport’s history.

Every aspect of the film is designed to inspire, from the rousing score to the many speeches delivered, reminding us of the importance of the Williams Sisters not just to sport, but to African-American culture. This may trigger a cynical instinct in some viewers, but hindsight is on the filmmakers’ side. Williams did set out this path for his daughters, he did train them on the courts of Compton with the sound of gunshots in the background. However, this is more than a sob story. It’s about the perseverance and single-mindedness it takes to be a champion, and the foresight to create something that no one has ever seen before. The presence of snobbery and classism in the sport makes a compelling argument: Williams’ vision for his daughters may border on obsessional, but it is far better than the abusive country club parents who berate Venus’ opponents. The belief, and the vindication of it, makes for a feel-good couple of hours.

Of course, this is a Hollywood biopic, and if there is a flaw it’s in the refusal to question much about its subject. Williams is always right, and even when he’s not it’s for a good reason. His scene-stealing nature is treated as just another quirk, while the film’s focus on Richard means his wife Brandy (Aunjanue Ellis) and the sisters themselves become supporting players in their own story. It’s no more than any other biopic would do, but it’s clear this is a version of events meant to cement a legacy, rather than dissect it.

.

7. Licorice Pizza (Paul Thomas Anderson):

by Ian Schultz

Paul Thomas Anderson’s hotly anticipated new movie is a simple boy-meets-girl tale, in the San Fernando Valley during the year of 1973. Anderson is a native and current resident of the Valley and has often set his films there including Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), and Punch-Drunk Love (2002).

Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) and Alana (Alana Haim) are the odd-couple leads. Hoffman is the son of the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, one of Anderson’s most frequent collaborators; Haim is from the pop band Haim, for whom Anderson has done several music videos. Gary is loosely based on Gary Goetzman, a child actor in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, who later became a long-time collaborator of Jonathan Demme, and is now Tom Hanks’s production partner. Goetzman himself told Anderson some of the outrageous stories, on which the movie is inspired. The story revolves around following the couple’s adventures across the Valley, the strange people they meet, and their relationship, which may or may not become romantic.

.

8. Nightmare Alley (Guillermo del Toro):

by Ian Schultz

Guillermo del Toro’s first movie since 2017’s Oscar winning The Shape of Water is an adaptation of William Lindsay Gresham’s eponymous 1946 novel. It’s fairly faithful to the book, much more than the first version, a noir movie entitled Nightmare Alley (Edmund Goulding, 1947). Both movies deserve credit of their own, and an attentive viewing.

Structurally, Nightmare Alley is essentially two films stuck together: the world of the carnival, and Stanton’s noirish descent into hell. It could be a challenge to the bridge the two stories, but there is a convenient crossroads point where you could put in an intermission. The film runs for two hours and 20 minutes, but it’s never dull for a second—the story just flies by. Del Toro’s camera is never static; it’s always moving, often in very subtle ways.

The ensemble that Del Toro put together is as perfectly compiled. There is not a bad or even mediocre performance Blanchett is the film’s scene-stealer with the most delicious femme fatale delivery since probably the ’50s, especially her last line: “I’LL LIVE!” The role of Dr. Lilith Ritter is one of the film’s biggest improvements over the original: Blanchett portrays her as even more of an icy bitch than Helen Walker did.

.

9. The Power of the Dog (Jane Campion):

by John Bleasdale

If anyone had any doubt about the difficulties women directors face when trying to get films made, Jane Campion’s career should be a compelling case to answer. The woman has won an Oscar, won the Palme d’Or and directed consistently brilliant work as diverse as period dramas and serial killer movies. But nevertheless, despite this pedigree, getting her projects to the big screen has proven enormously difficult. So a lot is riding on The Power of the Dog, her adaptation of Thomas Savage’s novel, which showed in competition at the 78th Venice Film Festival. What we get is a solemn compelling Western which is full of grandeur pitched against cruelty and small minded pettiness.

At its heart, it is a tale of two brothers. When Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) raises his glass in toast to himself and George (Jesse Pelmons), and characterises them as Romulus and Remus, you can’t help but wonder if he knows how the story ends. Later it will become clear he does. Because though Phil has invented himself as a dirty saddle tramp rancher and cowboy who has never used the house bath and whose only pleasure lies in twanging the banjo and recalling his mentor Buck, he’s actually a graduate of Yale with a well to do family at his back. So, yes he fully understands that he might as well have hailed his brother as another Abel.

.

10. West Side Story (Steven Spielberg):

by James Luxford

The story is a Romeo and Juliet with hair grease and big skirts. We go to 1957 Manhattan, a place where economic ambition lives side-by-side with harsh reality. In the ever-changing West Side, two male gangs fight for their turf – the Caucasian gang The Jets, and Puerto Rican gang The Sharks. In the midst of this bad feeling, reformed Jet Tony (Ansel Elgort) falls for Maria (Rachel Zegler), the young sister of Shark leader Bernardo (David Alvarez). The pair are smitten and determined to be together, but the escalating feud between their respective communities makes that union fraught with danger.

West Side Story is a bright, energetic ode to the musicals of the 50s, proving Spielberg can still muster the kind of wonder that made his name. However, the hallowed status of his inspiration means those efforts may be sacrificed at the altar of comparison.

The five 2019 Best Short Film Oscar nominations reviewed for you!

Brevity is an art form that aids certain strands of storytelling. Five films have made it into the Oscar shortlist, each a variant on their expertise on the human existence. Two come from Canada, expressing a differ outlay to the Anglo-centred films more mainstream Canadian films hold. The other three deal with suspense, one of which has generated a violent reaction in the presses for re-telling one of the most traumatic events of the 1990s: the James Bulger murder. Elsewhere, a mother holds tightly to the telephone which her son speaks into, while an innocuous gesture leads to a race war…

.

1. Detainment (Vincent Lambe):

This Irish/British production takes a harrowing, heavy look on the expeditions led by two young killers. I’ve written a full length review detailing its merits, but for those deterred by news reports and misinformation, director Vincent Lambe has made a film about people, not about murder. Click here for our full review of the short film, and here for this writer’s article in defence of filmmaker Vincent Lambe (who encountered fierce resistance from James Bulger’s mother, who never saw the film).

.

2. Fauve (Jeremy Comte):

Set in the wild industrial backwaters of Québec, two troublemaking boys explore an abandoned mine. The title, which loosely translates into Wildcats, is one of two Canadian entries. Heavy on character, Fauve details the exterior journey detailing the interior journey two boys undergo. It’s a nicely shot film (cinematographer Olivier Goss offers some naturalistic and clever details pertaining to the outside world), but the two leads, Felix Grenier and Alexandre Perreault, offer pedestrian performances unable to match the film’s more cathartic moments. The film borrows a little too heavily from Richard Linklater’s Boyhood (2014) for comfort leading to a film that seems unoriginally bland.

.

3. Marguerite (Marianne Farley):

The second Canadian film enters into the mindset of Marguerite (Béatrice Picard), an elderly woman curtailing her suppressed feelings for another woman after learning that her home care nurse Rachel (Sandrine Bisson) is a lesbian. Picard is tremendous, immaculate in bed ridden regalia, at her liberated grace and being, free to accept herself and her place in the world. Were it not for restrictions regarding an actress’ length of screen-time, Picard would be a worthy Actress Oscar placeholder. The film is also pictured at the top of this article.

.

4. Madre (Rodrigo Sorogoyen):

A Spanish short film written and directed by Rodrigo Sorogoyen, Madre details a worrying call between mother and child. Informed by her six-yea-old that his father has left him deserted on a beach. Stellar thrills brings audiences into the mindset of a parent’s worst nightmare, holding one shot on every inch of the mother’s worried face. It’s a heavy 16-minute watch, managing thrills every minute of its run time, sealed with a staggering lead performance.

.

5. Skin (Guy Nattiv):

In a small supermarket in a blue-collar town, a black man smiles at a 10-year-old white boy across the checkout aisle. This leads to an inevitable war between two gangs. It details the problems of gun ownership in America, instigating internalised racism, yet the film slags within the run time of 20 minute. The mass use of swearing and weaponry does little to offer audiences whole documentaries showcase in a more virile and effective manner. Passé, bland, this is the weakest and least engaging of the five nominees. Strange to think it’s got the highest audience on ShortsTV!

Oscar baiting can kill!!!

January can be a cold and lonely month. It’s the perfect time to get your teeth into those Christmas box sets and catch-up on some under-the-duvet film streaming. Of course, the first month of the new year also marks another film-related event: the Academy Award nominations. Love them or loathe them, the Oscars can’t be ignored by any self-respecting cinephile. If you take the chilly trip outside to your local small screen or multiplex, you’ll be met with a deluge of films that are expertly-acted, tightly-produced and exquisitely-shot.

Nonetheless, the Oscars are a divisive event. For some, the feeling persists that they are a longstanding form of American cultural imperialism, a supposed bellwether for the wonders of the big screen, in spite of their frequent dismissal of smaller independent-minded productions and international cinema. In recent years, the Academy have also faced accusations of racial bias, largely kickstarted by actor April Reign’s #OscarsSoWhite campaign. In addition, Ronan Farrow’s 2017 exposé has blown the lid on Harvey Weinstein’s long-rumoured criminal misogyny, as well as broader accusations of Hollywood’s ingrained culture of sexual harassment, assault and rape. As a result, the Academy have found themselves under increasing pressure to showcase the talents of women, people of colour and other individuals (e.g. LGBTQ and Latins) who are prominent on our screens, yet underrepresented among Oscar nominations.

The above biases may in part result from an Academy membership that is still largely white and male. Women now constitute 28% of its voters, while just 13% of its membership are people of colour. This historic issue has also contributed to a phenomenon known as Oscar bait. Oscar bait refers to a certain kind of film that seems to get showered with awards year-after-year and therefore encourages an industry to put out bland productions that are voter-friendly. Oscar bait films are often period pieces, biopics or tributes to the Hollywood industry. They might revolve around an historic tragedy, such as the Holocaust or another brutal chapter from the Second World War. Their narrative arcs can be predictably saccharine, involving banal character transformations that are bound to invoke audience emotions. And they might cynically cast actors with high nomination rates, individuals like Daniel Day-Lewis and Meryl Streep.

The act of baiting naturally implies that you are aiming to kill something, as in the food placed on a hook or in a net in order to catch a prey. In the case of the Oscars, this can present itself in deadweight scripts, side-lined supporting performances and the grave of historical accuracy. However, it’s not necessarily the case that all Oscar bait films are objectionably awful. There will always be a schmaltzy Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (Stephen Daldry, 2011; pictured ), a Tom Hanks 9/11 emotion-fest that focuses on a child with Asperger’s syndrome. We’re equally blessed with the likes of Birdman (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2014), which may bait with its acting industry setting and reborn Hollywood star protagonist, yet excels in cinematography.

Here are five examples Oscar baiting has “killed off” other elements of the film:

.

1. Darkest Hour (Joe Wright, 2017) – kills off historicity:

The Oscars absolutely love an historical biopic. Unfortunately, this also means that Oscar bait films tend to have a murky relationship with the truth. You see, if real events aren’t quite compelling enough and you really really want that Oscar, it’s definitely worth deceiving your audience, right? Of course, it’s entirely reasonable for feature films to use some creative license. After all, they’re pieces of fictional work rather than documentaries. The issue is most pertinent when a biopic purports to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Darkest Hour is the latest offender in this category. From its bold advertising campaign that declares: “Gary Oldman is Winston Churchill”, to its use of brash full-screen dates for each new scene, everything about it screams this is factual.

However, when it comes to the facts of what actually went down in May 1940, the film is surprisingly lacking. The most offensive scene by far is a bizarrely concocted sequence on the London underground. In a flash of fictional nonsense, Churchill travels on public transport and speaks to an assortment of ordinary Londoners, in spite of his well-documented classism and racism. To add insult to injury, director Joe Wright ignores the time constraints of travelling a single stop on the underground. This means that he can use as long as he wants to get exactly what he needs from this entirely invented scene – namely, a situation in which Churchill gains popular public support for his famously rousing ‘fight them on the beaches’ speech.

It’s classic bait and Gary Oldman will compel many an Academy voter with his virtuous closing oratory. It’s just a shame that historicity has been murdered along the way.

.

2. Manchester by the Sea (dir. Kenneth Lonergan, 2016) – kills off multi-layered characters:

If you’re not sure how to get your Oscar, you can always latch onto the ageing Academy elite’s desire to appear woke and relevant. Manchester by the Sea achieves this by presenting itself as a dissection of the flavour of the year, toxic masculinity. On the surface, it appears to do this through placing its Casey Affleck bait on a big emotional plate. The protagonist alpha-male janitor has committed an awful act in the not-so-distant past that he is forced to face again when his brother dies and leaves a son in need of a caregiver. We have an aggressively masculine man. We have said man being placed in an atypical caring role. We have plenty of potential for this man to erupt into tears and take the audience on his pathos-driven journey. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, through focusing so deeply on its protagonist’s supposed emotional heroism, the film kills any chances of properly deconstructing what might give rise to his toxic masculinity. In fact, it goes some way to firing up gender stereotypes by giving women entirely one-dimensional characters. Fancy being an alcoholic, hysteric or sexual plaything? Probably not, but that’s your lot as a woman in this film.

Manchester by the Sea also displays the Academy’s utter hypocrisy and conservative judgement of character. In 2010, Casey Affleck faced sexual harassment allegations that he settled out-of-court and which were subsequently kept quiet by his Oscar campaign team. On the other hand, Nate Parker, the director of one-time Oscar hopeful Birth of a Nation (2016), had historically been found not guilty of sexual assault, a case that was repeatedly brought up by media. Affleck’s alleged dark past was kept under wraps, while Parker’s was out for all to see.

Affleck won his Oscar, while Parker’s hopes of a nomination faded away. In the eyes of the Academy membership, it’s fine to behave badly, as long as you keep it hidden. Even better, if you can bait them with some lip service to the issue of the day, the Academy will forgive, forget and reward.

.

3. La La Land (dir. Damian Chazelle, 2016) – kills off self-criticism:

In a fleet-footed rush of sunshine vibes and happy endings, La La Land tap-danced across our screens in late-2016, shuffling and twisting its way through numerous awards. Seven Golden Globe nominations, seven record-breaking Golden Globe wins. An impressive 11 Bafta nominations, followed by a solid haul of five Bafta wins. And, of course, those record-tying 14 Oscar nominations, with a not-too-shabby six Oscar wins. In fact, the Academy loved the film so much that they almost awarded it Best Picture in place of the more deserving Moonlight (dir. Barry Jenkins, 2016), in a classy Oscar gaffe.

La La Land had serious appeal on both sides of the Atlantic. Plus, its performance in the Academy Awards was pretty remarkable for a film made on a $30m budget. Titanic (dir. James Cameron, 1997) may have the joint-most Oscar nominations and wins, but it also had $200m behind it – approximately ten times Damian Chazelle’s budget, if we account for inflation. So how did La La Land manage the masterstroke of widespread Academy Awards success on limited funds? Quite simply, through throwing out the classic Oscar bait of self-referencing the Hollywood film industry in all its dream-fulfilling glory.

From start to finish, the film has no qualms about projecting its loud love of Hollywood, thereby killing off any possibility of self-criticism. It sets the scene with old-school Hollywood title cards. Next, the proud declaration that it’s “Presented in CinemaScope”, a tribute to the mid-20th century musicals that the film riffs on (although notably, it wasn’t actually shot using CinemaScope lenses – it was shot in the same 2.55 aspect ratio). The film is then littered with Casablanca (dir. Michael Curtiz, 1942) references, classic musical numbers and a treacly narrative of the City of Dreams coming good on its promise. In case the previous two hours weren’t clear enough, the film ends with the statement “Made in Hollywood, USA”. In summary, La La Land reminded the Academy voters of how they want their industry to be perceived, even if the reality is about as real as two tap-dancing romantics literally floating through the Griffith Observatory.

There’s a reason that the likes of Barton Fink (dir. Joel Cohen, 1991), Adaptation (dir. Spike Jonze, 2002) and Mulholland Drive (dir. David Lynch, 2001) don’t make the Academy membership ecstatic. A little bit of back-slapping can go a long way.

.

4. Arrival (dir. Denis Villeneuve, 2016) – kills off balanced representation:

British auteur Christopher Nolan is known for making big-budget ‘intelligent’ sci-fi with a twist (Inception, 2010; Interstellar, 2014). In recent years, Quebecois director Denis Villeneuve has also ventured into the English-language sci-fi arena. His first major effort, Arrival, certainly teased the Academy into a number of nominations and a Best Sound Editing win. At first glance, it might not appear to be typical Oscar bait. Yet beneath the surface it represents a growing trend: that of the smart sci-fi flick.

The Academy are traditionally loathe to reward genre films, meaning that science fiction has generally been underrepresented at the Oscars, despite its clear merits. Since the 2009 expansion of Best Picture nominees from five to nine, sci-fi has crept onto the nomination lists. Considered and leftfield pieces of filmmaking, such as District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009) and Her (Spike Jonze, 2013) have been nominated without any ultimate success. On the other hand, Arrival generated considerable buzz. Why might this be? While District 9 works as an apartheid allegory for racial oppression and Her delivers a depressing verdict on an increasingly disconnected society, Arrival throws in some good old-fashioned Manichaean stereotyping of other superpowers (in this case, the Russia and China) in order to broaden the appeal of its (mostly) clever story.

The plot of Arrival revolves around 12 extra-terrestrial vessels that land in Australia, the Black Sea, China, Greenland, Japan, Pakistan, Siberia, Sierra-Leone, Sudan, the UK, Venezuela and, the setting of the film, the US. Large parts of the film are dedicated to diplomatic communications between these countries, during which cultural stereotypes abound. The Brits say “you cheeky bastard”, the Sudanese wear shemagh while running around and praying, and the Russians are military aggressors who immediately cut off multilateral negotiations. Interestingly, inter-country conflict is not described in the film’s source text, Ted Chiang’s novella Story of your Life. This suggests that there was a specific reason for its inclusion. This reason becomes clear in the final act where China threatens world peace with their final spaceship solution, but are ultimately won over by an American nonviolent intervention.

History tends to suggest that the US has a violent history of military interventions. We don’t know what Villeneuve’s political beliefs are and he’s entitled to keep them close to his chest. Regardless, it’s no surprise that a sci-fi film in which the Russians and Chinese are the baddies and the Americans peacefully save the day played so well with an Academy membership that is largely old, white and male.

.

5. The Revenant (dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2015) – kills off other artistic achievements:

Alejandro González Iñárritu’s back-to-back Best Director wins for Birdman and The Revenant are impressive enough, until you realise that his Director of Photography, Emmanuel Lubezki, won his third consecutive Best Cinematography award for this 2015 violent revenge epic. Lubezki shot the entire film using natural light and this is reflected in the breathtakingly gorgeous landscapes that intersperse the narrative. The film also opens with a beautifully choreographed action sequence. Clever camera trickery gives the impression of a single take, as mounted native Arikara warriors attack the group of European fur trappers. And let’s not forget Ryuichi Sakamoto’s subtly savage score.

On a technical level, the film is fantastic. However, all of these achievements have been overshadowed by one single man. The movie will be forever remembered as the one that finally bagged Leonardo DiCaprio his long-awaited Oscar for Best Actor. How exactly did the film achieve this? Quite simply, through an admirably concerted Oscar bait campaign. In the build-up to its December 2015 release, DiCaprio was on top form describing the sheer extremity of his filming experience. From crossing frozen rivers to sleeping in an animal carcass and trekking up hills carrying sodden bear fur, the actor spared no details about his “journey down the heart of darkness.” Even the narrative of The Revenant works as a metaphor for its star’s statuette ambitions. It’s the story of a man who is left behind on multiple occasions, suffers numerous injustices and puts himself through a gruelling regime to claim his late victory.

Ultimately, these efforts paid off. Don’t get me wrong, DiCaprio is absolutely deserving of an Oscar, perhaps more so for his show-stopping performance in The Wolf of Wall Street (dir. Martin Scorsese, 2013). The whole affair is simply a lesson in how to tug on the Academy’s heartstrings and bait them into righting a supposed wrong.

The Salesman

Asghar Farhadi did it again. For the second time, he was awarded Best Foreign Language Picture by the Academy. The Salesman has many similarities with his previous film A Separation (2011), but he didn’t play safe. It was indeed a political award in North-American territory, as the favourite film to win the prize was Toni Erdmann (Maren Ade, 2016 – click here in order to read our review). Filmmaker Farhadi opted out of Oscar ceremony after President Donald Trump imposed a travel ban to some countries, including Iran. The Iranian artist said: “To humiliate one nation with the pretext of guarding the security of another is not a new phenomenon in history and has always laid the groundwork for the creation of future divide and enmity.”

The most curious aspect of The Salesman is that the director uses a classic play by the American playwright Arthur Miller, ‘Death of a Salesman’ (1949), to reveal the frailties of his own society. The amateur actors Emad (Shahab Hosseini, Best Actor Winner at Cannes 2016) and Rana (Taraneh Alidoosti) are preparing for the opening night of their production of the aforementioned play. Some dangerous work on a neighbouring building forces the couple to leave their home and move into a new flat. In the new house, a violent assault involving a mistaken identity befalls the couple. They then begin to experience a string of turbulent events.

The hint that something is about to collapse is clear and it is repeated extensively. The structure of the building is falling. Plus the play within the film is, in essence, the collapse of the American Dream. The camerawork is from the perspective of various characters, and it’s difficult to determine who to follow and to relate to. It also moves in and out the flat, up and down, and the stairs are where most crucial moment takes place. Stairs represent transition, change and personal growth. When we use them, we make direct contact with our feet. And in this case, it exposes that it is hard to keep your feet on the ground when there is a price to pay for not being vigilant enough.

Best Foreign Language Film The Salesman Asghar Farhadi (Iran) is accepted by a designated woman reading Farhadi's statement. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
The Salesman wins the Foreign Picture Oscar but the director nowhere to be seen in order to pick up his prize

A feeling of disorientation brews, as the characters transfer their personal experience to the theatre stage. Lines can be changed; actors can be replaced; and relatives and children are always in the backstage. The most crucial aggression is not exposed. Violence is not depicted and banalised. The details of the assault remain a mystery.

The Salesman is a devastating evidence that women in Iran cannot deal with some issues in public. Sometimes they cannot even tell their husbands, as judgement and misunderstanding will follow the confession. Likewise A Separation, honour and forgiveness are intrinsically related and connected to theological praxis. Somehow, though it should be kept hidden, tragic events are spread to friends and relatives. What other people think determines the fate of those characters. And sacrifice in the name of the family is almost always a sacred law.

Arthur Miller declared in an interview in 1998: “the Salesman’s ability to somehow transcend the moment that it was written in has contributed to its long-lasting success, but that’s really an enigma to start with. You see, that play was written in 1948, when we were starting the biggest boom in the history of the United States. However, a good part of the population, including me and President Truman, were prepared for another depression.” The award of The Salesman had the effect of an earthquake triggered by San Andreas Fault on Los Angeles. Once nature begins to unleash strange forces, it could continue to do so for a long time. The same applies to cinema.

You can watch The Salesman in the UK from March 17th, and it will be available on Curzon Home. Check out the film trailer below:

Manchester by the Sea

Kenneth Lonergan has already authored Margaret (2011) and You Can Count on Me (2000), but still remains a relatively unknown filmmaker. You might have heard about him if you follow Scorsese’s movies. Lonergan wrote the script for the ambitious Gangs of New York (2002). Manchester by The Sea is an ordinary story about a man hesitating to reconnect with his relatives. What is unusual and extraordinary is the way the story is told.

The film starts and the dialogue has already begun. There is a feeling of disconnection with the events that took place earlier that lingers throughout the film. Eventually some flashbacks shed light on why Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is such a miserable man. Now he is a handyman in Massachusetts who enjoys getting into trouble. He argues with his clients, he does not tolerate his boss and he keeps his adrenaline high by engaging in pub brawls. A phone call interrupts this chain of maladjusted facts. His older brother Joe had died of a heart attack in Manchester-By-The-Sea, Massachusetts, and a solicitor reveals he is now the guardian of his teenage nephew.

There is a strange feeling in the air. Why would Joe make such a choice? After all, Lee cannot even take care of himself. It is obvious that something wrong led to the current situation. What was it?

The film continues in a narrative that looms very slowly. Lonergan invites the audience to untangle the wires of sorrows in which Lee is trapped. Affleck gives an appropriately intense interpretation of a man driven by his grief. His performance is suffocated by silence and misunderstandings, but there is also a good dose of humour. Affleck is responsible for the fame of the buzziest films of the year’s festival. A safe bet for international awards, too.

Gradually, Lee stops resisting his nephew. Played by Lucas Hedges (The Zero Theorem by Terry Gilliam, 2014), Patrick is a popular kid on the block, both with girls and mates. His mother divorced Joe years ago and she is not interested in bringing him to her new home. Eventually Lee will have to decide if he should keep his troubled life in Boston or come back to the city he wants to forget.

Manchester by The Sea is a compelling tale of escapism. All main characters crave for mercy, and this morose pace remains bitter for some time. But Lonergan’s capacity to entertain results in a driving force of change and redemption.

The movie is out in cinemas on Friday, January 13th.

This piece was originally written when the film showed as part of the BFI London Film Festival in October 2016.

You can also watch the film trailer below:

.