Leading Actor 1975

On the surface, this looks like quite the battle between Pacino and Nicholson in two of their best roles of all time. I've seen both and think both are incredible and either one could have won the Oscar and we'd all be okay with either decision. I'm interested in seeing exactly what the other three can bring to this fight, if anything. Two previous Oscar winners in Matthau and Schell, and then a relative unknown in Whitmore. Let's find out who is left standing after all of this.

1975 Best Actor

Jack Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

One of the really interesting things about Jack Nicholson is that every time he won an acting Oscar, his costar in the same film also won for Best Actress. All three times (Louise Fletcher, Shirley MacLaine, and Helen Hunt), which is really impressive. I would say that this is Jack's best of his three wins and probably the one people remember the most. It's definitely classic Jack and has all his trademarks as an actor but they don't become the mannerisms of his later work. When he's shouting and getting angry and being very animated, you absolutely see shades of his future work in The Shining. When he's acting a fool and being a goofball and making faces, you see that classic Jack face shine through that will become a primary means of acting for him in the future. So this performance is just before his habits start to become more pronounced and noticeable. And because it's still early in his career, everything comes off as genuine. Jack plays a man who is a criminal who gets sent to an asylum to be monitored to see if he is crazy and needs to be committed. McMurphy (Nicholson) is a brash, loudmouthed asshole who likes to challenge authority. That kind of character needed to be played by someone who could effectively portray that bravado but do so in a way that doesn't make you want to punch him in the face through the screen. Nicholson keeps his character likable which is key to the performance because deep down, even though McMurphy is a criminal and doesn't really contribute anything positive to society, he's still a human being and still has a kind soul. That's evidenced by talking to Chief even though he's told he's deaf and dumb and by being nice to Billy Bibbit. He grows to care about these guys he's locked up with and brings a friendship even if it's steeped in selfishness. McMurphy never wants to be controlled and that's exactly what Nurse Ratched wants to do, so the two butt heads and share an animosity with each other. Their dynamic is pivotal in showing Nurse Ratched as the evil one with McMurphy becoming almost like a savior to the other patients. He eventually shows them all a tenderness that is necessary to combat the vindictive power of Nurse Ratched. Nicholson makes the performance look almost too easy, like he's not really putting in work, but he definitely is. He has so many good scenes that cover a range of emotions and abilities like teach Chief basketball, the fishing trip escape, the after hours party where he gets Billy laid, to trying to strangle Nurse Ratched. Just a ton of great acting from Nicholson in what is surely his best Oscar win.

Walter Matthau - The Sunshine Boys

What's this? Me liking a Neil Simon film? I kid, but this is probably my favorite Neil Simon film so far. Probably because the rapid fire dialogue is in expert hands with Matthau and Burns. The film is about a nephew of Matthau trying to get his old vaudeville duo together again for a comedy retrospective. The two haven't spoken for years and Matthau himself is a handful. I'm a huge fan of Matthau's brand of comedy. He does physical comedy so well and I love his deadpan delivery of jokes. I like to think my grandpa was a big fan of his because I remember him mentioning that he loved Grumpy Old Men and that means we have the same taste which makes me happy. As is typical of a Simon film, Matthau talks a lot and has a joke every few seconds it seems. It doesn't get old and every joke or sarcastic remark or reciting a question after someone asks him the same question right before is hilarious to me. And once George Burns enters the equation, the comedy ramps up. The two are just like Simon's earlier film, The Odd Couple. They can argue and fight, but it's all done in a riotous way. I lost it when they were setting up Matthau's apartment but weren't on the same page and Matthau is like wait, which bit are we doing and then they talk a second and confirm and then start moving furniture in the opposite way and he realizes it and yells at Burns because they are doing the same thing in reverse. When you watch it, you'll burst out laughing because the two actors can make rearranging furniture into a hilarious situation. The two are brilliant but I feel like Matthau deserves more of the brilliance in that instance. I'll also admit that most will probably find him annoying or at least obnoxious. He's a muttering old fool who yells at you for correcting him even when you're right and it helps him out. That's just the character and Matthau does a good job with that. The other thing is that Matthau is supposed to be playing a guy who is like 80 years old but is in his mid 50s. If I didn't tell you, you might have thought he was a lot older. I don't feel like the age difference matters because Matthau can be the doddering old goat and make it look convincing through his comedic actions. I like Matthau as a comedian and as an actor. I think he's strong here but this performance was never going to win in a loaded Best Actor group and that's okay. I'm just glad I got to review him for this performance.

Al Pacino - Dog Day Afternoon

Attica, Attica! If you're not shouting it with him, what are you even doing? This is possibly peak Pacino (alliteration fun). Yeah, he's terrific in The Godfather films before this, but Pacino raises his acting to a new level. And I feel like this was the birth of some of his future mannerisms and is the building block for the rest of his career. We get the manic, wired Pacino and it becomes a lot of fun to watch. The film sort of makes fun of Sonny (Pacino) as we first see him going into the bank and his whole plan quickly unravels from there. It shows the ineptitude of the plan and just how nervous and energized Sonny is. When he flubs pulling his gun from the box, you can an idea of what Sonny is like. From there it's almost a comedy of errors as we see this frenetic Sonny trying to put out fires both literal and figurative. That's where Pacino shines when he's racing around trying to look tough when he clearly isn't and has to respond to all these little issues cropping up. Pacino is so good at showing us what's going on inside Sonny. We know that he realizes he's in over his head because it's written all over his face and in his eyes. As the film progresses we see how mentally and physically draining all of this is for Sonny and Pacino, ever the Method actor, portrays this dutifully. Some of his best scenes are when he is outside in front of the bank talking to the police and showboating at times for the crowd who loves him. He can go from being incredulous, to pissed off at the police, to asking a question like there isn't a bank robbery situation going on, to just simply being this frenzied presence in the film - all while mostly improvising a lot of script. That's the impressive part of Pacino's performance, is that a lot of his best moments are things that are improvised just like the Attica cry. Another great improvised moment is the phone call he has with his gay lover, Leon. That is a pivotal scene to the film because it speaks to their relationship and you get a sense of why Sonny is robbing the bank even though we also realize how conflicted he is as a person and how shitty he is, too. You see a beaten down man in those moments who is stuck in a tough spot and just wants to talk it out with someone he loves. We feel his exhaustion by the end of the film and definitely his desperation that drove him there in the first place. It's a really great performance that sums up Pacino's style from there on in with his mannerisms and his all out manic effort.

Maximilian Schell - The Man in the Glass Booth

One thing you notice about Schell is that he was typecast by Hollywood into doing a lot of Nazi films. In fact, all of his Oscar nominations come in films that have Nazism or him being a Nazi as a plot point. I'm sure him being an Austrian actor who moved to Switzerland with his family to actually avoid the Nazis has a hand in that. Especially him being an accomplished actor who can be more than just a bad Nazi man, but actually act and give a performance helps, too. Another really interesting fact before we get to the performance is that this was a film from the American Film Theatre series, which adapted stage plays for the big screen that would otherwise not get made. They were not released to the general public, only to those who got a subscription to the series and to critics and awards bodies. So this was never seen by the general public upon release and only hit DVD in 2003 after some legal wrangling. That means there were two little seen Best Actor nominees this year in Schell and Whitmore. Truly fascinating that that was ever a thing. As for the performance, Schell immediately reminded me of Tommy Wisseau from the infamous The Room movie. I know it's a weird comparison to make, but the energy and delivery of the material really reminded me of Wisseau. Schell is successful businessman and is a Nazi surviving Jew who doesn't really leave his fancy NYC apartment. His character has this weird energy that is fueled by a bunch of non-sequitur ramblings. He is eccentric, for sure, and also paranoid that someone is watching him. Schell is entertaining in this aspect because the character is so strange and Schell gets to have fun with a bizarre performance. I can also see Christoph Waltz easily doing this performance, because they have that same vibe. About an hour in, Schell is found out to be an actual Nazi who ran a concentration camp and is whisked off to Israel to stand trial. Schell continues with the same energy, yet this time it's turned into a malevolent kind instead of the kooky, weird, innocent Jew kind. Schell stays animated throughout the film and it's almost exhausting to watch him work because he goes non-stop. The performance is entertaining in that regard and really interesting just as a peering into this man's brain and soul. There is a twist at the end that isn't fully explained that I really wish was, but it makes the story even more interesting and makes Schell's performance a bit more intriguing. I would recommend the film and performance for just how crazy and entertaining Schell can be in what is probably a very little seen film.

James Whitmore - Give 'em Hell, Harry!

I was always very curious about this performance when looking at the nominees through the years. I had never heard of the film or the actor and was hoping that I was missing out on some great Harry Truman biopic. When I finally got to this year and did my research, I realized this wasn't a conventional film at all. This was a stage play of just James Whitmore as Harry Truman that was filmed at one of his Broadway shows and then packaged into a film version for all to see that somehow garnered an Oscar nomination. I actually wish more Broadway plays and musicals were filmed and released in theaters for those of us who can't go to NYC every year to see them. But I also understand that they want people to show up for their product and to hope they can sell the film rights to their play/musical down the line, I get it. However, as interesting and unique as this nomination is, it just isn't Oscar worthy. Whitmore is playing a role that he did night in and night out for a long time that got filmed and put in theaters. It'd be like giving an Oscar nomination to whoever won this year's Tony Award if they filmed it and put it in theaters. It shouldn't be nominated. As impressive as it is for Whitmore to do an hour and a half play about Truman all on his own, I can't vote for this. But, this play is available to watch on YouTube and I'd say it's worth checking out for just how monumentally impressive it is. The guy looks and sounds like Harry Truman and talks non-stop and I'll never know how anyone can memorize an hour and a half of lines and not mess up all the time. So no vote on this one but, hey, at least the Academy was thinking outside the box for once. And a last fun fact is that this was Whitmore's second Oscar nomination, which was surprising to me. He has a Supporting Actor nomination for an actual film role coming up in 1950 that I'm really interested in checking out.



Another pretty strong Best Actor group. You have what many consider to be one of the best acting performances ever in Nicholson competing with what many believe is Pacino's best performance (yes, over Michael Corleone) and that's a great group already right there. Thrown a reliably funny Matthau and a surprisingly crazy and entertaining Schell and it only goes from there. Whitmore is the outlier but is still really fascinating even if he doesn't belong in the group. Weird that there were two little seen nominees in Schell and Whitmore that made it onto this list. Whitmore is last with Nicholson winning for me. Pacino is second. The only real competition is between Matthau and Schell for third. I think Schell had a lot more to do and lot more risk involved even if he wasn't seen by as many people. It's an interesting role and film that more people should check out, I think. Matthau is in fourth but certainly isn't that bad, just ran up against a bunch of great performances. I'll keep taking years like this and I'm happy knowing that this group almost never lets me down.

Oscar Winner: Jack Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
My Winner:  Jack Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Al Pacino
Maximilian Schell
Walter Matthau
James Whitmore

Leading Actress 1975

I've seen the winner a couple times and then not heard of any of the other films before this project. The rock opera should be fun, not sure about the others but we will see. I do like that this category offers up some unknown, different films than the others. I just hope they are worth being in the category.

1975 Best Actress

Louise Fletcher - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

You know, I feel like most people who have seen the film realize why she won Best Actress and agree with the Academy. Yet it seems like no one ever talks about her when it comes to strong winners, or even just winners period. It's like it's understood by everyone so everyone just moves on from thinking about it. When you mention Nurse Ratched at all, everyone know who you are talking about. The name alone conjures up visions of the icy cold bitch glaring at patients. That name has become a pejorative and that's because of Fletcher's performance. I always forget just how restrained Fletcher is in the role, which seems to make her even more intimidating. She's not yelling and screaming or getting violent or playing a drill sergeant or anything. She's calm and derives her power from controlling the patients in that manner. It's just the way she looks at everyone that really seals her win for me. It's like a smug, I'm the boss don't mess with me kinda look. These steely, ice cold looks that tell you exactly who Nurse Ratched is as a person. There's also a scene where the doctors say Nicholson is dangerous but not crazy and recommend sending him back to the work camp but Nurse Ratched speaks up and says he'd be better served staying there where she could help him. Well, it's clear she says that with evil intent just to fuck with Nicholson and to exert her control over him. The scene is so good because Fletcher plays it straight and you only see a hint of the reasoning behind her eyes. Just how calm she is when dealing with the patients and the therapy sessions is a beautiful thing to watch. She can convey so much with just a look, whether it's annoyance or anger or saying she's got power over you without actually saying anything. I think that's my big takeaway from Fletcher's performance is how great she is with the subtleties of her expressions and how she can quietly act yet have it mean so much. Which does make those moments where she really exerts her power all the more terrifying, like when she eviscerates Billy Bibbit after his night of becoming a man by threatening to tell his mother and telling him he should be ashamed. It makes him go from confident to wailing mess with a tragic ending, all because Fletcher went right for his weakness in a calm manner. By now you understand that Fletcher was amazing and perfect for the role. I can't see anyone else delivering something so quiet, yet powerfully effecting.

Isabelle Adjani - The Story of Adele H.

I enjoyed the first Adjani performance I saw back in 1989 for Camille Claudel, another film about a French woman. This time Adjani is playing Adele H., the H standing for Hugo - as in Victor Hugo, who wrote Les Miserables. This story is about Adele as she travels to Halifax under another name to follow a British officer that she is in love with. As the story goes on, she goes further and further down the rabbit hole of obsessions, deluding herself that the officer loves her and that all their problems will go away once they are married. She even writes to her father that they are married and then doubles down when confronted that they aren't. Adele is driven to despair and is going crazy walking around in rags. She follows the officer to Barbados and is confronted again and eventually sent back to Paris where her father puts her in a mental asylum. Adjani was the youngest Best Actress nominee ever at the time at the age of 20. Adjani is also insanely beautiful, even more so than when I first reviewed her. Once you get past the beauty, though, you realize this tale of obsession can be a tricky part to play. She has to be convincing in her spiraling breakdown and she is, though she does give it that French flair with loud gesticulating and fast talking/yelling and over dramatic air to every word. I'm not a huge fan of that kind of acting but I do think it works well within this story because this woman is obsessed with the British officer to the point of being psychotic. Adjani also has to flip back and forth between English and French in the film and I'm sure that was a bit hard to do. Adjani fits the part well and does a very good job and I think the Academy wanted to reward an up and coming beautiful French actress in a Francois Truffaut film which probably got a lot of eyes on for the director alone. It's a young performance where you clearly see her ability but isn't quite the best of the year. Still, I enjoyed watching this because of Adjani and it's the only reason to seek it out (unless you are a super Truffaut fan).

Ann-Margret - Tommy

This was a film that when I was doing my excel spreadsheet many years ago made me stop in my tracks. I had no idea they made a movie out of The Who's Tommy album and was intrigued about how crazy that might have been. And oh, is it ever as absurd as you could possibly think it is. It's all about Tommy, whose father is murdered and a new man becomes his step father. Ann-Margret is the mother and did I mention that Tommy becomes deaf, dumb, and blind because he sees his father murdered? He goes through life for a bit before becoming a pinball wizard and then becoming a Christ-like figure. It's insanity on film and I feel like I should have been high to fully appreciate it. But it's also pretty compelling. This is The Who's rock opera and it's very experimental and avant garde. It's also a through and through musical (or rock opera). So everything is sung and I assume it all comes from The Who's album, though I did read there was some new songs written for the film. Ann-Margret is fine. I'm not exactly sure why she was ever nominated for this because it doesn't quite lend itself to an actual performance. She sings as Tommy's mother and does have a breakdown moment where she rolls around in some suds, baked beans, and chocolate. Which is actually very sexual if you didn't think it could be. Ann-Margret is fine, like I said, but I don't get how the Academy can reward this but not her turn in Bye Bye Birdie? It's definitely a brave choice for Ann-Margret, as this is easily a risky, controversial picture for some. I enjoyed it, though! It's got Tina Turner and Elton John and Eric Clapton and Jack Nicholson in fun parts and it's just a huge celebration of music. Also, Oliver Reed looks a lot like Javier Bardem at times, that it's scary. I guess that the Academy just loved their sex symbol they created so much they had to reward her with her second Oscar nomination. It's a fun role and an interesting nomination but it was never going to win a thing.

Glenda Jackson - Hedda

I have been very excited to finally watch a Glenda Jackson performance because she has won two Best Actress Oscars previously and I have no idea who she is. I have heard her name often, but if you had me try and pick her out of a lineup, I would have failed. So there was a bit of mystery surrounding her and the fact that she has two wins on four total nominations, all within a couple years of each other. And then I found out she became a member of Parliament in Britain for almost 20 years after her acting career was over. Intrigued was definitely the word for how I felt going in to this one. Here, Jackson plays the titular Hedda Gabler, based off a Henrik Ibsen play. It's probably easiest just to look up the synopsis of the play but it's mainly about Hedda, who has just married and is a malicious figure throughout her short story of meeting a few friends/people in her new place. It's kinda hard to sum up without going on for 500 words. But I will say that Jackson seems perfectly suited for the role. Jackson has a deep voice and it's obvious that she takes her craft incredibly serious, which works out well in this very theatrical film. It is based off a play after all, so those qualities work in her favor. As I said, she's a malicious, devious woman who enjoys manipulating those around her like it's a sport. In part because she is unfulfilled emotionally and intellectually, and possibly because she is an amoral monster who doesn't care about how she affects other people. She is certainly an unsentimental person, though feelings do slip through the cracks every so often, mostly at the end of the performance. But Jackson is well tuned to how her character goes through life and actually gets you on her side though she seems like an irredeemable mess. I think it's because she's a delight to watch verbally shred her friends in the classical, conservative way of saying things without actually saying them. I like her arc, too, because she seems happy to mess with everyone else's lives in the beginning as if it's the only pleasure she gets in her married life. She likes the control she has until it ultimately ends up coming back around on her when she goes too far. She then can't handle not having the control and seeing those around her bounce back from her manipulation. Jackson handles this change effortlessly and she is definitely fun to watch as she is sort of proper and committed to the performance. It's stronger than the film could handle and I can see why she was so loved in a short time. I am looking forward to her other winning work because I hope it's as strong as this little performance is.

Carol Kane - Hester Street

This is a really interesting film because of a few reasons. It's a black and white film, it's only 89 minutes long, and is primarily for a Jewish audience. That last point is key because it's very true. If you are Jewish, this will have much more meaning to you than the average viewer. Even 20 minutes into the film I wasn't sure who Carol Kane was supposed to be but then her character arrived from wherever to America. Her husband had arrived to America prior and assimilated into the culture, even shaving his beard and getting new clothes. She comes to the country with their son and continues to be the dutiful wife. You may know Kane as a comedian, which is what I knew her from The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Kane was even in Dog Day Afternoon this same year in a small role, so she was getting around in these dramatic films. I was ready to say this was a shitty performance and blah blah blah but Kane is actually very good. She looks like she's in a film from like the 1930s and her face with her wig is the epitome of Jewish, but also super serious female performance. Kane just wants to love her husband who is too into being an American and is off banging other women while she is raising their kid in this strange new land. She strikes up a friendship with their roommate of sorts who is a very studious, determined Jewish man with his beard intact. Kane is so good because she does get rid of her wig at one point and her husband hates it and goes crazy and she gets even more confused as to what he wants from her. But Kane plays the scene perfectly. From there she realizes something is wrong and tries to salvage the marriage. It doesn't work out and he goes with his mistress yet you are soundly on the side of Kane. She reports to the Jewish divorce proceeding with her natural blonde hair and I think her husband realizes just how much he fucked up. The divorce happens and then we see Kane with the roommate who is a studious Jew and they seem to really take to each other and it's a nice ending. But really the props should go to Kane for portraying a 30s character, a Jewish character, a belittled wife and still making her standout as something worth paying attention to. This little nothing of a forgettable film turned into a Best Actress nomination that actually is something worth watching because of Kane's performance. A rarity these days.



Hey, look at that! A Best Actress category where I liked every performance. It doesn't seem to happen often but here it is. Doesn't mean it's a very strong group, though, as four of the films are short things we wouldn't otherwise pay attention to if not for these ladies. Well, you'd pay attention to Tommy because it's a rock opera from The Who and it's just a crazy fun experience but whatever. I'm not exactly sure why she was nominated as she doesn't really stand out but she's enjoyable in this far out film. Adjani is good in her little story about obsession and as the youngest nominee in this category ever up to that point, is someone you recognize has the chops to be a great actress. Then it's a little tough but I think Jackson is right in the middle. You definitely realize why she was so loved in a short amount of time if the rest of her stuff is anything like this. She has a magnetism that draws you in and is quite obviously dedicated to her acting and it's nice to see someone take it so seriously in this category. Kane really surprised me for such a small film that I'm sure not many people have ever really seen, especially if you aren't Jewish. Though let me state that you don't have to be Jewish to like it, it just speaks more to someone with that connection, I think. But I like how Kane feels more like an old time movie star in a serious role. I like when performances catch me off guard because I wasn't expecting something so deep, I guess. I would have liked more of Kane, though, to be honest. The film is really short. Fletcher is just a classic winner. She embodies Nurse Ratched and her characterization of the evil woman has become lodged in our pop culture collective. It's like the opposite of Jackson's performance, in a good way for both, but just a quiet, steady, composed sort of evil. Really great stuff from Fletcher. So a good category overall and that's all I can ever hope for.

Oscar Winner: Louise Fletcher - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
My Winner:  Louise Fletcher - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Carol Kane
Glenda Jackson
Isabelle Adjani
Ann-Margret

Supporting Actor 1975

I've actually seen a couple of these and the ones I haven't (Burns, Meredith, Warden) are all ones from veteran actors the latter two who have been nominated after this. That's a confusing sentence but you understand I mean they were nominated after this year which is the past for me and the future for them. Anyway, enough confusing talk, let's see what they have to offer.

1975 Best Supporting Actor

George Burns - The Sunshine Boys

My big worry was twofold for this performance: would Burns be funny and would he be able to act? The answer is a resounding yes. This film is absolutely flipping hilarious. Burns is more understated in his humor but still laugh out loud funny. Walter Matthau is more the physical comedy and a joke every few seconds type. The two work very well together and what I like is that Burns isn't just funny. It can be an easy thing to just tell some jokes, but to also bring some warmth and humanity to a character takes some real acting chops. The thing you'll read most about this performance is that this was Burns' comeback. He hadn't been in a film since the 30s and there were a bunch of other choices to play his character before he was chosen. Yet despite all that he comes in at 79 years old and still is sharp as a tack and funny as hell. This would launch his career again which is beyond impressive because he was over 80 by that time and enjoyed great success for a few years. Burns was one half a vaudeville duo, with Matthau being the other half. Burns is the more realistic of the two and while the two have had their issues, most of it seems to be from Matthau's end. Burns is fine with reconciling and is the more professional of the two. The two are a hoot when they finally get together again and get at each others' nerves. Burns is more than just making jokes because he comes to check on his friend after he has a heart attack and agrees to do the comedy special from the start after not seeing each other for years. But it's the way that Burns portrays that emotion and that realization of maybe losing a friend and also that hope to rekindle a long lost relationship and partnership. I think that Burns does a good job in not just being a one note actor telling jokes, but actually doing some real acting. Obviously, Burns' return after like 30 some years probably helped him win the Oscar, but it looks like he legitimately earned it. I'll have to see how the other nominees play out but Burns is your leader in the clubhouse after two nominations reviewed.

Brad Dourif - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

There is a lot to like about Dourif in this film as he gets the sole nomination for a cast of supporting actors that is downright fantastic. Dourif plays a shy, stuttering young man who seems to be the most likable and relatable character of the whole group. He seems like the one that could be redeemed and leave at anytime if he just got some confidence. And he does get that confidence when Nicholson has two girls sneak into the ward and everyone parties and gets drunk and he kinda forces Dourif to sleep with one of the girls. This turns him into more of a man and he feels really good about himself and even stands up to Nurse Ratched at first before she absolutely tears him down again and goes straight for his weakness using his mother against him. His final scene is heartbreaking because you know he's a good kid and doesn't deserve anything that's going on with him and he just needs a chance to live. Billy obviously idolized McMurphy and needed a presence like him to push himself in the right direction. Of course, he also needed to not be in the insane asylum because he clearly wasn't insane even if he did have some emotional problems. But Dourif played Billy in such a sensitive yet earnest way that you definitely like the character and are crushed at his ending. He does get the stuttering part down perfectly, I thought, and his meek demeanor seems so realistic. He reminds a ton of Scoot McNairy and maybe that's why I like him even more as a character and in the performance. I can easily see why the voters latched onto him but I have to say that I felt like Chief (William Sampson) was a better option. But I'm certainly not disappointed that Dourif got the nomination because his performance is strong and his characterization is almost perfect for the role.

Burgess Meredith - The Day of the Locust

Really strange ending to a film I thought was going to be fun to watch. It's a film that is about Hollywood in the 1930s and we follow a couple people who are looking to make it big and their lives intertwine. The film is based off a Nathanael West book from 1939 that seems like it's probably more interesting to read than this film is to watch. I was really letdown that this came off as weird as it did and not in a good way. Meredith is the father of a young woman in this apartment complex and he used to be a vaudevillian and now tries to sell some solvent door to door. We see him as this highly enrgized goof who uses his old acting style to try and sell his product yet continuously fails. Eventually he suffers some ailment at a clinet's house and then from there he's laid up in bed and ill most of the time. He even goes to a spiritual revival event to be healed but it only helps him feel better. I don't know what Meredith's arc was honestly. I guess he's just there as a nother weird, crazy character among many. Meredith is lively as the salesman which was way different than seeing him as Rocky's gruff trainer. He was nimble and making terrible comments left and right and the opposite of his other nominated role. So in that way, the performance is interesting because you see a different side of Meredith you probably didn't know existed. But it's still not all that good. He does his thing for a short while in the film and then dies and that's it. I was really hoping it would be a lot better and that Meredith would show himself as some thespian but he just becomes a kind of unlikable character in the film. He has one little down to earth type of scene where he talks about his past but it feels shoehorned in and doesn't exactly change how you view Meredith. I dunno, just a totally weird film that isn't helped by Meredith and vice versa.

Chris Sarandon - Dog Day Afternoon

No, he's not related to Susan, I checked. This was Sarandon's film debut and what a film to debut in, huh? The film is a modern classic, though when do we drop the modern and just call it a classic? Anyway, Sarandon has probably the most important and pivotal role in the film and only has two extended scenes in which to portray that importance. Sarandon plays the gay lover of Pacino, who is robbing the bank to get money for Sarandon to have a sex change operation. The two have a very tumultuous relationship that you can gather from their two scenes "together." The first is when they bring Sarandon to the bank and he collapses and they take him across the street. There, the film almost pauses as we focus on him in a chair telling the police about the relationship he has with Pacino. It's intensely compelling which is why I say the film sort of pauses in that moment. You have the frenetic, wired energy of Pacino driving all the other scenes and Sarandon comes in and slows it down with a really great scene. He portrays his character as a human and it's not too flamboyantly gay or anything to laugh at. In fact, when a policeman in the background does laugh at him, the Detective glares at him as if he's speaking for the audience in shutting that cop up. That scene is really strong but the better scene is his second one where he and Pacino talk on the phone. A lot of the film was improvised and the director, Sidney Lumet, wanted to capture that rawness and spontaneity and the phone scene achieves that. It's a really intimate moment between two lovers that speaks to their chaotic love and also what each are like as people on the inside. Sarandon doesn't fit in and has been hospitalized for trying to kill himself due to Pacino's abuse and Pacino is seen as this torn man whose love gets the best of him at times. Sarandon goes toe to toe with Pacino in this moment and holds his own and is just a really strong part of the film. If he falters at all, then the impact of Pacino doing this all for Sarandon would completely kill the film. But in his two scenes, you can see the impact Sarandon has on not only the film, but on Pacino as a character. I'm a little surprised the Academy went for this but it is the more showy of the other supporting roles without ever being over the top or silly. Strong work by Sarandon.

Jack Warden - Shampoo

Before I get into Warden's performance, I want to take a minute to talk about Hal Ashby. It seems for the last couple years, every time I look at who the director is for a film, it's Hal Ashby! Being There, Coming Home, Bound for Glory, Shampoo, The Last Detail, and a couple other films nominated and some that he edited. That's right, he started out as an Oscar winning editor before getting into directing! I'm just super impressed that he had such a solid Oscar run like that. Anyway, I like Jack Warden. I never knew he was nominated by the Academy so much before this project but it makes sense to me. I guess he wasn't exactly nominated so much. I was thinking three nominations but turns out it was only the two nominations, both of which come in Warren Beatty films. I'd say that this nomination is better than his second one for Heaven Can Wait, though both are pretty similar. In this, he plays a business man, maybe political guy (honestly don't know what he did but he had money) who is married to Lee Grant's character but is having an affair with Julie Christie's character and Beatty is banging all of them. Well, he's not banging Warden but you get my drift. Warden is just this red faced, gentle, lovable goof. He's almost like a fatherly figure even though he's cheating on his wife and when he finds out Beatty is doing both his women, wants to have him beat up. He just kinda goes along with the plot and you like him as an actor, same as in his other nomination. Though in this one, he does have some funny moments when the gang all go to some hippy party and he really starts to enjoy himself with the guests. Like I said, he's a big, lovable goof and you can't really hate him. Which is interesting because he was very serious in All the President's Men, which just goes to show his range. Not a winning performance but one that you'll surely like.



As per the usual, not a bad group at all. Even though I wasn't really a fan of Meredith in this (I'm thinking I might not be a fan of his in general, any films that you'd suggest I see?) he's not terrible or anything. There are some bloggers who voted him as their top pick for this year. I don't know what they saw exactly, but the performance has its fans. Warden is his typical self. Interesting that both of his nominations come from comedic Warren Beatty films. He's fine, not as good as his role in All the President's Men but still decent. Next would be Dourif, who is very good! Just not the best supporting player from his film. I did really enjoy the performance, though. Now this is where it gets tough. I think Burns is enjoyable even if it was more serious than I thought it was going to be. That shows his range even at that age. But man, did I really enjoy Sarandon. I never paid full attention to him in past viewings, I guess, but he is part of two pivotal scenes in the film and just amazing to watch in action. So he's my winner over Burns. Not a bad year, could have been better.

Oscar Winner: George Burns - The Sunshine Boys
My Winner:  Chris Sarandon - Dog Day Afternoon
George Burns
Brad Dourif
Jack Warden
Burgess Meredith

Supporting Actress 1975

You know, double nominees are always kinda nice but also kinda rough. Nice because one film knocks out two reviews for one category, but rough because I can struggle to find a lot to write about for both reviews sometimes. Usually one dominates the other, just something I've noticed. Not sure if that will be the case in this category, but I guess I'll find out. Have seen none of these, as is becoming the new normal and that's okay with me.

1975 Best Supporting Actress

Lee Grant - Shampoo

I was all ready to go into this little spiel about how Grant, after getting a nomination for her very first film role back in 1951, was blacklisted after refusing to testify against her husband at the time at the HUAC proceedings. She was blacklisted for about 10 years or so and after that only slowly got back into acting in films. She got another nomination in 1970 for another Hal Ashby film, The Landlord, before winning for this Ashby film. I was thinking that this win was one of those Academy moments where they reward someone for some outside force, in this case being blacklisted. That possibly factored into her win here but I honestly don't know how much. Grant plays the wife of the other Shampoo nominee, Jack Warden. She's also sleeping with Warren Beatty on the side and with him, seems to have a voracious sexual appetite and is really flirty. With her husband, she's a shrill, feckless woman whose daughter hates her. Again I run into this thing I notice with Grant seemingly trying out ways to make her character work. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it and the fault lies with me, but it just seems like she's working within the character in the scenes instead of already establishing who the character is to her. I know that sounds like hogwash but it makes sense to me. I didn't much care for it in 1976, but I think it kinda works a little in this film. The character is different with each man and also with the other women that both men are sleeping with so it's like Grant is playing around with her inner voice. What I think helped win the Oscar is later on in the film when everyone is together at an election party, she sort of antagonizes Warden and just gives these death glares with intermittent eye rolls and other great faces. They are hilarious but also telling of how she feels about everything going on in her life. But is this really a winning performance? It's kinda fun and Grant does a good job but I don't know. In a strong year, I'd say no, but I don't know what type of year this is just yet.

Ronee Blakley - Nashville

Blakley was actually cast after another actress bowed out and director Robert Altman turned to her as she was helping to write songs for the film and was a backup singer in Nashville. You could say this is a role of a lifetime for her and she rode it all the way to an Oscar nomination. Her character in this film is really as the main female country star. She's this fragile little bird who is coming back to Nashville after being burned and exerts herself and suffers mental breakdowns while her husband/manager and all her handlers fuss over her and others try to get her to sing at various places for their own goals. She's pushed and pulled in various directions and seems like the more true to life character of most of the cast. It's a meaty role that I think lots of women would have wanted to play and a relative unknown gets the part and does a great job with it, which is impressive to me. Her singing is whatever, as is most of the singing in the film because the songs just aren't memorable at all and seem more like country music parodies than anything else. But her actual acting is one that's pretty good. She has to portray these breakdowns in a convincing manner and never goes over the top which you'd think a less experienced actress would. I really enjoyed the scene where she's at some rally or something and sings a song and then goes into these little anecdotes that end up having no point and she's supposed to start singing another song but stops and keeps telling these inane anecdotes that get more frenetic and it's really great acting because you slowly see her breakdown happening in real time. Her performance also feels more like it should be in the Best Actress category as she is the main actress of the film, but I guess it's here just because of the amount of total screen time and the fact that this is a big ensemble piece. But that's the power of Blakley's performance that you watch it and think it deserves to be bumped up because of her impact on the film and how she delivers a very compelling piece of acting. The film as a whole was great for female acting and more of those women should probably be in this category.

Sylvia Miles - Farewell, My Lovely

Before I get into Miles' performance, let me take a minute to talk about this film. It's awesome. I highly recommend watching it. It's a throwback, old school noir film that stars Robert Mitchum as Private Eye Philip Marlowe. If you know your noir films, you know Marlowe has been played by the likes of Dick Powell, Humphrey Bogart, and James Garner. Mitchum fits Marlowe to a T and is really great in the role. I like that the film was very serious in it's version of the Raymond Chandler novel and didn't just yuck it up. Miles plays a boozy old dancer that Mitchum comes to a couple times for information. She's the kinda lady who doesn't talk until you give her a bottle of bourbon. Miles plays the character as she should but lends the character more humanity than others might. She lives alone in a run down house, always in a robe or nighty with her bosom showing as if to remember the good old days. I like that Miles infused her character with a sense of quiet desperation, lighting up when Mitchum comes the second time and trying to look sexy for him. I think that Miles does more with a stock role and the film is better off for it. She's just a boozy, flirty information dump but Miles makes her into an honest to God person in two short scenes. She's a drunk, but Miles doesn't play up the obvious and instead let's the little things like missing a glass when pouring a drink show the kind of alcoholic she is. Miles is enjoyable in her brief performance and I wanted to see a bit more of her in the story. I'm just glad she went more with nuance and subtlety than outright fall down, slapstick drunk. A nice little gem in the Supporting category.

Lily Tomlin - Nashville

The story of how Tomlin got this part is probably more interesting than the actual performance. It was written for Louise Fletcher, who won Best Actress this year, and she helped develop the character because the part has two sons who are both deaf. Fletcher's parents in real life were both deaf and she famously signed to them in her acceptance speech, so it was something that would have great meaning to her. But then director Robert Altman suddenly felt that Tomlin would be better in the role and jettisoned Fletcher who ended up taking a role that was offered to Tomlin first, Nurse Ratched. Both came out of it well with Oscar nominations and a win. So as described above, Tomlin plays a mother who is also a gospel singer, though we barely see her sing in the beginning of the film and that's it. She has one scene with her boys whoa re talking to her about their day and it's a nice scene for the kids but Tomlin doesn't even sign or anything. There is also a plot thread where she is cheating on her husband by hooking up with a famous singer played by Keith Carradine, who is bedding many different women in the film. I guess her scenes of showing up to a bar he's singing at and then subsequently is in bed with him and bantering is supposed to play a little more emotional but it falls mostly flat for me. It's telling when Tomlin gets up to leave and goes to the bathroom that Carradine gets on the phone with another lover in New York and talks to her while Tomlin is saying goodbye. Not entirely sure what we are supposed to grab from that moment other than she genuinely likes/loves him and he is just a womanizing guy who says what he needs to to get them in bed. Others say that she is perfect for this role because she doesn't do much in the character which they feel is necessary, even if Tomlin isn't much of a dramatic actress (at least at this point in her career). That she is a blank slate lends more gravitas to her emotional and sad scenes that highlight her truly private nature letting herself open up to an affair even though it won't end well. I get what they are saying but I think they are letting their own love of Lily Tomlin the actress seep into their reviews. I know she's an expert comedienne but just because she isn't acting wildly and making faces, shouldn't make her performance more important than it really is. I think she's fine in the role but heavily underutilized and not completely convincing. I feel like I should care more about her character and her performance but I'm not giving a clear reason to do so.

Brenda Vaccaro - Jacqueline Susann's Once Is Not Enough

Ever since I saw the name of this film when filling out my excel spreadsheet of all the nominees years and years ago, I wanted to see this film. That was doubly so when it was said to be a campy, dramatic romance film. Not enough of those getting nominated! All joking aside, whew, is this a bad film. The acting is all over the place, the story doesn't quite make sense, and it's as goofy and bad as you think it will be based off the title. The film is about a father-daughter duo, she's just healing from a motorcycle accident and he is an Oscar winning writer (or producer, I dunno). They have a weird incestuous relationship and he (who is Kirk Douglas, by the way) marries some super rich woman for a reason I don't understand. But they don't love each other and she is secretly a lesbian and they try to set up the daughter with a playboy douchebag cousin of the rich lady. But then the daughter falls in love with a drunk Pulitzer winning writer who hates her dad because she has daddy issues and, yeah, you get that this is a bad romance novel come to life. Vaccaro is equally bad. She plays a friend of the daughter's who happens to be editor at some women's magazine and speaks in a husky voice about vulgar things. She has a lot of energy in her performance, I'll giver her that, but it's like she's acting in a different film from everyone else. It's also like she doesn't care about an actual performance since it feels like she's just kinda winging it as she goes along, trying different line readings. If you ever watch this, and please don't, you will be scratching your head at how she got nominated besides being the extra loud and crazy thing in a crazy bad movie. So she talks frankly about sex and all that, big deal. An Oscar nominee should be more than just loud and obnoxious and frank. Steer clear of this one.



Kind of a weird group. Having seen Nashville now, I'd say you could fill this whole category with women from that film. You definitely could have three or four women, though, absolutely. And it would only make the category better! Vaccaro is a bad performance in a bad film. She's just kinda all over the place. Miles is good in a film I really enjoyed. Love me some noir. But Miles isn't amazing or anything so she's good in fourth and with having a nomination. Some bloggers feel that Tomlin gives one of the best performances ever, certainly of her career, and just gush over it. I didn't see whatever they saw. It never grabbed me and it felt almost incomplete. I think Louise Fletcher would have knocked it out of the park. Grant would be next. Fun role in a fun film. It still feels like she plays around with the character during the performance but that just might be how she works. Blakley gets my win because she is actually quite good and sort of paces the film. She should possibly be in Lead but she isn't and she's who I think is best in this category. There were a couple other ladies from Nashville who I liked and thought would be good in this category, too, as that film is stacked with possible nominees. What we ultimately got isn't as good as it should have been. But at least I got to see some different films, so that's always nice.

Oscar Winner: Lee Grant - Shampoo
My Winner:  Ronee Blakley - Nashville
Lee Grant
Lily Tomlin
Sylvia Miles
Brenda Vaccaro

Best Picture 2017

This was the only real race of the big awards. It distilled itself down to being between Three Billboards and The Shape of Water. My guess is/was Three Billboards just because it seemed like the kind of film that the Academy would reward. I'm editing this after the ceremony (though I didn't publish yet, but whatever) to say that yeah, The Shape of Water won and it was just a very minor surprise to me but it makes sense. The Academy absolutely adored Guillermo del Toro for whatever reason. I know lots of actors and crew people want to work with him because of his passion and because he's a nice dude, so that's probably the most likely reason why.

2017 Best Picture

The Shape of Water

Yep, this is the film where the mute lady fucks a fish man, so spoiler alert. And yeah, this one is just as weird as it sounds. Which I feel really shows just how much love Guillermo del Toro has within the Academy and the Hollywood community. Reading up on the film and all the actors were praising the chance to get to work with him with Octavia Spencer saying she would play a table if he asked her to. So without del Toro being attached to this film, it's not getting anywhere near the unbelievable 13 Oscar nominations it received. The story hearkens back to the monster films of the 50s and 60s which is where del Toro got the idea because he had always wanted to see the monster and the female love interest actually fall in love. It's a pretty neat idea and it feels like one that only del Toro could pull off and make into a film that everyone loves instead of some niche genre movie that gets a midnight run or something. The film is buoyed by it's incredible acting. It did get three acting nominations but Michael Stuhlbarg (in three Best Picture films this year! First since John C. Reilly in 2002) and Michael Shannon were equally as awesome. The set design and colors are all a pleasure to look at and a hallmark of del Toro films. The score will probably end up winning an Oscar, and it's good, just not my favorite of the year. There's a lot of individual things to really like about this film and they all come together to create something pretty unique. It does get weird, so your ability to tolerate the weirdness is what will decide if this is in the running for the win like it is right now before the ceremony. The story has been described as magical and fairy tale like and it certainly dips into the melodramatic with it's nostalgic feel. There's even an old timey dance number that could, maybe should, feel out of place but seems to work in the context of the film. I think it's better going in knowing this is a fantasy film that deals with a sense of belonging and being wanted that makes for a better watch than thinking it's pure Oscar bait or something. It's definitely strange but once you get past that woman-fish man love story, it can be a rewarding film to enjoy. Absolutely an interesting choice for the Academy to love so much.

Call Me By Your Name

I will admit I'm writing this a couple days after watching it because I just got burnt out writing so many reviews in such a short amount of time trying to get everything in before the Oscar ceremony. So I'll just get right into it then. This film popped up very early on in the awards season, actually before the awards season, really. It was doing the festival circuit and there were a lot of people calling this a Best Picture contender and singling out Timothee Chalamet and Armie Hammer for awards love. The film (and Chalamet) had a lot of zealous fans on the internet and it just picked up steam from there once the critics at large got to see it as well. Usually a film that gets a lot of hype early on fades by the time the big films start dropping so it was actually nice to see this have the staying power that it did. And that's probably because it's a very well made film with some very great acting and written by the incomparable (and now Oscar winner for this film) James Ivory of the Merchant-Ivory team. There was always a bit of controversy surrounding this film because of its subject matter but when you actually watch it, it feels more like the projections of people who haven't seen it or just want to ding it from the get go. The story is about a 17-year old kid (Chalamet) who is intrigued by his father's new research assistant (Hammer) who is 24-year old grad student, though Hammer looks much older which may contribute to the issue. He's a kid trying to figure himself out and becomes sexually interested with Hammer and it becomes this sort of summer fling in 1983 rural Italy. The controversy was always that it's an adult having a sexual relationship with a child and seducing him to have his way with. But I think if you actually watch the film, you'll see Chalamet is the one who pushes Hammer to mess around because Chalamet wants to explore his sexuality and is interested in Hammer overall. Sure, the subject can be a little unsettling at times but it never feels exploitative or pushing a pro go after kids message or anything absurd like that. It's a little coming of age story where a kid figures out who he is as a person and that includes sexually. He also loses his virginity to a local Italian girl first and they go at it often, so it's not strictly a gay thing. That's why I think if you actually watch it, you see there is something deeper than just an adult and a kid having a romantic relationship. Plus, the consent in Italy then was 14, so this wasn't even illegal. But anyway, I hate to get bogged down with the stupid sex angle. The film looks great, it has great music from Sufjan Stevens who I remember back in like 2004 when he put out Illinoise. He's an indie darling and I liked some of his work way back then so it's weird to think he would be up for an Oscar and should have won over the actual winners. The acting is really good as I said earlier and I would have liked to see more Michael Stuhlbarg love. My issue with the film is that it can be a bit laborious. It's a little too slow paced at first even though that fits Chalamet's character. I was very surprised that I liked this one as much as I did, though. Just from what I heard with the constant praise and then the controversy, I thought it might have been oversold, but it was quite enjoyable and it feels like a film that will eventually make a Sight & Sound film poll in a few more years. I have always wanted more films like this in the Best Picture race than the obvious Oscar bait or some comic book movie.

Darkest Hour

This is the old school, throwback nominee for the year. This film would be at home in most other years because it covers what the old members of the Academy love: a historical biopic of sorts about a British legend from World War II. Just ticks all the boxes that gets the Academy going, or used to anyway. And really, it's pretty standard stuff. We follow Winston Churchill after he is made Prime Minister and has to deal with the war going on and people in power who don't think he's qualified enough to lead. He has to deal with the Dunkirk situation and some people want him to capitulate with Germany to bring about peace. He realizes he has to stand up to the Nazis and fascism and fight for his country. It's entertaining stuff and I'll never tire of watching historical biopics like this, especially about war. Nothing really fancy about the film, it's just a straightforward telling of that bit of history. Gary Oldman will most likely win an Oscar for portraying Churchill but let's agree that the makeup and prosthetics do a lot of the heavy lifting. The visuals are fine and everything is done well, it's just that this is a film where it's really hard to get excited by it. We've seen all of this done before and this one didn't blow me away or anything. There was even a really goofy scene where Churchill goes down into the subway where regular British folk are and asks them what they think and it kinda bolsters him and is just so cheesy and obviously never happened in real life. I feel bad that I can't be effusive in praising this film but it is what it is. It at least makes a good companion piece with Dunkirk this year.

Dunkirk

Wow, this is an intense film! When this film dropped during the summer, it was the first obvious Best Picture player. Once it came out and everyone loved it, it was a no brainer that this would be one of the films to beat come Oscar night. I think if it had come out later, it would have been more of a contender since often times it's about who has the most momentum going in to the voting period. But the film itself is utterly amazing. This is a writer/director who is at the top of his craft and delivers something extraordinarily watchable every time. I love the fact that this film isn't reliant on dialogue. The images and sounds speak for themselves and give us this intense, compelling story without unnecessary exposition or scenes getting in the way. That is this film's greatest strength and achievement, being a high quality film that eschews all the extraneous talking and lets the picture speak for itself. Obviously, that means the sound is incredible and one of the main stars of the film. The sound adds to the realism and adds to the intensity and tension of the film. I like the fact that Nolan also used mostly unknown actors. I fell that allows you to put yourself in their shoes and become more emotionally involved instead of it being a showcase for some famous actor. The big names in this were subdued and that helped add to the film instead of detracting from it's tone. This was the only Best Picture film without an acting nomination and it seems to make sense for Christopher Nolan films. It's more about the spectacle and story than the acting, though that's always usually very good, too. There were some absurd criticisms about the film like the lack of female characters and the lack of minorities. I can understand the lack of minorities being a thing because there were Indians and Black French soldiers, but I'm not sure that would have worked in the story Dunkirk was telling here. The female criticism is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and takes it too far. Not every film needs an abundance of female characters especially if they don't serve a purpose other than to placate some terrible critic. Anyway, this is just an all around solid film. I can excuse the lack of gore because the tension and struggle to survive more than makes up for a lack of blood. It's kinda weird how this film wasn't really mentioned much in the immediate lead up to the nominations, because this is probably one of the strongest films of the whole lot. It will certainly be in the running for my vote.

Get Out

I was very excited to see this because it came out without any Oscar hype and just took everyone by surprise. Critics and audiences loved it and it's one of those rare early year releases that factored into the Oscars. It's also a huge accomplishment by a black director and writer, Jordan Peele, the first to go over the $100 million mark for his debut. He's also only the second African-American to get a Best Director nomination in the history of the Oscars, which is quite sad. It's obvious that the new changes of including more minorities and younger Academy members is paying off with some really inspired choices for the different categories, including here for Best Picture. There have only been a handful of horror films ever nominated in this category and here comes a horror film that's about racism that the Academy, and everyone else, just loved. I don't know if this gets nominated a couple years ago, honestly. There are a lot more and better articles out there that dive into the meaning of the film but my interpretation is one of cultural appropriation, marginalization, silencing of blacks, and of course pure racism. This film shows all that in an often humorous but shocking way for the audience. The absurdity of thinking you are hip for using black vernacular or saying you'd vote for Obama a third time without actually trying to connect to the human being you're talking to, instead trying to focus all the attention on you for being woke or cool with minorities is ridiculous. And Peele shows that here, along with white people trying to speak for blacks about what racism is or isn't without letting them explain. You see that all the time with the talking head news programs of old white guys and blonde hair bimbos debating why a black person shouldn't be offended by some nonsense or other. We marginalize and silence the black community by not even allowing them to talk about what they think and feel and then get angry at Black Lives Matter movements as if they're unnecessary. The film gets these topics out in the open and I'm glad this discussion is taking place in part because of films like this one. The film and story itself is pretty great for the first hour and a half or so. The interracial couple meeting the white family is uncomfortable. Daniel Kaluuya does a great job in being the conduit for the audience of trying to figure out what the hell is going on with this weird family. I like the mysterious element of the story because I was engaged the entire time trying to figure out where the story was going. The acting of the others is suitably creepy when needed and Catherine Keener and Bradley Whitford are great in their roles. Even the Sunken Place is done well enough to be outright scary and twisted. My issue with the film is really just the ending. It devolves into a revenge porn fantasy bit that seems more in tune with your average horror film. I wish that Peele would have elevated the ending into something less gratuitous but I guess you have to ask where else could he have gone with the ending? It's satisfying for the audience but I do think it could have been better done. I also think that we are going to look back on this film in 10 years and be amazed and happy that it was included in the Best Picture lineup.

Lady Bird

I have really enjoyed Greta Gerwig's acting and writing in her previous work. She always comes across as likeable and quirky and just seems like an overall good person. While this isn't exactly an autobiographical story about Gerwig, it is based on her experiences growing up and I feel like you can see that in the character of Lady Bird a little bit. What stands out the most about this film is the writing. It's beyond good because it actually depicts a real teenage girl and her mother. The girl isn't some old person's version of what they think a kid is like and isn't a super polished professional writer's version of a teenager, either. Gerwig presents us with a girl who is very much an awkward teenager, albeit very quirky and who thinks she knows everything. Gerwig doesn't cram one liner's or melodramatic scenes down our throat, she lets the story unfold naturally and let's Lady Bird be a young woman on her own terms. Her first romance is kinda cheesy but in the teenagers are stupid and think they are in love after five minutes kind of cheesy. But the romance doesn't feel manufactured and it ends in a believable way. She then moves on to the idiot bad boy type who doesn't really care about her. Though I do wish she would have felt more anger towards him when she ended that one. She also ditches her best friend to try and hang with the cool girl and lies to that girl about where she's from. It's all the basics of a coming of age story but it's just done in a more intelligent way. Things don't feel forced for the sake of the script and not everything works out perfectly. The best part about the film is the mother-daughter relationship. Saoirse Ronan is great but Laurie Metcalf as the mom is brilliant. Their relationship just feels real because Metcalf doesn't try to be a cool mom and isn't some walking cliche, she is just a hard working mother trying to make money for her family and to send her daughter to college. She's a hard ass at times but is also very warm and loving. She may be too critical but to me she was just a realist who addresses issues with truth and saying what she feels. Their relationship is what makes the film work because it is so authentic. Lady Bird still thinks she knows everything but does love her mom and sees the sacrifices she makes even if she may not be as grateful because she can be so self absorbed. Families have their issues and it isn't always so black and white. But the story is heartwarming without having to shove it in our faces or give us musical cues on when to feel sad or happy. I dunno, I just really thought the writing in this film is incredible and while Gerwig getting a Directing nomination is pretty awesome, too, the standout is her writing. This is just a really sweet coming of age film that I would love to see more like this.

Phantom Thread

I'm not entirely unconvinced this isn't actually a very dark comedy. I'm not even trying to be funny by saying that, I legit feel you could call this a comedy. I laughed way too much at what feels like it should be a very serious film. There are a ton of these serious moments where the atmosphere is punctured by the slightest comedic elements, at least to me. It can be in the way Daniel Day-Lewis says fuck off, or in how he bristles at how Vicky Krieps noisily pours tea or scrapes her toast, or in how she talks back to Day-Lewis, or any number of serious moments that seem to actually belie their serious tone. Phantom Thread is indeed an exquisite film. It's beautiful to look at and perfectly composed with a gorgeous, ever present score. The scene composition and production design are top notch and something to be expected in a Paul Thomas Anderson film, especially it being a period piece about a fashion designer. He is a brilliant director and each new film of his is appointment viewing and this one is no different. The whole film is like an American take on a European style film that is perfectly executed. That's my favorite thing about PTA films, is that everything in them is done with such great detail and care that the effort translates to the screen and we get a much more fulfilling film because of the costumes and the mise en scene and music. Everything comes together in his productions to make fantastic film after fantastic film. Even though I doubt this was made to have comedic undertones and it sounds like a big critical complaint from me, it's not. I recognize what he did with the film, I'm just seeing something else that makes the film a little better to me. I mean, Day-Lewis' character is named Reynolds Woodcock! Apparently DDL gave his character that name as a joke and it made PTA bust out laughing really hard so they kept it in the script. That's why it feels like there is a little more to this film than just straightforward drama. For what could possibly be DDL's last performance (though he retired back in the 90s, too), this would be a good one to go out on. He is his usual brilliant self, while Krieps ably goes toe to toe with him and Lesley Manville adds another good performance to the film. I have seen articles talking about this film being about toxic masculinity and all these sort of controversial things and I don't get any of that in this film. Maybe because I'm not actively looking for a reason to dislike it or discredit, I dunno. Hell, even Jennifer Lawrence said she turned it off after three minutes because who wants to watch a guy be a dick to women when this film is far, far from being that. Absurd she would even say that as a respected actress. I say go into it knowing that this is a PTA and DDL film and that it's going to be a master class in filmmaking. This film was also sort of a surprise come nomination day because it came out so late and didn't make many precursor awards at all and then garnered a deserving Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress, Score, and Costume Design nomination. There was thinking that it wouldn't get any Oscar love because it came out so late, but it obviously had some fans and I'm glad it is sitting in this category, especially since they snubbed The Master a few years ago in the same way. I think this is a film that will grow in appreciation and esteem in the years to come and we will look back at it being included as a smart move by the Academy. And I didn't even mention the relationship DDL has with Krieps in this film, which is something so intriguing. The two love each other but have their very wide differences and the two can be at odds until they realize they need each other. Their relationship is truly fascinating stuff not to mention she poisons him so that he becomes sick and needs her to take care of him and only she will allow herself to take care of him as he gets better. And he knows she poisons him and seems to get off on her caring for him because he has some deep seeded mommy issues. Like I said, this is an intriguing film that has a lot more to offer than just fashion designer is a dick to women sometimes. Go watch it for yourself.

The Post

As I have mentioned after watching All The President's Men, I fucking love investigative journalism drama films. That one was a masterpiece and I mentioned how Spotlight, a film that has only grown in how much I love it since I saw it, is just as worthy of the title. This film is also a good candidate for an all day marathon session of investigative journalism on film. I would love to watch all three back to back to back because that is like a literal Oscar dream. I have read and seen tons of articles about how this is lackluster Spielberg and isn't Oscar worthy and all that stuff, but I fully enjoyed this film. The story is great and co-written by the guy who wrote Spotlight! If that's not synergy then I don't know what is. But the story isn't the problem with this film because you can't really screw up a story about The Pentagon Papers and how it came to get published. My beef is that this film has the Spielberg sheen. I don't mean that in any kind of good way. When you watch All the President's Men, you see those fluorescent lights illuminating everything in the newsroom. Compare that to this film and the newsroom has that manufactured, fake sheen of post production tinkering. The newsrooms are the exact same fucking places! Tom Hanks is Ben Bradlee who is played by Jason Robards in the other film. Why does the 1976 film have a better visual style than a flipping Steven Spielberg film?! This one is just bogged down in his slick style. It needs a more realistic showing of the newsroom and offices to actually do anything for me. I don't mean to be pedantic at all but the shadowy, dark nature of the film just doesn't help. There's an abundance of great acting and great scenes but I wish another director had done this film. I get that Spielberg rushed the film because of the parallel with the bullshit Trump administration that only gets worse with each passing day, but as good as this film is, it deserves a director who doesn't see it as mere nostalgia. I actually really like this film because of the will to print the controversial. It's a great history lesson that has great actors and leaves you wanting a less Spielbergian approach. So many wasted performances confirm that it should have been done by someone else. I like the film but it's not a contender this year.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

This is your possible winner, along with The Shape of Water, and it's been doing well at the precursor awards. There is a lot of manufactured controversy about this film that always seems to plague whoever the front runner is and it's equally as stupid. There are those who think this isn't harsh enough on racists and racism. There are those who feel it is Crash-like in it's depiction of racism and the arc that the racist cop has in becoming a redemptive, changed man. It's all really stupid and I long for when we can stop getting fake upset about trivial things like this. Hell, even 12 Years a Slave got accused of not being harsh enough about racism and inequality and all that! So, let's look at the film as a film and not some profound statement on race. It's about a woman who is fed up with the police not investigating her daughter's rape and murder so she pays for three billboards to call them out. Frances McDormand is that mother and she is royally pissed off. She's hurting and she wants this act to spur the police into action to figure out who killed her daughter. The police are a bunch of incompetent idiots, however, who would rather attack her for calling them out. It's a small town, so she has to deal with the other townsfolk not liking her action but she's a tough old broad and doesn't care what they think. She's angry and she's trying to make things happen that can help solve her daughter's murder and that includes firebombing the police station when she gets ultimately fed up. She gets help from an unlikely source in a fired, racist cop who hated her and had a change of heart when the Chief, who killed himself, wrote him a letter saying he could be a great cop if he wants and if he stopped being such an asshole. That's the kick in the butt he needed to try and be a better person, which doesn't feel unearned at all. A guy he respects kills himself but takes the time to write and tell him to stop being such an idiot and he realizes he needs to change. How is that controversial? Anyway, the film is by Martin McDonagh who excels at these sort of dark comedy type films with In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths. He's going to riff on sensitive subjects and be mostly unapologetic about it. But it never seems insulting or offensive. I don't know how anyone could be offended by this film. One of the things I really hated about his film was Abbie Cornish as Woody Harrelson's wife. Why does she have a British/Australian accent? I feel like if she couldn't even attempt a Southern/local accent why bother casting her? It didn't make sense when everyone else tried an accent but her. If this does end up winning, I'll be completely fine with it. I don't think there's a film this year that really makes me rapturous about it winning. If this wins, awesome! If another film wins, ehhhh okay. I do have a preference for the couple I would like, The Shape of Water not being in that group but I guess we will see in a couple hours who wins. I like this film and think McDonagh is great. The film has great acting throughout and I really like the score, too. The controversy surrounding it is just one of those stupid campaign things and doesn't need to be taken seriously. This is definitely one of the better flicks of the year.



This is a hell of a Best Picture group. I honestly think that in a couple years' time, we will look back on this year and marvel at how right they got it and how amazing some of these choices are in hindsight. There are two clear bottom films in this group and that's Darkest Hour and The Post. Both are the old school Oscar bait films that in the past would have swept up in the Oscars but in today's world look old and antiquated. Not sure the Churchill biopic should have been included at all and The Post would have been better if it wasn't rushed by Spielberg to parallel the current political climate. It would have been better in someone else's hands, really. Then I would have your Oscar winner, The Shape of Water, next. I like the film fine but it just doesn't scream Best Picture winner to me. I think it's fun and has a lot of great elements but it doesn't gel into a complete film, if that makes sense. Nothing against del Toro who is a genius and is incredibly smart and well spoken and passionate about film in general. I saw him on a documentary talking about older directors and he was so passionate about their work and what it meant to him and he broke them down intelligently and was fascinating to listen to him talk about film. But I just don't see a winner there. Then we start getting into the hard part. I think Call Me By Your Name will be one of those films that lands on a Top 500 Best Films Ever type of list that publications put out from time to time. That's how that film feels to me. I enjoyed it a lot more than I anticipated and the acting is really good. Lady Bird is a really wonderful coming of age film with some really great acting. The acting and writing are what elevate the film over the others. It's a strong film that deserves to be here. Get Out is a pretty awesome story in that it actually made it to the Oscars and got a ton of love from everyone. I would love for more films like this to reach the promised land and I think we will going forward, especially after Moonlight winning last year. But as long as long as they are smart, well crafted films and not just because it has black actors or is directed by a minority. Then it just feels like when Selma got in with only a Best Song nomination besides BP. Three Billboards would be next. I thought that this might actually win the whole thing but it seemed to fade at the last moment. I like the characters it creates and it's a very darkly humorous look at what's going on in today's world. Really good stuff. The top two for me is so hard. I like both of these films immensely and I'm sure whichever one I watched most recently would be the one I want to win Best Picture. But both are brilliant and superb films for different reasons but also really the same reasons. One is a war film that is light on dialogue and lets the sights and sounds tell the story, while the other is a character driven look at a couple who thrive on some sadomasochistic feelings and have a very different yet connected relationship. Both are crafted by two dudes at the top of their game when it comes to creating a film. And both encompass much more than just simply directing. They write and help edit and make sure the music fits and that the picture quality is amazing and that the scenes look gorgeous and that the acting is top notch and I could go on and on. I don't know which I want to win more but I do know that I wish Phantom Thread had shown us more about Alma and Cyril and been maybe a bit longer in that regard. And Dunkirk is bloodless which seems like a minor misstep. So I dunno, Dunkirk for now! That might change tomorrow, though. A really great year for Best Picture and I hope 2018 is just as strong!

Oscar Winner: The Shape of Water
My Winner:  Dunkirk
Phantom Thread
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Get Out
Lady Bird
Call Me By Your Name
The Shape of Water
The Post
Darkest Hour

Leading Actor 2017

Yep, you guessed it, this has been decided since the start of the season. Oldman has been the only choice at every turn and it is very much a career achievement award as it is for his film. It's sad that there hasn't been any intrigue at all this year. I long for the year where none of the major awards are decided by Oscar night and remain a mystery up until the envelope is opened. It will never happen but I can dream.

2017 Best Actor

Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour

Gary Oldman is going to win the Oscar this year for playing Winston Churchill. Reading that sentence over makes it sound like I'm disgusted or something, but no, Oldman does a fine job as Churchill. It's pretty widely known and accepted that this win is more for his career and not just for playing Churchill here. That's if he wins, of course. Something crazy could happen tomorrow night as I write this the day before the ceremony. I've read a lot of push back on this that the performance isn't good and he shouldn't win because of his troubled past and all that but I'm always about the performance only and I think Oldman is pretty good for what the film is. It's a straightforward historical biopic so really all Oldman has to do is be convincing enough as Churchill and he'd be guaranteed a nomination anyway. The makeup and prosthetics do most of the heavy lifting as Oldman disappears behind it all and is unrecognizable as himself. I'm certainly not a Winston Churchill expert so I don't know if he gets the voice and mannerisms perfect or not, but it's all pretty believable to me. He's intense when needed to be, he's sympathetic when necessary, he's rambunctious at times, he's Winston Churchill. The film doesn't really try to figure out who the man is, it just goes over his accomplishments as we see him deal with his first few weeks as Prime Minister. People doubt his ability to lead effectively and he has to show them that he can. Oldman acquits himself well as the man but doesn't have to do all that much besides become Churchill. We don't really explore the relationship with his wife (which actually seemed like something interesting was there beneath the surface), the new secretary felt like it might become a thing but it doesn't, the meetings with the King aren't as illuminating as maybe they should be for his character, and the fights with Lord Halifax, though satisfying, seem more perfunctory than anything. Another blogger mentioned how the story turns him into another 'movie hero' and I couldn't agree more with that observation. It's the movie version of Churchill that Oldman gets to play and we never get much deeper than that. But Oldman has some great individual scenes where his acting talent is on full display and you realize it is in fact Gary Oldman, the great actor underneath all that makeup. It's good but it feels like one of those performances where you acknowledge it is good and then never really come back to it again. But it will be cool for Oldman to get his Oscar finally, so there's that. But also you know it's not his best work and it's a career award and there was never any actual challenge to his winning and then you wish it was next year already so we can move on.

Timothee Chalamet - Call Me By Your Name

This was one I was really looking forward to finally watching because there was a lot of controversy around the subject of the film and because there were so many people online that were rapturous in their praise for his performance. I think a lot of that had to do with him being a good looking younger dude with some acting chops which those paying attention to Oscar will love, gay or straight. I was worried that he would come off like some entitled, pretty boy, douchebag which is a little like his character in Lady Bird. But that's why I watch the actual films and performances, because Chalamet didn't come off that way at all and is actually a very good actor who has a promising future. The controversy is because Chalamet plays a 17-year old who engages in a sexual relationship with an older men, supposed to be 24, played by Armie Hammer who looks way older than that. But the film is set in Italy in 1983 where consent is considerable lower than 17 and the film doesn't feel too icky or creepy. I think that is people projecting their own issues onto the film and these characters, probably without even seeing it. Chalamet comes from an intelligent, very liberal and academic family. He plays the piano well, reads a lot, hangs with the local girls, and swims. That's his existence until Hammer shows up as a research assistant for Chalamet's father (played wonderfully by Michael Stuhlbarg). It's like a coming of age story because Hammer's presence and his charming demeanor stirs up feelings in Elio and he becomes curious about Hammer and eventually sexually attracted to him. He just seems like a kid who is experimenting and trying to figure out who he is and what he likes in a very welcoming, non-threatening environment. Chalamet is great because he brings a lot of subtlety to the role and a lot internalized machinations. There's time where it's like you can see his mind spinning and thinking about something that catches his eye. There are a lot of moments where Chalamet has to act without saying anything and convey to the audience what Elio is thinking and feeling and without doing so in an obvious, theatrical kind of way. Now, Elio is a bit self absorbed and that can grate usually, but I think it works for his character because he is not quite a loner, but seems to enjoy being on his own or sitting apart from a group in a comfortable way, if that makes sense. He's very self assured and confuses that with his own maturity at times. So it kinda shows that Elio has it in him to be a little different which in turns makes his pursuing of Hammer feel legit. I think Chalamet portrays that independence as well as internalized confusion in a pretty remarkable manner. As dumb as I feel for saying it, Chalamet does exhibit a magnetism with his character and performance. He draws the viewer in to his world even if it's not because you find him attractive or relate to a gay experience or whatever. It's that he's an interesting kid that that's more complex than most young characters. At least that's what draws me in. Plus the ending where he is devastated is some fine acting. I may not be part of the zealous crowd of Chalamet fans that was vocal when this first started showing in film festivals, but I do see the talent in him and am excited to see what he does next. I've seen him on some prediction lists for the next Oscars a year away, so I don't think we will have to wait to long for whatever it is.

Daniel Day-Lewis - Phantom Thread

I feel like you could just copy and paste all my previous reviews of Day-Lewis, change the name of the film and character, and be good to go. DDL delivers brilliant performance after brilliant performance and this one is no exception. If this is truly the last time he acts onscreen (remember he did retire back in the 90s, too) then he will have gone out with a performance many would be envious of. We all know how dedicated DDL is to his craft and for this one he apprenticed as a designer under some top names, even designing and making a dress for his wife from scratch. His dedication in preparing for his roles always shines through onscreen because it looks like he knows what he's doing as a designer. He can sell you that when he's looking at a dress in the film, that he is actually actively coming up with ideas and fixes and isn't just doing acting motions. When he smooths out a dress or puts a pin somewhere, it's for a reason, and DDL is able to convey that through his acting. DDL is this great fashion designer. This is also the first time in decades that he uses his real voice and doesn't use an accent. The soft spoken nature of his voice fits the role and the film and it always impressed me when you'd hear his Lincoln or Daniel Plainview and then his real voice. It's soft spoken, intelligent and warm sounding and fits the fashion designer character he has created. And it's always fun to watch DDL add in all his own little mannerisms or looks. Just watch how he adds in those flourishes of say squinting when remembering something or how his face scrunches up when he is annoyed by Vicky Krieps being noisy or how he tilts his head when listening. I think he's the best at adding this little things to his character that feel natural and give off their own personality. It's not just a guy delivering lines and hitting his mark. It's DDL becoming this person with his own personal touches and I love seeing what he will bring to his roles. It also should be stated that because DDL has given so many brilliant performances and iconic characters, it can be hard to judge his current work without comparing to his previous work. It's like he's sometimes competing against himself when he gives a performance like in this film that doesn't feel as impressive because he's not yelling about drinking your milkshake. But what he is able to do in this role is brilliant and we can take for granted how impressive even his quieter roles are. His devotion to his art is something rarely seen and I really hope he isn't done acting because I want to see what other brilliant performances he can give us.

Daniel Kaluuya - Get Out

I was surprised to see Daniel Kaluuya was nominated on the morning the nominations came out. He had been in some precursors, yes, but it never felt like he was a legitimate contender and yet here he is. I think a lot of that has to do with how well Get Out was received by critics and audiences in general, and a large part of that is thanks to Kaluuya. The one thing you notice about him before you even see the film in the promotional material is his big, expressive eyes. He always had a serious face or a terrified, teary look going on with those big eyeballs telling you everything you need to know about the tone of the film. Then when you finally watch his performance, that's what I'd say really sold his nomination were those looks. This guy has mastered the serious scowl and the horrified, desperate look with added tears. I know it sounds weird to talk about, but in a horror film you need the main protagonist to be expressive and allow the audience to feel the story through him/her. That's the strength of Kaluuya's work for me is allowing us to feel terrified and horrified for him about whatever the hell is going on. He's the anchor for all of us and plays the straight man in this film wonderfully. I was unsure going in if I'd like a horror film performance because I typically loathe horror films, but I was pleasantly surprised that Kaluuya didn't fall into the many horror cliches and played the character like a real person in an increasingly fucked up situation. I think with all the craziness going on around him, Kaluuya being the normal constant is almost taken for granted but he has a tough task of not going overboard himself. And not to just say that all he does is act normal in a sea of crazy, Kaluuya does have an emotional moment when talking about when his mom died when he was young and he hits those emotional beats perfectly. That's where you can really see the acting ability and realize this isn't just a typical horror performance. It also makes the brutality and survival of the final scene work even more for Kaluuya because you feel his betrayal by his girlfriend and the burning hatred for the family members. I feel like this performance can be easily underappreciated given that it's a horror film, but I do think it's a very good portrayal overall.

Denzel Washington - Roman J. Israel, Esq.

This was director Dan Gilroy's follow up to Nightcrawler, so I was very interested to see this film especially since he teamed up with Denzel for it. It seems to have gotten slammed a bit as not a good film, but Denzel is very good in a different role for him. While I agree with the latter, the former seems a bit harsh. It's nowhere near as good as his previous film, but it still is pretty engaging. Denzel makes the film, as usual, but I didn't think the film was as terribad as reviewers and Oscar folk made it out to be. Denzel plays an eccentric, quirky lawyer whose partner dies and their clients are sold or given to another big high priced firm. Denzel kinda comes off as maybe being this genius lawyer who can quote the criminal codes by heart and is idealistic in wanting to fight for civil rights and wants to reform plea bargaining but is just too awkward and autistic-like to be the face of a case. He meets a woman attorney working for some non-profit civil rights organization and clearly likes her. He starts off on the wrong foot with the new attorney group headed by Colin Farrell (who I've met!) and is in desperate need of money. He is assigned a case of a kid whose friend kills a store owner and is in jail. He tells Denzel where to find the actual shooter but the kid is killed in jail. Denzel then calls in the anonymous tip to collect a big reward and spends some money. I say all that to emphasize that there are many threads coming off Denzel and all of them feel under cooked even though the film is just over two hours long. This feels like it needs to be way longer to fully flesh out Denzel's character. That's not Denzel's fault, however, as he sort of plays against his usual type (or at least lately anyway). He is almost an autistic character, he's certainly a savant of some kind, and absolutely an idealistic good guy who wants to make sure the people are protected from shitty prosecuting practices. Yeah, Denzel has some affectations that work for the character but some that definitely feel put on like an afterthought. Also, because it is Denzel, he will always have this badass quality to him that just seeps through the performance. Even when playing a weird, quirky lawyer who is a loner and shouldn't be too likable, his charm punches through and his authoritarian demeanor slips in every so often. I like that he goes against type. I want a lot of other actors to do the same to see them stretch themselves acting wise. But Denzel needs this film to go on for another 30-45 minutes to pull the character together and tie up or cut off these loose threads. I like what it did and where it was going but there is just something that feels unfulfilled with the character and therefore the performance. I think Denzel is good and I think the Academy recognize he went against type. I also think they go to the same well too much. But he was coming off Fences and gave a decent performance here and we are in a new era for the Academy so he got in. It's good but I want more from the film and the performance.



A disappointing Best Actor race as it was Oldman all the way for a role that's admittedly not his best. It feels like an uninspiring choice but this is really a nod to his career. The Academy will forever be playing catch up because they don't reward actors when they do give their best work and have to come back years later to reward mediocre work with an Oscar for their career. It's frustrating but has been happening since the start almost. This Best Actor year is weird because I don't really have a favorite. Yeah, I love DDL and his performance is another feather in his cap but I know it's not even his best work. Denzel takes on a different kind of role yet still puts the Denzel spin to it. It's also obviously not his best performance by any means. Then you have two newcomers in Chalamet and Kaluuya who do deliver really wonderful performances that make you want to pay more attention to them in the future. I think it's going to be tough for Kaluuya to find his way back to being nominated unless there are greater black roles or we stop caring about seeing a Kaluuya in a Chalamet type role or a DDL type role or if Denzel stops hogging them all. I hope I'm wrong but this might be his only shot. I do think we'll see Chalamet again because he is what the Academy likes. Being a young, white actor means he's going to get a ton of roles offered to him so as long as he's smart about what he takes, he'll be back. Just real talk. So it's hard to figure out what to do with this category. A win for DDL or Denzel is superfluous and unnecessary. A win for Chalamet or Kaluuya seems premature, though they would be interesting. Oldman really wouldn't be my choice but eh, no one else blows me away. I'd give it to DDL but he doesn't need it. So Oldman it is, just go with the Academy on this and forget about it.

Oscar Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
My Winner:  Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Timothee Chalamet
Daniel Kaluuya
Daniel Day-Lewis
Denzel Washington