Why I Think "The Revenant" Will Win Best Picture, But "Spotlight" Should, and Other Oscar Predictions

TOMORROW IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN CHRISTMAS. With the Academy Awards only one day away, it is time for me to address my predictions for the winners this year. Unfortunately, I have not seen every single film nominated for every single category. Believe me, I am as disappointed by this fact as you are.

I have written blogs on a few of the films I've seen that are nominated for the Oscars this year. I wrote independently on both "Spotlight" and "The Revenant". In my opinion these were the two standout films of the year. It is no secret that I am absolutely in love with Leonardo DiCaprio, and "The Revenant" completely blew me away. However, I wholeheartedly think that "Spotlight" was the more important film. It beautifully captured the importance of journalism, a field that is underrepresented in Hollywood. I won't go into depth on either of these films, since I previously reviewed them. Over all, I think the spot for best picture will come down to these two films. While both are spectacular, I think "The Revenant" will win best picture, but "Spotlight" should win. "Spotlight" not only tells the story of the scandal of priests sexual abusing children, but why journalism matters. "Spotlight" was able to go steps beyond demonstrating the importance of journalism- after the movie was released, many other people came forward with reports of sexual abuse conducted by priests. It was an exceptionally impressive and eye-opening film. "The Revenant" has many of the bells and whistles the academy looks for, though, that I think will lead it to ultimately beat out "Spotlight". The extreme tactics of Inarritu will likely place it on a higher ranking with the Academy, just at his film "Birdman" won best picture last year.

As for best actor, Leo better finally get his Oscar. While I can argue why "The Revenant" shouldn't necessarily win best picture, I think it will beat out competitors in several other categories. Unfortunately I haven't seen the other films that were nominated for actor in a leading role (curse the busy and broke life of a college student), I can wholeheartedly say that Leonardo DiCaprio finally deserves to get his Oscar. I have seen most of the films he's been in, and he honestly amazes me more with every role he takes on.

I think Inarritu's daring decisions as a director will set him apart once again in the eyes of the Academy, leading him to deservingly win best director. The choices of Inarritu, in combination with the choices of cinematographer Lubezki, will also beat out other films and win best cinematography.

For best actress, I think Brie Larson should and will win for her stellar performance in "Room". She has received spectacular reviews across the board. Her moving performance definitely stood out in comparison to the other actresses nominated for the category.

Actor in a supporting role seems like a bit of a toss-up to me. I thought Christian Bale did an unbelievable job portraying Michael Burry in "The Big Short" and should win for his performance. I doubt that Mark Ruffalo will win for his performance in "Spotlight", but he also did a spectacular job. I am never ever disappointed by Mark Ruffalo. He's just a lovable teddy bear.

I have heard wonderful things about Alicia Vikander's role in "The Danish Girl", and think she is a strong contender in the category of best supporting actress. Unfortunately I haven't seen this film so I can't validate this. I honestly don't understand the hype over Rooney Mara's performance in "Carol"- I was highly disappointed by most aspects of this film, with the exception of set design and costume design."

This leads me to my next prediction, that "Mad Max: Fury Road" will win best costume design. I always am impressed by all of the costumes nominated for this category. I haven't seen "Mad Max: Fury Road", but it received lots of positive feedback as well.

To quickly finish up (I won't list every single prediction I have), best adapted screenplay should go to "The Big Short" and best original screenplay should go to "Spotlight". "Amy" entirely deserves to win best documentary, as this was one of the best films I've seen all year.

I hope you all enjoy this year's Academy Awards as much as I will, and I will be giving my feedback on the event shortly!

A League of Their Own

I have to start this blog post by saying that my initial decision to watch A League of Their Own was out of obligation. I've heard great things about this movie and it was on Netflix, so I felt it was my cinematic duty to watch it. All I knew before watching the film was that Tom Hanks was in it, and it was about a women's baseball team. Although I adore Tom Hanks, the idea of watching a women's baseball team for two hours did not appeal to me. However, my negative bias had little impact on my overall opinion of the film after seeing it.

Since I knew very little about the premise of A League of Their Own before watching it, I was extremely pleased by the storyline. This movie unveils the true story of the Rockford Peaches, one of the first all-women professional baseball teams. The women's baseball league was formed during World War II, since many professional baseball players left to join the military. The main character, Dottie Hinson, is played by Geena Davis. Unfortunately, my only knowledge of her before seeing this movie was her role in Grey's Anatomy (I'm the movie buff who shamefully has yet to see Thelma and Louise). However, she is easily the best actor in the film. Tom Hanks portrays their alcoholic manager, Jimmy Dugan. He also does a great job, but this role cannot possibly compare to the other roles he has taken on. While the cast as a whole is phenomenal- surprisingly including Madonna and Rosie O'Donnell- Davis is the one that truly shines.

Besides Davis's standout performance, there were other aspects of the film that really drew me in. First of all, I tend to gravitate towards movies that tell true stories. My inner history nerd lives for them. The film was able to effectively demonstrate how the creation of a women's team was a significant reality in these women's lives that impacted their futures. Since in modern society there is such a strong push for gender equality, it was great to see how, even in the 1940s, women could demonstrate their equal worth. Although the team was created simply because men weren't around to play baseball, the all-women's team showed the world that they can be just as valuable athletes as men.

I do think, however, that this movie tried a little hard to, no pun intended, cover all the bases. It wanted to make you laugh. It wanted to make you cry. It wanted you to believe Madonna could've been a professional ball player. This is all too much for this type of film to take on. While there are funny moments, and the storyline is heartfelt and moving, a movie who tried to excel in all of these areas is rarely done seamlessly. The cinematography was nothing special. I can understand that this is not one of the greatest movies I've ever seen, but it did entertain me. Sometimes even the toughest critics have to stop overanalyzing and just base their critiques on the enjoyment factor of a film.

Amy

Ever since I was young I have had a fascination with Amy Winehouse. I was ten years old when she came out with her second album Back to Black. My parents would play Rehab and Me & Mr. Jones on a loop as they were preparing dinner. I remember waiting in line at the grocery store and seeing her face all over tabloid magazines. Eating disorders, drunken performances, drug use... her world was unlike anything I've ever encountered. This extreme and troubling lifestyle piqued by interest. I was fifteen years old when Amy Winehouse died. She was only twenty seven years old, and this seemed impossibly young to me. Even though Amy Winehouse's album has continuously played on my iPod for nearly a decade, I never took the time to thoroughly learn about her life, as I had routinely done with my other favorite musicians. This last summer, the documentary Amy, directed by Asif Kapadia, was released. Amy is one of the most impactful and emotional documentaries I've seen. It is now rightfully in the running for the Academy Award of Best Documentary.

What was most chilling about the documentary was the clarity of Amy Winehouse's pain. Archived footage was used for the film, so we were able to hear Amy tell her story. Although her friends and family were interviewed throughout the movie, Amy's voice and viewpoint are dominant. The entire film is beautifully entwined with Amy's music. The placement of Amy's songs clearly demonstrated the emotional significance that they had to her. The viewer is able to understand how each song stemmed from Amy's personal life. She allowed music to be an expressive outlet for her experiences.
It is heartbreaking watching Amy experience seemingly endless hardships in her life. Yet the film is able to reinforce that Amy's songs were drawn from her pain. Each song was deeply personal to her, and the film was able to tell the stories surrounding them through Amy's eyes. There was nothing forced about this documentary. Things aren't being spun by journalists or the media, which was the case during her life, as the story is kept close to Amy's perspective.

I was amazed that this documentary was able to go so far beyond Amy's music and a basic timeline of her life. It was truly able to demonstrate the dangers of addiction and drug use- which were brought on by the toxicity of a relationship. The crippling effects of the paparazzi and the media were another well-addressed aspect of Amy's life. Fame completely derailed Amy. She is shown in countless interviews expressing since the early stages of her career that it would not be something she could handle. Sure enough, she was right.

There were very few elements of Amy that I would criticize. There were minor things that I didn't find necessary, such as text on the screen displaying song lyrics. I see how this may have been done intentionally, meant to clarify wording that may be hard to accurately detect through the song. However I found it slightly distracting and took away from the raw emotion seen in Amy's face on screen. Over all though, there are very few elements that I found to be flawed.

The film Amy beautifully showcases Amy Winehouse's incredible talent as a singer/songwriter. There have been several documentaries done on Amy Winehouse, but Amy feels raw. It takes the viewer on a journey of her suffering, which led her to her magnificent creations. It is sad to think that Amy Winehouse lived only long enough to grace us with two albums. This film is a great tribute to the woman with a mesmerizing voice that left the world too soon.

The Big Short

I can only imagine how difficult it would be to successfully create a comical yet serious film about economics. As a student at a school of the arts and communications, I have expressed little interest in economics in the past. However, the film The Big Short was effectively able to capture my attention through humor, as well as creatively telling the story of the 2008 housing crisis in a lighthearted yet crucial manner. I walked away from the film not only blown away by cast performances, but with a newfound understanding and interest in this national phenomenon.

One of the biggest names in Hollywood is Brad Pitt. If his name is attached to a project, it is placed with high expectations. Although Brad Pitt has blessed audience members with this appearances on the big screen for decades, in the past ten years Pitt has been showing off his skills behind the scenes as a producer. His phenomenal work is evident in films such as The Departed, Moneyball, and 12 Years a Slave. In 2015 he demonstrated his knack for producing in the film The Big Short, nominated for 2016 Best Picture at the Academy Awards. While this film may have had several producers, the fact that Pitt attached himself to it demonstrates the level of importance it must have held for him. Pitt has been known to take small roles in the films he has produced, and The Big Short was no exception. No matter the size of the role Pitt takes on, he puts everything he has into the performance. The performances, combined with production value, places The Big Short as a contender for the most prestigious film award of the year.

Now when I first heard about the release of the film The Big Short, I knew two things about it: it had an incredible cast, and it was about the housing crisis of 2008. These two pieces of information held different weights to me- for years I have been obsessing over the works of actors such as Steve Carell, Christian Bale, Brad Pitt, and Ryan Gosling. However, I was 12 years old when the housing crisis took place, and knew very little about it. Therefore, I didn't have an overwhelming initial interest in an economic situation, however I knew that viewing this film could potentially be a good way to learn about it.

This film was based off of a book by Michael Lewis. The brilliance behind the film is that the director, Adam McKay, understands the convoluted nature of the financial crisis. It would be so easy to make this film either far too dense, in which terminology goes over people's heads, or to oversimplify the economic issues and not deliver a realistic representation of what actually happened. However, the density of Wall Street was not compromised for the sake of audience understanding. Instead, McKay took a unique approach to connect to the audience and explain the sequence of  events in ways they can understand. First, the film is narrated by Ryan Gosling's character, Jared Vennett, breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience. In the opening, we are given some background information on the start of the film, explaining the shift in banking in the 1970s. In addition to helpful narration, McKay decided to include celebrity cameos throughout the film to explain terminology. In so many words the narrator would say, "Now here's Margot Robbie in a bathtub sipping champagne to explain sub-prime loans..." This strategy was brilliantly used to break down financial concepts to the viewer.

It would be excessive to explain every single storyline and go through the entire plot of the film. I find it more important to analyze the performances of the cast. It can sometimes be a red flag to see such a big-name cast. In some cases, films rely on casting A-list celebrities to carry out a subpar film (ex. Bradley Cooper in The Words). However the casting of The Big Short was impeccable. Each actor delivered a spectacular performance. The standout performance in the film was that of Christian Bale. He played Michael Burry, a nerdy Birkenstocks-and-oversized-tee-shirt-wearing hedge fund manager from Silicon Valley. in fact- Bale asked the real Michael Burry for his shirt and cargo shorts, which he wore in the film. Burry was one of the first people to predict the housing crisis. Bale convincingly portrayed a metalhead who blasts music at work and plays the drums. What impresses me most is not exclusive to Bale's performance, but extends to other cast members- they are all portraying real people. This is always a feat that amazes me when done well (this is the same reason for my praise of Spotlight).

I was impressed by every performance. Ryan Gosling has always been one of my favorite actors. He has been in great films in the past, including The Place Beyond the Pines and Drive. However, my world stopped and my heart broke when he announced his break from acting in 2013. This has been his first major role since his break- there is no better way to make a comeback. His character comes closest to DiCaprio's portrayal of a Wall Street man in The Wolf of Wall Street. However is character felt much more natural. For example, classically handsome Gosling drastically changed his appearance- frankly, looking creepy- in order to demonstrate that not everyone on Wall Street is perfectly groomed and polished. Brad Pitt took a similar approach and altered his appearance as well. The commitments actors made to their roles payed off.

In general, I think it would be in anyone's best interest to see the film The Big Short. You will learn a lot. You will laugh. You will be amazed by the acting. It is not simply by chance that this film is nominated for Best Picture. CHECK. IT. OUT.

The Revenant

Oh Leo. The man is flawless. Someone give him an Oscar please. Leonardo DiCaprio is probably my favorite actor, so clearly I have to see every single film he is in. This man has been depriving the world of his incredible talent for two whole years. The last film he was in was The Wolf of Wall Street. However this year he reappeared on the big screen in Inarritu's The Revenant.

To be fair, I first decided to go see The Revenant simply due to Leo's starring role. I personally don't think the trailer was cut that well, and initially the film did not appeal to me. Not only did I want to see this film due to casting, but I wanted to see it beacause Inarritu is a phenomenal director. His film Birdman rightfully won Best Picture at the Academy Awards last year. His directing style is also beautifully demonstrated in one of my favorite films, Babel. Just for a point of comparison for The Revenant, I want to say a few words on Inarritu's directing style. In every movie I've seen by Inarritu, the casting is incredible, the storyline is rich, and the cinematography is breathtaking and unique. This filmmaker is exceptionally meticulous. His attention to detail is known to frustrate his coworkers (some crew members left the set), yet yields phenomenal results. In fact, many people initially attached to the film were known to drop out due to the extreme filming conditions Inarritu insisted on pursuing. Inarritu is a Mexican filmmaker who has directed countless marvelous foreign films, such as Amores Perros and 21 Grams. I am so glad that he has crossed from foreign films into films that attract much wider audiences, because everyone should be exposed to the stylings of Inarritu. In short, I am very pleased by Inarritu's choices in the film The Revenant.

The most impactful part of this film was Leonardo DiCaprio's portrayal of Hugh Glass, a frontiersman on a trading expedition in the 1820s. In order to make sense of my analysis of DiCaprio's portrayal, a brief synopsis of the film is necessary. Glass is on a fur trading expedition with his half-Native American son, who stirs a lot of controversy along the way. Essentially, early on in the film Glass is horrifically mauled by a bear and left to his own devices for survival. The Revenant, based on a true story, is entirely about survival. This further emphasizes my praise of Inarritu's meticulous directing style. His choices make DiCaprio's on-screen survival tactics seem unbelievably real. DiCaprio himself stated that this was the most challenging role of his career. He went to extremes to accurately represent his character's struggle. For example, DiCaprio, a vegetarian, actually ate a raw slab of bison liver. He also actually slept in a horse carcass for his role. Another aspect of DiCaprio's performance that makes him great was his facial expressions and body language. Throughout much of the film, Glass is by himself, and doesn't need verbal communication. DiCaprio is able to not only effectively, but impeccably tell a story through his actions.

The acting and directing is unbelievable in this movie, but the movie is raised to new heights due to its cinematography. It is beautifully done and the shots of nature are breathtaking. This film was shot only in natural light. This must have been an extremely challenging task, but was done to make the film as realistic as possible. This reinforces the notion that Inarritu's controlling tactics, while agonizing, are worth it in the end. Inarritu also insisted on not using computer-generated imagery. This film was shot in twelve different locations and in three countries. Also, it was meant to be shot chronologically. Ultimately, this couldn't be done due to weather conditions. Nonetheless, the extreme efforts made to shoot a beautiful film payed off.

Over all, I was highly impressed by The Revenant. It is difficult for a two hour and thirty six minute movie to fully capture an audience member's attention throughout its entirety, yet this film accomplished that. I barely even noticed that I was sandwiched between two fairly large old men at the movie theater! This film could easily attract a wide array of audience members. It depicts scenes of war, brutality, and survival for the gore-seekers. It projects a fascinating and often overlooked period of time in American history for history buffs. Beautiful scenery, fabulous performances, the list goes on and on. Go. See. This. Film. You won't regret it. If anything, see it for Leo. He deserves it.

Spotlight

It is officially my favorite time of year- Oscar season. The nominations were officially announced by the Academy earlier this week. Over all, I am less drawn to the nominations this year than I was last year. Nearly every 2015 Best Picture nomination blew me away. As a self-proclaimed movie buff, however, it is still my mission to see as many nominations as possible. Last night, I saw the highly-praised Boston-based film, Spotlight. This film, directed by Tom McCarthy, starred Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, and Rachel McAdams, told the story of how the Boston Globe uncovered widespread child molestation within the Catholic Church. The story was based off of true events that occurred in 2001. I was five years old at the time, and had little recollection of this. I was amazed at how McCarthy was able to capture the methods of journalism and how it can be used to uncover a major scandal. There was so much information to fit into a film, and I can understand how daunting of a task this could be for a filmmaker. However, the brilliant strategy behind Spotlight was to focus primarily on the journalism. In short, the film depicts a group of journalists, the "spotlight" journalists, who are in charge of and dedicated to working on a confidential project for an extended period of time. These journalists spent months uncovering the reality of sexual abuse among Catholic priests in Boston.

The reality of sexual abuse is an exceptionally challenging concept to portray respectfully on-screen. This was done very gracefully in Spotlight and the actors demonstrated that the journalists involved were doing their jobs, not trying to be heroes. It was clear that the reveal of truth was necessary for justice. The scale of the coverup of this scandal by the Catholic church was unbelievable. For decades, the church got away with abuse. People's lives were forever changed for the worse. The film was effectively able to demonstrate just how widespread and impactful this exceptionally well-hidden scandal was. This phenomenon of child abuse within the Catholic church went on undetected for decades, while the investigative reporting was ongoing for years. It would be hard to capture every detail of this in one film, which is why I believe Spotlight was so successful. It focused entirely on the journalism aspect. Victims as well as priests were interviewed by the spotlight journalists, which gave the viewer a unique look into the scandal. Everything that is uncovered is seen through the eyes of journalists. It takes a lot of talent to portray real people in a film, but the acting in Spotlight was exceptionally done.  Although the subject matter of this movie is intense, I think it is an important film to see. The viewer will be exposed to a moving storyline, impressive performances, and carefully done artistic decisions. This was one of the best films I've seen this year, and would gladly go see it again.

While We're Young

Earlier this year, I made a mental note to check out the film "While We're Young" when it came to theaters. Then life happened. I got busy and never got around to seeing it. But thank god for Redbox, always saving the day! I was excited to see "While We're Young" in stock, and eagerly rented it. I didn't have high hopes for this movie, honestly. It is a cute quirky Noah Baumbach film about a forty-something couple who feel trapped in their orderly, routined lives. Then, they meet this wild and exciting young millennial couple who give a new light to their lives. 

This movie has the charm of Woody Allen, but goes beyond swishy romances and cliched storylines. Not only is Baumbach emphasizing the generational gap evident in the twenty first century, but overlays an entirely captivating plotline about filmmaking, ethics, and independence that will put you on the edge of your seat. The contrast between the middle-aged couple, Josh and Cornelia, and the in-your-face hipster couple, Jamie and Darby, highlights the differences between two generations. Every cliche imagined about the millennials and New York hipsters is brought to life on-screen. This sounds like it would be dreadfully annoying- think again. While this notion of throwing shade at our modern youth could have been done distastefully and without style, Baumbach allows young people to laugh at their own ways. 

As a 19 year old, I felt obligated to relate to the youthful couple. However, my traditional ways and love of order left me relating to Josh and Cornelia. I saw how the past generation views the current one- and ultimately realized that my viewpoints on my peers are not that different! I found myself rolling my eyes at the minor character wearing a T-shirt that spells "Some Crappy Band", because that's the reality of modern hipsterdom! 

While this film sometimes feels as if it's trying too hard to be different, ultimately it was a light and fun film that didn't leave you unsatisfied. It didn't seem to spell out messages obviously to the viewer, however you are left with the reminder to follow the beat of your own drum. When you're in the mood for a cute indie film, or are curious about the current generational gap, give "While We're Young" a shot. You will be pleasantly surprised!