Column: My rankings of Oscar’s best picture nominees

0

By Adam Aasen

Every year, I try to watch all of the Academy Awards Best Picture nominees before the awards show airs on TV. Some years I don’t succeed, but the last few years I saw them all. Now, I know you’re used to seeing me write about Carmel politics, but here’s a nice diversion and a fun debate that has nothing to do with city debt or road repairs. Post below and let me know your thoughts.

Please know that I didn’t hate any of these movies. Some years I do, but this year they all were good movies. Just because I discuss the flaws of “Selma” or “American Sniper” doesn’t mean they aren’t great films. I’m just ranking them based on my personal preferences.

8. Theory of Everything – I can’t really blame the actors or the director for this movie being so dull. I really think it’s the subject matter. The true story of Stephen Hawking really isn’t that interesting to me. Lead actor Eddie Redmayne is a great actor and he deserves his nomination for his performance, but I hope he doesn’t win. He does a good job showing emotion through the eyes of a man who can’t express the same way anymore. Redmayne has charm, but his performance – to me – feels like impersonation rather than emotional range. Yes, he slurs the words and shows how debilitative the disease is, but playing a character with a disability isn’t always Oscar-worthy (I’ll reference “Tropic Thunder,” for those who know what I’m talking about). The movie itself just feels like a show-piece for Redmayne’s performance. Part fairy-tale love story and part bio-pic, I didn’t know what I was supposed to think was important in the end. Yes, Hawking’s wife showed enormous strength standing by his side during the difficult times, but is that all? The film is very pretty and well-constructed but it just doesn’t feel like a unique vision. In the end, I was kind of bored. It’s worth noting that “Theory of Everything” currently has the second lowest score out of all the best picture nominees at 79 percent.

7. American Sniper – I enjoyed this movie, but it has some flaws. My biggest problem is the ending. I don’t want to spoil it but the ending is very abrupt and unsatisfying. The movie is the most violent nominee. It’s also probably the most depressing. If you saw the movie, people ask you, “Did you cry?” It’s that kind of movie. It switches back and forth from context-free violence straight from the latest “Call of Duty” video game to angst-filled moral ambiguity. It wants to have it both ways. It all adds up to a message that we’ve seen before. Men in the military sacrifice for our country and they come back with haunted psyches. Even though they take aim at the enemy, these are children with bombs in their hands in the Middle East. It messes you up. I’m not disparaging that message. It’s just been done before. And there’s nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary about this film. If you do some research on the real-life subject, Chris Kyle, you’ll find so many interesting things about him that aren’t really explored in the movie. His post-war life feels rushed as the film wraps up, although research shows that it was just as fascinating. The movie wastes time starting all the way back at the beginning of Kyle’s journey – before he met his wife, before he enlisted – and that backstory could have been filled in with one line of dialogue. The movie really emphasizes marriage and family life, which I understand because it tries to make you care about Kyle and whether he gets home safe. But we get it. The movie’s positives? Cooper shows he has range and he can play a solemn, serious character. The battle scenes are extremely well-shot and full of adrenaline. The movie also knows when to slow down and when to inject a dose of action. It’s a good true story and it is a tearjerker. I suspect the academy included this movie for two reasons: they love director Clint Eastwood and not every nominee can be an art house release. It has the lowest score on Rotten Tomatoes (75 percent when I checked) out of all of the nominees. But it’s the movie more people saw. It had a tremendous opening weekend –$90 million – making it immediately the highest grossing film out of the best picture nominees. According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, it has currently earned more than Birdman, The Theory of Everything, Boyhood and Whiplash combined.

6. Selma – Just like “American Sniper,” I think it’s important to note that just because you don’t love a movie, doesn’t mean you don’t support the message that it’s sending. It’s popular to say you liked the movie “Selma,” because Martin Luther King was an extraordinary man and his contribution to American society cannot be overstated. It’s easy to say that we’re against racist and the atrocities of segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s easy to say we should honor the struggles of those who fought and the lives of those who died at the hands of racist mobs. But that doesn’t make “Selma” a great movie. Last year, “12 Years a Slave” tackled similar material but in a more visceral way. There are scenes in “12 Years a Slave” that you just won’t ever forget. I can’t really say the same about “Selma.” This is no insult to King, but “Selma” feels like “42” (the Jackie Robinson biopic) with more gravitas and better actors. It hits all of the usual notes. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not a travesty that it wasn’t nominated in more categories. David Oyelowo is a fantastic actor. I’ve appreciated his work in many films and he does a great job, but it feels like he’s mostly just giving speeches at a church. It’s not as challenging as some other roles I’ve seen this year. Many people will criticize this film for historic inaccuracy, especially in regard to its portrayal of President Lyndon B. Johnson. I don’t usually fault movies for slightly changing history to suit narrative, but this time it feels like the changes weren’t to make it a better movie but to push a political opinion. This “opinion about history” is that LBJ didn’t do enough to help the Civil Rights movement, which isn’t fair. First off, you can’t hold a man in the 1960s to the same standard that we hold today. Second, LBJ did a lot – more than most presidents – but his tactics were just different than MLK. Same goal, different strategy. Why bash him for that? One movie I’d like to compare this to is “Parkland,” a 2013 film that depicts the assassination of JFK. Instead of following Kennedy or Oswald, the film focuses on everyday people impacted on that day: doctors, nurses, paramedics, secret service men and Abraham Zapruder, the man who unexpectedly filmed it all. I kind of appreciate the “micro” approach instead of the “macro” approach to history that “Selma” takes. “Selma” tries to accomplish a lot and it succeeds but it feels more like a lesson in history than an examination of the human condition.

5. The Grand Budapest Hotel – It’s hard to rate comedies when it comes to Oscar movies. They can be perfect in almost every way, but they don’t feel like they have the same substance. Is it just as important to make us laugh as to make us cry? I think we all would say so, but it’s a tough road for a movie without something to say. Wes Anderson is a master storyteller with a wonderful flair for visuals. Freeze-frame any scene in one of his movies and you have a painting to put up on your wall. His films are usually a collection of colorful characters who participate in a journey that takes through very quick scene changes. There aren’t a lot of long-lingering shots. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” has one of the clearest stories of any Anderson film. It quickly takes you from point A to point B, but does so with style. I can’t really say anything bad, per se, but it just doesn’t elevate to the level of “masterpiece” in my mind. Like last year’s “American Hustle,” it was fun and pretty and well-acted, but it doesn’t have any gravitas. It did the best job doing what it set out to do, but I think the goal was much easier than trying to tackle MLK’s life or 12 years of a boy’s adolescence. It also might be a knock against this film since it is so familiar to us. Anderson has made several movies similar to this and some might be superior in people’s minds. To that end, it can’t really be original when it reminds you of Anderson’s other works so much.

4. The Imitation Game – I didn’t expect to like this one so much. It reminded me of your typical math-genius biopic like “A Beautiful Mind” where we fawn over someone’s accomplishments and try to convince the audience why the man is worthy of a movie in the first. There’s some of that in here, but Benedict Cumberbatch gives a breakthrough performance. It has charm and wit and depth. He really gave one of the best performances of the year. His supporting cast is solid but forgettable. Keira Knightly doesn’t really deserve her Oscar nod since she didn’t really do much, but she was good I guess. The structure in this film works well. It jumps around without becoming confusing and the non-linear approach prevents the film from becoming stale in telling certain periods of his life. It’s obviously exaggerated and changed for the movie’s sake, but unlike “Selma” I think these changes were a choice to serve the narrative. You have to combine characters and elevate conflict to craft a story. But you have to stay true to the essence of who the person was and I believe this film did that. It also tackles issues of homophobia and gay rights in a way that wouldn’t make the masses uncomfortable. It’s not a sex movie, but a story about “cracking a code.” Trying to figure out an enigma: whether it’s a Nazi message or what’s inside of you. It’s about sacrifice. How the great figures in history have given up their happiness to pursue important work. It’s fascinating and I’m surprised I enjoyed it as much as I did.

3. Birdman – I’m very happy for Michael Keaton. I’ve loved his performances for years. Forget the trash like “Jack Frost” or “Multiplicity” (which I will defend because it has its good moments). Keaton is a versatile actor. More so than Johnny Depp in my opinion. Look at his performances in “Mr. Mom,” “Batman,” “Beetlejuice,” and “Clean and Sober.” So very different. He gives a great performance in “Birdman” but I might not give him the Oscar just because it feels like the role was written for him. The same reason you can’t really give too much credit to Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler.” Keaton plays a character just like him, former superhero actor wanting credibility, but his real acting comes with the character’s madness and breaks from reality. Some people didn’t like these hallucinations, but I enjoy when it “got weird.” Same reason I loved “Black Swan.” The dialogue in “Birdman” is fantastic. It reminds me of David Mamet or Aaron Sorkin. Fast and witty and full of energy. The one-shot follow (which cheats because you can see where it was cut) was a great effect. Reminds me of the claustrophobia you feel in Hitchcock’s “Rope” and the one-shot idea provides that tension and momentum. The soundtrack is great. I had to laugh when I heard someone say they didn’t want all of the jazz drumming in “Whiplash” so they saw “Birdman” instead. There’s probably more drums in “Birdman.” The main knock against this movie is that it’s so meta. Keaton is making references to his real life career. Ed Norton plays an out-of-control method actor who is difficult to work with, just like his real-life reputation. In addition, I always grow tired of films about acting. Can’t always go for the navel-gazing in Hollywood. But just “Whiplash,” this movie has so much emotion. It draws you in and picks you up and carries you. People also might have a problem with the lack of happy Hollywood cliché ending, but to me that’s a positive. I just need to see the journey. I don’t need to end a certain way. Just surprise me and make me feel something.

2. Whiplash – Visceral is the best way to describe this heart-pounding, adrenaline-filled, profanity-laden look at the competitive world of jazz musicians. Lead actor Miles Teller shows great musicianship pounding on the drums with such fury that his hands begin to bleed. His sweat and blood – literally – go into his work. You can feel the tension, stress, anguish and anxiety. It’s not a “fun” movie to watch, but it grabs you and you can’t look away. J.K. Simmons deserves the best supporting actor award for his riveting portrayal as a maniacal band director who berates and belittles his students into becoming world class musicians. His character could have become a flat stereotype, but he provides depth. You hate him, but you also kind of understand where he’s coming from. He wants people to be the best – legendary – even if it means destroying the person. You can’t make an omelet without cracking a few eggs and he certainly makes them crack. He screams, throws things, and shouts out racial slurs, but lets up just enough that keeps the students working for his approval and wanting more. I thought this would be a character study without much inertia. No twists just a look at a madman. But I was wrong, the plot does propel this film. It does develop and move and grow and take you on a ride. It’s thrilling. The film isn’t for everyone. Your grandmother might prefer “The Imitation Game” or “Theory of Everything” due to the profanity and anger on display. Some people might not like that it’s not a “feel-good” movie, but I don’t think that’s a requirement to being a great film. I don’t care how you make me feel, just make me feel something. And do it in a way that isn’t cliché or manipulative. Organically put me in the mindset of the character. Let me study them and see through their eyes and feel their heart racing. You might not like the way this movie makes you feel, but you will feel something. It’s hard to be detached from these actor’s performances.

1. Boyhood – I’m actually surprised how so many critics agree that “Boyhood” is probably the best movie of the year. It’s not an easy film to like for some people. It’s really long. Two hours and forty three minutes. Some might say there’s not enough plot. They find this movie boring. It’s basically the story of a family growing up. There are loose ends and characters you never see again. But, hey, that’s life. So I completely understand if you don’t like this movie, but it perfectly suits my tastes. I love the films of director Richard Linklater. “Dazed and Confused” is a classic. I’m a huge fan of his trilogy: “Before Sunrise,” “Before Sunset” and “Before Midnight.” Even his true-crime indie flick starring Jack Black, “Bernie,” is excellently made. Some people thought the concept of “Boyhood” is a gimmick. He shot the film over 12 years, returning to the same actors for a few weeks a year. On screen, you see the actors age and it’s not just a gimmick. It serves the story. It makes it feel real. Like you’re watching a documentary and not a fictional story. For that season, I don’t know if you needed a whole lot of plot. I felt like a voyeur observing the lives of everyday people that I can relate to. You might not like the decisions they make or understand why they do what they do, but they feel real. You recognize people like that in your own life. It seems like a large undertaking, encapsulating someone’s life, but Linklater focuses on the little moments. Because that’s what life is: a collection of moments. Eating French fries at the bowling alley. Getting passed a note in class from a cute girl. Waking up to a dying campfire in the woods. Seeing your mom lying on the floor of your garage as your stepfather yells at her. Quick images and senses that stick in your memory. And at the end of it all, what does it add up to? The mother in this film looks at her son as he’s about to go to college and she says, “I just thought there’d be more.” That is how we feel. That’s the conclusion we reach when we see our children grow older. Is it as big as a civil rights leader changing history or a skilled sniper saving lives? No. But everyday people have journeys too. We are worthy of having our stories told and Linklater knew how to do it. At the end of this film, you start to look back at your life and examine how far you have come. That’s the mark of a great film. It forced introspection. It was brave for Linklater to take 12 years to make a long, slow-paced movie about an everyday life. His gamble paid off for me, at least.


Current Morning Briefing Logo

Stay CURRENT with our daily newsletter (M-F) and breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox for free!

Select list(s) to subscribe to



By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
Share.

Current Morning Briefing Logo

Stay CURRENT with our daily newsletter (M-F) and breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox for free!

Select list(s) to subscribe to



By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact