Nominated Producers: Carthew Neal and Taika Waititi
Director: Taika Waititi
Writer: Taika Waititi
Cast: Roman Griffin Davis, Scarlett Johansson, Thomasin McKenzie, Sam Rockwell, Taika Waititi, Rebel Wilson, Archie Yates, Alfie Allen, Stephen Merchant, and others.
Plot:
Near the end of World War II in Germany, Johannes Betzler, a ten-year-old boy in the Hitler Youth, gets by with a little help from a very special imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler himself. But when an injury forces Jojo to spend more time at home, he discovers that his mother, Rosie, is secretly hiding a Jewish girl named Elsa inside the walls of their house. Should Jojo continue to rely on the guidance of his imaginary friend or open his heart to a new friendship with an actual human being who desperately needs his help?
Why It Should Win:
I love Jojo Rabbit. I’ll admit I approached it with suspicion. I didn’t want to love it, but I did.
I love it so much that I wanted to wait to write it up until I could watch it again at home, and I planned my Best Picture review with that in mind. After seeing it again, I can confidently say that if I got to vote for Best Picture, my ballot would look like this: 1) Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2) Jojo Rabbit 3) 1917.
To be honest, if Margot Robbie’s scenes as Sharon Tate were removed from Hollywood, then I might give Jojo the slight edge in my own personal preferences. For me, they’re more like #1 and #1.5. And there’s quite a chasm between the two of them and 1917 (a film I also love).
(If you want to know, the rest of my list is 4. Little Women 5. The Lighthouse 6. Hustlers 7. Ford v Ferrari 8. Uncut Gems 9. The Farewell 10. Joker and Parasite in a dead heat. I know I’m cheating there, but it’s been a wonderful year for film. I could expand the list to twenty without batting an eyelash.)
As I said, I did not want to love Jojo Rabbit. The premise looks contrived to provoke outrage and celebrate its own cleverness, so I was deeply suspicious, even after I heard multiple friends highly praise the movie. But Jojo surprised me by having so much heart. It isn’t cynical and self-impressed at all. It’s sweet and strangely earnest, tapping into primal emotions and making a convincing plea for all of us to build a better world.
Young Roman Griffin Davis is such a wonderful child actor that I believed he was Jojo. I forgot he was acting. And when I did remember that he was an actor, I forgot he was a child. He’s gifted, disarmingly adorable, and gives an outstanding, unaffected performance.
Scarlett Johansson is a scene stealer who lights up the screen every time she appears. If she wins an Oscar this year, I personally prefer her dazzling supporting work here to her lead turn in Marriage Story. No offense to Laura Dern, but I would love to see Johansson steal Best Supporting Actress. She gets to play a full range of emotions, seems to be channeling Marlene Dietrich, and is never less than enchanting. Yet it is her mother’s love and anguish that speak to me. Imagine raising a child under those impossible circumstances, hoping desperately to instill moral values when your government is taking children from their parents and putting them into concentration camps. What she must do seems impossible, but still, she does what she can.
I fell in love with Sam Rockwell’s performance in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and I’ve loved all of his performances since. Here he works cinematic magic yet again, making me cry when I least expected it. I know that realistically the Academy can’t nominate him every year, but in his last big scene, I wanted to yell out through my tears, “I’ve seen enough! You win all the Oscars, Sam Rockwell!”
Waititi uses every actor to his or her greatest advantage. The under-acknowledged Thomasin McKenzie mesmerized my daughter (who has now decided that Jojo Rabbit is her favorite movie this year, though Parasite remains a strong second). Alfie Allen barely has lines yet manages to create moments. Stephen Merchant is laughable and simultaneously chilling. Even Rebel Wilson, whose comedy is sometimes too over-the-top for me, is funny here (funnier than she was at the BAFTAs whether or not you liked her bawdy roast of…everyone). Adorable Archie Yates steals every scene he’s in. This movie is so full of scene stealers, in fact, that every single scene is stolen by someone! That’s what makes it so great!
And if the Academy gave out Oscars for foreshadowing, Jojo Rabbit would win them all! I’ve never seen such foreshadowing! Jojo is going to do for shoelaces what Psycho did for showers! The movie also deserves accolades for its cinematography and score.
Perhaps best of all, the film’s tonal shifts make us feel the moments of horror more deeply because of their sudden, unexpected arrival. (That first moment with the rabbit is chilling, sickening.) The comedy is sharper because of this, too. I also love the way imaginary Hitler’s tone and manner change as Jojo experiences growth and growing awareness. There’s a particularly poignant moment midway through the film when Jojo asks Adolf if he thinks he’s ugly, and Hitler answers simply, “Yes.”
Taika Waititi (himself a surprisingly good imaginary Hitler, by turns charming, menacing, and unhinged) has written and directed a film that entertains us at every minute, yet makes a deadly serious point.
Mothers, your children are always in danger. Do what you can to keep them from becoming victims. But also protect them from becoming predators. We’re all only human, and the monsters rise up from within. The good news is, it is never too late (for you) to do the right thing.
Why It Shouldn’t Win:
When you make a comedy about a little boy whose imaginary friend is Hitler, you practically invite people to dislike your work. Some people write Jojo Rabbit off without even seeing it, finding its approach to the material distasteful. Some see it and don’t like it because the continuous tonal shifts don’t work for them. Some consider the film too safe, arguing that it only pretends to take risks. Some say it treads very familiar territory and feels manipulative and slightly contrived. (In fact, I say this myself, but I can’t help loving it, anyway.) Some contend that Jojo encourages sympathy for Nazis and pushes for a pleasant centrism that is a delusional dream.
But Jojo‘s biggest problem is what people aren’t saying. Nobody is talking about this movie much at all anymore. But maybe they should be.
Just a few days ago, I confidently wrote that Greta Gerwig would win Best Adapted Screenplay for her heartfelt revamping of Little Women. Since then, Taika Waititi won not only the WGA, but the BAFTA for writing Jojo Rabbit (and Gerwig was eligible and nominated for both of those awards). Screenplay would be a nice acknowledgement of Jojo, particularly since Mel Brooks won an Oscar for his Original screenplay of The Producers, a pretty seminal film when it comes to ridiculous Hitlers.
So maybe Jojo Rabbit will actually win Best Adapted Screenplay. And it could win more than that, too. Best Picture seems out of reach for this odd little movie, but every Oscar night brings its own surprises. You never know.
In the Best Picture race, Jojo Rabbit is a dark horse to keep an eye on for sure. Every major guild nominated it, and unlike 1917 and Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood, it has an Oscar nomination for editing (which is often a Best Picture predictor but, admittedly, may not be this year because of the long take illusion). Jojo is both crowd pleasing and a reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust which should help its chances with the Academy. Plus, because it’s so solid, it could be A LOT of people’s second choice, bolstering its chances thanks to the preferential ballot. What if a few different films get eliminated in early rounds, and all of those ballots list Jojo as their second choice? (It goes without saying, of course, that this will never happen if a zillion people vote for 1917 as their first choice, which seems destined to happen.)
I highly (highly!) doubt Jojo Rabbit will win Best Picture, but I’ll be thrilled if it does. I love the film, and I always enjoy a surprise on Oscar night.
Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Todd Phillips and Scott Silver
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Frances Conroy, Zazie Beetz, Brett Cullen, Shea Whigham, Bill Camp, Sharon Washington, Glenn Fleshler, Leigh Gill, Marc Maron, April Grace, Brian Tyree Henry, Rober De Niro, and others.
Plot:
Let’s face it. Gotham City is not a great place to live. It’s dark, depressing, and crime ridden now, and things weren’t any better back in the days when everything looked like it was directed by Martin Scorsese.
Not surprisingly, Gotham resident Arthur Fleck (local clown-for-hire and long-term mental patient) is not happy, even though his elderly mother insists he should never be otherwise. People keep belittling him, slighting him, attacking him unprovoked, stealing his signs, violently serenading him with old songs by Stephen Sondheim (whose work is unusually well represented in this year’s Best Picture nominees).
The elusive answer to Arthur’s problems suddenly becomes obvious when he snaps and murders three people on the subway. Who knew? Murder makes him feel…seen. As copycats in clown masks begin rising up throughout the city, Arthur finds unexpected joy and meaning in creating violent chaos and sharing his misery with like-minded others.
So put on a happy face, I guess. You get what you deserve? (“Why so serious?” is a better catch phrase, but I’m just impressed that Phoenix managed to step out of Heath Ledger’s long shadow to create another Oscar nominated (and surely winning) Joker performance.)
Why It Should Win:
Some people have expressed outrage that Joker is nominated for Best Picture, but I don’t know why. It won the Golden Lion in Venice, quickly made over a billion dollars (without playing in China), and sparked media controversy for months. It is definitely one of the most noteworthy and timely films of 2019, whether you like what that says about our society or not. I’m personally pleased that the Oscars chose to acknowledge a movie that’s wildly popular and culturally relevant for a change.
Before I go any further, I have to confess that after watching repeat encores of Joker here at home, I have fallen in love with Hildur Guðnadóttir’s nominated score, and I am rooting (hard!) for her to win that Oscar. (In fairness, Thomas Newman and Alexandre Desplat would be extremely worthy winners this year, too, and I’m also on board with the idea of acknowledging John Williams’s soaring forty-two-year achievement scoring Star Wars. Now that I’ve said all that, watch Thomas’s cousin Randy Newman win for Marriage Story. Don’t forget to thank me, Randy, for jinxing your competition!)
Normally I prefer upbeat music, but Guðnadóttir’s haunting dirge of string misery (and, occasionally, ecstasy) fits this material so well. In fact, since watching the movie, I’ve learned that director Todd Phillips played the score on the set to help Phoenix find the right choices for the character, and that is how they came up with his ad-libbed dance just after the subway killing. I actually cheered and applauded in my living room when Guðnadóttir won the Golden Globe (though I worry that that win may jinx her chances, too). I hope she also takes home the Oscar. What a score!
And, of course, Joaquin Phoenix is heavily favored to win Best Actor for his sad, disturbing turn as Arthur Fleck. There’s a reason for that. (It’s that he deserves it!) Phoenix always gives intense, convincing performances, usually playing oddballs or marginalized people, and he so rarely gets any recognition for his never less than excellent work. It’s about time he won an Oscar. I often don’t even like his movies, but even I will acknowledge his talent and dedication to his craft.
To me, Joker‘s most terrifying moment is when we see Arthur from behind as he fixes his shoe. How did Phoenix get so emaciated? (I hear he did it through unsafe means that caused him psychological distress.) Who does he think he is, Christian Bale? He’s so thin that as his muscles move, it looks like some molting creature is about to burst forth from inside his contorted frame! Not only is that psychologically disturbing, but it’s also a visual metaphor for Arthur’s transformation from sweet mental patient into murderous Joker.
Why It Shouldn’t Win:
Joker is too dark for some people. I know that it genuinely disturbed some viewers. (And I don’t mean just my mother. I mean professional critics.) I did not have that experience. I went into the film feeling depressed (because last fall was just awful!), and watching Joker lifted my spirits (because it was an interesting, engaging movie).
I should note, too, that often with repeat viewings, I see more and more to love in a film, but I seem to be having the opposite experience with Joker. After watching it multiple times, I now remember the film as empty train car, murders, weird dance, then train car full of murderous clowns. These images drawn from a bare-bones retelling do make a powerful impression, but as with Arthur’s physical body, there’s not much covering those bare bones.
I do hope Joker wins Best Score, though, and I’m pretty sure (Phoenix’s uncomfortable speeches notwithstanding) that it has Best Actor in the bag. But despite its impressive eleven nominations, Joker is far too divisive to win Best Picture. Some people really, really hate it. (A lot.)
1917
Nominated Producers: Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Anne Tenggren, Callum McDougall
Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Claire Duburcq, Andrew Scott, Adrian Scarborough, Richard Madden, and others.
Plot:
April, 1917. Two young British soldiers race the clock through enemy territory and across no man’s land in a desperate effort to prevent needless loss of life. World War I has marred the fields of France with the ugly side-effects of trench warfare–ruined landscapes, abandoned farms, fields littered with barbed wire and bombs, and of course the ever-present stench of death. British General Erinmore has just gained intelligence showing that Germany has staged a feigned retreat in order to draw the British into a doomed attack. Unaware of this enemy trick, the second battalion of the Devonshire regiment plans to launch such an attack within hours. When they do, they will be slaughtered, but with telephone lines cut, how can they learn this crucial information in time?
Under these dire circumstances, General Erinmore sends Lance Corporal Tom Blake and his friend Lance Corporal Will Schofield on a time sensitive, life-or-death mission. If they fail to deliver the message to call off the attack, thousands of men will die (including Corporal Blake’s own brother). With stakes like these, who can look away? Even the camera stays trained on the mission at all times, and the film is edited to give us the illusion of being one long, continuous take.
Why It Should Win:
1917 has a simple premise, but a high concept and brilliant execution. I do believe it actually will win either Best Picture or Best Director (and very possibly both). So far, it has won at the Producers Guild Awards and the Directors Guild Awards. Plus, it just won the two big awards at the BAFTAs. It’s the film to beat for sure.
I’ve been excited about this project ever since I heard Sam Mendes planned to use the long take. I mean, two men racing the clock through trenches and across battlefields, and we’re with them, unblinkingly, every step of the way? It’s the perfect marriage of style and substance. I’m a sucker for the one-take illusion, anyway. I knew using it in a story like this would keep me on the edge of my seat in suspense.
But what I didn’t count on was 1917‘s extraordinary heart. I have heard people call the story a bit empty, not emotionally resonant. Those people must not have seventeen-year-old sons who have always dreamed of military glory and frequently talk about enlisting in the Navy if we go to war with Iran.
I felt every frame of 1917 very deeply. Its take on war is meditative, melancholy. It invites critical thought and spiritual stirrings. While watching, I thought of my attachment to my own sons. I also recollected the works of Tolstoy, of Wilfred Owen. This film isn’t political. It makes us question the need for war on a more personal, human level. It also encourages us to engage with the divine and uses a hymn late in the film to create an eerie, almost surreal moment. (For an instant, I half believed the protagonist had wandered into the afterlife.)
The screenplay (co-written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns) is deceptively strong. I’m glad it was not overlooked (though it seems unlikely to win the Oscar). Sure, the story is simple, but the emotions run deep, and the structure seems almost poetic. Another plus, Thomas Newton’s triumphant score is uplifting and Oscar worthy (though I’ll confess to liking the haunting Joker score an infinitesimal bit more).
Stars George McKay and Dean-Charles Chapman deserve more recognition. Had the film released slightly earlier, surely McKay at least would have received a nomination for Best Actor. His star-making performance is a tour de force. And, personally, I like the not-at-all subtle work of his charming co-star even better. Chapman plays the more engaging character, and I adore the scene in the ruined cherry orchard. The symbolism is hard to miss, but it feels elegant, beautiful and poetic, instead of heavy handed. The film also features some big names giving small supporting turns–Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Richard Madden. Collectively, they make an enormous (and positive) impression.
If Roger Deakins doesn’t win Best Cinematography, it will be the shock of the year. What he achieves is so excellent and extraordinary that he’s bound to be rewarded. The scene with the flares in the burning city alone is so uniquely conceived, well crafted, and beautifully shot that it’s enough to win the film an Oscar all by itself.
What (virtually) guarantees this film a big win (for either Picture or Director, probably both) is that nobody will hate it. There is no obvious reason to be ashamed to vote for 1917. And most people will actually enjoy watching it, Academy members, critics, just regular movie goers. Our seventeen-year-old thought it was “dope.” His peers should agree. So often 1917 feels like a heavily plotted video game in which the characters move fluidly from objective to objective, cut scene to cut scene. Some see that as I negative, but consider this. If 1917 is a game, the audience is playing. We feel like we’re in the movie delivering the message, too! And this isn’t just for boys with dreams of military glory or men with memories of service. Our eleven-year-old daughter also loves the film. (She ranks it third of the year after Jojo and Parasite). I’m excited for my parents to watch it, too. I can’t imagine that anyone wouldn’t like it. (Even World War I era German soldiers would watch and think, “Ah yes. We laid such clever traps!”) No one is demonized here. Every soldier seems so human, so brave, and so pitiable.
Best of all, 1917 has something valuable to say, not only to career soldiers but to dedicated pacifists as well. It’s a philosophical, contemplative film about an undeniably important moment in history, and the Academy will probably honor it with the Oscar for Best Picture.
Why It Shouldn’t Win:
Parasite is looking really strong. It won the SAG award for ensemble cast, then went on to become the first non-English language Writer’s Guild winner for Original Screenplay. And every time it wins something at a televised ceremony, everybody in the room launches into a virtual Bacchic frenzy of wild, delirious applause. At this point, I think it is 1917‘s biggest (and perhaps only) threat. Yes, Parasite is a foreign language film, but people enthusiastically adore it. I still think 1917 is most likely to win Best Picture and Director, but there’s a very real possibility that at least one of those awards will go to Bong Joon Ho’s wildly beloved, genre-bending, cinephile’s dream (or nightmare of class inequality, if you prefer), Parasite.
Of course, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood could still be a contender, too. Homefield advantage may give Tarantino’s nostalgic love letter to late 60s LA an Oscar boost in the end.
One of these three nominees will almost certainly win Best Picture. The only other winner I can even imagine is (as a very dark horse) Jojo Rabbit. After all, every major guild nominated it, and it keeps winning Best Adapted Screenplay. Plus it’s about the Holocaust. At the Oscars, that never hurts. A Best Picture win for Taika Waititi’s wonderful film would be a total shock, though.
All of the nominees this year are worthy, but I really do expect 1917 to win.