Nic Baggetto’s Oscar Picks 2017
February 10, 2017
Movies vs. Politics:
For some, and to a degree for me, the Academy Awards have proven to be more of a political showcase of Hollywood elites rather than an actual unbiased award show. Based on this assumption, I correctly anticipated that the film “Spotlight” would win over “The Revenant” last year because the latter was overly flourished, and I believed the Academy would give the win to the “more important film.” Now, having gone to painstaking lengths to view all nine of the 2017 contenders for Best Picture, I’ve once again compiled a comprehensive list of the nominees in the order that I believe them to be least likely to most likely to win based on their merits as films and the political landscape surrounding them. Let’s get started.
The Ballot Fillers:
(9) The first film to be eliminated is also one of the most recent to have been released. “Hidden Figures,” a story about the struggle of African American women working for NASA in the 1960s, acts as an incredible character piece with witty dialogue and a sharply written script, but it lacks the sense of style and awe I’d expect from an awards contender. Performances by Taraji P. Henson and Octavia Spencer keep the film energetic, but the racial tensions deflate a bit early, and the ending feels like a replica of “Apollo 13.”
(8) Albeit a fantastic directorial effort on the part of Denzel Washington, “Fences” doesn’t quite make the cut either. As far as films that are 100% based around characters talking go, “Fences” is one of the more engaging ones, but it still falls into the trap of being overly long and, at moments, repetitive. Both Washington and Viola Davis give stellar performances, and the camera work is uniquely personal, but the film didn’t leave me with my jaw dropped as it ends on a note that’s inconsistent tonally with the rest of the film.
(7) Keeping with the theme of talented directors making artful films, Mel Gibson’s “Hacksaw Ridge” proved to be an uncomfortably unique war film, but didn’t quite meet the standards set by films like “Saving Private Ryan” or “Full Metal Jacket” which it often seemed to imitate. Gibson successfully crafted a beautifully shot and masterfully paced film, but the overall unevenness between the religious undercurrents in the first half and the battle sequences in the second half, as well as Gibson’s infamous public image, will prevent this film from going very far at the Oscars.
Separating the Good from the Great:
(6) The first film on this list I believe to be truly great is “Hell or High Water” starring Chris Pine, Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges. The movie is the perfect example of a well-paced character drama that reveals plot points slowly to maintain its audience’s interest while having just enough action to be exciting as well. The cinematography reminded me somewhat of “No Country For Old Men,” one of my favorite movies. The only reason this film isn’t higher on the list is because I believe that some of the other films are simply more deserving.
(5) For me, the most emotional theater experience on this list was “Lion.” It details the true story of an Indian man, who was separated from his family at a young age, attempting to reunite with his mother and siblings later in life. I don’t cry often during movies, but I’m not ashamed to admit that “Lion” made me cry like a baby. The passionately raw performances from the leads as well as a chillingly haunting piano score bring to the screen the real- life emotion of the story. That being said, “Lion” has a significantly stronger first half than its second and may have even been stronger if it were done in flashback form.
(4) Perhaps the film that spoke to me the most as a student filmmaker on this list was “Arrival,” Denis Villenueve’s throwback to old fashioned science fiction of the 1950s and 1960s. I’ve praised this film on multiple occasions for not just being an alien invasion, CGI explosion extravaganza. “Arrival” takes its time in developing character dynamics and builds to crucial plot points without being heavy handed. I love the message of solving problems through communication, but I found that the film itself struggles in communicating its own meaning near the end. This, I believe, is by design though. While I personally enjoyed the ambiguity, I could understand the Academy not awarding a film that is divisive. This just isn’t the type of film that wins Best Picture.
(3) While Ben Affleck may not have gotten his film nominated as he had hoped, his brother Casey Affleck has received tumultuous praise for his performance in “Manchester by the Sea,” the next film on my list. The praise is well-deserved as Affleck’s performance and his chemistry with Lucas Hedges is the driving force of the film. Despite the old women who walked out of the theater during my screening, I loved the realistically sad look at the interpersonal relationships between family members and how people cope with loss. “Manchester by the Sea” is not for the faint of heart and is all the better for it.
…And the Winner is:
(2 & 1) The two remaining films are, in my opinion, both fantastically deserving of awards, but only one can claim Best Picture. It’s the city of stars vs. the city of moonlight with these two: “La La Land” and “Moonlight.” Let’s analyze both before coming to a conclusion.
“La La Land” boasts more nominations than most other movies in Academy Award history and is surely going to win in terms of score and songs. This homage to classic musicals of yesteryear had me not only humming along, but thoroughly enjoying the plight of two hopeless romantics trying to make their way in Hollywood. Director Damien Chazelle once again breathes life and creativity into an otherwise average script. The chemistry between Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling (both celebrity crushes of mine) is a testament to the strength of their characters and their performances.
The counterpart “Moonlight” acts as a more subtle and grounded look at a homosexual African American male growing up in Miami. “Moonlight” is the epitome of a three act film, structured so that each act takes place at a different time in the lead character’s life with separate actors portraying him in each. Standout performances come from all three, including a child, as well as supporting characters who have depth and complexity. It is this complexity that helps “Moonlight” feel relatable and deeply personal in its storytelling. The camerawork and soundtrack both serve to underscore the drama without becoming too flashy and distracting. There is no doubt that this film comprised almost entirely of African American actors and filmmakers is being eyed by the Academy, which, just last year,was accused of being racist.
The difficulty in comparing these films is that one is a work of surrealist art while the other is a gritty, realistic craft. They aren’t meant to be juxtaposed with one another. In regards to entertainment, “La La Land” has the rewatchability factor, but “Moonlight” tells the better story. I understand the buzz around “La La Land,” but I, for one, have always been a storyteller, and that’s why I have to give the win to “Moonlight,” a film that will hold up better over time.
While “La La Land” is a joyous moviegoing experience, it doesn’t always serve its purpose. Chazelle set out to create a film that feels straight out of the 1940s, but often the tropes of 2016 Hollywood sneak in, and I can’t help but feel that a few charming musical numbers don’t make up for a story that isn’t as unique as it thinks it is. Gosling’s character in “La La Land” has a line about Hollywood that intrigues me: “They worship everything and value nothing,” a quote that somewhat applies to the film itself. “Moonlight’s” victory will stand for the values of important storytelling over colorful splurges of excess.
