This Sunday, March 10, marks the 96th Oscar Awards ceremony. Best Picture, the Academy’s most prestigious prize—and the only one voted on by all 10,500 members—will be presented at the end of the night. We watched all of the nominated films for the award; here is the exhaustive list of our thoughts and commentaries on the films.
“American Fiction”
CORINNA: This movie was not what I thought it was going to be. I assumed that it would be a well-justified criticism of the depiction of Black people in literature and film, and it was, but it also explored the concept of how impossible it is to limit the Black experience to one singular depiction. It was very thought-provoking and interesting, and explored other concepts like family, identity, and finding your place.
NATE: A compelling, thought-provoking movie about the boxes White people insist Black people’s experiences must fit into. The writing was what worked most for me, what really made the film worth the watch: all the snarky commentary, the ambiguous ending. That said, there was a lot of good about this movie. I enjoyed it.
“Anatomy of a Fall”
CORINNA: This film was without a doubt one of the best nominees this year. I absolutely loved the film's plot, and the inventiveness of the visual depictions of the crime were absolutely wonderful. I am a sucker for a good legal drama, and I think that this not only provided the satisfaction of that, but also provided solid relationships between characters that were fascinating. Everything is vague and non-descript which lets the audience make their own interpretations and decisions about the characters and the crime.
NATE: A moving film. Actress Sandra Hüller (who is incredible) is in almost every shot, and, along with Triet and Harari’s screenplay, gives the film constant forward motion while creating a deepening gray area. The genius of Anatomy of a Fall is that we’re never convinced of anyone’s innocence. Nobody’s good here, but nobody’s particularly bad; the movie’s subtle, gradual implications of the main characters feels deeply human.
“Barbie”
CORINNA: This was a good movie. It made me cry because what it says is relatable and hearing your feelings articulated in art is emotional. But, it didn’t make any groundbreaking statements, or touch on anything that hasn’t already been said numerous times before. Although that is not necessarily a bad thing, I think that there was a lot of room for improvement. It was funny, entertaining, and I absolutely loved the usage of practical effects and sets.
NATE: I love Greta Gerwig and everything she has ever made. Making Barbie actually good was a feat in and of itself, and Gerwig's handprints are everywhere. It’s very basic, corporate feminism—feminism for the masses (and, let’s not forget, for-profit)—but the movie is aware of that, and the fact that Mattel allowed Gerwig to keep jokes about their company was surprisingly introspective. Gerwig, of course, is the film’s strength; she’s any film’s strength.
“The Holdovers”
CORINNA: I loved everything about this movie, and I mean absolutely everything. The cast was absolutely incredible, but Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Dominic Sessa’s performances stood out to me. The characters within this film have such awful and tragic backstories, yet the film manages to maintain its humor. The faux 1970s appearance of the film added to its charm and nostalgia, and was just lovely to look at.
NATE: “The Holdovers” has a lot of heart. Director Alexander Payne takes full nostalgic advantage of the film’s 70s setting, so that it feels like a thing of the past—a relic rooted in the present. Giammatti, Sessa, and Randolph all give convincing, heartbreaking performances. I think they’re the movie’s biggest strength—it’s hard to imagine it without the trio’s incredible chemistry.
“Killers of the Flower Moon”
CORINNA: This film was created from entirely the wrong perspective. The film is focused around Ernest Burkhart, and although his perspective gives us a historical and interesting look into what took place, the film should be centered around Mollie Kyle and the Osage community. The story being told from the perspective of the perpetrators of the Osage murders instead of the victims and survivors felt wrong. Lily Gladstone was absolutely incredible, and she had better win Best Actress.
NATE: A powerful story, but one that feels like an ironically unaware metacommentary: as Jo Koy pointed out in his otherwise horrific monologue, “white people stole 100% of everything.” The fact that director Scorsese delivers the last line really drives that point home: the story of the Osage murders has been fetishized and claimed by white audiences, who have inevitably given themselves final say over how the story is told. Lily Gladstone is the film’s strength—her regality was captivating.
“Maestro”
CORINNA: I think that the only thing “Maestro” accomplished was making me dislike Leonard Bernstein (or at least the film’s depiction of him). I didn’t find the central relationship of the film particularly interesting, nor was it explored deep enough to be compelling. This film was visually beautiful, the cinematography was lovely, but other than that it didn’t hold much appeal for me.
NATE: Everything about “Maestro” worked for me. It’s a film about an artist that is, itself, art—a rare thing today. What I liked most was the unconventionality of it: it changes aspect ratios and shifts from monotone to color and lingers for six minutes on Bradley Cooper conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. Its biggest strength is its sheer beauty.
“Oppenheimer”
CORINNA: This film was entirely too long and tried to cover way too much information. Had the film been focused on a specific aspect of Oppenheimer’s life, it may have been more appealing to me. Although I think it would have improved by being more concise, I will say that it was impressive how it managed to stay organized even with the multiple story lines that it contained.
NATE: For me, the most impressive feat of “Oppenheimer" is that, even though its three-hour runtime is populated almost exclusively with dialogue and relative inaction, it made just short of a billion dollars worldwide. Christopher Nolan made a mostly dialogic film interesting to mass audiences. I could talk about it for hours, but for me, its success was the film’s biggest strength.
“Past Lives”
CORINNA: This film was definitely the most overlooked nominee. Its plot may not be as grand or loud as the other films, but it was so beautiful and sad. The script was absolutely stunning and so impactful, and the acting choices were brilliant. It explores adulthood, life, love, the depth of human emotion, and the immigrant experience and does it seamlessly and flawlessly.
NATE: I think of “Past Lives” as a product of poetry. The dialogue is sparse, so that each spoken word carries a profound weight. Its strength is its rawness, how open each emotion feels, and actress Greta Lee (the acting snub I’m most mad about) expertly represents and broadcasts that emotionality, so that the audience feels that they, on some level, experience the main characters’ journey.
“Poor Things”
CORINNA: Before I say anything else I would just like to state that I loved the visuals of this film. The costumes, sets, and overall look of the film was absolutely amazing and I could rave about it forever. However, besides being visually beautiful, I found most of this film to be deplorable. It makes a clumsy attempt to portray female sexual liberation, but it comes across more like fetishization. This film has a wonderful concept, and had the potential to be something really great, but unfortunately they let a man direct it.
NATE: It’s not a film without problems, and a lot of it can be interpreted negatively. For me, though, the most important part is that Bella (played by a brilliant Emma Stone) is enacting her own desires. I disagreed with the way some of that was portrayed, but I never felt it was vulgar. Like Corinna said, though, it would have been a lot more comfortable to watch had it been written/directed by a woman. (It feels along the lines of “Killers of the Flower Moon”—the marginalized are like puppets of people traditionally in power; instead of voicing their own narrative, they act how the white men in charge tell them to.) Stone, for me, was the movie’s biggest strength—along with the gorgeous visuals.
“The Zone of Interest”
CORINNA: This film was absolutely brilliant. It was really boring, but its boringness was intentional, and that’s what is so wonderful about it. The juxtaposition between the portrayal of the mundane life of Nazi officers during the Holocaust compared to imprisonment in Auschwitz was chilling, disgusting, and concerning. The film's use of inventive visuals and sounds was one of its greatest strengths.
NATE: Brilliant in its discussion and dissection of Germans’ intentional ignorance during World War II. The way director Jonathan Glazer plays with sound and color is fascinating, adding a really nice level of audial and visual depth. Everything about the film is twisted, everything about it feels sick and horrible, and that’s its greatest success.
“Our Rankings/Predictions”
CORINNA:
- The Holdovers
- Anatomy of a Fall
- The Zone of Interest
- Past Lives
- Killers of the Flower Moon
- Oppenheimer
- American Fiction
- Barbie
- Maestro
- Poor Things
Predicted winner: Oppenheimer
What should win: Anatomy of a Fall
NATE:
- Maestro
- Anatomy of a Fall
- Past Lives
- Oppenheimer
- The Holdovers
- The Zone of Interest
- Poor Things
- American Fiction
- Barbie
- Killers of the Flower Moon
Predicted winner: Oppenheimer
What should win: Maestro
The Academy Awards will be broadcast on Sunday, March 10. We will be watching with bated breath.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.