When the nominations dropped in January, I scanned over them with relative contentment. Nothing really jumped out at me: I’d been embroiled in posts and podcasts concerning the awards show for a bit, and just about everything I expected to happen did. I didn’t notice any major snubs, there were a few nice surprises for me in there, and some not so nice. So overall, a good set.

Then I sat with them some more, re-reading them, writing the following post, listening to others talk about their opinions on snubs. I began to realize that while they were overall pretty solid, there were a lot more holes than appeared at first glance. A Thousand and One was ignored. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem was overlooked. BlackBerry got nothing. The Best Supporting Actress nominations were a mess despite having a good pool of options. And so on.

Thing is, I’m so used to my taste in art disagreeing with the mainstream that I’ve gotten used to disappointment. That’s not to say I only like obscure stuff, not by any means. I’ll dip into it often in an effort to expand my horizons, but am equally likely to reject it as I am to latch on to it. The result being that what I like is all over the place. Music is probably the best distillation of this effect: I’m a huge hard rock & metal fan swimming in a world obsessed with Taylor Swift and Beyonce and Lil Nas X and Lady Gaga. Which isn’t to denigrate any of their talent! Not at all. It’s just a matter of taste. When you’re used to your taste not being represented, you become numb to it. You accept the reality because it’s not gonna change, so why be bitter about it? You take whatever bones you’re thrown by the broader culture before returning to your happy place off in the corner.

Thus, it’s only through larger effort and deeper analysis that I notice my disagreement. At some level, I’ve always known. It’s part of why even before starting this blog, when a version of this post was on Facebook, I’ve always framed them as my personal picks against the Academy’s - because I know that very often, they will not be the same. Even when I’m just picking from the Academy’s nominations, which often would not be my own, I find many causes for disagreement. A bit less this year than last, but I’m still on board with them less than half the time. At least, assuming my predictions are right. We’ll find out in less than a week!

What of the Oscars’ importance? What of relevance? I’ll admit, I don’t know what people mean when they say the Oscars don’t matter any more. What would it mean for the Oscars to matter? Did they ever? What would it take to make them matter again? I view the Oscars as simply a way for a large body of people in the industry to recognize what they see as the greatest achievements in film during the last year, as well as celebrate film in general. But whenever you get a group of ten thousand people together, they’re going to have a least a few hundred different definitions of “best” in any given category, leading to some disappointing outcomes. But at its best, the Academy Awards can serve as a guide to expanding your experience of film. Not only in terms of introducing you to new films, but also in highlighting all the various elements and roles that go into filmmaking apart from the most visible roles of acting and directing.

To that end, it’s exciting that the Academy is adding a Best Casting award for the 2026 show. It’s so easy to overlook how important casting can be to making a movie work. We talk about how we could never imagine certain roles played by other people, which is a strong indication the casting director did their job. Even more importantly, while we tend to focus on the top billed actors, the work of casting all the other speaking roles is incredibly important, no matter how small. For proof, look back through the filmography of your favorite actor: chances are, they got their start doing roles like “Boy at the Beach (uncredited)” or “Client At The Diner” or “Ring Toss Girl” (Brad Pitt, Robert De Niro, and Kristen Stewart, respectively).

Here’s hoping the announcement for the creation of a category for stunts is just around the corner!

My Picks & Predictions

Here we go! For each category, I’ll name what I think should win from amongst the nominees, what I think will win (if that’s different), and then some comments on the category and nominees and snubs and such.

Best Visual Effects

My Pick - The Creator
My Prediction - Godzilla Minus One

Overall, The Creator was a disappointment. Its tale of artificial intelligence run amok arrived at the right time, but was squandered by having nothing to say. However, despite being cheaper than the average modern blockbuster ($80 million USD), it featured some absolutely stunning effects and landscapes, blowing away the visuals of many which cost twice as much. Incredibly tactile and quite creative and distinct, the interaction between humans and robots and their world was seamless.

That being said, I’m betting Academy voters are going to want to recognize the phenomenon of Godzilla: Minus One, which ended up the third highest grossing foreign language film ever (unadjusted for inflation). Which isn’t to knock its effects, especially given a budget that is akin to an American indie film (although seemingly well above average for a Japanese film). It’s just to say that this is the easier choice, as opposed to the better one.

What about Oppenheimer? Two things probably explain its absence from the nominees. For one, it uses far more practical effects, whose professionals are less well represented in the Academy’s VFX branch. But more importantly, it just doesn’t have that many VFX shots: only around 100. Compare that to nominee Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 with over 3,000. Or to The Creator: ILM was one of eleven VFX studios on the film, and they alone did about 1,000 shots. So there’s just less to reward.

Best Film Editing

My Pick - Killers of the Flower Moon
My Prediction - Oppenheimer

Editing is a tough one for me to judge. As many far smarter people have commented, you tend to only notice editing when it’s bad. Done well, it should melt into the background and allow all the other elements of the film to shine. So to identify it, you treat it like a black hole: instead of direct observation, you rely on the impact it has on everything around it.

For me, that points to Killers of the Flower Moon. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: somehow, a 200+ minute movie felt less than half that. The sense of propulsion, the slow build of tension, the way that even in the most chaotic scenes you always felt grounded, it’s all incredible.

Of course, Oppenheimer is gonna win it. Partially because of its momentum, and partially because it’s editing it incredibly showy, one of the cases where you do notice the editing. Although to be fair, it’s also incredibly effective. The juggling of three separate timelines, switching into them at the right times, and choosing to sit on shots for jusssssssssst long enough to give them time to really land.

Best Costume Design

My Pick & Prediction - Barbie

Barbie is going to be a victim of the strength of 2023 in film. Its lack of top-line wins is going to upset a lot of people. In a way, I wonder if the omission of Gerwig and Robbie from Director and Actress (respectively) will lessen that. That is, maybe its diehards will be prepared for disappointment. Does that make it winning in the craft categories better, or worse?

That being said, Barbie’s competition here is quite strong. All the entrants have great costumes (sure, even Napoleon, I guess). I’d wager that if anything else has a chance, it’s Poor Things. But Barbie is doing the strange job of making doll clothes work on real adults, as well as invoking a range of time periods all at once, which feels a bit trickier than inventing clothes from whole cloth. There’s a needle they thread which ties together the past and present and invention and adaptation that really works.

Best Makeup and Hairstyling

My Pick - Oppenheimer
My Prediction - Maestro

I’ve never been a fan of digital de-aging. I haven’t seen too many movies which use it, and those I have usually look…fine. Rarely truly bad, but never notably good. They’re often hidden in shadow, such as in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which helps hide any seams. The result is hugely limiting and often quite flat.

Contrast that with Maestro and Oppenheimer. Both tell the story of people across their whole adult lives, into old age, and so must adjust the appearance of their actors to match. There are multiple elements to pulling this off, including the performance and costumes, which both films use wonderfully to add a sense of accumulated life. But it’s by observing someone’s face that we truly ascertain their years, a combination of their literal facial features and wrinkles and the way their hair frames their face (as well as choice of hairdo). So I’d argue this category is most important for achieving practical aging effects, and both movies do an absolutely incredible job with it.

That being said, I think Oppenheimer needing to do so for a wider variety of characters at more varying points of time gave that team a chance to express it in even more subtle ways, which is wonderfully accomplished. When it comes to voting, I do wonder if the controversy surrounding Bradley Cooper’s nose prosthetic in Maestro drags it down. To be clear, I don’t know how much that was just a concern of the Terminally Online, nor if the ADL and Bernstein family’s defense of his choice tamped it down. Given the presence of an equally strong contender, I could see that small piece making a difference, but them also wanting to find somewhere to reward Bradley Cooper.

Best Cinematography

My Pick & Prediction - Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer was the only movie I saw in IMAX all year. There are a few reasons for that, but the primary one was the sheer awe that washed over me while watching it on a standard screen. There’s the obvious stuff, sure: the Trinity test, the gorgeous black and white, the deployment of varying aspect ratios to constrain or open up the image. The way that the world shakes and begins to dissolve into a blinding white light as he relives his guilt over and over. But what sealed it for me personally was the second time I saw it, when we see Oppenheimer, Robi, and Lawrence riding in the New Mexico desert. The wide open landscape, shortly after contrasted by the raging storm looming over it, is just stunning. And in that huge IMAX screen, almost overwhelmingly so.

Maestro has some fantastic camerawork, especially early on, while we’re still in black & white. That’s not always a sign of quality, despite films like El Conde attempting to wear it as one. What makes it pop is Matthew Libatique’s usage of lighting and contrast and composition. His use of shadows in those scenes are wonderful, even if sometimes a bit on the nose. If only he could have kept it up after the time jump, then maybe Maestro would have at least been my pick, if not the Academy’s.

Best Production Design

My Pick & Prediction - Barbie

These nominees are the exact same as Costume Design. There’s some overlap every year, but the last time all five matched was 2004 (when it was still called Best Art Direction). In that instance, both awards were won by the same movie, which went on to win Best Picture. That last bit won’t happen here (sorry), but I think Barbie is deserving of both.

I adore Poor Things, and I think it looks wonderful. But most production design isn’t necessarily best. While Barbie is also quite loud in its sets and scenery and backgrounds, I think it would be fair to say Poor Things feels like it’s just trying to be weird for weirdness sake at times. If you pause to reflect on it, you see that all elements are carefully considered, even if not obviously so. But it creates a vibe of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what stuck. Barbie is clearly taking a swing, but I think it coheres just a little bit better.

Best Sound

My Pick - The Zone of Interest
My Prediction - Oppenheimer

It may be impossible to stop the steamroller that is Oppenheimer. It’s tied for the second most nominations ever, and is the favorite in a bunch of its categories. And the sound is pretty incredible, especially in IMAX: I will never forget the percussive wall that smacks you following the Trinity test, or when he snaps out of his daze during the auditorium speech. Oppenheimer hands-down features the best uses of silence all year, and that alone means it deserves to compete.

But The Zone of Interest leans incredibly heavily on its impeccable sound design, using it to tell a whole other story. The narrative delivered by the images on screen are far less interesting without the context of why we should care, as provided by the background noise constantly wafting over the walls of the camp. The emotional tale is further punctuated by the few, carefully selected occasions on which the film hits you with a heavy, non-diegetic synth chord. It’s simply one of the best deployments of sound I’ve witnessed, this year or any other.

Best Original Song

My Pick - “Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” from Killers of the Flower Moon
My Prediction - “What Was I Made For” from Barbie

My hot take on this category is that it doesn’t belong at the Oscars. Songwriting isn’t an element of filmmaking: I’d rather reward curation of existing songs for use in the movie over someone writing a song inspired by the film. As if that’s not bad enough, at least half of the nominees are always heart-wrenching ballads. They all sound basically the same, and even when they’re from movies I enjoy, I just don’t care. To say nothing about how during the telecast, the performances ruin any energy that’s been built up. I get that it’s a bid to get more stars to attend, and for viewers to watch their favorite musicians, but it’s so forced. Take last year’s selection of “Naatu Naatu” from RRR: great pick, an absolute banger, and yet the live rendition was mediocre at best. Plus, a good song winning doesn’t validate the category.

If it’s a category which has to be here, I wish they’d at least recognize songs which play a key role in the movie, like the snubbed “Camp Isn’t Home” from Theater Camp. Not only is it performed by the kids, it’s a plot point! Come on!

Given all that, I tend to root for one that sounds different, which means I’m cheering on “Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” from Killers of the Flower Moon. It’s completely unlike anything else nominated. For one, it was composed by members of the Osage people, and sung in the Osage language. For another, it’s all drums, bells, and a chorus of voices. It’s a fabulous button on the film, although I’m unsure how well it stands on its own.

Of course, it’s gonna be “What Was I Made For?” from Barbie, due to its success at the Grammy’s and other awards shows, and people’s love of Billie Eilish and Barbie.

Best Original Score

My Pick & Prediction - Oppenheimer

C’mon. This one’s easy!

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not the only good one. I adore the plinky weirdness, the discordant and alien nature of Poor Things. And I’m happy to see the piano filled, somewhat chaotic, jazz inspired American Fiction score here: it’s perfectly suited it is to the film without being super showy, which makes it easy to overlook. I am a little annoyed that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem was snubbed, although it’s not like Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross need any more recognition to solidify their prominent position in movie history.

But none of them hit me like Oppenheimer.

As soon as its OST appeared online, I started listening to it on repeat. The slowly building and quickening brasses, the furious strings, the gradual layering into a grand cacophony. All of it creates a grandness and anxiety reminiscent of the chain reaction that lies at the core of the film, forming one of the most recognizable and impressive themes in recent memory. So often, it gives way to a moment of quiet contemplation, allowing it to ring out across the scene. It’s nearly impossible to leave the theater without its various elements etched into your brain.

Best Animated Short Film

My Pick - Letter to a Pig
My Prediction - War Is Over!

It’s a super weak year for the animated shorts nominees. Usually, this is the best shorts category, featuring a bunch of innovative animation and unique stories which combine to really make an impact. They’re often the most challenging overall, either through the way the story is dispensed or through the actual subject matter. It’s as if the distance from the audience frees the filmmaker from the instinct to pull back. However, the Academy decided not to reward such efforts this year.

While Our Uniform is one of the cooler uses of animation I’ve seen all year, its story is too slight to really stick. So the only one that really fits my criteria is Letter to a Pig, which is consequently my favorite. It’s a dark look at the complexities of what it’s like to survive a time when you and your brethren were hunted like animals, and your mentality when you emerge. It deals with humanity and forgiveness and empathy through interactions with the titular pig in the fantasy of a young girl listening to a Holocaust survivor tell his story. And the rotoscoping is lovely, especially when the film underneath slips through.

That being said, the Academy always disappoints me in this category. Granted, that only covers the last two ceremonies. But in each, they not only didn’t pick my favorite, they picked the absolute worst film, one which had nothing to say and even less of an idea how to say it. They chose to celebrate the only truly bad one which was nominated. Thus, my jaded self feels like they’ll do it here again, and reward one about two soldiers for unnamed nations playing chess by carrier pigeon, which gives way to everyone metaphorically singing Kumbaya.

Best Live Action Short Film

My Pick & Prediction - The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar

Same as the animated shorts, this wasn’t a particularly strong year for live-action shorts. Not that they were much better the last two years, I just keep hoping for more. Especially since I’ve seen some truly remarkable shorts at the NHFF both times I’ve attended. Granted, due to the rules for submission, it’s likely the Academy will always miss out on the best ones. But all I want is a few that truly blow me away. Is that so much to ask?

Which isn’t to cast any shade on The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, a marvelous and carefully plotted tale of the merits of applying yourself to a skill and a distaste of extreme wealth. It’s rife with Anderson’s trademark vibrant palette, as well as his adoration of nested narratives. To emphasize the artifice of a story being read to us by Roald Dahl himself, all is staged as a play, complete with stagehands passing around props and each major actor taking on multiple roles.

While the Academy usually goes for saccharine in its live-action selection, too, it’s hard to argue with the masterclass Anderson and company are putting on here, even as it’s not my favorite of the cycle. In another year, maybe Red, White and Blue would take it, as a comment on contemporary American life. Even on a more practical level, it has a huge leg up: while most shorts pass by unnoticed, the release of Henry Sugar on Netflix was an event, meaning most Oscars voters probably saw this long before it was nominated. It may have even been the only short film they watched all year.

Anderson has this one on lock.

Best Documentary Short Subject

My Pick - Island In Between
My Prediction - The ABCs of Book Banning

Last year was the first time I watched the documentary shorts. I was hoping the Academy had rewarded filmmakers who used the shorter format for experimentation or some sort of unorthodox approach or subject matter. There were a few, namely Haulout and How Do You Measure A Year?, which weren’t super innovative but at least avoided the usual talking heads format. Granted, neither of those were great, nor were any of the others, so I noted the documentary shorts as the weakest of the three categories. And in my opinion, that’s continued this year.

For myself, I give the edge to Island In Between, a piece about Kinmen, an island belonging to Taiwan a mere 6 miles off the coast of Mainland China. By couching things in terms of the director’s relationship to it and the mainland, it feels a bit more lively than it could have. It drives home the tenuous political place that Taiwan is in, as well as the connection that exists between the people regardless.

But The ABCs of Book Banning is gonna win, right? The Academy tends to appreciate movies about itself, and the idea that art can be banned is why they came up with the Hayes Code in the first place. Which is a shame: as good as the message is, the presentation of it sucks. They literally just repeat themselves for 25 minutes, constantly reusing formats and espousing variations on the same sentiment. To say nothing of the literal repetitions, or when it just becomes a list of books with a semi-relevant quote from it. Pair that with the Academy seemingly having the opposite taste from me in shorts, and I expect to be disappointed.

Best Documentary Feature

My Pick & Prediction - 20 Days in Mariupol

Whenever I talk about documentaries, I always feel the need to mention I’ve never been a big fan. I want to make sure my audience has the context that I’m speaking from an even more subject viewpoint than usual, as I’m largely lacking in the ability to compare to contemporary works. Last year, I only watched eight documentaries which could be considered new releases, and more than half of those were at the New Hampshire Film Festival. When I do watch, I tend to favor the experimental variety, as I find the stereotypical “talking heads” approach quite boring.

Lucky for me, a few of this year’s nominees do the job: if they’re not quite experimental, they’re at least non-traditional. I was fascinated by the metanarrative stylings of Four Daughters, whose conceit is simply a Tunisian family re-enacting scenes from their past for the camera. But what sets it apart is the director’s deep interest in the way Eya and Tayssir and Olfa interact and remember and contextualize the events, far more so than the events themselves. Additionally, a bunch of time is spent observing the actors brought it to play certain family members and how they interact with the family, and even argue with the women.

Despite that adoration, the standout is absolutely 20 Days in Mariupol. If I’m being honest, I wasn’t looking forward to it. I’ve heard so much about the Russian invasion since it began over two years ago. I couldn’t imagine what this could possibly add to the conversation. But that’s in part because I hadn’t realized this was from a local film crew (working for the AP) who went to Mariupol as Russian aggression seemed imminent. It is incredibly powerful seeing the devastation levied against this city from the ground level, to be transported back to those early days, to see the raw impact of the violence. You really feel the anxiety: there were a few sequences whose conclusion brought tears due to the release of stress I hadn’t realized they created in me. Add that to the Academy loving to make a political point (outside of the top-line categories), and this seems like a shoe-in.

Best International Feature Film

My Pick & Prediction - The Zone of Interest

This seems pretty simple to me, same as last year. A film nominated for both Best Picture and Best International Feature Film in the same year has never lost this category. Last year was another data point, as All Quiet on the Western Front took home the prize. Given that France chose to submit The Taste of Things this year over Anatomy of a Fall, there’s really nothing to challenge The Zone of Interest.

I will note I was delighted to see Perfect Days nominated, as more people need to see it.

Best Animated Feature Film

My Pick & Prediction - The Boy and the Heron

My first Miyazaki film will not be my last. Even more than last year’s winner in Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio, The Boy and the Heron is a wonderful demonstration of how animation is not inherently “for kids”, even when a child is is the protagonist. Its story is sophisticated and layered and wide open to interpretation. It’s gorgeous, and the (likely) final work of a master.

Its only competition is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. Throughout awards season, the vast majority of awards for best animated film have been given to one of these two. And while Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse won in 2019, that had the benefit of feeling even fresher given its pioneering animation and fresh use of the multi-verse, which has since become commonplace. I just can’t see the Academy passing up a chance to honor Miyazaki for the first time in 22 years.

Side note: the omission of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem is truly disappointing. No, it wouldn’t have had a chance to win (nor would I pick it), but still, it deserved recognition.

Best Adapted Screenplay

My Pick - Barbie
My Prediction - Oppenheimer

I’m not sure how Killers of the Flower Moon gets omitted here. Scorsese famously did a whole rewrite to tell the story from a different perspective, to center the Osage people’s story more, and the result is fantastic. I’d drop Poor Things for it in a heartbeat: while that script is good, it’s not the first, second, or even fifth thing that makes that movie special.

That Barbie is in Adapted confused the internet. Then again, I bet finding out sequels are always considered adapted would do the same. The idea is that the character(s) existed before, even if their characterization did not, so you’re building on a foundation. As such, it says nothing about how original the story is. I’d argue that finding a fresh, inventive way to adapt can be more impressive than writing from scratch, as you’re redefining the box in which we thought you were constrained.

And ever since seeing Barbie, I’ve continued to marvel at how it turned out. It’s a movie about a doll, for Christ’s sake! It’s a toy made by a megacorp! And yet, we got so, so much more than a toy commercial. It is that, too: that’s undeniable. Yet, it has so much more to say, so much visual creativity and style and heart, and not one single person involved in the project phoned it in. It’s remarkable.

…But this is going to Oppenheimer. See all the comments, elsewhere in this post and online, about it being a freight train. Also, it is a fantastic screenplay, absolutely, so I can’t be too mad.

Best Original Screenplay

My Pick - Past Lives
My Prediction - The Holdovers

With Barbie out of the way, the path is cleared for all the love that’s been showered upon The Holdovers to translate into an award, probably its only win of the night. Given that my biggest issue is bloat, it should come as no surprise I disagree.

Especially since this is one of only two nominations total for Past Lives. So much goes into what makes that movie as wonderful as it is, no small part of which is the script and its structure. While Greta Lee and Teo Yoo are absolutely marvelous (and got snubbed in their respective categories), the lines they’re saying are absolutely covered in layers and meaning and care. The artifice of making a movie melts away, as the way they talk to each other closes the distance between them while also highlighting just how large it is. It’s slyly funny, it’s relatable, and it feels authentic. The twelve year gaps are very real snapshots of people changing over time, and the complications that introduces. You’d never guess this is Celine Song’s first screenplay.

Best Supporting Actress

My Pick & Prediction- Da’Vine Joy Randolph

Supporting Actress is one of the weirder categories this year. There was no lack of good performances, but these nominees imply there are. Up to me, I’d keep Randolph, and add Rachel McAdams for Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret., Erika Alexander for American Fiction, and Penélope Cruz for Ferrari. But my clear winner, in a landslide, would be Anne Hathaway for Eileen, a movie which seems to have passed everyone by, much to my disappointment.

That being said, it’s gonna be Da’vine Joy Randolph. I continue to maintain that The Holdovers is highly overrated, largely stemming from its cozy atmosphere and people’s love of Paul Giamatti (who’s inexplicably nominated for Best Actor). However, she is by far the best part, showing flashes of the elements the movie needed to explore and engage with earlier in order to land.

Best Supporting Actor

My Pick & Prediction - Robert Downey Jr.

This is a much better overall list, although I find the inclusion of Gosling to be quite strange. Personally, I’d have slotted in Glenn Howerton from BlackBerry, although I expected Charles Melton for May December, as he’d been getting a ton of (undeserved) buzz for his performance. Given that, the path is clear for RDJ in Oppenheimer.

Which is outstanding news, because it’s insane how good he is. The only thing he does is talk in rooms and scowl intensely, and yet you can’t take your eyes off him. His vocal performance is subtle yet appropriate, and his physical demeanor is exactly what you’d expect from a career politician. Even the unbridled fury he builds to near the end feels natural, despite also clearly being restrained, so precise. It’s a note-perfect performance.

Best Actress

My Pick & Prediction - Lily Gladstone

First, the snubs: the omission of Greta Lee for Past Lives is wild, paling only in comparison to passing over Teyana Taylor for her towering performance in A Thousand and One. I shouldn’t be surprised, as that movie was completely ignored by the Academy. At least Taylor (and director A. V. Rockwell) have received many well deserved accolades from other awards bodies.

That being said, my pick to win was always going to be Lily Gladstone. Mollie is the key to Killers of the Flower Moon: without her, the movie falls apart. Her position garners sympathy by default, but it’s only through Gladstone’s performance that it extends to empathy. Through so many non-verbal cues, from body language to facial expression to tone of voice, we understand that Mollie knows exactly what she’s doing. She’s maybe a bit too optimistic, holding on a bit too long to the notion there are some rays of sunshine in this world. But we always get the sense she’s engaging in willful denial, not ignorant of the situation. Which makes her eventual fury all the more visceral.

There’s been a bunch of buzz around Emma Stone’s performance in Poor Things, especially after her win in Best Actress in a Comedy at the Globes, although her loss at SAG put a damper on that. And it is phenomenal, especially as we watch it evolve with the character over the course of the movie. But there’s no way the Academy screws this up. The optics would be abysmal, for a woman who’s won before to overtake a performer whose nomination is historic in two dimensions. The most discussed side is her Native American heritage, which is Piegan Blackfeet and Nez Perce. But also, Gladstone identifies as nonbinary (using both she/her and they/them pronouns), and as far as I can tell is the first person to be nominated while publicly identifying as non-binary. This latter angle seems to have been overlooked by mainstream film and news sites, and many observers on social media. As has her other wonderful turn in The Unknown Country.

Best Actor

My Pick & Prediction - Cillian Murphy

With the snubbing of Leonardo DiCaprio for Killers of the Flower Moon, the path should be clear for Murphy. His ability to embody a figure who looms so large in American history, to portray his nuances and evolve them over the course of the film, to capture the vibe of a man at many different stages of his life, is just incredible. The makeup and hairstyling helps him look the part, but it’s up to him to make it work. He wears the stress, the complication, the self-assuredness in public that gives way to anxiety in private. Nolan’s filmmaking tricks heighten the emotions, sure, but they originate with Murphy, and wouldn’t play without his foundation.

Somehow, Giamatti has been getting a lot of hype. While he’s playing the same type of character he always plays in The Holdovers, it’s a character he’s damn good at. Both men have been showered in tiny statues over the past few months, so it’s certain to be one of them. But I have to have some faith that the Academy won’t feel the need to break the chain of Oppenheimer wins just because they can.

Best Director

My Pick - Martin Scorsese
My Prediction - Christopher Nolan

The Best Director and Best Picture awards are closely linked: 68 of 95 Best Picture winners saw their director also win. I find this quite odd. Despite the popular view of the director as the most important role in the crew, as the film’s auteur, Best Picture is technically awarded for producing, which is an entirely different set of skills. To command the tone and propulsion and finer details of the film is not the same as wrangling all the forces necessary to get a film made.

Which is why despite my clear choice for Best Picture, I’m torn on Best Director. It takes incredible vision and control to make a film like The Zone of Interest work. It’s not a given that the audience will understand they need to listen even more than watch, so the brilliance of the long shot of a blank screen at the start is so important, and conveys supreme confidence. But Killers of the Flower Moon manages to be an odyssey whose tone never waivers, whose intensity slowly, slowly ratchets up, that tension only being broken by explosions of violence, then returning to that build. The credit for that impact is not solely on Scorsese’s shoulders (see my comments on editing above), but his confidence in it is paramount. Which is why when push comes to shove, I have to pick him.

As for the Academy, they’re going Nolan. As tempting as it might be to give one of our best living directors his second award, it will be more tempting to give another one of our best living directors his first. Also, because I don’t think Director and Picture are gonna split this year.

Best Picture

My Pick - The Zone of Interest
My Prediction - Oppenheimer

Until mid-January, I found myself in the unexpected position of agreeing with the consensus. Sure, Oppenheimer didn’t top my year-end list, but of those films nominated, I was in alignment.

Then I saw The Zone of Interest, an achievement in filmmaking the likes of which I’ve rarely encountered.

Its approach is incredibly odd and off-putting, even as its structure is more familiar. But that contrast is what lends it the tremendous power it wields.

Both films look to WWII in order to discuss issues of grave importance to us now, one through the lens of a complicated person, and the other amongst the least complicated figures ever to live. Oppenheimer is the more obviously cinematic, an arthouse blockbuster from a revered filmmaker, and riding a wave so large that I can’t imagine the chain of events that diverts it.

Ranking

As with last year, I’ll wrap up by counting down my ranking of the Best Picture nominees. This year’s crop is pretty great: there’s only one I dislike, but even then, not strongly. Hell, half of them were in my top ten or runners up!

10. The Holdovers
9. Maestro
8. Barbie
7. American Fiction
6. Past Lives
5. Poor Things
4. Anatomy of a Fall
3. Killers of the Flower Moon
2. Oppenheimer
1. The Zone of Interest