Best Picture
- “Oppenheimer”
Best Director
- Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer”
Best Actress
- Emma Stone, “Poor Things”
Best Actor
- Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer”
Best Supporting Actress
- Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers”
Best Supporting Actor
- Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer”
Best Adapted Screenplay
- “American Fiction” – Cord Jefferson
Best Original Screenplay
- “Anatomy of a Fall” – Justine Triet, Arthur Harari
Best Cinematography
- “Oppenheimer” – Hoyte van Hoytema
Best Film Editing
- “Oppenheimer”
Best Original Score
- “Oppenheimer”
Best International Feature Film
- “The Zone of Interest” (United Kingdom)
Best Animated Feature Film
- “The Boy and the Heron
Best Documentary Feature Film
- “20 Days in Mariupol”
Best Production Design
- “Poor Things”
Best Costume Design
- “Poor Things” – Holly Waddington
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
- “Poor Things”
Best Sound
- “The Zone of Interest”
Best Visual Effects
- “Godzilla Minus One”
Best Original Song
- “What Was I Made For?” from “Barbie”
Best Documentary Short Film
- “The Last Repair Shop”
Best Live Action Short Film
- “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”
Best Animated Short Film
- “War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko”
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
“Interesting, also, that
had a pretty solid resume, in the end, with, WGA, ACE and SAG acting wins”
It performed like a typical Best Picture Oscar winner in the preferential era. Quite an achievement if you ask me considering the competition it had – unlike some other seasons.
I also like films that leave you cold as well. I don’t mean cold as it not liking it. I mean cold as it doesn’t leave you with a good feeling and just leaves you unsettled, disturbed and empty. I don’t think a film should only make you feel the obvious feeling and you know exactly what it is. I tend to rate more highly films which are emotionally complex because it’s never meant to make you feel a certain way. The uncertainty hanging over a film is something I like very much. You might think I like uncertainty, but I don’t actually. However, Yes, I do like uncertainty in opinion and I tend to think life, human interaction and emotions are very complex and we don’t reflect that enough. We think things should follow a strict path or something. I just prefer breaking from the norm, and doing something unique and giving a different perspective. I’ve always drawn more to the creators, inventors and the risk takers attempting to do something unique. In sports, for example, I’ve always rooted for the players with the most artistry, think Roger Federer, Zinedine Zidane Lionel Messi etc. The most creative player and the playmaker would always catch my eye. People debate who’s the best between Messia and CR7, but it has never been a debate for me. This answer has always been simple for me: CR7 is one of the best attackers of all time, but Messi is on another planet. I sometimes wonder if he’s an alien, same with Federer. Some people are very good at functions and doing practical things very well and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, to be truly great you’ve to be very creative and unique. For me, it’s not just winning but how you win, too. My favourite team and players winning don’t really make me happy, as I care a lot more about how they win. I’m connecting two of my passions here. The aesthetic of the shot, visceral connection with it and how deeply meaningful it is. That’s what gives me a great feeling about a film.
and we have just had another “WGA + ACE + SAG acting” winner.
The Holdovers…! 🙂
It won WGA and ACE, importantly. 🙂 So it, too, did win two major guilds, at least according to the definition I and Greg Feasel use, which includes ACE. (And SAG acting, in addition to the Triple Crown and the WGA, the traditional ones.) Also of note is that, while Apollo 13 won the big 3 guilds, it actually did quite poorly at the Globes and Critics Choice (and Braveheart at least won director at both – I don’t remember whether it won other things, too, or not.)
“I think the bigger question is how did Apollo 13 win the Triple Crown when it wasn’t a favourite for any major category.”
And with no directing Oscar nomination – yeah, I have no good answer for that one. 🙂 The guilds can go in weird directions sometimes, that’s about the only thing. There just isn’t enough evidence to predict them, in many cases – they’re too different in makeup from the other groups that vote, which are a lot more balanced. These are only actors (well, pre-AFTRA, at least)/only directors/only producers/only writers/only editors, etc. – I guess that’s what leads to the occasional weird and hard to explain outcome, like this one. I guess this one is maybe the hardest one to explain, looking at all other precursors. Makes sense for the PGA win, given the kind of production it was. I guess it also makes sense for the SAG win, given how many name actors there were in it. The DGA win is bizarre, but once it wins PGA and SAG, 90% of the time, that goes with a DGA win, so… Logically, it makes enough sense – but it’s still very weird and out of sync with everything else that happened that year.
“The Power of The Dog had no reason to do so poorly”
Another case of the guilds going in a different direction. I guess they did something very similar to Boyhood. And others… This is just what they do… 🙂
“I think DGA might be the only guild it won. That’s got to be one of the weakest for a so-called BP frontrunner.”
It was definitely the only major guild award it won. (It pulled a Roma/Crouching Tiger, basically. Those also won only the DGA, of the major guilds. At least they were foreign language, so you could understand it more.) But, yeah, it might have even been the only guild award of any kind it won. I don’t remember whether there was some minor guild where it managed a second win. Maybe just not…
“I hate weepy movies. I’m always like you’ve got to earn it.”
As am I – I guess I just feel like more of them do earn it than a lot of other people seem to think. 🙂 I guess I’m more forgiving of certain techniques.
“It’s a similar thing with action films. I’ve also always had a great eye for movement so the action scenes have to be rhythmical and balletic. Well choreographed, essentially.”
Probably not the case for me. 🙂 I probably don’t have a particularly good eye for that. As long as an action scene is not confusingly shot (or too full of CGI,) I’m good. I don’t really care about the action anyway (unless it’s really good, like, say, in the Terminator movies) and am usually just waiting for the next bits that are significant to the plot…
“I’ve always thought movement and sound are the two most important elements in visual storytelling. Sound is very obvious to people, but movement isn’t.”
Good point. Makes sense.
“The best tool an actor has is their voice and the line delivery is all too important to their performance. It can make a difference in turning a lukewarm line into a good life or a good line into an epic and memorable line.”
Oh, I’m all about delivery… It’s, like, the main thing for me, when it comes to acting. I’m obsessed with it.
“I tend to think a film showing restraint in depicting emotions,
especially sad ones, will have a much bigger impact on viewers at the end. Just keeping the emotions at the surface but not released yet will truly move you when they finally let go.”
I don’t have a problem with that (a great movie that did that was The Quiet Girl, which I loved,) but the problem is a lot of those movies that show a lot of (too much?) restraint the never actually do let go… 🙂 That emotional catharsis just isn’t there (at least for me) a lot of the time. That I do mind, because it starts to feel like restraint just for the sake of restraint.
Close was also really good. Didn’t quite have the same impact for me, in the end, as The Quiet Girl, but I did really like it. But, yeah, Past Lives was fantastic, the ending in particular – but I already really liked a lot of what it was doing, even before that. And the restraint didn’t feel forced, there – it felt right for the story it was telling. A real shame that movie didn’t win more during awards season – thank God for the ISA! 🙂 (I still haven’t managed to see All of Us Strangers – I’ve taken an unusually long break from movies, actually, after this year’s Oscars, and will likely only resume watching stuff at the start of May, once I’m also past the World Snooker Championship. But it’s more or less first on the list, once that happens.)
I see The Holdovers won the WGA. Makes sense. So, Barbie would have only had the CCA win – makes the American Fiction prediction even more locked in. Interesting, also, that The Holdovers had a pretty solid resume, in the end, with, WGA, ACE and SAG acting wins – but it still handily loses the branch count, plus it has some snubs and Oppenheimer showed no weakness whatsoever. Well, it lost the WGA, but movies with no major snubs can afford to do that, as we know. Provided they win enough of the other big guilds. It becomes only the second movie since Chicago in 2003 to win Best Picture without also winning at least one screenplay award at WGA/BAFTA/GG/CC/Scripter – after The Shape of Water.
Yes, it’s definitely a one-off and it coincided with the biggest collapse by a frontrunner in Oscar history. It was two totally unprecedented contenders in the same year. CODA benefited greatly from the collapse of The Power of The Dog, which couldn’t win any guild besides DGA.
I think the only comparison to such a situation was the Braveheart year. It only won the WGA and Apollo 13 won the Triple Crown. Every other BP winner had won at least two major guilds. Had any film showed as much weakness as The Power of The Dog and won the Best Picture? Only Braveheart and I think the reason it won was because Apollo 13 didn’t win a single major award. It wasn’t winning BD or Screenplay and Ed Harris was never the favourite to win Supporting Actor. Braveheart winning WGA and Gibson being a favourite for BD made it the obvious choice. I think the bigger question is how did Apollo 13 win the Triple Crown when it wasn’t a favourite for any major category. The Power of The Dog had no reason to do so poorly and it lost its favourite tag because it was no longer a favourite in key categories like Screenplay and acting. And it lost in other categories as well. I think DGA might be the only guild it won. That’s got to be one of the weakest for a so-called BP frontrunner. It lost both screenplay and Supporting Actor to CODA and that’s how CODA became the favourite to win.
I hate weepy movies. I’m always like you’ve got to earn it. It’s the same with comedies and I’ve always been like “Make me laugh.” It’s a similar thing with action films. I’ve also always had a great eye for movement so the action scenes have to be rhythmical and balletic. Well choreographed, essentially. I’ve always thought movement and sound are the two most important elements in visual storytelling. Sound is very obvious to people, but movement isn’t. The best tool an actor has is their voice and the line delivery is all too important to their performance. It can make a difference in turning a lukewarm line into a good life or a good line into an epic and memorable line. Anyway, I’m not easily moved by movies and I tend to be much in touch with non-Hollywood films, especially European and Japanese films. They work hard to move you and aren’t seeking the cheap manipulation that Hollywood films do. I tend to think a film showing restraint in depicting emotions, especially sad ones, will have a much bigger impact on viewers at the end. Just keeping the emotions at the surface but not released yet will truly move you when they finally let go. I was moved by a lot more than usual last year. Close is the example I was referring to and that was truly impactful because you could see the trauma the main character was carrying throughout most of the movie. Weirdly I didn’t think about how closely I relate to it. I was just moved by the story, but it’s astonishing how closely related our stories are. It’s so weird how I didn’t even realise that until now. Omg! I focused way more on differences rather than the obvious similarities. Anyway, moving on. I was also moved by the end of All of Us Strangers. I didn’t see that coming and I was both shocked and moved at the same time. But the only film that made me cry last year was Past Lives and that last scene. I mean, the emotions were bubbling right at the surface for a long time and she finally let it go at the end.
CODA is a one off situation really. Apple shifted to overdrive on the campaign front right after Macbeth’s BP miss. That complicated matters that season.
CODA shouldn’t have won the PGA in the first place – based on the precursor performance (no DGA nom, no BAFTA Best Film nom). Something happened in the industry circles. Probably Apple shifting to overdrive on the campaign front right after The Tragedy of Macbeth’s unexpected BP miss.
The moment it won the PGA it was obvious that it’s winning and the stats are about to go to the garbage bin…!
“I think it was as simple as nomination stats dead vs winning stat dead and the latter is a bigger hurdle to overcome.”
Still disagree… 🙂 If that was the case, Apollo 13 and Little Miss Sunshine and La La Land and such would have won… I just think, depending on certain factors (usually, but, clearly, given the Braveheart case, not always, SAG performance,) either one or the other can win. Both types of clues are about as strong (overall) and the detail of the year’s setup, the little clues, decide, when they’re contradicting each other.
I’m saying, in a way, that CODA didn’t even need to win BAFTA screenplay or the WGA. The SAG strength, coupled with the PGA win, was enough. It showed unusual strength, yes, but my take is that it didn’t even need to, given how much weakness The Power of the Dog showed. It would have still won. (PGA+SAG Ensemble+acting, when nothing else does well enough – that’s more than sufficient, even logically-speaking. I think it would have won the screenplay Oscar anyway, even without BAFTA+WGA. A bit like Green Book.) As it was, it probably won pretty heavily.
“It’s that i like films that leave a lot of room for interpretation.
People can watch the same scene with very clear and unambiguous meaning and yet have a different understanding of it.”
I have no bias either for or against that. 🙂 I can like it, if it’s done in a way that speaks to me, or if what I get out of it speaks to me, or I can dislike it, if I feel I’ve seen it all before (which happens more than you’d think, even with some movies critics just love and that seem very deep/original, on the surface) or if, as I said, I feel they are deliberately vague and only pretending to be making a point (or trying and failing) or only asking questions and not really even trying to at least hint at some answers. I just don’t like that. I mean, I can still like the movie, if I like enough about the way it’s made and the story it’s telling, message aside, but I still don’t like that aspect/approach, even then.
“If a film makes a basic and even tired point, it will have to do the execution very well and connect with me.”
Makes sense. Although I do have to say most points that can be made are tired, by 2023/2024. 🙂 Not all, but most. (And I don’t think the ones Nolan makes are more tired than average, by any means – and he has, for me, very interesting ways of making them.)
“I’m not easily moved by a film, so I tend to look for the ideas it has and the execution is above all important.”
Yup, that’s clearly the difference between us. I am easily moved. 🙂 Always have been.
I think it was as simple as nomination stats dead vs winning stat dead and the latter is a bigger hurdle to overcome. The Power of The Dog was as weak in winning stats as CODA was in nomination stats. Two extreme weaknesses collided and the nomination stats weakness isn’t as bad as the winning stats weakness. Especially when the weakness of The Power of The Dog is combined with the unusual strength of CODA.
It’s not about the film trying to seem deep by being vague. It’s that i like films that leave a lot of room for interpretation. People can watch the same scene with very clear and unambiguous meaning and yet have a different understanding of it. For me it’s not about the obvious that we all understand that’s most important but the Lees obvious and clearcut thar either the film or other piece of art is trying to say or that I fumigated put for myself just by watching. In many ways we do want to be manipulated by films because we want to be moved, but we don’t think of it as manipulation if it’s connected with deeply and moved us. But it’s a different issue if you see the manipulation and aren’t moved by it. What I’m trying to saying requires a lot of nuance and I can’t get the right words to tell you exactly what I mean. So, I’ll just put in more basic terms. If a film makes a basic and even tired point, it will have to do the execution very well and connect with me. I’m not easily moved by a film, so I tend to look for the ideas it has and the execution is above all important. I believe art is about what you take out of it rather what it gives you.
And both nomination-based principles and defeat-based principles can (and should) be used as elimination rules, as we know. Here, too, they are of around equal importance.
“I meant collapsed in its year, not for all time.”
I still don’t think “collapsed” is the best word to use, in this case – but it’s not that important, of course. 🙂 I know what you mean, that’s all that matters.
“And the key thing is that the bigger stat, guild wins, held. Guild wins beat nomination snubs.”
I don’t necessarily think wins/losses are more telling than nominations/snubs. I think they’re about equally important, as clues – what makes wins be telling more often, of course, is that fewer of the top contenders can win, whereas a lot more get to be nominated for stuff. But, one-on-one, they’re both (wins/nominations) about equally indicative of strength or lack thereof. Nomination rules have prevailed before, plenty, when the two clashed (depending on the specific situation and counts) – in fact, in the most similar year to the CODA/POTD one, the movie that prevailed had won a bit less/the slightly less important things, in terms of predictive power (The Departed‘s DGA+ACE vs. PGA+SAG for Little Miss Sunshine, with WGA wins for both – I mean relevant industry wins, of course.) The nomination rules decided in favor of it. It’s about which movie shows weakness in more places/more significant weakness. It doesn’t matter if it’s weakness indicated by snubs or by defeats. Another case in which the movie that won more (PGA, DGA, SAG, SAG acting,) Apollo 13, lost to the movie that won less (WGA, ACE,) but showed less important weaknesses, Braveheart. (Apollo 13‘s directing snub coupled with a WGA defeat was more important than Braveheart‘s SAG and PGA snubs, historically-speaking. Significantly more.) For a preferential era example, we can go with (it’s not the only one) Moonlight (only won WGA and SAG acting) vs. La La Land (PGA, DGA, ACE, SAG acting.) The latter’s SAG snub was the most significant bit of weakness shown, in the end, and a tiebreaker in a tied branch count – producing + directing vs. writing + acting (as the ACE win, based on this and several other years, it is proven should not be counted as a plus in the branch count, thus, editing is a tie, as neither was snubbed anywhere for that.)
“I tend to like films which are very subtle and people aren’t even sure what it is about.”
See, I don’t really like not being sure what a movie is about (well, in some specific cases, I do, but not normally) – I think that’s a cheat. It makes it too easy for the movie to seem deep to a lot of people, based on what the viewer brings to it himself (which, in the case of a vague, non-commital movie, like that, will often be something,) when, in fact, what’s actually there… I mean, what’s deep and meaningful about vagueness?! Say something! Don’t just ask questions!… It’s really not that hard to ask/formulate pertinent questions about life and love and such. Any person with average intelligence can do it. And any life situation can be used in a movie, to pose such questions/make the viewer think about them. It’s much harder to come up with interesting answers or with scenarios/stories that actually answer said questions…
“And you like the emotions to be right at the forefront and love getting carried by it.”
Yup. Never denied it.
“it’s not like Nolan are melodramatic and emotional manipulative films.”
No, absolutely not! I think what people find manipulative about him are the stylistic touches he often uses, for instance, plus his setup-payoff mechanism, as you point out. (Which I’ve never found manipulative in the slightest, but I guess many do.) His endings also seem fairly polarizing. You’re far from the only person I’ve seen dis them. (I love them and don’t find them forced or manipulative at all.)
“he doesn’t wow me or move me or make me think.”
Definitely does all of that for me. (OK, the moving bit, only in a few of his movies, but it’s there. Chiefly, Interstellar, which is why it’s my favorite, most probably. And the thing is, I find his characters – and plots – fascinating even when they don’t move me, anyway.)
“I think the problem might be that Nolan is elevated as one of the best directors and thus my expectations of him are very high.”
That’s probably often an issue for even the greatest directors during their careers. The more time passes after they’ve retired, the easier it becomes to see their greatness, removed from all of the contemporary noise.
“My issue with his films is that he doesn’t even try to hide what he’s doing and it all seems so obvious and there’s ZERO surprise whatsoever.”
You’re much smarter than I am if you find nothing surprising in his movies. 🙂 I agree that it’s all obvious, but I actually like directors that just tell the damn story, and an interesting one, at that, and tell it really well…
“Compare that to Memento? The film tries to surprise us and it has one of the best twists and you’re not even sure of what it is”
See, that, to me, sounds like a perfect description of Inception, instead… 🙂 It’s always been difficult for me to understand why so many people in the online realm (as well as critics, I guess, looking at their Metascores) seem to love Memento (which I find to be one of Nolan’s most forgettable works – I saw it, it was interesting, but I didn’t think it was anything mind-blowing, nor have I ever felt any sort of desire to see it again) more than Inception, when the latter is clearly (at least to my mind) even more inventive, smart, as well as so much richer and more accomplished, crafts-wise. I just don’t see the logic there. Anti-blockbuster bias?
It’s been too long since I saw The Prestige. That one I probably will want to rewatch, at some point.
“The film works well because I’m more immersed in the story and not worrying about worrying what Nolan is setting up.”
I never worry about that (I don’t know why other people do so much, for his movies) – I’m always immersed.
“The Dark Knight is the film that’s most contrived of all Nolan films”
I don’t necessarily disagree (it’s always felt like one of his least immersive to me, as well,) but it’s still awesome, in my book. Great characters, quotes, scenes, tension… (With which you disagree, which is of course fine.)
“To sum up, I like to be surprised and the set up not to be so obvious and ridiculous.”
Like I said, if you think it’s obvious, it probably means you’re just way smarter than I am and seeing/figuring out something I can’t. 🙂 (In each case, individually, or in general.) I don’t mind being dumb enough to not find his set-ups obvious, though. (Especially since, if I’m so dumb that I can’t even understand why I’m dumb, in this matter, I doubt there’s anything I can do to change it, even if I try. The skill in question is probably just beyond me.) More movies to love… As for “ridiculous,” that seems like a matter of opinion. Evidently, I don’t find them ridiculous at all. Finally, with regard to being surprised… That doesn’t really do anything special for me. It’s interesting, but I don’t give a movie too many points for it and it’s not one of the things that make me want to rewatch something. A story told in completely traditional, entirely unsurprising style has just as much potential to be great, as far as I’m concerned, as one told in a very formally inventive/surprising fashion. It just depends how interesting the story is and how well it’s told. And how immersively, indeed – that’s a big deal for me, too. I do also very much like it when the world the movie builds, visually and such, feels unique (but also not fake.) That is definitely something that makes me want to rewatch stuff – and I find that Nolan is absolutely great at doing that.
I meant collapsed in its year, not for all time. And the key thing is that the bigger stat, guild wins, held. Guild wins beat nomination snubs. The nomination stats champions all collapsed when it came to winning the major guilds.
I think we do have different tastes and different opinions on what we consider manipulative. I tend to like films which are very subtle and people aren’t even sure what it is about. And you like the emotions to be right at the forefront and love getting carried by it. That’s why we do leave different tastes in film, at least in some types. But in saying that it’s not like Nolan are melodramatic and emotional manipulative films. There’s not much emotions in his films a d people criticise him for that. I don’t have much problem with that myself, but he doesn’t wow me or move me or make me think. I think the problem might be that Nolan is elevated as one of the best directors and thus my expectations of him are very high. Maybe he’s just good but not great, as the hype around him implies. My issue with his films is that he doesn’t even try to hide what he’s doing and it all seems so obvious and there’s ZERO surprise whatsoever. Compare that to Memento? The film tries to surprise us and it has one of the best twists and you’re not even sure of what it is and thers even a subliminal image in there that’s hard to see at first view. Memento feels much more like a David Fincher film and it’s Nolans best film. The Prestige has a twist and even though it can be predicted, it still land wonderfully and it has no impact on the the film overall. Its just a wrll fine film and you’re not being pointed towards something and forced fed a plot and set up. The film works well because I’m more emmirsed in the story and not worrying about worrying what Bolan is setting up. The Dark Knight is the film that’s most contrived of all Nolan films and it’s obvious it was made for superhero and comic book fantom. Nolan is telling us everything and how it will all happen and when it happens it’s not even worth all the obvious set up. For example, when they were debating about blowing the boats, I was shouting blow up the boat. Please, just blow the damn boat! I was hoping it would spate is from having to suffer through that long ass set up thar was so obvious it was torturous. The TwoFace turn was even more maddening and the scene he’s trying to kill was one of the worst scenes and call that bad filmmaking. It was just ridiculous. The Dark Knight has all those bad things in yet some people crap their pants over it and somehow has a vert high rating on IMDB. Oppenheimer has similar contrived ending, but at least it didn’t have a long, torturous and ridiculous set up. To sum up, I like to be surprised and the set up not to be so obvious and ridiculous.
“I suppose he can alternate between serious films and genre films.”
Evidently, I wouldn’t mind this at all.
“Collapsed” is definitely the wrong word to describe that outcome. They got new exceptions. This is bound to happen, when more important rules (or a stronger combination of such) suggest it will. Nothing unusual about it. The only thing that was unusual was that the situation was created in which one or the other had to fail. That’s very rare, obviously. Maybe once every 20 years or so, it happens, on average. But, once that situation was created, the perfectly normal thing happened, that’s all. Nothing collapsed. Those rules are still ultra-strong. How many non-DGA nominees do you think we will get over the next 50 years? More than 1-2? (If that.) I would be shocked – unless something fundamental changes (or perhaps has changed, but that’s got nothing to do with the CODA situation, as that wasn’t an international film) about how the DGA and Oscar BP correlate. Likewise, how many without editing or directing Oscar nominations? My bet for most likely number over the same, upcoming 50 years, is zero (might be the likeliest number for the DGA thing, too, although 1 also seems pretty likely, given the average so far) and again I would be shocked if it would be more than 1.
“As I said many times before, I can always see his hands. I feel like we’re being manipulated”
So many people are obsessed with this manipulating business… Every film manipulates. In fact, every piece of art does. The whole point of art is to make you feel/think about certain things. Otherwise, it would cease to have a reason for being. Of course, what everybody is obsessed with, on the movie side of it, specifically, is not being obviously manipulated. But Nolan is so far from that. He does it in small ways, but literally every other director does. Subverting conventions, not doing what is generally done, being subtle, abstract, restrained, whatever choice, it’s all manipulative (and Nolan does plenty of that, too, although he also does some of the more standard, audience-friendly stuff) – just that some types of manipulation appeals to the critics/the more artsy crowd more and some of it appeals to the general public more. There’s no difference, though. Objectively speaking, restraint is not better than going big and/or spelling things out a bit. The only thing that matters is that the manipulation (in whatever form the filmmaker chooses to deliver it) be somehow made to flow from the story, to not feel deliberate. I get it, you think Nolan’s brand of manipulation feels more deliberate, more obvious, than that of more critic-friendly directors. Many people do. That’s alright. I disagree. I think he’s sensational at not having it feel deliberate. At not losing the immersion at all. I think it’s one of the things that set him apart the most. That he’s able to go so big and, at the same time, make everything in his movies (characters, plot points, details, everything) feel so natural, so real. But, of course, it’s a matter of taste/opinion. Ours differ, on this point. 🙂 At least somewhat.
I hope he does whatever projects he thinks are best and he’s most passionate about, in the future. I trust his judgement completely. I’ve never been given any reason not to…
Lily Gladstone lost because she was in the wrong category. She was supporting not leading !
Happy for true lead performance Emma Stone won her second statue.
So true!
Great speech!