Love and scandal are the best sweeteners of tea. —Henry Fielding
Showing posts with label safdie brothers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safdie brothers. Show all posts

07 March 2026

Oscar Nominations 2025: Post 10 of 11

1. Sinners, One Battle after Another, Sentimental Value

This year's nominees are:

Jurassic World: Rebirth
1 nomination
  • Visual Effects
Director: Gareth Edwards
Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, Rupert Friend, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Luna Blaise, David Iacono, Audrina Miranda, Philippine Velge, Bechir Sylvain, Ed Skrein, Adam Loxley, Niamh Finlay

For some reason this is a movie about sadness? Like, everyone, in Jurassic World: Rebirth is so sad and unhappy, and it was really difficult for me to invest in any of these people. This has some cool sequences, but it’s such a downer. It’s Jurassic Park as a disaster film, and because it approaches its subject matter earnestly, this means feeling every loss in the disaster and taking time to mourn the fallen characters whom we never got to know in the first place. The leads are competent—Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali, Jonathan Bailey, and Rupert Friend are all great and perfect in their parts. But there’s also an annoyingly earnest B-plot, with four actors I’ve never seen before. They all do a fine job, but Gareth Edwards doesn’t introduce them to us until 25 minutes into the movie, so they feel like an afterthought for the rest of the running time, though I think Edwards thinks they’re supposed to be the emotional center of the movie or something like that. The whole thing is ridiculous. And the big bad at the end is disgusting-looking. Mostly, though, I just don’t understand why an adventure–monster movie needs to be so deeply invested in processing depression and lack of fulfillment. Why couldn’t this be more fun? Why make a monster movie that’s a drag? This ends up being one of the worst movies of the year.
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #95 out of 98

The Lost Bus
1 nomination
  • Visual Effects
Director: Paul Greengrass
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, America Ferrera, Yul Vazquez, Ashlie Atkinson, Kimberli Flores, Levi McConaughey, Kay McConaughey, John Messina, Kate Wharton, Danny McCarthy, Spencer Watson

Fellow visual effects nominee The Lost Bus is an infinitely better film than Jurassic World: Rebirth with a bigger movie star, but this was an AppleTV+ film and so almost no one saw it. This is very very unfortunate because The Lost Bus is really strong. It’s a fast-paced action film that mounts tension expertly and beautifully pays off. McConaughey and the rest of the cast are excellent, but the star here are the extraordinary effects and the sure hand of Paul Greengrass, who has been giving us great politically focused action movies for two decades. It's a movie about climate change without being a movie about climate change, and it highlights the very hard work that real firefighters, schoolteachers, and other real people (not politicians or finance executives) did to save lives during the Paradise fire in California. This movie's great. Unfortunately none of us can watch it on big screens. 
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #21 out of 98

Kokuho
(国宝)
1 nomination
  • Makeup & Hairstyling
Director: Lee Sang-il
Cast: Yoshizawa Ryo, Yokohama Ryusei, Takahata Mitsuki, Terajima Shinobu, Kurokawa Soya, Koshiyama Keitatsu, Tanaka Min, Ken Watanabe, Nana Mori, Takahiro Miura, Ai Mikami, Masatoshi Nagase, Shimada Kyūsaku

Epic! At three hours this is a bit of a prohibitive watch, but it's filed with excellent performances and—especially—some wonderful kabuki on film. The central figure in this is a bit of an enigma, and perhaps because the film jumps temporally as much as it does, we get less insight than we probably should into who he is. We get much, much more insight into his partner's world, the man who is not nearly as good of a kabuki performer in the film. Yokohama Ryusei is wonderful in this. The movie itself is messy, but it kind of doesn't matter. The whole thing is immensely compelling. (Incidentally, Kokuho means national treasure, which makes sense in the context of the film, but of course one could never call this film "National Treasure" in English.) One more thing: it's odd that gender doesn't come up at all in this movie except for two little moments at the end of the second act and beginning of the third. An audience member assumes that Kikuo is a woman and wishes for something more but then becomes violent when he understands that he's a man; then two scenes later two men refer to a 90-year-old onnagata as "the old lady" but then correct themselves. These are intriguing moments, but the film itself does nothing with them. Lee Sang-il is simply not interested in the complex gender experience of these men who play women onstage. And I guess that's a little weird to me, but the movie's definitely still worth watching.
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #32 out of 98

The Smashing Machine
1 nomination
  • Makeup & Hairstyling
Director: Benny Safdie
Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Emily Blunt, Ryan Bader, Bas Rutten, Lyndsey Gavin, Zoe Kosovic, Oleksandr Usyk, Satoshi Ishii, James Moontasri, Yoko Hamamura, Paul Cheng, André Tricoteux, Marcus Aurelio, Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu, Jerin Valel, Raja Flores

This is a weird film. It’s weird because—in the first place—it’s a sports film that really avoids quite a few of the sports-movie tropes, and this makes the movie better than those movies but not quite as satisfying emotionally as most of them. It’s also weird because—in the second place—Safdie is invested in us having complex feelings about his characters and the things they do, and we aren’t used to that. I don’t know, though… for me this was good but not great. It has some excellent elements—the sound is incredible, the score is so great, the makeup is amazing—but much of The Smashing Machine consists of melodramatic, petty fights. And those were not very interesting to me. (Except for this one moment when The Rock smashed a door in a room where there really should not have been a door in the first place.) In any case, The Smashing Machine doesn't build tension the way a usual Safdie Brothers movie would. This is a true story, and its dependent on its real subject matter, but I suspect that the screenwriter amped up the Emily Blunt part so the actress could have more to do. This works well for Emily Blunt, but it makes the movie a good deal less enjoyable; she really shouldn't be the focus of this movie.
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #44 out of 98

All 2025 Oscar posts:

20 February 2026

Oscar Nominations 2025: Post 6 of 10

1. Sinners, One Battle after Another, Sentimental Value
5. Sirāt, Avatar: Fire and Ash, K-Pop Demon Hunters

This year's single-digit nominees are:

If I Had Legs I'd Kick You
1 nomination
  • Actress: Rose Byrne (1st time nominee)
Director: Mary Bronstein
Cast: Byrne, Conan O'Brien, A$AP Rocky, Danielle Macdonald, Delaney Quinn, Bronstein, Ivy Wolk, Mark Stolzenberg, Manu Narayan, Christian Slater

This is the third Safdie movie of the year. (Actually though. Josh was a producer.) It's structured just like a Safdie Brothers film—things just get worse and worse. But this is really strong! It’s a kind of feminist version of The Plot Against Harry, and it is filled with insight and terror about motherhood and being a woman in general. I was very into it. If I Had Legs I’d Kick You could only be the title of a comedy of course, and this is funny; it’s just a deeply bleak humor that is simultaneously terrifying and actually a film about existential dread. As I say, I was into it. I hadn't heard of this movie before Rose Byrne started getting end-of-year awards for her performance, but she absolutely deserves them, and she's be my pick to take home the statue this year. I don't think she can win, though. It feels to me like Jessie Buckley's year. (Kind of a shame—Rose Byrne is awesome in this.)
Will win: N/A
Could win: Actress
My rating: #31 out of 94

Song Sung Blue
1 nomination
  • Actress: Kate Hudson (Almost Famous)
Director: Craig Brewer
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Hudson, Michael Imperioli, Fisher Stevens, Jim Belushi, Ella Anderson, King Princess, Mustafa Shakir, Hudson Hilbert Hensley, Shyaporn Theerakulstit

Kate Hudson's most recent nomination was 25 years ago! That seems crazy. I avoided watching this movie, betting that Hudson would not wind up in this fifth Best Actress slot, but I knew it was a losing bet all along, and I dragged myself to the theatre for a matinee of this on the day that the Academy Award nominations came out. I left the theatre crying, and the movie really is emotionally affecting. Which isn’t to say that Song Sung Blue is a good movie. It isn’t. But the whole thing is so intensely and insanely earnest and so deeply invested in making its audience cry that it’s hard not to just go along with it and fucking cry with them. Did I mention this is a kind of jukebox musical of covers that tells the story of a Neil Diamond impersonator and a Patsy Cline impersonator? It's also a true story that is so wild it feels completely unbelievable, though, I mean, why would anyone lie? Everyone seems so honest and polite and, well, midwestern in this. In actuality, Song Sung Blue (my god, that's a bad title) is way too long, and every single song wears out its welcome, but I think maybe that’s just the nature of the people at the film’s center. They want to be the focus, and they want to take up space and have your attention, but they never quite earn it.
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #74 out of 94

Weapons
1 nomination
  • Supporting Actress: Amy Madigan (Twice in a Lifetime)
Director: Zach Cregger
Cast: Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, Alden Ehrenreich, Austin Abrams, Benedict Wong, Madigan, Cary Christopher, Toby Huss, Whitmer Thomas, Callie Schuttera, June Diane Raphael, Scarlett Sher

This was fun. It's deeply fucked up, and I'm really not used to watching things like this, but my niece Hannah insisted, so we watched this together and covered our faces and cringed. This is a kind of horror-response to school shootings that deals with the senselessness and helplessness of parenthood when many children have been lost to violence at once. In my "Summing Up 2025" post, I said that Weapons is about the queer child, the mysteriousness at the heart of the child who is doing things we don't and can't understand; indeed another movie about children that got an Oscar nomination this year—the animated film Arco—has an identical scene to the one in Weapons, in which three children run away from home and toward certain danger while their parents remain mystified or unaware. This is scary, but it's also funny at times, and for me it manages the balance of terror and humor well. (Also, please more Alden Ehrenreich. He's so amazing in everything.) I'm delighted that Amy Madigan got an Oscar nomination for this. Her last nomination was in 1986—a full forty years ago, and I've always hated her awful character in Twice in a Lifetime, so I'm glad she can be nominated for another but very different horrible, hateful character. 
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #47 out of 94

The Voice of Hind Rajab
(
صوت هند رجب)
1 nomination
  • International Feature: Tunisia (The Man Who Sold His Skin)
Director: Kaouther Ben Hania
Cast: Motaz Malhees, Saja Kilani, Amer Hlehel, Clara Khoury, Nesbat Serhan, Ramy Brahem

This is a chamber drama slash docu-fiction film that is built around a series of real phone calls and social media posts. The film pointedly tells us as it begins that the voice we will hear onscreen is the actual voice of Hind Rajab. The movie is about a six-year-old Palestinian girl who is in the backseat of a car at a gas station when the Israeli army fires at the car, killing everyone in it except the girl. She calls the Red Crescent, and speaks to rescue workers there who work to get a team out there in the middle of a militarized zone in order to save her life. The army is still out there with tanks, so the idea of an ambulance saving this girl in the middle of a warzone is nearly an impossible task, but the Red Crescent workers do their best to make it happen. This film is much, much better than I expected it to be. It’s a taut drama based on historical events that occasionally merges with the video and audio on which it is actually based. This makes for interesting filmmaking that—in this case—really works. The screenplay is great, and the film boasts an excellent cast with some truly moving scenes. The best thing about this is its real avoidance of cheap sentimentality. This is a hard hitting movie that doesn’t shy away from the story it needs to tell. I should say a few things, finally, about the International Feature nominees this year because it's an extraordinary group. I think I probably would have nominated South Korea's No Other Choice instead of this movie, but it's still an excellent group—as evidenced by the fact that The Voice of Hind Rajab is the only one of these films with only one nomination: all of the others have two or more. But do yourself a favor and check out some of the other films on the shortlist of this category. I recommend, especially, South Korea's No Other Choice, Chile's The Mysterious Gaze of the Flamingo, The Dominican Republic's Pepe, and North Macedonia's The Tale of Silyan, but there are another five or ten that will come out in 2026 that I plan to see. I'm especially excited for Palestine's Palestine 36, The Philippines' Magellan, Germany's Sound of Falling, and Poland's Franz. 
Will win: N/A
Could win: N/A
My rating: #26 out of 94

03 February 2026

Oscar Nominations 2025: Post 2 of 10

1. Sinners, One Battle after Another, Sentimental Value

This year's nominees are:

Marty Supreme
9 nominations
  • Picture
  • Director: Josh Safdie (1st time nominee)
  • Actor: Timothée Chalamet (A Complete Unknown, Call Me by Your Name)
  • Original Screenplay: Ronald Bronstein & Safdie (both 1st time nominees)
  • Film Editing: Bronstein & Safdie (both 1st time nominees)
  • Cinematography: Darius Khondji (Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths, Evita)
  • Production Design: Jack Fisk (Killers of the Flower Moon, The Revenant, There Will Be Blood) & Adam Willis (Killers of the Flower Moon)
  • Costume Design: Miyako Bellizzi (1st time nominee)
  • Casting
Director: Safdie
Cast: Chalamet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Odessa A'Zion, Kevin O'Leary, Tyler the Creator, Emory Cohen, Fran Drescher, Géza Röhrig, Abel Ferrara, Penn Jilette, Sandra Bernhard

This is tons of fun. It's a non-stop ride of bad mistake after bad mistake (in the vein of the other Safdie Brothers movies). This one feels much more fun than Good Time, Uncut Gems, and The Smashing Machine, and I think a lot of that is the way that Chalamet is able to enjoy himself and project his own pleasure through the difficulties of the character. Marty is a fantastic character, and he's played beautifully here. Which is to say that I don't normally think we associate what Chalamet is doing in this movie with "acting" as such, but I think he's doing an incredible amount of work here that doesn't come across as "honesty" or "vulnerability" or whatever else we might associate with good acting. He's, well, a star. I hope he wins Best Actor. The film has stumbled in recent days with various negative campaigning aimed at it, so I think it is probably not winning any other Oscars, but I'd still like to see Timmy take this one. I also think it should win casting. This is a kind of genius casting job. I think putting Géza Röhrig in that orgy scene with the honey was flat out brilliant. Ok also... that honey scene. Can we talk about it?
Will win: Actor, Casting
Could win: Editing
My rating: #15 out of 89

Frankenstein
9 nominations
  • Picture
  • Adapted Screenplay: Guillermo Del Toro (The Shape of Water, Pan's Labyrinth)
  • Supporting Actor: Jacob Elordi (1st time nominee)
  • Cinematography: Dan Lausten (Nightmare Alley, The Shape of Water)
  • Production Design: Tamara Deverell (Nightmare Alley) & Shane Vieau (Dune: Part Two, Nightmare Alley, The Shape of Water)
  • Original Score: Alexandre Desplat (Little Women, Isle of Dogs, The Shape of Water, The Imitation Game, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Philomena, Argo, The King's Speech, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Queen)
  • Costume Design: Kate Hawley (1st time nominee)
  • Makeup & Hairstyling
Director: Del Toro
Cast: Oscar Isaac, Elordi, Christoph Waltz, Mia Goth, Felix Kammerer, Charles Dance, David Bradley

Beautiful production design—or as a friend recently said "most" production design—and lots and lots of sumptuous, jewel-toned light. The costumes are gorgeous, the music is pretty, but this movie is fairly boring. I thought Oscar Isaac did good work in this, and David Bradley is great as the Creature’s friend, but the film itself just doesn’t have anything to add to the Frankenstein narratives we already have. Elordi is, of course, cheating by campaigning in the supporting actor category, but the Academy didn't seem to mind it here the way they minded Paul Mescal's category fraud (see below). Elordi is a rising star and everyone seems to love him. He's made a bunch of movies that have done well recently, and he's working hard, so I guess that pushed him over the edge here. I am a little baffled by this, but, then, I'm also baffled that anyone liked this movie. For something so shiny, it manages to be quite dull.
Will win: Production Design, Makeup & Hairsyling
Could win: Cinematography, Costume
My rating: #61 out of 89

Hamnet
8 nominations
  • Picture
  • Director: Chloé Zhao (Nomadland)
  • Actress: Jessie Buckley (The Lost Daughter)
  • Adapted Screenplay: Maggie O'Farrell (1st time nominee) & Zhao (Nomadland)
  • Production Design: Fiona Crombie (The Favourite) & Alice Felton (The Favourite)
  • Original Score: Max Richter (1st time nominee)
  • Costume Design: Malgosia Turzanska (1st time nominee)
  • Casting
Director: Zhao
Cast: Buckley, Paul Mescal, Joe Alwyn, Emily Watson, Jacobi Jupe, Noah Jupe, Bodhi Rae Breathnach, Olivia Lynes, David Wilmot, Justine Mitchell

My friends Kody and Dayne have been dragging me for weeks for liking this movie as much as I did. But I found this to be a beautiful meditation on grief. I liked all of the early stuff with the Agnes and Will falling in love, too. I think the real issue for me is that I just love Hamlet, so I loved all the little touches of it throughout the script – goodbye, goodbye, goodbye and other small places where it appeared. The problem with Hamnet is that it is too committed to grief and mourning; it plays this same note way too long. And you might say, yes, well, that's how grief works, but Sirāt is a film that has a similar meditation on the losing of a child, and it works much better. And when I think about it more, Hamnet is doing something as silly as giving us an origin story for an intellectual property we all love—like this is Becoming Jane Austen or something like that. Will Shakespeare reciting "To be or not to be" was way overboard. (I say this as someone who still really liked the film!) And another thing. The film really stumbles at the end. Whoever decided to use “On the Nature of Daylight”, that same Max Richter song from Arrival and Shutter Island, is a fool. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't disqualify Richter from getting his first Oscar nomination. Using old music like that is a big no-no for the Academy. Having that song at the end of the movie immediately pulled me out of the film—it belongs to a wholly different world—and of course I already know it, so rather than the ending of Hamnet feeling unexpected and new, the film moves into familiar territory. Not smart. There’s so much good stuff in this movie, though, and once I bought into the fiction of it (this does not accord with theatre history at all), I enjoyed myself. I guess I should say one more thing about Paul Mescal standing just off the medal stand over there. He's pretty great in this movie—I think he's pretty great in everything, honestly—but he attempted true category fraud. He (or his management) thought the supporting actor race was less crowded than the best actor race, and he was right about that, but it's a hard sell to say that he wasn't the lead actor in this film no matter how good he is in it.
Will win: Actress
Could win: Adapted Screenplay, Production Design, Casting
My rating: #30 out of 89

23 July 2020

Pusher (1996)

Pusher is the kind of thing I would have thought was exciting in the mid-1990s when it came out. Less so in 2006 when it was finally released in the U.S. But now in 2020, I just can't get that interested in these small-time criminals and their dumb misogyny, racism, violence, and stupidity. Pusher is notable for being Mads Mikkelsen's debut, and of course he's great in this. But he isn't in it for long. The performances are good – Laura Drasbæk is particularly interesting. And Kim Bodnia and Slavko Labović are both super attractive. But this film was not interesting to me. Its charms, such as they are, have not weathered well. Structurally, Pusher works rather like a Safdie Brothers movie, but Refn's movie does not work well as the Safdies' movies do. Oh also, the ending is incomplete. A movie like this needs to end. This one leaves the viewer hanging, and while this can work for plenty of films, even thrillers, the generic demands of this film require an ending. Instead, Refn punts.

22 July 2020

Gloria (1980)

Gloria is aces. Gena Rowlands is great, and this film surprised me quite a few times. This was on the Criterion Channel as a film that the Safdie Brothers love and that inspires their work. It is very plain to see why that's true. What an exciting film! I loved this.

31 May 2020

In a Lonely Place (1950)

This script is dynamite. It's actually just brilliant. Bogart and Grahame are fucking fantastic. No... everyone's good. This is an extraordinary film. It's absolutely excellent from start to finish. It's clearly a kind of riff on Greek tragedy, and one can easily see why this movie is such an important inspiration for the Safdie Brothers. I streamed it on Criterion on a channel of films that have been inspirational for the Safdies. Totally tracks.

But man this thing is good. The script is just so nuanced and well done. In a Lonely Place toys with its audience, effectively turning us into Gloria Grahame, so that we worry along with her. It's a great, great movie.

30 December 2019

Partial December Movie Round-up

Jay Roach's Bombshell is the movie about Gretchen Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and what I assume is a (fictional and likeable) version of Tomi Lahren. They're women who work at Fox News, and the plot of Bombshell is the takedown of Fox News head Roger Ailes.

You know how this ends. In fact, you probably know a lot about this story of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and rank misogyny.

Bombshell takes a jaunty, slightly mocking tone with this story – in the vein of The Big Short and Vice. This movie is (and I am not the first person to say this) better than Vice but not as good as The Big Short. Even more, there's something about the way this particular Brechtian film works that makes the facts of the story seem like they might actually be fictional, or at least exaggerated. A part of that has to do with the fact that this is a story about Fox News, which is a "news" outlet that cannot be trusted even to report the actual news. The other reason for this is that what happens at Fox already feels so absurd and insane. The real people are themselves over the top and seem slightly unhinged. As a result, even if the events portrayed in the film actually happened, one has the feeling that what is happening can't totally be trusted.

But the acting is pretty great. Charlize Theron is doing a strange but compelling impersonation of Megyn Kelly (the voice isn't quite right, but I didn't really mind), and Nicole Kidman's Gretchen Carlson is less of an impersonation than a powerful interpretation. Kidman is best in show, but Margot Robbie, Kate MacKinnon, Holland Taylor, Allison Janney, Liv Hewson, Brigette Lundy-Paine, Mark Duplass, Robin Weigert, and Malcolm McDowell are all great. For me, John Lithgow's Roger Ailes felt a little cartoony, but, as I say, the whole of Bombshell is a little cartoony, so this is perhaps not quite a fair criticism of his performance as such. Obviously the film hates this character, and so it's a difficult one to play.

Bombshell works, but it does feel a bit shallow. There are clear good guys in this movie and clear bad guys. There's also a right thing to do, and that is never really interrogated in this movie. In fact, not much is interrogated in this movie. It's a movie with a clear winner and a clear morality and not a lot of room for nuance. I think it could have benefited from a bit of that missing nuance. I would've liked a bit more interrogation into Fox News itself as a purveyor of misogyny, racism, and homophobia and how those values intersect and contribute to the sexual exploitation of women. It might also have been interesting to go the other way and explore this story alongside of the other enormous #MeToo stories. This felt a bit like fuel for a leftist fire already ablaze and not a serious exploration of sexual harrassment, the 24-hour news cycle, the values of television, the values of American Conservatism, or anything else.

I don't want to knock Bombshell too much because it has quite a few redeeming qualities, but it doesn't set out to do very much.

Oscar: I think we're looking at probably three acting nominations. Screenplay seems likely, as well. And film editing. Makeup & Hairstyling is also a fairly obvious nomination (and likely win – Theron looks amazing). So... 6.

* * *

I loved Marriage Story. The title is an intriguing sleight of hand: this is, of course, a divorce story. But Baumbach makes the brilliant choice to begin his movie with all of the tiny things that this couple loves about one another, and so the film starts with us understanding just how much the two main characters belong together – just how much they worked. And then 8 minutes into the movie, we understand that they're already at each other's throats.

Totally generous to the two people at its center, Marriage Story also felt (at least to me) as though it didn't choose sides. At its ugliest moments, the film is also at its most compassionate. But Baumbach's movie is also beautifully calibrated and balanced between very funny broad comedy, incisive and clever satire, and serious drama. It switches modes expertly and with complete confidence. It's heartbreaking and silly and bright and sober, one right after the other.

It's interesting to me that the clip of the film that went viral that everyone was mocking – the fight in Adam Driver's apartment – hit me as the emotional climax of the film. Folks laughed, but I knew nothing of their mockery and I found this sequence absolutely heartbreaking.

The acting is also wonderful. Laura Dern has a flashy role as a razor-sharp, not-to-be-trusted lawyer, and Ray Liotta as her rival is wonderful. Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson are both excellent. I've never loved either of them more.

Oscar: Three acting nominations here, too. Screenplay, Best Picture, Best Director. I think that's probably all, but that's a lot: 6.

* * *

I really didn't like Little Women. In the first place, we don't need a fourth adaptation of this book. The most recent one (25 years old now) was just fine. In the second place, Greta Gerwig's adaptation attempts to work against its source material basically for its entire running time, as though it wants to say that what is basically a non-feminist story is actually feminist. This movie apologizes for its source material. Gerwig has created a kind of frame for the movie so that she can comment on the way the original story works. This isn't a terrible idea, but it does lead me to wonder why she wanted to adapt this novel in the first place. It felt to me as though she was trying to save the novel or redeem it.

Saoirse Ronan is excellent as always, as are Timothée Chalamet and Laura Dern. Florence Pugh, however, is insanely miscast. She is supposed to be playing a thirteen year old and she looks about thirty throughout the movie. Her portrayal of Amy March has the largest arc – especially because Gerwig's Little Women wants to redeem Amy and make her into a likable character. (I saw this with a group of friends, and we all remembered refusing to forgive Amy when we originally read the book.) Pugh plays a very bratty young teenager and it's mostly cringe-worthy. She is also really the only character who changes a great deal over the long timespan the film covers, and so she stands out strangely.

Gerwig's film, in fact, has a lot of trouble with the way it manages time. It jumps back and forth in time in ways that don't always work and frequently feel unnatural or forced. The folks I was with found these jumps confusing, but maybe because I read the book so many times as a kid (at least 8; queer childhood is real), I was never really lost. I did find all of the jumps frustrating, though. The adaptation is already doing a kind of greatest hits of the novel's most important emotional moments, and the jumping back and forth just drew attention to the way the film already functioned as a highlight reel.

The supporting cast is mostly good. Chris Cooper has some great scenes; Louis Garrel is perfectly cast. Tracy Letts is excellently bombastic. I didn't like the young woman who played Beth; she was outshone by the other sisters, even though we keep being told (confusingly) that Beth is "the best" sister. In fact, here's one example where, for me, the film wants to have its feminist cake and eat it too. How is Beth "the best of us"? According to what criteria?

I submit that Beth is "the best" according to the criteria of traditional Victorian womanhood, in which she is selfless, caring, nurturing, loving, shy, sexless, without desires of almost any kind except for her family, and she is mostly silent. She has a good heart and doesn't think of herself, and she wants nothing in return for the gifts she gives to others. Now, I don't particularly object to any of these qualities, but my twenty-first-century attitudes toward gender don't allow me to think this makes Beth into "the best". But Louisa May Alcott does think that Beth is objectively the best. In Alcott's novel, Beth is figured as too perfect to exist in the world. It seems to me that Gerwig, too, objects to ideas like this, but maybe not quite enough for my taste. The new film cherry-picks the feminist values the novel has, but retains plenty of other outdated values that I chafed against as a twenty-first-century viewer. Gerwig's film is, thus, confusing in the way it deals with Alcott's value system. Rather than rethink the novel and really change the content so that she could give us a new version of Little Women, to my mind she keeps too much of Alcott's original. She splits the difference and tries to have it both ways. For me this didn't work.

Oscar: I think Saoirse Ronan will get a Best Actress nomination. I think the film will also get an original score nomination. The Art Directors Guild and the Costume Designers Guild both have ignored Little Women, so I would say those nominations feel unlikely at this stage. Makeup & Hairstyling is still a possibility. I say we are looking at 3.

* * *

I really liked the Safdie Brothers' Uncut Gems. It's an uncomfortable film in that what one does is watch the film's main character (played brilliantly by Adam Sandler) fuck up for the entirety of the movie. He just. Keeps. Fucking. Up. Again and again. This is an intensely frustrating but also just plain intense screenplay. Things are going terribly, and this fool cannot seem to right himself. He makes mistake after mistake and there doesn't seem to be a way of making things right and finding balance of some kind.

Sandler is so excellent. And Idina Menzel, Kevin Garnett, LaKeith Stanfield, and (especially) Eric Bogosian are also very, very good.

This is a crime caper, so you have to like things like that in order to like this movie. I love crime films, but I am not sure if I would call Uncut Gems enjoyable. I don't know. It's hard to talk about it. The movie is plainly very, very good, and it's also hard to shake after it's over. But it's just so rough to watch. 

Oscar: I really hope Sandler gets a Best Actor nomination. Screenplay seems likely. I think that may be it, however. I am guessing 2.