The 2021 Oscars – Picks and Thoughts

A most unusual year for movies deserves a most unusual awards season as well.  Like everything else we have done to help us weather the COVID-19 pandemic, the lead up to this year’s Oscars have been conducted remotely in an unprecedented combination of livestreams and health conscious ceremonies.  Thanks to online meeting apps like Zoom, most of the acceptance speeches of all the awards so far have been given from the respective winners’ living room rather than on a stage in front of peers.  Not ideal for anyone, but it’s allowed the awards this year to be delivered in a safe manner that helps protect all involved and helps to stem the spread of the deadly disease that we are still battling.  However, it does appear that the Oscars is still opting for an in person event rather than the Zoom enabled presentations that we’ve seen from the likes of the Emmys and the Golden Globes.  The way they are doing it, while still staying within the California state health guidelines is that they are conducting this year’s Academy Awards from two separate venues, allowing for enough social distance for the attendees.  One such place will be the traditional Dolby Theater which is the Oscars’ permanent home, and the other will be the historic Union Station in Downtown LA (a first for that location as an Oscar host).  Needless to say, this will be a very different Oscars than the one we are used to.  This is reflected in the nominated movies as well.  Because of the closure of movie theater for the majority of 2020, the field of nominated movies represents a more select group of indie and streaming titles.  One particularly positive result of this is that this is one of the most diverse group of nominees that the Oscars have ever seen, representing many underrepresented groups that otherwise are overlooked in more competitive years.

What follows is my usual picks and thoughts for each of the top categories at the Academy Awards.  In addition to breaking down each category, I also will include my choices for who I think will win, and who I think should win, because oftentimes my choices differ from the likely outcome.  These are for the leading categories of Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress and Screenplay (Adapted and Original).  Keep in mind, these are just my own opinions, and I could end up being way off in my picks come Oscar night (it happened last year).  So, let’s take a look at this exciting, and quite out of the ordinary group of nominees at this year’s Oscars.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman, Lee Kern, & Nina Pedrad, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm; Christopher Hampton & Florian Zeller, The Father; Chloe Zhao, Nomadland; Kemp Powers, One Night in Miami; Ramin Bahrani, The White Tiger

One thing that stands out is how Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, a film that is largely improvised, managed to sneak into an adapted screenplay nomination.  I’m not complaining, I just find it very interesting, and yes, appropriately funny.  Sacha Baron Cohen managed to pull of a miracle last year by not only making a sequel to his iconic breakout movie, but managing to make it just as big of a success, including more nominations than it’s predecessor.  And all the while shooting the film during a pandemic.  His near catastrophic stunts in the film are enough to earn this movie a special place in originality, but given that it’s a comedy and mostly improvised, it’s chances here are slim.  I haven’t seen White Tiger, and given the small amount of buzz around the film, a nomination seems to be it’s ultimate reward and nothing more.  What this category comes down to are two screenplays adapted from plays by their original scribes, and one literary adaptation by the director of the year’s biggest frontrunner.  Both One Night in Miami and The Father were late comers to this Oscar race, released at the tail end of the extended February deadline.  While Kemp Powers is getting deserved acclaim for his adaptation of his own play, his likely win as a co-director of the movie Soul in the animation category probably minimizes his chances here.  If Chloe Zhao has a big night with her likley front-runner status with Nomadland in multiple categories, it could give her momentum here.  But, I feel like the intricately plotted and experimental The Father is going to win here, as Florian Zeller deftly took his play off the stage and onto the screen with a flair that actually elevates the material for cinema.  Out of all these, my own personal favorite is the unconventional Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, because I feel like it’s the one whose best lines I’ll be remembering for many years to come, but for the sake of tradition, expect The Father to come away the likely winner her, unless Nomadland takes it in a sweep.

WHO WILL WIN:   Christopher Hampton & Florian Zeller, The Father

WHO SHOULD WIN: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Dan Swimer, Peter Baynham, Erica Rivinoja, Dan Mazer, Jena Friedman, Lee Kern, & Nina Pedrad, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Nominees: Shaka King, Will Berson, and Kenny & Keith Lucas, Judas and the Black Messiah; Lee Isaac Chung, Minari, Emerald Fennell, Promisng Young Woman; Darius Marder, Abraham Marder, and Derek Cianfrance, Sound of Metal; Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

This category really shows just how strong of a year this was for screenwriting.  In particular, all these movies touched upon some very relevant issues in their stories that no doubt resonated with Academy voters, whether it’s immigration, sexual assault, living with a disability, or just the fight against injustice.  I respect every one of the nominees here, but one stands out more than the rest.  It’s hard to cast aside the first time nominees in order to heap more praise on someone who has won an Oscar before, but this is about the screenplay itself and not the one who wrote it.  And my favorite screenplay for the entire year was The Trial of the Chicago 7 by Aaron Sorkin.  Yes, he already has one of the most stacked resumes in the business and already has won before (Adapted Screenplay for The Social Network in 2010).  But that Chicago 7 script just sings like no other I experienced last year.  The man just knows how to make captivating arguments flow off the page, and given how long he had this one gestating in development for over a decade, it’s probably his most polished script yet, and that’s saying a lot.  If the rest of the Academy doesn’t feel that way, I can see Emerald Fennell’s very provocative Promising Young Woman coming away with a win here.  It helps that she is also a directing nominee (one of two in this category, along with Lee Isaac Chung) and she already has a WGA win to back her up.  What could also work against Sorkin here is that Judas and the Black Messiah touches some of the same ground as it’s story does, with the trial being a backdrop element in it’s own story.  Whether or not Messiah splits some of the vote remains to be seen in relation to Chicago 7’s chances.  I still see Aaron Sorkin collecting a second Oscar here for his labor of love, but it’s a category that could end up favoring a new voice like the one Promising Young Woman offers and see an upset play out, depending on how the night goes.

WHO WILL WIN: Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

WHO SHOULD WIN: Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Nominees: Sacha Baron Cohen, The Trial of the Chicago 7; Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah; Leslie Odom, Jr, One Night in Miami; Paul Raci, Sound of Metal; Lakeith Stanfield, Judas and the Black Messiah

Sacha Baron Cohen hitched his wagon onto Chicago 7 all the way back when it was going to be a Spielberg film over a decade ago, always with the intent of playing notorious radical Abbie Hoffman.  The long wait paid off and he’s been recognized for his efforts here in this category.  However, a clear front-runner has emerged in this category and it’s Daniel Kaluuya for his stellar turn as Black Panther leader Fred Hampton in Judas and the Black Messiah.  Kaluuya, fresh off his star-making turn in Get Out (2017), has dominated the Awards season so far, picking up a Golden Globe, SAG Award, and a BAFTA in the last month, all Oscar precursors.  All this would lead you to believe that he has this in the bag, but the Oscars threw a wild card into this category.  Kaluuya’s co-star, Lakeith Stanfield, was also nominated here (and only here), despite the fact that he had campaigned for a leading role Oscar.  Though Stanfield’s work is also nomination worthy, it’s strange that he got recognized here, despite playing the lead in the movie.  This has led many to worry that he may split votes away from what could have been an assured victory for Kaluuya.  But, with the other big wins he’s collected, Daniel Kaluuya seems to have momentum on his side, and it is certainly well earned.  Of all the performances, his is definitely the stand-out, and I can’t think of another performance from this year that was this commanding on screen.  Not to take away from what Lakeith and Sacha delivered, as well as the great work from first timers like Paul Raci and Leslie Odom Jr., who could possibly win in the Best Song category.  Kaluuya’s electrifying performance as Fred Hampton is the kind of performance that the Oscars are made for; one that is both big and intimate, showcasing the incredible range that the actor is capable of.  And I don’t see anything slowing his momentum down on Oscar night; not even the wild card that is his co-star.

WHO WILL WIN: Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah

WHO SHOULD WIN: Daniel Kaluuya, Judas and the Black Messiah

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Nominees: Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm; Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy; Olivia Colman, The Father; Amanda Seyfried, Mank; Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

I love Glenn Close and I do want her to finally win an Oscar someday, but a win for her performance in Hillbiilly Elegy (one of 2020’s worst movies) would be an insult to her legacy as an actress.  She deserves recognition for something better that reflects just how great an actress she is, and not that pandering Oscar bait trash.  Thankfully, she is far from the favorite here.  The remaining nominees all come from much better films that are deserving of recognition.  Amanda Seyfried’s acclaimed turn as Marion Davies in Mank would be the kind of front-runner role in any other year where the Academy favors a nostalgic throwback to it’s own history, but she has surprisingly not built much momentum this year, much like the rest of the film.  Olivia Colman’s previous Oscar win for The Favourite (2018) probably dilutes her chances this year, though her role in the father showcases more of her dramatic talents than before.  The one who has surprisingly built a bit of momentum late has been veteran Korean actress Yuh-Jung Youn for her standout performance in Minari.  Playing the oftentimes naughty grandmother in the movie about Korean immigrants starting a farm in rural America, Youn is delightful to watch in the film, and is responsible for some of the movie’s most memorable moments.  A win for her would be deserved, and a wonderful recognition of her long standing career on the big screen that goes back decades.  However, if I were to pick a favorite her, I’d have to say the one who impressed me the most was Maria Bakalova in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm.  Not only does she hold her own opposite a heavyweight comedian like Sacha Baron Cohen, oftentimes delivering just as many laughs playing Borat’s continually mistreated daughter, but she showed so much fearlessness taking on some of the more elaborate pranks in the film.  Her now notorious scene with the unsuspecting Rudy Giuliani in a hotel room deserves an accolade of it’s own.  So, Minari’s Youn will likely win here, but Bakalova impressed me the most, and a surprise win for her would be a well-deserved honor.

WHO WILL WIN:  Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari

WHO SHOULD WIN: Maria Bakalova, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

BEST ACTOR

Nominees: Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal; Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Anthony Hopkins, The Father; Gary Oldman, Mank; Steven Yeun, Minari

It may be a little callous to say, but posthumous honors are a hard thing to vote against.  That’s the case with Chadwick Boseman’s nomination here for his lead performance in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; his first and only.  Boseman tragically passed away in August of last year after a long fight against cancer, three months before his final screen performance in Ma Rainey would premiere on Netflix.  Since then, he has been the odds on favorite to be honored with an Oscar for the role, and that has carried him through all the Awards thus far this Oscar season.  The Academy has awarded posthumous Oscars before in acting roles, first to Peter Finch for Network (1976) for Lead Actor and second to Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight (2008) in a Supporting Role.  Boseman looks to be the third posthumous winner of an acting Oscar, and it’s one that I cannot argue with.  Like the others, it’s an Oscar win that would’ve happened anyway, whether he was still alive or not.  It’s that good of a performance.  He takes command in Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, and delivers the performance of his life; even outshining his star-making work as T’Challa in Marvel’s Black Panther (2018).  So, there is no shame in honoring his memory with an Oscar win that pretty much sums up everything that made him the great actor that he was.  The remaining nominees are all very fine in of themselves, with veterans like Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman even delivering some of the best work of the already legendary careers.  But, it’s Boseman’s to lose, and an almost inevitable win here will likely lead to one of this Oscar’s most emotional moments, with Chadwick’s widow likely to accept on his behalf, as she has done all season.  It’s a fitting way to remember a talented life cut tragically short, and give him that special honor that will cement him as one of the icons of Hollywood.

WHO WILL WIN: Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

WHO SHOULD WIN: Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

BEST ACTRESS

Nominees: Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday; Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman; Frances McDormand, Nomadland; Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

Of all the acting categories of this year’s Oscars, this is the most wide open going into the final stretch.  All the precursor awards have gone to a different winner so far; Andra Day won the Golden Globe, Viola Davis won the SAG Award, Carey Mulligan the Critics Choice, and Frances McDormand  the BAFTA.  Poor Vanessa Kirby is the odd one out.  But, otherwise, it’s anyone’s to take home.  My feeling is that the ones carrying momentum into the final stretch are McDormand and Mulligan.  Frances could come away a winner if Nomadland has a big night and sweeps through all it’s categories, which would give her career Oscar number three; one short of the record (held by Kathrine Hepburn, who won four).  If not, I see Carey Mulligan, who was last nominated for An Education in 2009, taking home the Oscar.  Her performance is probably the most daring of the bunch, playing a vengeful woman getting revenge on men who have a history of sexually abusing women.  It’s certainly the kind of provocative, outside the ordinary kind of performance that does get noticed by the Academy from time to time, and it’s certainly a departure for Carey Mulligan as well, as she usually doesn’t take on these edgy kinds of characters often.  It’s also a lot more dynamic than Frances McDormand’s performance, which was intentionally formed around her as a personality, and doesn’t really display her range as much as her past wins have done.  While both actresses are deserving of recognition, I would like to see a different winner just for the sake of history possibly being made.  For one thing, I think Viola Davis’ performance as Ma Rainey was the most entertaining of the bunch, and secondly, a win for her would be the first for an actress of color since Halle Beary in 2001 for Monster’s Ball.  A Best Actress win for Davis, complete with Boseman and Kaluuya’s almost certain wins in their categories, and Yuh-Jung Yeon’s likely win in hers would mark the first time ever that all four acting awards went to people of color, which would be monumentally historic for the Oscars.  It remains to be seen if Oscar will be that bold, but Viola Davis is a strong contender, so it’s a good possibility.  More than likely, we’ll see Carey Mulligan win her first Oscar for her much talked about performance, but a historic night would be a great encapsulation of the progress made by this year’s Oscars overall.

WHO WILL WIN: Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman

WHO SHOULD WIN: Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom

BEST DIRECTOR

Nominees: Lee Isaac Chung, Minari; Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman; David Fincher, Mank; Thomas Vinterberg, Another Round; Chloe Zhao, Nomadland

At this point in the race, this one looks like a sure thing for Chloe Zhao for her work on Nomadland.  She has won every precursor in the Directing category, including the Golden Globe and the DGA.  Few have ever won those two and then lost out on the Academy Award, although such a thing did occur last year when Bong Joon-ho upset Sam Mendes.  The same thing seems less likely for Ms. Zhao, as she has far less competition that would challenge her in the same way.  It would also be an historic win built upon an already historic nomination.  For the first time in Oscar history, we have more than one woman nominated for Best Director, with Emerald Fennell being the other nominee.  It’s a nice development after so many were upset by the lack of nomination for Greta Gerwig at last year’s awards.  If Zhao were to win, she would also be only the second woman to take that honor after Kathryn Bigelow, who won in 2009 for The Hurt Locker, and also the first woman of color and Asian woman to do so.  All those elements boost her chances greatly.  For me personally, while I am excited for what Chloe’s win could mean for the Oscars in general, I was not all that impressed with Nomadland overall.  It’s a really good movie to be sure, but it otherwise left me underwhelmed.  The movie that impressed me more than any in this category, from a directing standpoint, was David Fincher’s Mank.  Sure, it’s the most mainstream, Oscar-baity film in the group, but I was blown away by how closely Fincher was able to recreate the look and aesthetic of an old Hollywood movie, and to me that’s the most impressive thing I saw this year.  Nomadland by comparison is a more leisurely film, though with some beautiful photography.  I’m anticipating history made here, but my choices are based on what impressed me the most about the directors work, and once again I find David Fincher to be in a class all his own.

WHO WILL WIN: Chloe Zhao, Nomadland

WHO SHOULD WIN: David Fincher, Mank

BEST PICTURE

Nominees: The Father; Judas and the Black Messiah; Mank; Minari, Nomadland; Promising Young Woman; Sound of Metal; and The Trial of the Chicago 7

One sign of how unusual an Oscar season this has been, half of the nominated movies in this category were ones that I didn’t even see in the calendar year of 2020.  The extended deadline for the 2020 Oscars also meant that a lot of movies slated for year end release got pushed deep into the new year, with late February being the new cutoff.  The three movies that I did see in 2020, (Mank, Sound of Metal, and The Trial of the Chicago 7) did make my year end Top Ten List, so I’m happy they are nominated here.  As for the rest, their inclusions are also expected.  The only one that I don’t like in the bunch is Promising Young Woman, which I felt mismanaged it’s provocative and intriguing premise with a lacking execution.  Nomadland is good enough for a nomination, but I’m not entirely sold on it’s front-runner status.  And I think that Mank, Chicago 7, and Sound of Metal sadly couldn’t carry their momentum into the new year, and will likely end up settling for wins in the technical categories instead.  What I do feel might be a minor spoiler in this race, and is really what I think to be the best movie in the bunch, is little but powerful Minari.  I finally got to see this one in late January and was very much enchanted by it.  It missed my top 10 for 2020, but I can see it still hold on for a spot on my best of 2021 later this year.  It’s a beautifully told story about a family working against the odds to achieve the American dream, and I think it’s a powerful parable for this time in the U.S.A.  that we are living in, especially wit anti-immigrant and anti-Asian rhetoric on the rise.  Nomadland is undoubtedly the movie to beat, as it has dominated Awards season so far, but Minari is the one that felt had the most heart and it left a far bigger impression on me after I saw it.  Still, it wouldn’t surprise me if Nomadland not only takes home the top award, but comes through with a sweeping victory in multiple categories.  And it’s a win that wouldn’t necessarily upset me too much either.  It’s been a while since one movie has been able to run the table at the Oscars, and it would be nice to see a smaller film like Nomadland be that unexpected juggernaut.

WHAT WILL WIN: Nomadland

WHAT SHOULD WIN: Minari

In addition, here is my brief rundown of all the remaining categories based on who I think is likely going to win:

Best Cinematography: Mank; Best Animated Feature: Soul; Best Documentary Feature: Collective; Best International Feature: Another Round; Best Film Editing: Nomadland; Best Visual Effects: Tenet; Best Sound: Sound of Metal; Best Costume Design: Mank; Best Original Score: Soul; Best Original Song: “Speak Now” from One Night in Miami; Best Make-up and Hairstyling: Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom; Best Production Design: MankBest Documentary Short: A Concerto is a Conversation; Best Animated Short: Genius Loci; Best Live Action Short: Feeling Through

So, there you have my picks and thoughts for this unusual and unprecedented Oscars.  The fact that I am publishing this article in a weekend that I usually reserve for my Summer movie previews just shows how much this last year upended the norms.  And yet, the show goes on, and the Oscars (though later than normal) is still happening.  I have said many times before that the more diverse slate of nominees this year has been the best silver lining of this tumultuous season, and my hope is that this is reflected in the winners that we’ll see on Oscar night as well.  This is going to be an Oscars full of historic firsts galore, including in some of those “lesser” categories.  It is interesting to see what a year without blockbuster movies has done to the make-up of this year’s awards.  For one thing, this is an Awards season far more represented with movies that came to us via streaming, because for the most part, it was the only way movies could be seen last year.  Let’s see if the anti-Netflix bias that undercut the hopes for movies like Roma and The Irishman changes this year.  It could be the barrier buster that so many streaming platforms had hope for, because this was the year that the Academy had no other choice but to pay them more attention.  For me, as someone who follows along with Oscars history more than the average viewer, I am excited to see more of a sea change happen.  The change in venue and the more diverse slate of movies represented shows that the Oscars are evolving.  Sure, it’s to meet the needs of moving forward in the middle of a crisis, but my hope is that the Oscars builds upon these changes and just doesn’t make this Awards season a fluke.  More diverse films from different platforms, as well as a more representative body of nominees are a good thing for the future of the Academy Awards.  Necessity is the mother of invention, and to evolve to meet the needs of running this show under the cloud of a pandemic hopefully bears fruit for a more dynamic Oscars in the years ahead.  Let’s put on a good show Oscars, and hopefully next year, the good changes will be able to be a part of an Academy Awards that will feel a bit more like normal.

 

Top Ten Memorable Moments From the Oscars

In it’s 93 year history, the Academy Awards have grown into the film industry’s highest level of achievement for every year.  In the last couple decades in particular, winning an Academy Award (or Oscar for short) is the ultimate goal that every studio and production company hinges their best hopes on when they reach the year’s end.  The Oscars are an industry driver in of themselves, influencing the choices in casting, the amount of money devoted to a movie’s production and it’s promotion, as well as what a movie studio is willing to invest in buying the rights for a strong performer out of the festival circuit.  In the end, it all leads to one night time ceremony where all the efforts come to fruition, and the Hollywood elite are able to gather together and take part in a yearly celebration of their community.  The Oscars telecast itself has seen highs and lows over the years, and in many cases have offered up some truly memorable moments.  Whether it’s an overly enthusiastic acceptance speech, a somber moment of reflection, an impassioned call for action, or just a crazy, out-of-the-blue moment of spontaneous insanity.  The history of the Oscars is just as fascinating as the history of Hollywood itself, with it’s own twists and turns over it’s near century of existence.  What follows is my own list of what I think are some of the most memorable and groundbreaking moments in the history of the Oscars.  They range between historic milestones to moments that will live in infamy.  I’ve also included embeds of those specific moments from the Oscars own YouTube page (I do not claim any ownership of these clips and they are the sole property of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences).  So let’s take a trip down Oscar memory lane and look at the most memorable moments from the Academy Awards.

10.

TOM HANKS THANKS HIS GAY MENTORS IN FIRST OSCAR WIN (1994)

Tom Hanks is without a doubt his generation’s most respected movie star.  With a career that now spans across 5 decades, he has been a part of some of cinema’s most iconic films in the last half century, and has been duly honored for his many iconic performances.  He stands alongside the likes of Spencer Tracy, Kathrine Hepburn, Luise Rainer and Jason Robards as one of the few who have won back to back honors at the Oscars in the same category.  His two Oscars were for the movies Philadelphia (1993) and Forrest Gump (1994).  While both Oscar wins were well deserved for the extremely versatile performer, it was his performance as an AIDS stricken gay man fighting for his rights in Philadelphia that is especially well remembered.  Also remembered fondly was Hank’s impassioned acceptance speech that night.  After thanking his loved ones and creative collaborators, Tom continued with a special recognition of two people in particular.  One was his high school drama teacher, Raleigh Farnsworth, and the other a close friend and classmate named John Gilkerson.  He named these two individuals in particular because they were the first people who he knew that were gay, and their friendship with him helped to shape Tom’s compassionate attitude towards the gay community.  In his speech, Hanks goes beyond just acknowledging the many victims of the AIDS epidemic, and makes a plea for tolerance for the entire Queer community in general.  “My were honored here tonight is magnified by the fact that the streets in heaven are crowded with angels,” he remarked, and it was a more powerful statement in that ceremony than any red ribbon worn on a dress or coat could have made.  The moment was so memorable in fact, that it inspired it’s own movie, In & Out (1997), with the twist being the teacher thanked in the speech was not fully out of the closet.  Queer acceptance in society has faced a long uphill road, but with moments like Tom Hank’s win and acceptance speech for Philadelphia, the conversation was thankfully moved in a direction that made it possible for future progress to be made.

9.

“IT’S…A TIE” (1969)

The voting results of the Oscars are a closely held secret, but we do know for certain how the Academy votes are tallied.  What the Academy uses for many categories is a weighted system based on ranking members choices for each category, and then having those rankings weighted together with the straight across vote count.  This system is still in use today for many categories, including Best Picture, which has led to some interesting results over the years (more on that later).  One of the interesting results of this voting system is that it often leads to a tie in some categories, even though the base vote count may favor one winner over the other.  Usually this happens in some of the lower tier categories, and even then only rarely.  The last time it occurred was in 2012 with Sound Editing, with Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall sharing the honor.  However, the categories that don’t use the weighted system are the acting categories, which are determined solely by popular vote.  This was enacted in 1968 by then President of the Academy, Gregory Peck, and the Board of Directors in the hopes that it would eliminate any confusion over the winner and prevent a thing like a tie from happening.  So, you can see why presenter Ingrid Bergman was so surprised when she opened the envelope for Best Actress to see two winners.  For a tie to happen in this new system, it means that the winners had to have had the same exact number of votes, meaning that this moment achieved the even rarer feat of being the only ever exact tie in Oscar history.  The honors in that unprecedented moment went to Kathrine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter (her third overall) and Barbara Streisand for Funny Girl (her first and only).  Ms. Hepburn, a perennial no-show, had director Anthony Harvey accept for her instead, so Babs had the spotlight to herself in this crazy moment.  The feat of an exact tie has yet to be repeated since, but what this moment proved is that nothing is impossible at the Oscars.

8.

THE STREAKER (1974)

The Oscars are first and foremost a classy, refined presentation, sometimes to a fault.  The intent is to showcase the glamourous side of the business, with so much effort put into showmanship and eye catching fashion during each ceremony.  But, every now and then, whether planned or not, some moments break through the stuffiness and instantly become the thing of Academy Awards legend. One such moment happened near the end of the 1974 Oscars ceremony.  Jack Lemmon had just left the stage after picking up his Best Actor honor for Save the Tiger (1973) and David Niven approached the podium to introduce the next presenter.  Niven expected in that moment to give a respectful introduction to Elizabeth Taylor, spotlighting her impact on the silver screen and her charitable endeavors off it, but not everything went as planned.  Suddenly out of the wings of the Oscars stage came a man running behind David Niven completely naked.  The “Streaker” was an amateur photographer named Robert Opel who somehow managed to sneak into the backstage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, strip nude, and run across the stage while cameras were rolling live across the world.  He was immediately apprehended by security, but not before causing mayhem on stage and giving the the Hollywood elite an unexpected shock.  Poor David Niven was in the the awkward situation of trying to get the ceremony back on track, but with some savage and dry British wit, he did just that, saying, “isn’t it fascinating to think that the only laugh that man will ever get in life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?”  It was a spectacular bit of chaos to shake up the stuffiness of the Oscars and also a pitch perfect response from one of Hollywood’s most quick witted actors.

7.

CHRIS ROCK’S “OSCARS SO WHITE” MONOLOGUE (2016)

One of the long standing traditions at the Academy Awards ceremonies is having a well known comedian, actor or stage performer take on hosting duties.  Sometimes the Academy will enjoy a host so much, they’ll ask them to come back multiple times.  Bob Hope, Johnny Carson, and Billy Crystal in particular were prolific in their multiple appearances at the Oscars.  And usually one of the things that made their appearances so entertaining were the monologues that they performed at the opening of the ceremony.  During these monologues, the host is able to take the opportunity to poke a little fun at the industry, and help deflate some of the pomp and circumstance a bit in order to allow the people watching at home to have a good laugh at Hollywood’s expense.  It’s all in good fun, but oftentimes, the host is made to toe the line in order not to offend those in the audience too much, and steer clear of touchy subjects as well that might reflect badly on the industry.  However, when the Oscars court controversy of their own, and have to eat crow for their own shortcomings, it does free up the host to take the gloves off and actually hit a little harder.  One such confluence happened in the aftermath of the “Oscars So White” controversy, where for several repeated years in a row, the Academy had failed to nominate an actor of color in their top categories.  By coincidence, this controversy arose the same year that black comedian Chris Rock was set to host.  So, with the Oscars in a position where they needed to be publicly shamed and a comedian whose proficient in tackling racial issues in his stand-up, the result ended up being one of the funniest, no-holds-barred Oscar Monologues in it’s entire history.  Chris Rock did not hold back, with some hilarious zingers like “Welcome to the White People’s Choice Awards,” as well as a couple of jokes so hard hitting that you could feel the audience at the Dolby Theater squirm in their seats a little.  Even still, it was great to see Chris Rock take his opportunity and run with it, even going beyond critiquing just the Oscars and actually addressing the problem with lack of representation across the entire industry.  Most importantly, he kept it funny while at the same time pointed and it resulted in the best Academy Awards opening ever.

6.

HATTIE MCDANIEL MAKES HISTORY (1940)

Speaking of racial barriers in Hollywood, the early Golden Age of Hollywood was one marred by a history of racism that prevented many people of color from achieving any semblance of equality within the industry.  Black actors in particular were pretty much relegated to servant roles, with very little presence on screen and even less influence behind the camera.  It was sadly a result of not just Hollywood’s racist past, but America’s as well, where movies were made to prop up the false narrative of black servitude in a world of white superiority.  Very few black actors that chose to work through that system very rarely ever won praise from it, often being looked down by their white co-stars and being chastised by black activists who blamed them for propagating these negative stereotypes.  There were a couple of black actors that did rise above the prejudices of the day and demanded attention from both Hollywood and audiences alike.  One of those trailblazers was Hattie McDaniel.  McDaniel had been a popular stage performer before making her way to Hollywood.  She broke through the prejudices of the day by becoming a scene stealer in the Kathrine Hepburn screwball comedy Alice Adams (1935), playing an assertive, sharp-tonged household maid, upending the common stereotype.  She took her newfound popularity to help build a healthy career as an actor, even despite being relegated to servant roles, because she could make them her own.  This led to a highly coveted role of Mammy in the epic Gone With the Wind (1939), a role that though controversial would still turn her into an icon.  The historic success of that movie carried through to the Oscars, and Hattie too made history by becoming the first ever person of color to receive the honor of an Oscar win.  Even still, Ms. McDaniel had to enter the Ambassador Hotel venue through a back door kitchen entry instead of walk the red carpet with her co-stars, and she was made to sit in the back of the room well out of view of the rest of the attendees.  It was a small, maybe even empty gesture, but it was one that carried a lot of weight for black actors everywhere who strived to build upon what Hattie had started.

5.

JACK PALANCE SHOWS OFF ON STAGE (1992)

One of the little thrills of the Oscars ceremony is not knowing what the winner might do once they take the stage to accept their honor.  For the most part, the winners give a heartfelt thanks to their loved ones, their co-stars and their agents.  Some take their moment on stage to use as a soap box for a cause that is special to them.  And then you have the wild cards who do something on the stage during their acceptance speech that you would’ve never expected.  Jack Palance was one of those wild cards when he won his Oscar for Supporting Actor in City Slickers (1991).  Now, Palance’s win was not unexpected.  He was one of the industry’s most beloved and well-respected actors whose place in the pantheon of Academy Award winners was long overdue.  But, when he took the stage to accept his Award, what followed was not what anyone expected.  The often ornery and hilariously callous actor immediately began by taking a jab at his City Slicker co-star, Billy Crystal, who was also hosting that night, saying, “Billy Crystal; I crap bigger than him.”  He then went into a diatribe about young vs. old actors, which led to the then septuagenarian actor towards feeling compelled to show off his virility there in that moment.  He walked away from the podium, and proceeded to do one-armed push-ups in front of the whole audience.  The moment received a raucous amount of laughter, and remained the talk of the night for the rest of the ceremony.  It was especially mana from heaven for host Billy Crystal, because now he had fodder to make fun of for the rest of the ceremony.  What’s especially great about Jack Palance’s speech is just how spontaneously off-the-wall it was, with the actor clearly not giving a damn how he looked in the moment and just showing off what a good time he was having.  It’s moments like this that people love to watch the Oscars for, and it’s especially great when a legendary performer like Palance basically gives us what we wanted.

4.

SIDNEY POITIER BREAKS DOWN BARRIERS (1964)

Hattie McDaniel’s Oscar win for Gone With the Wind was historic to be sure, but the world was very different twenty-three year later when that feat would be repeated once again.  The Civil Rights movement had taken hold in America, as black people across the country demanded an end to the Jim Crow laws and racial segregation that had blocked them from gaining any meaningful sense of equality in society.  Hollywood went through it’s own reckoning, as more and more filmmakers were addressing the issue of Racism in America more head on than before.  And more importantly, it was doing away with the racial stereotyping that had long been used to misrepresent people of color in modern society.  One of the pioneers of this period in time who managed to rise above and become the first black performer to become a head-lining movie star was Sidney Poitier.  Poitier commanded the screen with dignified, powerful performances that broke free of stereotype in beloved movies like No Way Out (1950) and Blackboard Jungle (1955) and The Defiant Ones (1958).  But, in the early 60’s when civil rights marches were happening all over America, Poitier not only proved to be a powerful actor on screen, but a defining symbol of empowerment for black people in all walks of life.  It seemed inevitable that Hollywood would come to recognize that too.  With his acclaimed performance in the movie Lillies of the Field (1963), Poitier made history as the first actor of color to win an Oscar for a Leading Role.  Picking up where Hattie McDaniel left off, Sidney’s win was an important statement and so much more than an empty gesture.  It was Hollywood declaring that things were going to change and that black performers were no longer going to be a novelty but rather an integral part of the industry going forward.  Sadly, it would take another long spell for a black actor to win again, with Denzel Washington winning Best Actor for Training Day in 2002.  Poitier’s win meant a lot for America, it’s just too bad that it’s taken us so long to live up to it as a society.

3.

MARLON BRANDO REFUSES HIS OSCAR WIN (1973)

Politics have always managed to find their way into the Oscars ceremony.  Most often there are jokes made at the expense of certain political figures, and at other times a winner will use their moment on stage to make a statement on any certain issue.  And then there are moments where the very acceptance of an award becomes a statement on it’s own.  It’s sometimes hard to believe that anyone would want to refuse something as monumental as an Oscar win, but it has actually happened twice in the history of the Oscars.  The first was in 1971, where actor George C. Scott refused his win in the Best Actor category for the movie Patton (1970) because he considered the very idea of popularity contest like the Oscars to be detrimental to the art of acting.  More of a personal choice than a political one.  However, only two years later, another Hollywood icon would likewise refuse his win for Best Actor as well, and he did so in the most unexpected of ways.  Marlon Brando was a no-show when his name was read on stage for his winning performance in The Godfather (1972).  But to everyone’s surprise, a woman dressed in Native American clothing took the stage on his behalf.  Her name was Sacheen Littlefeather, a representative of the Apache tribe.  She first refused to take the Oscar from the presenters and instead took to the podium and delivered a statement from Brando addressing the misrepresentation and lack of support for Native Americans within the film industry.  She was immediately met with boos from the audience, as well as a few cheers of support.  Immediately, the industry complained that this was disrespectful troll on Brando’s part, and conspiracies persisted that Sacheen wasn’t even a real Native American but was instead was an adult performer that Brando had paid off to prank the Oscars.  Sadly, the moment’s peculiar circumstance overshadowed the very real statement that was being made, and it was perhaps unfair to ridicule an activist like Ms. Littlefeather just as a way to knock down Brando for disrupting their, as he put it, “little fantasy.”  Even still, it’s a moment in Oscar History infamy, and one that honestly deserves a more enlightened reexamining.

2.

CHARLIE CHAPLAIN RETURNS FROM HIS HOLLYWOOD EXILE (1972)

There has long been a tradition of singling out a beloved member of the Hollywood community for a special recognition, often as a celebration of their entire body of work towards the later part of their career.  It’s also a great way of giving beloved actors and filmmakers an Oscar that often eluded them in competitive races.  Basically, it gives these perennial bridesmaids a chance to finally take an award home for themselves.  For a lot of moments like these, they are a great trip down memory lane for everyone, both industry professionals and audiences alike.  But sometimes the honors take on an even more poignant significance.  That was the case at the end of the 1972 Oscar ceremony.  This year, the Academy was honoring one of the pioneering icons of the entire film industry, the legendary Charlie Chaplain.  Chaplain being honored by the Oscars was obviously inevitable, given his irreplaceable influence on the artform.  But what proved to be especially surprising was that Chaplain was there to receive the honor for himself.  Mr. Chaplain had for years been blacklisted by Hollywood, because of his support for liberal causes that unfairly labeled him as a Communist agent by the US Government.  Even as the Blacklist was lifted, Chaplain still chose to remain exiled, fearing further mistreatment by the film industry that he helped to build.  But, when news came that the Academy wanted to honor him with an Honorary Award, he decided it was time to reconcile the pain of the past and he returned to America to accept the honor in person.  His return was greeted with a rousing standing ovation from the attendees at that years awards, and he appeared visibly touched by the moment.  After accepting the Award, presenter Jack Lemmon gave Charlie an extra surprise by also presenting him the trademark bowler hat and cane that he used for his famous Tramp character for years.  Chaplain returned the loving gesture by recreating a simple but memorable physical bit with the hat, showing that the master still had a little bit of that playfulness in him all these years later.  Sometimes the Oscars can bring a moment of genuine love for the art of film, and it was a great way to also give a legend like Chaplain the true Hollywood ending he deserved.

1.

THE MOONLIGHT/LA LA LAND INCIDENT (2017)

Through all the years of the Academy Awards, there has never been a moment that has ever been as crazy as this.  Sure there have been unexpected surprises and moments of shock, often from the unpredictability of what happens once that envelope opens.  But, until this Oscar ceremony, everything still went according to plan.  That was until presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway took the stage to deliver the last award of the night, Best Picture.  Up to this point, it was just another average Oscar ceremony.  But once the envelope was opened, Warren immediately had a confused look on his face.  The audience thought he was clowning around in order to milk the moment, as did Faye.  She took the initiative and just read the title that she saw on the card and declared the winner to be La La Land (2016).  Now, nobody in the audience was suspicious of anything being wrong; La La Land had long been a heavy favorite for Best Picture, and had already cleaned up throughout the show.  But, as the La La Land team took the stage and delivered their acceptance speeches, the shows producers suddenly stepped in as well.  Then unexpected truth had been revealed; the wrong card had been read, and La La Land didn’t actually win Best Picture.  Thankfully, La La Land’s producer Jordan Horowitz sought to set things right and graciously handed the award to the true winner, Moonlight; a moment of true selflessness that you rarely see happen at these ceremonies.  Warren of course received unfair blame for what happened, and he tried to explain himself on stage; the real culprit for the mix-up was a careless accountant backstage who mistakenly gave Beatty the envelope for Best Actress instead, which went to Emma Stone for La La Land.  Warren and Faye were able to redeem the moment by returning the following year for a do over, which they thankfully got the right envelope for (with The Shape of Water winning).  It’s hard to think that a mix up like this would happen at a ceremony as tightly controlled as the Oscars, and with the biggest award of the night no less, but that’s what happened, and it was a moment that no doubt will never be topped as the craziest moment in Oscars history, as well as it’s most memorable.

Regardless of who wins the awards each year, the thing that makes the Academy Awards such an interesting institution in the film industry is the fact that it is a snapshot in time of what was going on in the evolution of Hollywood over the years.  You can look back on the many different ceremonies of the Academy Awards and see just how much the industry has changed.  More than just the famous faces that come and go throughout the years, we also see a big change in the ways that Hollywood deals with the issues of the day, how they respond to rise and fall of many of their own, and how they try to keep tradition moving on even as the world around the ceremony is constantly changing.  This year in particular will be an interesting chapter added to the overall story of the Academy Awards, as we are about to see an Oscars affected heavily by the pandemic, both in the movies represented and also in the choices of how to present the winners with their award.  It will be interesting to see if this year’s awards have a larger affect on the future of the Oscars, as changes often take hold and leave an impression on the Awards.  Even still, you can still see a common thread throughout Oscars history of change being a good thing, like the increased representation and more tolerant attitudes to movies that fall outside of the norm.  And the fact that the Academy Awards holding itself up as the highest honor the industry can give has not even waned over the years still shows that the Oscars are going to be an important part of movie history for many years to come.   It can be a bit of a stuffy, self-important ceremony that often feels behind the times, but it still offers some unforgettable moments that in themselves contribute to this beautiful and continuing narrative that is the history of the Oscars.  Hopefully this year, we may see even more moments that will stand along with the ones I spotlighted here.  Like the movies they honor, the Oscars are an adventure in of themselves, and one that can really take it’s audience for a wild ride.

Off the Page – To Kill a Mockingbird

Social justice has long been a theme found throughout literature, with authors giving voice to the concerns of the day and finding the medium of storytelling as an effective way to argue a point directly to the reader.  Oftentimes when a writer tackles a particularly pressing issue in their work, it is a reflection of their state of mind with regards to the issue at the time of writing.  And though some works that tackle a social justice point head on can have the positive effect of stirring the conversation in it’s moment, their stories must also be able to stand on their own outside of that conversation.  Some books that were considered progressive in their time have over the years been reexamined and critiqued as being relics of a era where those same values have either fallen out of favor or chaned completely.  The novels of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Adventures of Huck Finn  by Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mark Twain respectively were heralded as passionate arguments against slavery in their time, but their less enlightened depictions of black characters in the novels have led them to be heavily criticized based on the values of today.  But if one novel manages to breakthrough the values of it’s day and can still resonate many years later with readers young and old with it’s message of racial equality, it’s that special piece of writing that stands as a true perennial masterpiece.  Such is the case with Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a book whose legacy may be one of the most profound in all of American literature.  First published in 1960, Mockingbird made it’s debut right at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.  Though Civil Rights battles were ongoing throughout the history of America, it hit it’s apex immediately after the slaying of Emmett Till in 1955 and was brought to the mainstream with public figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. leading the charge.  And with Mockingbird’s direct and frank depiction of racial tensions in a small Southern town through the eyes of a young, impressionable girl named Scout, Harper Lee was able to connect readers of all races and backgrounds with the the call for Civil Rights in a way that still has the power to call for social justice over 60 years later.

Harper Lee is a unique icon in the world of American literature.  She only ever published two novels in her entire lifetime, the second of which was a first draft of her most famous work that her estate chose to release publicly despite Lee’s own wishes (2015’s Go Set a Watchman).  That’s not to say she wasn’t an active writer.  She wrote hundreds of columns, essays and non-fiction pieces throughout her life, but To Kill a Mockingbird was her one and only fictional novel that she intended to publish.  Most of her writing involved the life she knew growing up in Monroeville, Alabama, particularly with regards to the growing racial tensions she experienced there.  Writing always seemed to be in her blood, and it worked out that her childhood friend in Monroeville also shared her interests.  Living next door to her was a boy named Truman Parsons, who would later become known as Truman Capote, a prolific and influential literary icon in his own right.  Capote made a splash in the literary world first with his successful run of columns in Harper’s Bazaar and the runaway bestseller Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1958).  It was believed that in Capote’s first novel, Other Voices, Other Rooms (1948) that he based a character named Idabel on Harper Lee.  Harper would return the gesture by basing a character named Dill on Capote in Mockingbird.  Though she said that Mockingbird was not a direct autobiographical work, it is pretty clear that a lot of the canvas on which she draws her narrative is taken from her own childhood.  At the center of the story is a young tomboy girl named Scout Finch who witnesses the trial of a black man falsely accused of rape where her father, Atticus Finch, argues for his defense in court.  Though personal in nature, the story touches upon so many issues that resonated with readers that were themselves coming to terms with racial injustice in America.  As a result, Harper Lee found herself becoming a perhaps unexpected but nevertheless essential contributor to the Civil Rights Movement that helped to end Jim Crow and Segregation laws in America.

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Naturally, Hollywood took notice of the power of Lee’s novel, and immediately went to work on crafting a big screen adaptation.  The rights to the novel were picked up immediately after publication by Universal Studios, though getting the movie on the screen wouldn’t be easy.  For one thing, most other studios were reluctant to tackle issues regarding race at the time, given that they were afraid of losing the southern audience.  That’s not to say that most of Hollywood was opposed to the Civil Rights Movement; it’s just that they viewed making a movie about racial injustice to be a financial risk that was better thought to be left untapped.  So, many films that tackled racial injustice on the big screen tended to be smaller and low risk ventures, but that was about to change with Mockingbird.  The novel was enormously popular with Hollywood elites, and many of them were campaigning hard to be a part of this upcoming film.  Though Universal had a strong stable of acclaimed directors, the responsibility for adapting Lee’s novel would fall to Robert Mulligan, who up until that time was mostly a TV director.  With his producing partner Alan J. Pakula, Mulligan sought to create a very down to earth adaptation of Lee’s writing, free from the typical melodrama of most socially conscious Hollywood films.  The casting of the roles was also a particularly important part of the development of the film.  The characters of Scout and her brother Jem would go to newcomers Mary Badham and Philip Alford, both authentically from Alabama.  The crucial role Atticus would pass through the hands of many Hollywood leading men at the time, including Universal’s top box office star at the time, Rock Hudson, who campaigned hard for the role.  Ultimately, the role was given to Gregory Peck, who said yes after having read the novel in a single sitting the night before.  In both it’s approach and it’s execution, Universal Pictures’ adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird was intent on bringing to the screen the essence of Harper Lee’s pivotal novel, and for the most part, it was a successful execution.

“Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand.  It’s knowing you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”

Upon both reading the novel and watching the movie, it is pretty astounding how well it translated.  Though some of the flavor of the setting in Harper’s writing gets lost in the translation, the overall narrative is there in tact.  We are told the story, like in the novel, through the eyes of Scout, though the movie adds the factor of it being a recollection several years after the fact by an adult Scout (voiced in narration by an uncredited Kim Stanley).  And with this perspective, the movie is able to tap into a sense of nostalgia that informs the tone of the movie.  Though the novel and the movie indeed are about racial injustice in the South, it is also a story about innocence lost and the effect that moments of distress and trauma have on children.  For much of the story, Scout learns more and more about the struggle of racial justice, and how truly critical it is for justice to be upheld.  She watches as her father puts his own reputation and even safety on the line in their quiet little town for the sole purpose of showing that everyone, regardless of race, should be treated fairly under the law.  A particularly potent moment from the book that made it into the movie involves Atticus holding back a lynch mob from taking his client out of prison and enacting their own warped sense of “Southern Justice.”  Only when Scout and Jem unexpectedly show up to meet Atticus in the middle of this tense situation does the mob disperse.  Knowing the history of lynchings in the South, this scene carries some very ominous overtones, and it becomes a pivotal teaching moment for Scout as well.  Having faced harassments at school because of her father’s case, and how her father remains undeterred in the face of a mob, she learns that social justice is a struggle that requires a strong sense of moral fortitude, and it emboldens her to take the issue more seriously.  Scout’s journey, from being ambivalent towards social issues towards becoming more compassionate and serious with regards to racial injustice is at the core of why Harper Lee’s novel is such a crucial benchmark in the Civil Rights movement.  It’s a call for readers to wake up and see more clearly the struggles that exist within their own neighborhood and not be deterred by the power structures that allow for those barriers to endure.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the film’s production is how well it brings the audience into the world of Harper Lee’s writing.  The fictional town of Mycomb, modeled obviously by Lee’s own hometown of Monroeville, feels so authentic within the movie, that anyone might swear that it was a real place in rural Alabama.  But in fact, the entire movie was shot right on the Universal Studios lot in the heart of Hollywood, California.  Everything from the town square to Finch’s quaint little neighborhood was fabricated from scratch.  To fit the Southern Gothic nature of Lee’s novel, every element of the setting had to feel lived in, and the production design team, led by the legendary Henry Bumstead, put so much effort to recreate a Southern setting right in the middle of Universal Studios.  Most of the sets are gone today, but the town square remains a fixture on the backlot to this day.  It may be familiar to Back to the Future (1985) fans, as the courthouse façade was repurposed many years later to become the iconic Clock Tower from that movie.  The interiors were also intricately detailed to reflect the kind of town that Harper Lee was familiar with.  The pivotal courtroom set, where a big chunk of the movie takes place, was modeled after a real one in Monroeville, which is used to this day as a staging venue for theatrical adaptations of the novel and many other plays as well.  Much of the reason why Universal went so far out of it’s way to build the town within the novel instead of shooting on location mostly had to do with the fact that much of Lee’s childhood home had been modernized over the years, and no longer retained that Depression Era aesthetic that she described in the book.  It’s probably the main reason, but it might have also shielded Universal from any local resistance from the Southerners who objected to the message from the novel.  In any sense, the best aspect of the movie is that it stays true to the novel’s sense of time and place, and it drives home for the audience a sense of authenticity that often was rarely found in most movie depictions of the South.

“Our courts have our faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.”

But apart from the setting, what most people remember from the movie is the character of Atticus Finch himself.  Harper modeled the character mostly on her own father Amasa Coleman Lee, an attorney who also was in the business of taking on black clients who were being persecuted by the Jim Crow system of justice in the South.  Though the elder Lee was not quite as progressive as the Atticus depicted in the novel and film, he did become an advocate for racial equality in his later life, and was proud of Harper’s effective advocacy for such issues.  No doubt the stoic, unbending strength of the character appealed greatly to a long time supporter of civil rights like Gregory Peck.  Though Peck had been around for years in Hollywood, the actor had struggled to define his place as a leading man.  Stuck in mostly war films and westerns, with an occasional romantic comedy thrown in (Roman Holiday), Gregory wanted desperately to have that role that really showed off his strengths as a dramatic actor and also embody the progressive politics that he held up so seriously.  In Atticus, he found that role that would indeed define his career and turn him into an icon.  It’s hard to imagine anyone but Peck in the role.  With his towering frame and booming voice, Peck’s Atticus is the very definition of stoic strength.  But Peck uses his acting talents beautifully in the role, especially during those courtroom scenes.  His delivery of the defense for the accused, Tom Robinson (a fantastic Brock Peters), is dignified and with conviction, and is one of the most inspirational arguments for the definition of true justice ever put on screen.  Peck’s incredible performance is also matched by the authenticity of Mary Badham’s Scout, who is honestly the living embodiment of her literary counterpart.  If Atticus is the movie’s moral backbone, than Scout is it’s beating heart, and both are brought to perfect life by the actors portraying them.  The supporting players also feel authentic too, especially considering that some of them are acting outside of their comfort zone portraying some pretty vile racist characters.  But considering the importance of the story’s message, it’s a testament that everyone aimed to be as authentic as possible.

Since it’s debut, both on the page and on the screen, To Kill a Mockingbird has become pretty much an essential piece of media for generations.  It was especially an effective tool in classrooms to teach students about racial history in America.  I myself remember having to read the novel in school and I was introduced to the movie for the first time in the same way.  But, like many other pieces of literature that has been examined and re-examined over the years, the novel and movie have faced criticisms for it’s portrayal with regards to racial issues.  One of the most common criticisms is that it speaks about racial justice from a very white perspective, which some have claimed is patronizing to Black Americans.  In addition, it has been said that Atticus Finch is one of the clearest examples of the “White Savior” trope ever used in literature; where the focus of the story becomes less about the people who are victims of racial bigotry and more about the white people who come to their aid with far less resistance in their way.  It is a problem that Hollywood has had over the years, with well intentioned social justice films being made that unfortunately turn into self-serving vanity projects in the long run.  There are elements in To Kill a Mockingbird that do unfortunately fall into this trope, particularly surrounding the character of Atticus.  Atticus is very much lionized in the novel and the film, and that is reflected in moments that we see with the black citizens in the community showing reverence for the man.  A memorable scene from the movie, where all the black audience members in the courtroom stand up for Atticus when he leaves the floor after the trial has ended could easily fall into that kind of trope.  However, given the context of the scene in the movie, and the inspiration from which Lee drew upon, the moment feels less exploitive and more genuinely loving.  Atticus stood up for one of their own, so they will stand up for him (symbolically at least).  It’s about finding the common ground on which all races can strive to fight for, and that’s where I think To Kill a Mockingbird rises above those tropes.  I honestly am glad that I was exposed to a movie and novel like Mockingbird at such a young age, because it informed me why issues like this matter and why that moment of shared reverence for one another in that courtroom is such an ideal to strive for in our society.

“Miss Jean Louise, stand up.  You’re father’s passing.”

Like the novel it was based on, the movie To Kill a Mockingbird was a sensational success both critically and with audiences.  It was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, but didn’t win (which is hard for me to argue against since the movie that won is my all time favorite film, Lawrence of Arabia).  Still, Gregory Peck walked away with the Best Actor award, which is probably one of the most well deserved in the history of the honor.  Atticus Finch, to this day is still celebrated as an idealized crusader for social justice that many activists today aspire to be like.  And like Scout, upon experiencing this story and witnessing it unfold, we have our own eyes upon to what role we must play in making the world a more just place.  It is reflected in Scout ultimately opening her heart out to another outsider in the story, the recluse Boo Radley (Robert Duvall in his screen debut), after he had saved her and her brother Jem from an attack by a vengeful racist thug.  Like Scout, the events of the story make us open our heart to those who fall unfairly outside the justice system today, and it calls upon us to reconsider our own place in the world and what we must do to seek justice for those that don’t usually get it.  That is in essence what Harper Lee wanted us to learn in her novel, and probably more than any other American novel of the 20th century, it shaped the conversation on racial issues across the whole mainstream, and helped push the Civil Rights movement further than ever before.  Harper won a well deserved Pulitzer for her work and in the years since the novel has only grown more in esteem.  Even most Southerners hold it up as a work of literary genius.  Still, the reason why both the book and the movie endure to this day is that it gives a strong human connection to a universal theme of social justice.  Even 60 years after it’s original publication, the themes of the novel still resonate, as racial injustice is a reoccurring problem that we still grapple with; the recent killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor at the hands of police officers last year, among far too many others, being a perfect example.  Despite some legit criticisms of it’s handling of racial justice in it’s narrative, To Kill a Mockingbird is a story just as potent today as it was when it was first published.  With Harper Lee’s graceful writing, and easily identifiable characters, it’s a story that appeals to our better angels and reminds us that racial justice and equality need help in the world and that we must recognize it and fight for it.

“He turned out the light and went into Jem’s room.  He would be there all night, and he would be there when Jem waked up in the morning.”

Godzilla vs. Kong – Review

As the worldwide box office begins to heal from the effects of a pandemic driven shut down, questions arise as to how movie theaters are going to return to business as normal.  What proved to be a challenge in 2020 was the fact that movie theaters had no way to operate while the pandemic was raging, which proved to be fortuitous for the growing competition of streaming services.  For a full year, most people were shut away in their homes with their only source of entertainment being what they were able to watch on their TV’s or mobile devices.  Coincidently, 2020 was also the year that many new streaming platforms launched, and were finding themselves all of a sudden responsible of carrying the burden of being the only outlet for new films from Hollywood.  Now that movie theaters across America are allowed to open, the problem that they face is trying to convince people to return back to the movies after a year of audiences growing comfortable with streaming their content instead.  There are many people eager to return (myself included, and I already have multiple times), but as of right now Hollywood is still a little unsure of the sea worthy conditions of returning to normal business.  For them, streaming almost looks like the more financially stable release model at the moment, and they are more willing to invest their future in that arena.  Movie theaters are in desperate need of proving that they can compete in this new market, and that requires the right kind of movie to bring people back to the theaters in numbers big enough to garner the studios attention.  That film in particular needs to be something that more than anything else is a crowd pleaser, and one that demands a first viewing on the big screen.  Of course, audiences have varied tastes, so what kind of movies out there are monstrously monumental enough to drive people to leave the home and come back to the movies.

From the partnership of Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers, we are getting the newest film in their Monster Universe franchise titled Godzilla vs. Kong.  The title pretty much tells you what you’re going to get, as the movie brings together two of cinema’s most famous giant monsters for a one on one battle to decide who is the king of the monsters.  Starting with 2014’s reboot of Godzilla, Godzilla vs. Kong is the fourth film in the franchise thus far, which has also included the films Kong: Skull Island (2017) and Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019).  The characters though go back even further, and are the featured stars of some of cinemas more important and influential films.  King Kong, of course, made his debut in the 1933 film of the same name, which was a landmark in visual effects history with the stop motion used on Kong being a groundbreaking feat for it’s time.  Kong has since been updated and given a bigger screen presence in the decades since, including an epic love letter to the original directed by Oscar winner Peter Jackson in 2005.  Across the Pacific, Japan offered up their own answer to Kong’s cinematic legacy by creating the mighty Godzilla, using the giant lizard terrifying screen presence as a meditation over the very real anxieties of nuclear annihilation that the country faced post-War.  It only seemed natural that both literal screen titans would one day face of against each other, and it has happened very early on in their history as well.  Japan created an epic showdown in 1963 titled King Kong vs. Godzilla, though being a film from the 60’s, it involved two actors in suits wrestling around on a miniature set.  Now, with all of our advances in CGI animation, we can actually get a big screen duel with these cinematic icons that really feels authentic to the characters’ monstrous size and power.  Thus far, the new Monster Universe movies have given us a good taste of just how powerful these monsters are, but can the showdown between these two titans live up to the legacy that both of them have embodied for decades.

Being the fourth film in an ongoing series, Godzilla vs. Kong picks up where the previous ones left off.  In particular, it does feel like the sequel to two of the last movies, carrying over threads from both Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla: King of the Monsters.  The movie starts with Kong being contained and monitored on Skull Island by the Monarch Corporation; the organization responsible for monitoring and containing the race of Titan beasts that inhabit the Earth.  Within his containment, Kong has managed to befriend a deaf girl named Jia (Kaylee Hottie), who is looked after by the Monarch representative on Skull Island, Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall).  ON the other side of the world, a facility belonging to the Apex Corporation is suddenly attacked by Godzilla.  Up to this point, it was believed that Godzilla was a protector of humanity, so this attack leads many to worry that Godzilla has turned and that he must be either neutralized or destroyed.  The CEO of Apex, Walter Simmons (Demian Bichir), believes he has the answer and he seeks out a theoretical scientist named Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgard) who believes in the Hollow Earth theory that is thought to be the place of origin for all these Titan creatures; another world within our own.  Simmons tells Lind that he can get there to find a power source capable of defeating Godzilla, but they need another Titan to lead them through the passage.  So, Kong is enlisted and brought to the closest entry point to the Hollow Earth in Antarctica, but in order to get there, he must survive being tracked down by the mighty king of Monsters.  Meanwhile, a conspiracy nut named Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) has discovered something mysterious that Apex has been hiding and he enlists the help of Godzilla expert Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown) and her tag along school friend Josh Valentine (Julian Dennison), a computer hacker.  As they dig deeper into the inner workings of Apex, they discover that there could be even more trouble brewing that could endanger both Godzilla and Kong, something that the already makes the contentious relationship between the monsters even more complicated.  As so much mayhem begins to unfold, we learn more clearly who stands on top as the alpha of all the mightiest monsters on Earth, and who deserves that title in the end.

Thus far, the Monsters Universe has been a mixed bag.  I stated pretty clearly in my review of the original Godzilla in this franchise that it took itself a bit too seriously.  The human characters were wooden, the tone was far too somber, and there was far too little of Godzilla in the movie as a whole.  Godzilla: King of the Monsters was a bit better, but still focused a bit too heavily on the human drama and not enough on Godzilla himself, who was no more than a supporting player in his own film.  I get it that you can’t just have monsters fighting monsters for an entire film; that you need something to break up the film between fights.  But the filler thus far seems to have missed the point of these movies in general.  Before, the filmmakers wanted to treat this as heavy, epic drama, as that was thought to be the answer to making the human characters feel more grounded and believable.  But, this is not Shakespeare; this is Godzilla.  Sure, the original movie from the 50’s had the very serious subtext of nuclear annihilation underneath it, but the filmmakers at Toho Studios also knew that they were making crowd pleasing entertainment.  The tone was much better achieved in Kong: Skull Island, which in a way took it’s inspiration from Vietnam war movies and followed that all the way through.  As a result, it was a perfect mix of monster mayhem and broad action film clichés, which worked together harmoniously.  I’m happy to say that Godzilla vs. Kong fits more within that tone set by Skull Island.  It’s a movie that really does feel like they mastered the formula of what these movies should be, with the monsters’ themselves at the forefront.  It doesn’t waste anytime getting the two titular titans on screen together, with a magnificent sea battle at the end of the first act.  From that first showdown, we get exactly what was promised us, and the movie does an excellent job of establishing just how monumental that battle is.

The movie was directed by established horror film director Adam Wingard, known for breakout thrillers like You’re Next (2011) and The Guest (2014).  Wingard is working with a far more substantial budget than he normally starts with and in a more mainstream venue.  But, his command over the tone of this movie really helps to make it all work.  First thing that he does really well here is to devote so much time to the actual monsters themselves.  The uninteresting human characters are mostly relegated to the sidelines this time and character development for them is minimal.  We are dealing with human characters this time that are archetypal rather than dimensional, and that helps move the story forward much more effectively.  A great example of this is shown with the return of the character of Madison, who was central to the plot of King of the Monsters.  In that movie, too much time was devoted to her family situation, with her mother played by Vera Farmiga taking a villainous turn and being responsible for unleashing the fearsome King Ghidorah on the world.  Here, Madison is just there to connect the two movies together, with Stanger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown returning in the role.  And as a result of not being bogged down with uninteresting human drama, she’s able to define more of a personality for the character.  Like many of the other characters in the movie, she knows her place in the story and she’s there to serve it; no more, no less.  It’s a similar tact that Guillermo Del Toro took in defining the human characters in Pacific Rim (2013); a good model to follow.  Don’t try to overthink your movie’s tone; just embrace the silliness.  And that is what makes Godzilla vs. Kong better than it’s predecessors, with the exception of the equally silly and entertaining Kong: Skull Island.  Even still, the human characters are still the weakest element of the movie, but at least this time they are not the thing that defines the movie as a whole.  The only complaint is that even though the movie is closer to getting the tone right, I just wish that the human side of the story would have embraced the weirdness even more.  The characters are better, but still boring.  At least in Skull Island, you had personalities like Samuel L. Jackson and John C. Reilly to add some flavor just based on who they are.  Apart from a couple of actors like Brown and Brian Tyree Henry, the human characters are good, but mostly bland.  At least this time, their impact is minimal.

On the other side, the development of the monsters is far more superior than what we’ve seen before.  In particular, the movie devotes a lot of emotional investment in Kong himself.  Though the movie is called Godzilla vs. Kong, it should be stated that the film primarily revolves around Kong.  He gets the emotional arc of the story, and it is a satisfying one as well.  Wingard and the writers did a phenomenal job of drawing sympathy for the character, helping us to understand (without words) what are his wants and needs.  And the movie takes him on a journey of self discovery as well.  It’s a portrayal that is respectful to what has come before with the character, through his many cinematic iterations, and at the same time cements him as a central hero within this particular franchise.  At the same time, the movie does a good job of establishing Godzilla’s motivations as well.  This isn’t a battle of titans like in Batman v Superman that makes little sense and exists only pit two popular characters on screen at the same time for the sake of drawing an audience.  It’s more like a battle seen in Marvel’s Civil War where it’s a fight where it’s hard to root for one over the other, because both characters have clear reasons why they want to best the other.  For Godzilla, he doesn’t want to lose his place as the Alpha, knowing that Kong is his biggest challenge to that reign, and Kong has a stake in preserving not just his own livelihood, but those of the humans he has grown to care for.  That’s why when they fight, the stakes are clearly defined for both sides.  The movie does a good job of making it so that either Titan is worth rooting for, and that there is no shame in picking the wrong champion.  Given the history of these two characters, it’s satisfying to see that there is reverence for their presence on screen, and that makes their showdown feel all the more monumental.  And even though it is primarily Kong’s movie as a whole, Godzilla is never missed and is used to great effect as a presence within this story.

Visually, the movie is also a welcome improvement over it’s predecessor.  One of the things that I disliked about Godzilla: King of the Monsters was that it had too many scenes cast in darkness, making it hard to see the battles on screen.  The first showdown in that movie between Godzilla and Ghidorah particularly was hard to watch because it took place in a blizzard, which blurred the field of vision even more.  The first Godzilla had more visibility, and that helped with that movie’s giant set pieces, but that film’s problem was that there were too little of those scenes in general.  Here, the battle scenes are well shot, lit, and easy to follow.  Adam Wingard particularly uses a lot of interesting angles and colors to add some visual splendor to his battle scenes.  A showdown in downtown Hong Kong in particular is cast with the neon glow of the nearby buildings, and that makes the battle far more interesting to watch than it otherwise normally would’ve been.  The movie also embraces a far more fantastical portrayal of the world itself.  The Hollow Earth subterranean world that Kong must find his origins within is a remarkably realized environment that definitely feels like something that we’ve never seen before.  It’s also a reason why this movie certainly demands a big screen presentation.  With homages to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Alien (1978), this movie is a feast for the eyes and ears, and it just wouldn’t feel right experiencing the movie for the first time on a TV set.  Though the option is out there thanks to a dual premiere on HBO Max, this is the kind of movie that definitely reminds it’s audience why movie theaters exist.  Some movies are just too big to contain on a small screen, and the bigger truly is the better option.  I honestly think that reactions to this movie may vary widely due to how people choose to watch it, at home or at the theater, and my thinking is that the latter will likely be more positive towards the movie overall.  It’s certainly how I felt watching this film and I get the feeling that many of the people in my same screening felt the same.  It will be interesting to see if that’s the case, because it will tell us a lot about where the future of movie theaters will stand over time.

With the pandemic hopefully in the rear view mirror, movie theaters needs films desperately that can only be fully appreciated in a theater setting.  I do think that Godzilla vs. Kong is that kind of crowd pleasing movie that demands a theatrical experience to fully enjoy, but it’s hard to say if it will be the movie that gives theaters the immediate boost that it needs.  Right now, theaters are still at limited capacity, so the ability to jam theaters full of people is still not possible.  But there was something that did please me greatly when I saw the film.  During the big battle scenes, when either Kong or Godzilla demonstrated an amazing move on one another, I heard something in the theater that I never thought I would miss so much over this last year; cheering.  People were delighted by what they were watching in the theater, and to hear even a smaller crowd give out an audible cheer during this screening was a very positive sign.  People want to be able to have that experience again; to be able to cheer with delight in response to what they are watching on the big screen.  It’s the communal experience of enjoying a movie together with strangers that I think many people miss a lot since this pandemic began, and hearing just a little bit of that shared audience excitement just made me so grateful to be there and feeling that again.  We have a long way to go still, but I feel that the desire to come back to the movies is out there still, and I’m so glad that Godzilla vs. Kong helped remind us of what the cinema experience was like before it went away.  Though everyone should do what makes them feel safe, I do strongly recommend watching Godzilla vs. Kong in a theater.  HBO Max does give you a safe at home option as well if you need it, but to truly get the full experience, it has to be seen on a big screen to be fully appreciated.  As this movie has shown, when these two screen icons fight, we all win, and hopefully it is the monster hit that helps to save the theatrical experience as a whole.

Rating: 8/10