Blog

Day 8 

(Note: this section was written on Saturday morning, 1/31/26). Hi there…welcome back to my discussion of the Oscars.

Since I started writing my thoughts on the Oscars over a week ago, and posting them here on my website (and Facebook, if you’re reading this on a Facebook post) (and not on my blog, gregswords.wordpress.com which I can no longer write on) the world has continued to spin in strange and out of control ways…but we’ve also been encased in a frozen world of snow. And not just where I am in Boston….massively large parts of the U.S. have experienced this monstrous storm (or as international news outlets are calling it, Winter Storm Fern). People in Tennessee were without power for over two days. People in Florida have been experiencing 30 degree Fahrenheit (-1 Celsius) weather. And another storm is now bearing down on part of the East Coast…and though we’re supposed to miss that here in Boston, we’ve been experiencing brutal cold (it’s 8 degrees F right now…or -13 C [Saturday morning]).

And I don’t know…it just feels weird. I honestly think in my entire life, I can’t remember a winter storm THIS GIGANTIC hitting us, an entire country.. It’s like a strange ‘Pause’ button has been hit on everything, and we’re all just waiting for things to unfreeze, to see what happens. And in the meantime, like I said above…things continue to spin out of control across the world and the country. It’s weird and surreal.

There’s also a sense of melancholy that seems to be hovering above it all. Yesterday (Friday) Catherine O’Hara, one of the greatest comedic actors of all-time, passed away. Though she was 71, she was still very, very active, and it was shocking and sad to hear. And locally, here in Massachusetts, a fishing boat sank off the coast of Gloucester in the severe conditions on Friday, and at this point it appears that all seven on board have died (one is confirmed dead, and the U.S. Coast Guard has suspended the search-and-rescue mission). It seems as if everywhere you look, the news is cold, both physically and mentally.

But to turn to lighter things…i.e., movies…this winter weather has also affected my ability to check out new movies…I had to miss two that I was going to watch in local theaters this week, ‘Weapons’ and ‘Nouvelle Vague’, due to blizzard conditions and the temporary breakdown of a subway line, due to snow, respectively. I’ll be able to watch these online…but I like to support local theaters.

In another surreal twist involving new films…last night and this morning (Saturday) I became fully aware of ‘Melania’, the new documentary about the lady who lives in the White House at the moment. I first saw this as an ad while watching an episode of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’ on Amazon, the famous show from the ‘90s where comedians torch bad movies as they watch them, and I actually thought it was a joke at first. But this morning I heard actual jokes about it (on ‘Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me…’) and an actual review of it (on NPR’s ‘Weekend Edition’) and I can only hope that ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’, which is currently doing new episodes on Netflix, decides to rip into it. I think it would be something to see the federal government’s response to a bunch of film nerds making jokes at their expense. We can only hope. 

But anyway…I am here to continue writing my thoughts on the Oscars. And since it’s currently 8 degrees out, it seems like I’ve got nothing better to do.

Today I’m going to get into my thoughts on Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male). 

Here are the noms:

Benicio del Toro – One Battle After Another

Jacob Elordi – Frankenstein

Delroy Lindo – Sinners

Sean Penn – One Battle After Another

Stellan Skarsgard – Sentimental Value

So, for me, this category really comes down to the two roles from ‘One Battle After Another’, which I have previously stated is my pick for Best Picture of the Year.

But before I get into those roles, I want to discuss some of the other noms and movies.

First, because I just saw it this week and it’s still fresh in my mind, I’d like to talk a little bit about ‘Sentimental Value.’ Stellan Skarsgard is up for Best Supporting Actor here, and he does a fine job, though I don’t think he should win. But my oh my oh my…WHAT A BEAUTIFUL MOVIE THIS IS.

‘Sentimental Value’ is a Norwegian film directed by Joachim Trier. I had forgotten that I had already seen a film of his: ‘The Worst Person in the World’, which was the third entry in his ‘Oslo Trilogy’, released in 2021 (it’s very out of character for me to see the last part of trilogy without seeing the first two beforehand…I assume I just wanted to see a new film and support local theaters at the time). I remember feeling like that movie was ‘okay, nothing special.’

But ‘Sentimental Value’ COMPLETELY BLEW ME AWAY. It was so wonderfully beautiful to watch, and it had one of the most amazing endings to a movie I’ve ever seen. It was the type of movie that I was still thinking about the next morning: I would just suddenly go ‘wow’ while I was drinking my coffee.

The interesting thing about this movie is that unlike many films that I consider to be ‘beautiful’, it wasn’t really the cinematography that made me feel that way. It was the editing. Editing is one of those things that a typical movie-goer doesn’t think about…and honestly, even a typical film nerd doesn’t often think about it. The editing of a film has to be truly amazing to be noticed in a positive way…and that was the case in this film. While the film told a linear story, it didn’t feel linear…it felt as if I was living in someone’s dream, constantly waking up to a new reality, and walking along this storyline from day to day. And it was a wonderful experience. And much of that came down to the way in which the film was edited.

Most film directors will tell you that editing is the most important part of the movie-making process. Most filmgoers only notice it if it is bad (bad editing can instantly make a good movie go BAD). But the editing in ‘Sentimental Value’ was so phenomenal that it truly made this movie a beautiful thing to behold. It is up for the only ‘Best Editing’ prize the Academy now awards, and if it doesn’t win that award, it will be a crime.

As for the big prize…I think in a lot of years, ‘Sentimental Value’ would win Best Picture. I think it will get a lot of votes from the Academy this year…and I think it has a realistic shot of winning. My vote still goes to ‘One Battle After Another’, and I still think that film will still win…but for a truly beautiful movie experience, nothing on this list comes close to ‘Sentimental Value.’ 

Getting back to the ‘Best Supporting Actor’ award, Delroy Lindo is also up for it for his role as an old blues harmonica player in ‘Sinners’. Much like Skarsgard in ‘Sentimental Value’, I think he’s great…but I don’t think he’ll win here.

The first really interesting role here, in my opinion, is Jacob Elordi playing The Monster in ‘Frankenstein.’

‘Frankenstein’, of course, is directed by Guillermo del Toro, aka The King of the Monster Movie in the Modern Era. He LOVES monsters, and literally almost everything he has done throughout his amazing career has involved monsters in some way, shape, or form. So it seems very, very fitting that he would adapt Mary Shelly’s classic tale ‘Frankenstein’ to the big screen.

I was very, very excited to watch this film: it’s a little bit weird, but when I was kid, specifically in the 5th grade, ‘Frankenstein’ became one of my ALL-TIME FAVORITE NOVELS. I read it for a book report, and I remember the first three chapters being unsufferably boring…and then I got to Chapter 4, and everything changed. I fell in love with ‘Frankenstein’ and would proclaim to anyone who would listen that it was amazing (most of my friends didn’t listen, because most of my friends didn’t like to read).

At the age of 12, when I was in the 7th grade, ‘Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein’, directed by the famed Shakespeare interpreter Kenneth Branagh, and starring Robert De Niro as the Monster, hit the movie theaters. I was interested…but also skeptical. By this time, I had become a fierce advocate of the ‘the novel is always better than the movie’ theory, so I went into the theater with mixed expectations.

When I came out of the theater two hours later, I felt disgust and revulsion. Because this movie completely destroyed, in my opinion, everything that the novel had been about, and it added garbage that had nothing to do with anything. I was outraged as a 12 year old (and, once again, my friends had no idea what I was raving about). (It’s weird to me now to think that Kenneth Branagh directed this: at the time I didn’t know or care about who he was. But as someone who is considered an expert at bringing to life the works of Shakespeare to the screen, and keeping the integrity of these old works intact, it seems very strange that he would steer so far off the script with ‘Frankenstein’. It’s very interesting to read about this on Wikipedia: apparently there was a very good script that had been written, but then for some reason Branagh decided to disregard that script and go with another one…and what the movie-going public was left with was, in my opinion, trash.)

And so when I heard that Guillermo del Toro was going to direct ‘Frankenstein’, I was ecstatic. If there was anyone who cared about not just how this story looked on screen, but also about being respectful to the novel, it was del Toro, who not only is an avid reader, but who has written novels of his own. And ultimately, what he gave us, is a movie that is incredibly true to the spirit of Mary Shelley’s novel. 

But…to be clear…this movie adaptation made changes to the original story. Guillermo del Toro has been very clear in interviews that he did not intend to make this movie entirely true to the novel, and that he was making creative changes that he thought were necessary…and for the most part, I think those changes were either positive or neutral. But not always…for me, I was bothered by some of these changes, in particular a famous scene from the book involving the monster and a family that he meets on his journey. I will not spoil this scene for either the reader or the movie-goer, but in the book it was the most moving moment of the entire story for me. And of course, this is just a personal quibble on my part, but I think that’s the danger of openly changing things while trying to stay true to the spirit of the book: no matter how you do it, you’re going to piss people off. Myself included. 

I think Guillermo del Toro meant well in this adaptation, but I couldn’t remove the bad taste from my mouth of that one scene that I felt lessened the power of the Monster’s story…and it led me to think less of the movie as a whole.

But forgetting that scene for just a moment…there were other minor things that I think holds this movie back. One is that I find it to be somewhat niche. True, pretty much everyone knows who Frankenstein is (or at least, they think they do…if they’re thinking of the Monster, they’re at least in the ballpark). But I don’t think there are as many people who love the novel that Mary Shelley wrote…and really, those are the people that this movie was made for. If you’re just a casual fan of Frankenstein movies, or scary movies, there’s a very good chance you’ll be bored by this movie. It’s a little bit long, and a little bit slow. And of course, as I demonstrated above, if you do love the novel…there’s a chance that you might be highly annoyed by it.

But overall, this is a very good movie, and it’s shot in a lovely and darkly romantic way (much like ‘Crimson Peak’ was in 2015). And as a fan of the book, there WERE THINGS THAT I LOVED ABOUT IT. For example, I loved that del Toro decided to start the movie with the actual start of the novel, when a crew of seamen are aboard a ship frozen in Arctic ice, and they come across both Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster, who tell the captain their stories. And regarding the Monster, played by Jacob Elordi, this movie far surpasses all of the others that have ever been made: namely, the Monster in this movie is highly intelligent and becomes articulate enough to read, write, and express emotions. It’s what always made the novel so beautiful to me: it’s an amazingly human story of how society turns brutally against a living being simply because his appearance is different from theirs.

Elordi did a fantastic job playing the Monster, who essentially starts as a full-grown baby and develops into an articulate and intelligent man. He tries to love his father, Dr. Frankenstein, but his father cruelly leaves him to die, just as he did in the novel, and the Monster must learn to live and fend for himself. And Elordi did a fantastic job bringing the Monster as Shelley envisioned him to life.. It was impossible not to feel empathy for the Monster, and Elordi could certainly win for Best Supporting Actor here. I think that what Elordi did in this role was tremendous, and I think there’s a decent chance he wins this award.

However, like I said before, this award for me comes down to the two roles in ‘One Battle After Another’ played by Benicio del Toro and Sean Penn. 

Before I get into these roles, I guess this is where I should talk about ‘One Battle After Another’, my pick for Best Picture, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, and based on the novel ‘Vineland’ by Thomas Pynchon. There’s a lot to unpack.

First of all, my experience over the years of watching films written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (often known as P.T.A.) hasn’t been great. I’ve seen about exactly half of his films, and while I’ve always had the utmost respect for them, because they are truly, truly, art…I haven’t always thoroughly enjoyed them. I have always felt that his films, which are cinematically beautiful, were a little cold and distant. I once wrote on a previous Oscars blog post discussing ‘Phantom Thread’ that I felt like I was in a living room where there was a sign on everything that said ‘Look, Don’t Touch.’ And most importantly, above all else, I’ve always, always, felt that every one of his films ran 20 minutes too long. Even ‘Boogie Nights’, which had always been my favorite film by him, felt 20 minutes too to me. So I when I walked into the Somerville Theatre to see ‘One Battle After Another’ on a 70mm film print, I was really, really, really not expecting to fully enjoy it. And OMG…was I ever wrong! Because I HAD AN ABSOLUTE BLAST WATCHING THIS MOVIE! For the first time EVER, I saw a Paul Thomas Anderson movie that can truly say I LOVED TO WATCH. 

First, in my opinion this movie should be Best Picture because it is INSANELY TOPICAL AND OF THE TIMES. I’ve never liked the word ‘topical’…someone once told me I had written a very ‘topical’ play, and I was like, ‘Is that a compliment?’ But it is…this movie is incredibly topical…and in this day and age, where it seems like the rule-based world we’ve always lived in is falling apart, being topical actually feels dangerous and edgy. The only other film I’ve seen this year that is as ‘of the times’ as this is ‘A House Of Dynamite’, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, which I’ve already mentioned in a previous section of this blog post. But where ‘A House Of Dynamite’ looks at potential world catastrophe, ‘One Battle After Another’ looks at the terror that immigrants to the USA and political dissidents are currently facing. Of course, this movie was made before the current administration was in power, and it’s based on a novel written in 1990. But sometimes being ‘of the times’ is just sensing what’s happening around one at the moment, and what that might lead to in the future. Watching this movie felt like I was living in a surreal version of a 2025 news story.

That might sound like a horrifying thing to experience…but as I said above, this movie was a blast to watch. It was incredibly funny, and incredibly fun. Why a movie about an immigration crisis involving Gestapo-like agents chasing the characters on the screen would be fun is a great question, I don’t know the answer…but it was.

And I think, overall, this is why I think this movie deserves Best Picture. Because it’s not just about being beautiful, or being clever, or even being amazing…it is about being current, and of the times, and topical. And not being overly didactic and patronizing about it. And this movie did that. Somehow, someway, ‘One Battle After Another’ made us all lose ourselves in a wonderful movie that was about the completely f**ked up world in which we’re all living in at the moment. 

Another important thing about this movie: I mentioned above that before seeing this movie, I had thought every PTA movie I had ever seen was 20 minutes too long. ‘One Battle After Another’ was very long (162 minutes), but the timing felt absolutely perfect to me. When I got home, I was reading about it on Wikipedia about it (as I like to do) and I came across something that was very, very interesting to me: before this movie was released, Paul Thomas Anderson had test screenings of it and asked for feedback on it, something he hadn’t done since ‘Boogie Nights’ way back in 1998. And the number one negative comment he got was that it was ‘too long’. So he went back into the editing room and cut 8-10 minutes out of it. 

Now…I’m not saying that this is necessarily the reason why the timing finally felt good to me with one of his movies…but I think there’s a strong chance it’s the reason. I think credit needs to be given where credit is due: Paul Thomas Anderson is a LIVING LEGEND. His fans are rabidly supportive, to the point where I don’t usually express my true opinions on him in conversations with them (I once told a self-proclaimed super-PTA fan that I wasn’t crazy about his films, and it didn’t go over well); he is one of the most highly awarded film directors living today; he’s one of the only directors who can (and does) consistently get the green light to film in the very expensive medium of 70mm film. He DID NOT HAVE TO LISTEN to these test screening audiences that told him his film was too long…but he did. And that is saying A LOT: it is never, NEVER easy for an artist to be told by a group of people, ‘Hey, do this thing instead; it’ll be better.’ It’s a lot easier to just ignore those voices…especially when you’ve already proven to everyone that you are a genius at what you do. But PTA listened to the people, and he cut things out, and it’s my belief that this probably made his film stronger. And that is something that not every director would do in that situation.

It’s really for all of these reasons why I think ‘One Battle After Another’ strongly deserves Best Picture.

But, to come back to the Best Supporting Role, since that’s really what we’re discussing here:

Benicio del Toro did a phenomenal job playing the hero in this movie, Sergio St. Carlos, a modern day Underground Railroad worker moving people and families safely from place to place. I love del Toro as an actor, and I think this is one of his strongest roles ever.

That being said, I actually think he’s about even with Jacob Elordi of ‘Frankenstein’ as far as this award goes. I think they’ll both get about the same amount of votes, with Elordi possibly getting slightly more.

But the real person to talk about here is Sean Penn, who played the villain, Col. Steven J. Lockjaw. Playing villains always grabs more attention than heroes, and most actors will tell you they’d rather play them onstage or onscreen. They’re usually more interesting characters.

I don’t know if I’d call the character of Lockjaw interesting…I think repulsive and disgusting are probably more apt. And this character is so revolting that I actually feel bad saying this…but I think Sean Penn deserves the award here.

Once again, I had NO IDEA who I was looking at as I watched this movie…I was shocked when I saw in the credits afterwards that Sean Penn had played this person. I didn’t recognize him at all. 

This character was one of the most terrifying individuals I’ve ever seen on screen…and he’s the kind of person you don’t want to celebrate…but, it simply has to be acknowledged that what Penn did with this character was incredible. He made himself into a MONSTER…and a nastier monster, at least emotionally, than the Monster portrayed in Frankenstein.

I think Sean Penn will win this, and I think he should…and I think, during his acceptance speech, he’ll probably mention that unfortunately, villains like this person exist in our world right now, and they have more power at this time than they’ve had in a long, long time.

Once again, the melancholy of this day and age seems into this discussion of the Oscars…it’s just too overbearing to ignore right now.

I’ll be back with more Oscar thoughts when I can. – Greg

Day 15

Distractions.

That’s the word of the day. 

I woke up this morning (Saturday) and saw it snowing outside my window. I thought, ‘I didn’t think it was supposed to snow today…’ Then I turned on my radio, and the story that I heard most prominently, featured in two different programs, was about distractions: namely, a film professor has publicly written that his film students are too distracted by their phones to finish the movies they’re assigned to watch completely.

I turned my head and looked out the window. It was still snowing.

Distractions come in all shapes and sizes, all forms and contours. There’s no arguing that we have become more distracted as a species; that the electronic devices that we carry with us everywhere demand our attention, hooking themselves into our brains. And it’s the younger generation, in this case film students, who seem unable to keep themselves away from the dangers of distractions (or at least, that’s how us older folks feel). 

For me, I think the most surprising thing about this story is that I’m not surprised. Maybe I should be: ‘film students…how dare they?!?’ But I don’t know…I’m a teacher…I see people on phones every day…we’re all distracted…why would film students be any different?

I remember being a teenager, and my dad asking me about some stupid thing teenagers were doing at that time: he was like, ‘do you know about this?’ And I was like, ‘yeah.’ Cause I did. But whatever it was we were discussing (I forget), it was something that I didn’t partake in. I wasn’t distracted by it.

Of course there’s gonna be film students, in this day and age, who choose not to finish a film they think is boring…or maybe racist. Or maybe Nazi propagandist. Any film student worth their salt has had to sit through ‘Triumph of the Will’, the 1935 Nazi propaganda film directed by Leni Riefenstahl. It’s shown in almost every ‘Intro to Film’ class because it’s considered to be one of the most aesthetically perfect films ever made. I remember sitting in a class and watching it and being extremely bored and disturbed…watching a bunch of Nazi soldiers march around while Hitler gives speeches with booming classical music in the background is not very enjoyable.

And so…it goes without saying that there are less students who will finish this movie, and other classic movies of filmmaking, in the future. If it sounds like I’m condoning this, you’re wrong: I’m not. It’s just the world we live in.

I think a lot of the great movies we’ve seen through the years, from big Marvel pictures to little indie pics, have been unconsciously inspired by movies that most people will never watch. And it’s important that we sit through things we don’t like…because one day, we might take a piece from that thing we didn’t like, and make it into something cool. And positive. And I want to come back to the conversation I had with my dad when I was teen, when I informed him that whatever it was we were talking about, I was aware of it, but it wasn’t something that was affecting me negatively. I wasn’t distracted. And today…in film classes…and other other classes around the world…there are more distracted people…but not everyone…it’s important to remember that there are still people watching…it’s difficult sometimes, but we’re not all distracted….

Anyways…like I said, it’s snowing…and this has been a BIG DISTRACTION to me all day….because I’ve had to shovel and do other snow related things…and I had NO IDEA it was coming…maybe it’s because yesterday (Friday) I was stumbling through my day in a half-awake daze due to a covid shot that I got on Thursday night…I’m not sure how I did anything yesterday…but it seems like everyone on my street is surprised too…none of us knew that it was going to snow all day…we all missed the ‘snow-memo’….

Anyway….after fighting through all these distractions, here I am, to write more about the Oscars. Let’s see how I do.

Today, I’m going to focus on Best Lead Actress (Female). Here are the noms:

Jessie Buckley – Hamnet

Rose Byrne – If I Had Legs I’d Kick You 

Kate Hudson – Song Sung Blue

Renate Reinsive – Sentimental Value

Emma Stone – Bugonia

So…for me, I actually thought this was going to be the least interesting category to discuss…because I have a strong opinion on who should win, and I don’t think there’s much to discuss…but of course I had a funny feeling about my pick, and so I decided to look up the betting odds online (something I hadn’t done yet this year)….and of course, all the Vegas odds are going COMPLETELY AGAINST ME. So I guess there are things to discuss, after all.

First of all, before I talk about anything, my choice for the winner here, without a question, is Rose Byrne for ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’. I was just able to see this movie this past week, and Rose Byrne is a force of nature in this film.

But I had a hunch that Jessie Buckley of ‘Hamnet’ was getting better odds…and I was right. What shocked me was how highly favored she seems to be…Vegas and the betting sites are giving NO ONE a chance besides Buckley….granted, Rose Byrne is in second place as far as odds go, but she’s a long, long way away…on one website I visited, Buckley is given an 88% chance of winning, and Byrne 6%. And that was just one website.

For the life of me I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS. Maybe I just don’t understand the Oscars. I’ve had problems with the oddsmakers and the winners before; but I just cannot understand why Jessie Buckley is getting such huge odds.

To be fair….Jessie Buckley was amazing in her role as Agnes Shakespeare, the wife of William Shakespeare. AMAZING. She was the spiritual center of the entire movie. Her character transformed through many phases: she was defiantly independent and mysterious, more in line with the animals than with other people; she was ferociously upset and angry, a woman who made her husband cower in fear; she was passionately in love; she was completely enthralled by the work of her husband on stage, going from a mother mourning the loss of her son to a woman who could understand that she was seeing the inspiration of her son alive on stage. She was all of these things. And she did it all in the span of two hours.

But even if she might win (or actually, I guess, since she’ll probably win), I think what Rose Byrne did on the screen in ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ was more amazing. For one thing, though Jessie Buckly was the heart and soul of ‘Hamnet’, Rose Byrne was THE ENTIRE MOVIE of ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’. With the exception of Ethan Hawke in ‘Blue Moon’, there was no actor who was on screen for almost the entirety of the movie. She was probably on screen 99.5% of the time. Seriously.

And her role was an emotional roller coaster. Perhaps there weren’t as many phases as what Agnes Shakespeare went through on screen, but her character, Linda, was much more vulnerable. She was basically attacked by every inch of the world for 2 hours, and she had to fight her way through it. As an audience, I felt much more afraid for the character of Linda, and in that sense, I bonded with her more than I did with Agnes Shakespeare. 

If I come back to the odds for just a second: I don’t have a problem with Jessie Buckley winning this, even if she’s not my vote. She deserves it for what she did on screen. But I just can’t understand why Rose Byrne isn’t getting more respect for her performance. It bothers me, to be honest. 

Another actress here who needs to be mentioned is Emma Stone of ‘Bugonia.’ Stone seems to be coming third in the odds…close to Rose Byrne…and once again, I can’t understand why there’s not more respect being given here. Maybe it’s because they’re betting websites…and they care only about odds, and winning, and money…but Emma Stone could easily have won this in another year. I don’t think she should beat either Jessie Buckley or Rose Byrne…but she gave a performance that is absolutely worthy of this award. 

And I guess there’s not much else to talk about concerning this award. Renate Reinsive gave a phenomenal performance in ‘Sentimental Value’ as a famous stage actress who is also the daughter of a famous film director, but I don’t think she would ever beat the other three I’ve already mentioned here. And I never saw ‘Song Sung Blue’ with Kate Hudson, though I’ve seen multiple trailers multiple times. This is the type of movie I’m really not interested in seeing…a biopic about people I don’t really care about…but I’m sure Kate Hudson did great in it.

As for the movies: ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ is not up for Best Picture, but I think it easily could be, considering there are 10 nominees (I haven’t yet seen all the Best Picture noms, but one that I have seen, and which I haven’t discussed here yet, is ‘Train Dreams’…and I absolutely think ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ deserves to be on the list just as much as ‘Train Dreams’ does). 

‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’, written and directed by Mary Bronstein, is an emotional roller coaster, and we all experience this twisted ride through the eyes of Linda, a mother dealing with a sick child and a hostile world while absolutely no one helps her, played to perfection by Rose Byrne.

‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ is a wild, chaotic ride of a movie, and it’s not for everyone. It could certainly give some people anxiety…and there were a couple moments when I actually had to look away from the screen. But one thing that I loved about this movie was how its wild energy seemed to encapsulate the feeling of the age we’re living in: in my opinion, this film is just as topical or ‘of our times’ as ‘One Battle After Another’, my pick for Best Picture. There’s nothing in ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ that’s political, or even remotely about current events…but it EMBODIES OUR current times. And the world that Linda lives in with her daughter is COMPLETELY INSANE…and it’s not friendly…there’s no way NOT to relate this to the world we live in today.

I think overall this movie should be getting more respect in general.

One more thing: I’ve mentioned in an earlier post how I despised ‘Marty Supreme’, directed by Josh Safdie. My feelings towards that movie haven’t changed. But I couldn’t help but notice similarities in the style as I watched…for me, it was impossible not to notice. Afterwards, I jumped on Wikipedia, as I usually do, and sure enough, Josh Safdie was an Executive Producer on this movie. Not only that, but there are a lot of other connections here. Mary Bronstein’s husband is a very good friend of Safdie and has acted in several of his films (he also voiced acted in ‘If I Had Legs…’) So it’s safe to say that this movie that I truly love belongs to the same family as a group of films (directed by Josh Safdie) that I strongly dislike.

I guess the question I should be asking myself is ‘why?’ Or, more precisely, ‘why do I hate one film, and love the other, when they are seemingly so similar. And I’m not really sure…except maybe I am. ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’ is about a woman who is trying to live her life, but is continuously hindered and fought by a world that is seemingly against her. ‘Marty Supreme’ is about a man who is incredibly gifted, and could live a peaceful life, but decides to attack as many people as possible, making his world, and the world of everyone close to him, chaotic and toxic. I think it might just be that I like the first story better.

One more thing: For me, one of the coolest things about ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You’, and something I’ve been thinking about a lot since I saw it, is the title. It’s something of a non-sequiter, and I keep thinking about it: what does it mean? When the title of the movie has you thinking about its meaning over 24 hours after you’ve seen it, you know it’s good. I strongly recommend this movie.

As for Hamnet and its chances at Best Picture…

I’ve seen it written online that ‘Hamnet’, directed and partly-written by Chloé Zhao, is ‘Oscar-bait’. And though that’s a fairly crude term…I think, in a way, it fits.

That’s not to say that ‘Hamnet’, which is based on a 2020 novel by Maggie O’Farrell (who also co-wrote the screenplay), isn’t good. It is good…in fact, it’s great. But it is the type of movie that seems to be built for the Oscars: an overall serious vibe, intense performances by the actors, intriguing mysteriousness. I guess it’s fair to call it names that imply that it cares mainly about winning awards at the Oscars.

But I think there’s more to ‘Hamnet’ than meets the eye.’Hamnet’, of course, is a ‘Shakespeare movie’. It’s not a ‘Shakespeare adaptation’, which is a completely different thing. It’s a ‘Shakespeare movie’, which means the audience gets to see a fictionalized version of William Shakespeare, and the people around him, live their lives. And though I’m sure there are a few ‘Shakespeare movies’ floating around out there, the only one aside from ‘Hamnet’ that I can really think of is ‘Shakespeare in Love’, the comedic romance from 1998 that won Best Picture at the Oscars (alongside other awards).

Now, the story of ‘Shakespeare in Love’ is complicated…I once wrote on my blog that I had ‘no idea’ how ‘Shakespeare in Love’ won Best Picture over ‘Saving Private Ryan’, one of the most intense war movies ever made. Apparently when I wrote that I hadn’t done much Wikipedia research on the matter…because ‘Shakespeare in Love’ is one of the most controversial winners at the Oscars EVER. Convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein, who was then the boss of Miramax Studios and one of the most powerful people in all of Hollywood, and who had controversially put his name on the movie as a ‘Producer’ (something that is another whole story unto itself) used bullying strong-arm tactics to not only ensure that ‘Shakespeare in Love’ won Best Picture, but also to ensure that Gwyneth Paltrow won Best Lead Actress (the overall consensus seems to be that Cate Blanchett should have won for her lead role in ‘Elizabeth’, a movie I’ve never seen [and, interestingly enough, a movie that had many of the same cast members from ‘Shakespeare in Love’…even in the world of Hollywood, the pool of actors working on projects can be very small]). 

But putting aside the controversy for a moment, it’s easy to forget that ’Shakespeare in Love’ was a great movie. The script, which was primarily written by the legendary playwright Tom Stoppard (who just passed away this year), was incredibly fun and witty. It was a romance film more than anything, but there was lots of comedy to keep it light: I wouldn’t call it a ‘rom-com’ because the comedy wasn’t directly connected to the romance, but it was a very fun ‘comedic romance’. 

But despite being fun, ‘Shakespeare in Love’ was a very flawed movie. One problem was that there were numerous historical inaccuracies: the main antagonist, Lord Wessex, is trying to marry Paltrow’s character and take her to his tobacco plantation in Virginia…35 years before any British person had arrived in that place. More egregious, perhaps, is that the young Shakespeare, played by Joseph Fiennes, is portrayed to have come up with the plot for ‘Romeo and Juliet’ completely on his own…when, in fact, he adapted it from an already existing story (which is what Shakespeare often did…and he shouldn’t be discredited for that…the master of dialogue breathed life into many already existing legends and stories and brought them to the stage in amazing ways). 

These might seem like minor quibs…but taken together and combined with the carefree, fun feeling of the movie, it seems to get a little bit too carefree. It’s almost as if no one cared about what they were representing on stage: William Shakespeare falls in love with Viola de Lesseps (Paltrow’s character) and begins a relationship with her, despite the fact that he was already married and, somewhat horribly, his son, Hamnet, had just recently died. This horrific secret is kept entirely away from Paltrow’s character, and when it’s revealed, there’s no real shame in what has happened: it’s more like, ‘we’re all artists, let’s just live our lives’.  ‘Shakespeare in Love’, for all of its breezy fun and enjoyable wit, seems to send the message that if you’re an artist, and in particular a male artist, you need to find the muse for your work and live your life to the fullest, even if the death of your only son just happened, and your wife is alone and grieving far from London.

And with all of this in mind, I see ‘Hamnet’ as a response to ‘Shakespeare in Love’. Both Maggie O’Farrell and Chloé Zhao probably saw ‘Shakespeare in Love’ in the theaters, as many did, when it came out. And I don’t know, but they might have felt insulted: why was any of this behavior considered okay, and even celebrated?

The story of ‘Hamnet’ occurred around the same time as ‘Shakespeare in Love’ would have taken place. But in this setting, William Shakespeare is missing for large parts of the movie, as he pursues his craft in London, among the plague and other terrible things, while Agnes stays behind. And then, of course, Hamnet dies…and the tragedy of living with death ensues.

Though I might not re-watch ‘Hamnet’, I enjoyed it as a realistic look at how a husband and wife might deal with a tragedy of this enormity. And let’s be real: the first tragedy Shakespeare ever wrote was ‘Romeo and Juliet’, around the time that his son died. And from there on out, most of what he wrote was not just tragic…it was brutally tragic. ‘Othello’ might be the ‘coldest’ play I’ve ever seen, and what happens on stage in ‘King Lear’ is, in my opinion, the most horrifying thing that’s ever been shown to a live audience on stage. All of the wonderful fun and comedy of Shakespeare’s early comedies have completely faded away by the time these tragedies were written…and no one can tell me that the death of his son didn’t affect this. 

In this sense, ‘Hamnet’ is a wonderful response to the silliness of ‘Shakespeare in Love’… it’s not as fun, but it’s a better movie. I don’t think it will win Best Picture, nor do I think it should…but it’s a great ‘Shakespeare movie.’

One note: ‘Shakespeare movies’ and ‘Shakespeare adaptations’ are extra interesting if you happen to be an actor who has memorized and worked these lines before. For me, I’ve been dabbling off and on with Shakespeare pieces for awhile now, and the last half hour of ‘Hamnet’ was very, very cool because we got to see parts of ‘Hamlet’ performed on the screen. The ‘To Be or Not to Be’ speech was given in its entirety, which was very cool for me because at the time I had it memorized and was working it every morning in my kitchen. It’s a very niche thing, and for a lot of people it might be boring, but it is a very cool thing to see this stuff performed if you’re familiar with it.  

Anyway, it’s time for me to go. It’s Sunday now (Day 16) and the sun is shining, though it’s only 5 degrees F outside (-15 C). When I woke up, it was 1 degree F (-17). The Super Bowl is tonight, and in the one of the weirdest occurrences of the year, the Patriots, my team, are playing in it…once again…and that’s great, but the biggest story is probably that Bad Bunny is doing the halftime show, y este concierto va estar solo español. Estoy emocionado. 

I’ll see you next time. – Greg

—

Hi There! I’m randomly writing a blog post here on my website because I am currently locked out out my actual blog site, gregswords.wordpresss.com, and I cannot get a human being to help me to fix the issue. So I’ve decided to just post my thoughts here for the time being. Hopefully this is a temporary thing. 

Anyway, it’s been 5 years since I’ve written a blog post, and the world seems to be falling apart….so it seemed like a good time to write a kinda sorta Oscar movie review blog post.

In the past I’ve written mostly about movies, in particular Oscar movies. This year I’m not doing that, for a few reasons.

First, and most importantly, is that I’ve only seen two of them: The Brutalist and Dune: Part Two.

Second is that I just don’t really care this year. With everything happening around the world, the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars just doesn’t seem to interest me.

Third, I’m not going to see most of these movies any time soon. Here are some reasons why:

Anora – I still haven’t seen many of Sean Baker’s Tangerine, which was shot entirely on an iPhone; I’ve wanted to see it for years. (However, when I first wrote this, I had forgotten that I had seen The Florida Project, and loved it.)  While I know Anora’s been screening on 35mm around Boston, which is really cool, I’d like to see some of his earlier stuff first, so I’m holding out on seeing it.

A Complete Unknown – Though I love Bob Dylan, I’m just really not interested in seeing a biopic about him right now. 

Emilia Perez – I’ve heard a lot of mixed things about this one, and I’m not really interested in seeing what appears to be a mediocre movie that’s getting a lot of buzz for political reasons. It’s giving off vibes of Crash (absolute crap) and Green Book (which I heard was absolute crap). 

Wicked – I’ve never read the book, nor for that matter have I read any of the Wizard of Oz books, nor have I seen the musical Wicked. At this time I really have no interest in jumping in and weighing in with an opinion on this.

Nickel Boys – This is the one that’s causing me the most anguish: I REALLY want to see this. I’m hearing nothing but good things about it. However, I would really like to read the novel first, and I have not yet had the chance to read either of Colson Whitehead’s very famous novels, The Underground Railroad or Nickel Boys. And because these are contemporary novels, I really think it’s important to hear his voice on the page. So I’m stuck: Nickel Boys is the one film here that I really want to see, but I feel I can’t because I want to read the novel first, and before that I want to read his earlier novel The Underground Railroad…I’m really conflicted about this whole thing.

That leaves The Substance and Conclave (both seem cool, and I’ll probably check them out) and I’m Still Here (it seems interesting, though I’m not sure if it’s a story I’m interested in right now).

As for the two I have seen:

While watching Dune: Part Two, I fell asleep in a crowded theater and woke up with a start halfway through. My problem with Dune isn’t the movies: they’re stunningly beautiful gems directed by Denis Villeneuve, who cares so much about the aesthetics of his movies that he once said his dream is to film beautiful vistas with no dialogue. 

My problem with Dune is that I just don’t like Dune. I read the original book and by the end I despised every character in the book. When you can’t get behind the original creation of the book, I don’t really think you can get into the movies. They’re visually stunning, but I don’t care about them.

Which leaves the only one of these that I watched and stayed awake for: The Brutalist. 

So, The Brutalist: I feel like I have a lot to say about this movie. While I’m not sure if I loved it, I did enjoy it, and I find thinking about it interesting…though I’m not sure if it’s for the reasons the film-makers would want. But still…it’s interesting, so that’s saying something.

Here are some positive things about The Brutalist:

-First, despite being a MASSIVE movie (the only word that I feel accurately describes this +3.5 hour beast), Brady Corbet and his team made it for under $10 million. This might be getting too film nerdy…but, WOW. This movie feels like it was made for over $100 million…just the feat of making something so huge in scope, for so low of a price, is something that should be commended.

-Second, Intermission! When Oppenheimer hit the theatres last year, clocking in at over 3 hours, I saw it with a buddy at a theatre and was vocally complaining about the fact that there was no intermission. I’ve been complaining about this for years. When a movie is over 3 hours, why is there no intermission??? Before you say anything, did you know that back in the old days, every movie that was over three hours had an intermission? If you see a play that was over 3 hours, do you think it would be normal not to have an intermission? I teach a three hour class at the school where I work…would it be normal not to have a break for that?

At some point along the way, many years ago, for whatever hairbrained reason someone gave, they stopped putting intermissions into movies completely. And it’s made watching a 3 hour movie in the theatre a perilous journey in which one can only hope that they don’t have to run out to pee.

So, thank you Brady Corbet, for finally, FINALLY bringing back the movie intermission!

-Third, it was enjoyable! If there’s one thing I want to do when I go to the movies, it’s to have an enjoyable time. Now, there are a lot of different types of enjoyable movies: slow moving art pieces that grab you at the end, fast-paced action movies with car chases, scary movies that people scream at. I’m not sure where I would categorize The Brutalist: if anything, it really falls into no category, and of course that’s likely what Corbet wanted. But it was enjoyable in the sense that I was never bored, I never got sleepy, and I was constantly interested in what was happening. And, more than anything else, I was laughing. This movie, to me, was very funny: I wasn’ sure why it was funny, or why I was laughing, but in a way this movie just danced around the often morbid characters on the screen and what was happening. It was darkness mixed with light, and for a movie that I could only describe as ‘massive’, it had a surprisingly light side to it.

So….how do I really feel about this movie? That’s where I become less sure of myself.

In all honesty, I think I’m actually not sure about how I feel about this movie.

Yes, it was massive. Yes, it was striking. Yes, it was enjoyable. Yes, it was deep and mysterious. Yes, it was funny.

But did I understand what I watched? Did I feel like the dots were connected cohesively, like the story that was put together held up? Unfortunately, for me, the answer is no.

When I left the theatre, I was sort of feeling buzzed in a weird way, and I was like “What the hell did I just watch?” And it had been a fun and entertaining experience. But unlike other movies, for example several movies by the Coen Brothers or David Lynch, which keep me thinking for days, I wasn’t really curious about this movie. It just sort of felt like what it was: a 3.5 hour romp through a bizarro world of people living their lives, and that was it. It didn’t make sense, but for me, there wasn’t that interesting aspect that made me want to think about it: it was almost like being on a roller-coaster, and then immediately leaving the theme park and forgetting about it as you drive home.

Is the Brutalist going to win some Oscars? I would imagine it will. Will it win Best Picture? It certainly could…but I actually find it, for all of its massiveness, to be somewhat forgettable. If it does win, I think it would be more due to the lack of quality from the other films. 

Other final thoughts on the Brutalist: I actually heard this mentioned on a radio show discussing movies, but I’ll mention it here: though this movie has been described by many as being about the Holocaust, that is very much a misnomer, in my opinion. Yes, the main character is a Hungarian architect who has escaped the Holocaust…but it is virtually never mentioned nor touched upon in the movie. While certainly the characters’ in this movie have been affected by what they lived through, to call it a movie about the Holocaust does an injustice to any movie that is actually about this subject.

Another negative thing about this movie is that it has come out that A.I. was used to enhance the Hungarian accents used by Adrien Brody and other actors in this movie. Though I think Brody did a fine job playing his role, and strongly feel that he and any other actor that used this technology should not be eligible for an Oscar for their roles. 

And one more note that I’ll make: I saw this movie at the Somerville Theatre, one of the theatres in the Boston area that have 70mm film projectors (for anyone who doesn’t know…70mm prints are giant and extremely high quality film prints that require special projectors to be shown. They were sort of a fad in the 1950s and 1960s, and then were largely forgotten…until in recent years they’ve been making a comeback. And now directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Christopher Nolan make all of their stuff available on it [as well as the standard digital releases, and sometimes the more accessible 35mm film version as well]).

The reason I bring this up is that when I was putzing around the lobby before the film began, I happened upon some posters on a table. They were free for anyone who was seeing the Brutalist to take home with them. Strangely, they were very large and almost entirely blank: and at the bottom they said ‘The Brutalist’ and ‘Presented at the Somerville Theatre.’ Which sort of surprised me: why were almost entirely blank posters being given out, and were specifically for this theatre? So I asked the guy sitting at the ticket booth, and he got a little bit snarky and was like “Not everyone does 70mm, we’re one of the only ones, so that’s why they made the poster.” And I was like, “Sure, fine, I don’t care that much.” But it felt to me like it was similar to the movie: very large, mostly blank, and largely self-indulgent

Other things…..

Why I HATE HATE HATE HATE The Wild Robot:

Okay, so another big movie that has been getting a lot of buzz this year is The Wild Robot. It’s probably gonna win some animated Oscars: it’s high quality and people are eating it up.

But I saw this movie during the summer, and while I won’t argue with the quality, I HATED THIS MOVIE AND EVERYTHING THAT IT STANDS FOR. 

The Wild Robot is rated very highly: it’s currently 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, and when I saw it in the summer it was 98%. This was one reason I checked it out: I hadn’t heard anything about it, but if something is rated in the high 90s on Rotten Tomatoes, I’m almost always gonna love it (or at least like it a lot).

But pretty much from the get-go, The Wild Robot rubbed me in the wrong way. 

The movie starts on the shore of a remote island: a box washes up against the rocks, and a robot falls out of it. It becomes clear very quickly that this robot was programmed to be a helper program, but instead of being taken out of a box by someone in their living room, it’s unleashed into the wild and rugged world of a rocky shore on an island. It is beat up and battered by the elements and the animals, who of course are disturbed by this new being, but the robot continues to try to prevail.

It becomes clear as the movie moves along that this place is an island somewhere in the middle of the ocean where no people live…but many animals call it home. And the animals, for the most part, hate this new intruder. And they essentially try to kill it.

During this process the robot accidentally crushes a nest of goose eggs and kills all of them, except one. And then she protects this baby goose from a sly fox, and becomes it’s mother. And of course the themes of not belonging, of love and caring, and all of that other good stuff, run through everything. 

Eventually the animals realize that they were wrong about this wild robot, that she actually belongs with them in this wild place, despite the fact that she washed up there from a shipwreck. And of course eventually ‘evil’ robots come to retrieve this rogue wild robot, and of course the animals work together to fight off these ‘evil corporate’ robots.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. How anyone can watch this movie in this day and age, when invasive species have completely destroyed entire ecosystems, ESPECIALLY ON ISLANDS, and not feel a pit in their stomach, is beyond me. I was completely mortified by the fact that this robot crushed these bird eggs: one of the most heartbreaking REAL stories that I heard in the last few years was when someone operating a drone in California accidentally scared thousands of nesting birds and led to thousands of eggs being crushed. And the population of that bird species has not recovered it (I have not looked up the details of this story, not because I’m lazy, but because it is so depressing and enraging to me that I simply don’t want to read the details right now).

Besides this callous disregard for the environmental impact that our creations have caused the world, there is something that I find to be even more insidious about this movie: that in my opinion, it is propaganda for not only robots, but also A.I. in general. The animals rightfully didn’t want this intruder on their island, and they tried to get rid of her. But eventually they realize that, hey, actually, she’s wild just like us! She’s a wild robot! And she’s here where she belongs…with us.

It reminds me of everything that the GIANT COMPANIES are pushing on us now: hey, we know these robots can be a  little weird, and maybe you think you don’t need one, but actually, they belong in your living room, with you, helping you. Trust us…they can think just like us, better in fact. They’re here to help us…not to hurt us. You’ll find soon enough…they belong here with you.

There was one scene in this that movie bothered me more than any other…when a giant storm struck the island, the robot built a shelter, and then eventually all of the animals fit into her shelter. And she essentially saved ALL of the animals. So apparently, THIS F**KING ROBOT KNOWS HOW TO SURVIVE ON THIS ISLAND BETTER THAN THE ANIMALS THAT HAVE ALWAYS LIVED THERE?!?! Spare me…I HATE THIS MOVIE PASSIONATELY. Apparently most people don’t feel how I do, but I truly can’t stomach it. 

Other thoughts…

Another animated movie I saw in the summer was Transformers One, of the Transformers franchise. And it was great! It was a fun origin story and it had a great voice cast.

At the time I hadn’t heard anything about it, and was wondering why it wasn’t getting any buzz..but apparently it did decent in making its money back. So I guess it wasn’t ignored in the way that I thought it was.

I don’t have much else to say about…except that it was fun.

Two Other New Films I Saw This Year:

Though it came out in 2023, I saw Gozilla Minus One this past year…and it completely blew me away. It was without question THE BEST movie I saw all year. It was a serious movie that was about the horrors of a war, but it was also a beautiful movie with a heart, and it was also an amazingly fun film that paid homage to many classic films, such as Jurassic Park and Jaws, in really spectacular ways. This movie is a precious gem that should be enjoyed by all.

And the other film was a new kung fu movie from Hong Kong – Twilight of the Warriors: Walled In. Though this movie was very violent (being a kung fu movie), it also had a beautiful message and was a joy to watch.

Both of these movies were much deeper than they let on, and were simply phenomenal.

Anyway, it’s about time for me go, but one more thing! Last year I watched EVERY SINGLE MOVIE up for Best Picture, but I didn’t write anything about them at all. So right now, I’d like to write a little bit about all of them. Here goes:

My Thoughts on the 2023 Oscar Movies… A Year Late!

Maestro – Boring. Snooze. Didn’t finish it.

The Holdovers – Nice, but nothing more than nice…it shouldn’t have been on this list. But bonus points for being filmed in Boston!

Poor Things – Very weird, very awesome, very fun…but very weird. Too weird for this award.

Barbie – OMG, brilliant! Have I told you how much I loved this movie?! But, yeah…I just don’t think the Academy could ever stomach making this Best Picture.

Past Lives – A lovely little film that never really had a chance, but was beautiful to watch.

Anatomy of a Fall – Dazzling. Thrilling. Fascinating. There was nothing I didn’t love about this movie. And on top of everything else, it got me to watch Anatomy of a Murder, the 1959 movie that served as an inspiration, and also quite possibly the BEST COURTROOM MOVIE EVER MADE. But anyway, back to Anatomy of a Fall…it was fantastic, but it never felt like an Oscar movie to me, whatever that means. 

American Fiction – ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. I’m not sure why, but it never really seemed to be in contention…but it should have been.

Killers of the Flower Moon – This movie was very good and very important, but it was also very heavy and very long. It was heartbreaking and powerful, but at the end of the day, despite its powerful and important message, it couldn’t keep up its energy through its length.

Oppenheimer – The Winner. Big, powerful, booming, all seen on 70mm (if you are lucky enough to live near a theatre with a 70mm projector).

Zone of Interest – In my opinion, the REAL Best Picture. This movie got surprisingly little traction leading up to the Oscars: everyone talked about Oppenheimer, and how there was no question it was Best Picture, and that seemed to be the general consensus. But Zone of Interest BLEW ME AWAY. I don’t know if I’ve ever, EVER seen a movie so haunting. It haunted me for days. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. And even now, over a year later, I think about it. I can’t say the same for the movie that won.

That’s it.

If you want to see my actual blog, where I’ve written off and on since 2006, and where I am currently locked out of, check out gregswords.wordpress.com.

Til Next Time,

Greg