Approaching the 96e Oscar night on Sunday, several questions still arise, but one in particular stands out. Namely: is there a film still capable of slowing down the triumphant march ofOppenheimer and its mastermind, Christopher Nolan? Indeed, after having collected the highest distinctions at the ceremony of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and especially at that of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Nolan and his almost billionaire production are big favorites in the categories of best film and best achievement.
For what ? Because the actresses and actors who make up the SAG form the largest group of members, by far, of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which awards the Oscars. Moreover, with their performance awards awarded by their peers, Cillian Murphy, for Oppenheimerand Lily Gladstone, for Killers of the Flower Moon (The American note), will be difficult to beat at the Oscars — a victory for the second would be historic for the First Nations.
To return to the best film, if we add to the contingent of performers from the SAG that of filmmakers from the DGA, logic allows us to anticipate golden statuettes for the remarkable biography of the inventor of the atomic bomb. Except that obviously, nothing is decided.
Certainly, last year, the furiously eccentric Everything Everywhere All at Once (Everything, everywhere, all at once) was as expected acclaimed after winning said key awards upstream. However, if the history of the Oscars has taught us anything, it is that a surprise victory can always occur, for the better (Moonlight, Parasite) or for worse (Shakespeare in Love, Crash).
Predictions aside, we must emphasize the exceptional quality of the 2023 cinematographic vintage. Which is well represented in the different categories, starting with that of best film, precisely.
American Fiction (American fiction) by Cord Jefferson, Anatomy of a fall by Justine Triet, barbie by Greta Gerwig, The Holdovers (Those who remain) by Alexander Payne, Killers of the Flower Moon by Martin Scorsese, Maestro by Bradley Cooper, Oppenheimer by Christopher Nolan, Past Lives by Celine Song, Poor Things (Poor creatures) by Yorgos Lanthimos and The Zone of Interest (The area of interest) by Jonathan Glazer: who says it better?
With the exception of titles that have not yet been released in Quebec at the end of 2023, most of these films appeared in our end-of-year list.
Note that between the three of them, Justine Triet, Greta Gerwig and Celine Song broke the record for the greatest number of productions directed by women competing for the Oscar for best film. On the other hand, of the lot, only Justine Triet was selected for best director for her incredibly dense legal drama.
The absence of Greta Gerwig was especially denounced after the resounding critical and popular success of her barbie, a playful yet brilliant deconstruction of what the iconic doll represents. Celine Song is, however, just as deserving for her infinitely nuanced and poignant Past Livesan elliptical chronicle of an impossible love.
For the record, in addition to Triet, Glazer, Lanthimos, Nolan and Scorsese are in the running for best director. Who should have been removed to make room for Gerwig and Song? It’s a question that will prove insoluble for many moviegoers.
Lack of consistency
In reality, this situation only highlights the Academy’s lack of consistency. In 2011, it was decided that the number of productions nominated for the Oscar for best film, historically established at five as for the other categories, could be increased to a maximum of ten depending on the year. In 2021, it was decided that there would be ten films nominated each year.
At its core, this measure was implicitly intended to allow the inclusion of more box office hits in order to increase the declining popularity of the Oscars. But, by definition, don’t the best films necessarily have the best directions, the best scripts, the best photo directions, the best editing, etc.? ?
By not increasing the other categories, the Academy sends a contradictory signal to say the least: a film can thus be judged one of the best of the year, but not necessarily one of the best made, which is a no. -sense. In short, we can only hope that the Academy will one day have the courage of its so-called convictions and that it will harmonize its categories.
Would it be so terrible to have ten candidates for best director, best performance, etc.? ? Or maybe we reduce the contenders for best film to five.
Losing audience
Speaking of expected changes, we shouldn’t expect any in the animation department. Indeed, Jimmy Kimmel has once again been entrusted with this potentially thankless mandate.
This is because, like the vast majority of televised awards ceremonies around the world, the Oscars have seen their television ratings drop considerably in recent years. And the trend predates the pandemic: since 2015, the Oscar night audience has fallen by half.
This explains this, we looked for reinvention without finding it, before returning to the established formula. Because as host of the Oscars, Jimmy Kimmel, a very likeable character, is part of a long tradition of consensual figures (and therefore a bit high-sounding), like Bob Hope and Billy Crystal. No renewal in sight, therefore.
Although, again, Oscar history teaches us that that evening can always take an unexpected tangent, whether it’s a naked activist unexpectedly crossing the stage or an angry actor slapping a presenter. dazed. Which gives rise to a second question: outside of film-loving circles, do the Oscars now need a scandal to get people talking about them?
Full list of nominations here.