#Dominique thorne judy harmon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stereogeekspodcast · 3 years

Text

[Transcript] Season 2, Episode 4. Acting, Direction, Editing, Screenplay Nominations - Academy Awards 2021

The Academy Awards 2021 are here! Who's up for Best Acting, Best Supporting Actor, Direction, Film Editing, and Screenplay? Who do the Stereo Geeks think should win? We have so many thoughts about this year's Oscars, we can't even pick our favourites. Who do you think should win these categories?

(L-r) DANIEL KALUUYA as Chairman Fred Hampton, ASHTON SANDERS as Jimmy Palmer, ALGEE SMITH as Jake Winters, DOMINIQUE THORNE as Judy Harmon and LAKEITH STANFIELD as Bill O’Neal in Warner Bros. Pictures’ “JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH,” a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

[Continuum by Audionautix plays]

Ron: Welcome to a new Stereo Geeks Special where we continue our coverage of the Oscars 2021. I'm Ron. Mon: And I'm Mon. Ron: Let's talk about the acting categories. Lead role (Male). We have Riz Ahmed for Sound of Metal. Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. Anthony Hopkins for The Father. Gary Oldman, Mank. And Steven Yeun, Minari. Your pick?

Mon: Chadwick.

Ron: My pick, as well. I think this is the year for Chadwick.

Mon: Chadwick’s performance in the Ma Rainey film was compelling, outstanding. It's a real shame that he has not been here to bask in the recognition that he's got. He has swept most of the awards in this category. I'm really hoping that the Oscars don't let down his family. He deserves it.

Ron: Chadwick’s performance is a really strong point for the film. It's full of nuance, and really powerful storytelling. And I think the performance Chadwick put in was, in hindsight, made more powerful because of what we know he was actually going through. If you just look at the performance, it does really stand out. There are so many layers to his character, and that can only come out through a powerful acting performance. I feel like Chadwick could have won this category even if it wasn't a posthumous award.

Mon: I think so too. There's a lot of layers to this character, and he really gave it his all. It would have been outstanding irrespective of the year that this film came out, irrespective of the year that this performance was recognized.

Ron: I feel like it's also high time that Chadwick was recognized for his acting.

Mon: I mean, he's been good in everything that he's performed in. The fact that it has to be Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, it has to be a posthumous recognition, that's kinda sad. But he was always good. The legacy of his acting is gonna continue for a long time.

Ron: Absolutely. Talking about the other performances in this category, there are some hits and misses.

Mon: Yeah. I feel like with Gary Oldman in Mank, it’s probably one that we all expected. It's probably also the least exciting.

Ron: I felt like when I was watching Mank, I was watching Gary Oldman play a different version of his Winston Churchill.

Mon: Right? I felt the same way!

Ron: Okay, so it wasn't just me.

Mon: No, it wasn't, man. That was surprising to me because I feel like Gary Oldman is the kind of person who, when he plays a character, he really adds in so many different layers to it, gives each one a unique take, and this one just felt like, copy-paste.

Ron: Yeah, totally.

Mon: I don't think it helps that Mank, in general, is an underwhelming experience. And with the role, as well, I feel like we’ve seen, not only Gary Oldman do it before, but we've seen this kind of role before. The only thing I'll say is that it's not very obviously Oscar-baity, but it's exactly the kind that the Academy likes.

Ron: I actually think this is very obviously Oscar-baity.

Mon: Oh okay.

Ron: Yeah, totally. This is the exact kind of role that the Oscars love. This difficult man who is larger than life, who inspires and cuts down at the same time, that's exactly what the Oscars love. And that's why I actually hated Mank.

Mon: Yeah.

Ron: Because we have seen this character for aeons, there's nothing new here.

Mon: Yeah, absolutely, it's just change the setting, change the saturation point.

Ron: Absolutely. I would happily have swapped out Gary Oldman for Kingsley Ben-Adir in One Night in Miami.

Mon: That one still hurts me.

Ron: I just don't understand how he’s not in this list.

Mon: He's not in this list at all! That's what annoys me.

Ron: One Night in Miami has not got the noms that it deserves. And it's just driving me crazy.

Mon: The other performance which is definitely Oscar-baity is Anthony Hopkins in The Father.

Ron: Same problem that I had with Gary Oldman. Even in the huge, long career that Anthony Hopkins has had, this is not a good performance!

Mon: Right. There was only one scene where I felt like he'd kind of gone outside his comfort zone. There's this scene where he's meeting his caretaker for the first time, and he's sort of trying to impress her, and there's this natural vivacity that he brings, which I don't think I've seen in Anthony Hopkins, ever. And I love that.

Ron: Yes. Mon: And then it's completely ruined by that last scene. The acting in the last scene is so Oscar-baity. It is so ‘I am doing this so that I can definitely take home the little gold statue’. And it was the one scene that I hated so much because it was so put-on, it was so artificial.

Ron: But I felt like that about the whole movie. I felt, when I was watching this movie, that I was watching Anthony Hopkins.

Mon: Yeah, no, I agree with you on that. I agree with you, completely. And that's a problem because it didn't feel like a performance because it felt like he wasn't doing anything different. And I'm really disappointed because we know this guy can be better.

Ron: This is Anthony Hopkins.

Mon: I know! He puts in his all in a Marvel film. That's how good this guy is, and this film just feels like it's trying too hard and not reaching.

Ron: The play that The Father is based on, the performance was done by Frank Langella. And when I watched this, I was like, oh my god, Frank Langella would have been amazing in this.

Mon: That is so funny considering which role Frank Langella actually did play in the movies that have been nominated in this Academy Awards. Honestly, you could have put in a lot of veteran, white, old actors from Hollywood, they would have played that role the exact same way. Which is why I don't think it deserves a nomination or an award.

Ron: Yeah, agreed. Steven Yeun, Minari.

Mon: I think this was a surprise because a lot of people hadn't seen this film, And he's really known for being in The Walking Dead. You don't expect him to be nominated for the Oscars, but here he is.

Ron: It's such an understated performance. Like throughout the movie I could see myself in him. Which is why I'm really glad that he's got nominated because his Jacob is us.

Mon: Yeah, he's this foolhardy, obstinate kind of guy, but he's just so wistful, and I think I really like that because he's trying so hard, and he really believes in himself and in his dream. And you get all of that in Steven Yeun, just the way he carries himself, just the small little expressions that he makes. He doesn't even have to talk much, it's just him.

Ron: What I really loved about Steven Yeun’s performance was the scene where he is being a ‘dad’. And you know dads, they will be themselves, and then suddenly they will go into dad-mode. Where they’re like, you know what, something has happened and I need to be a ‘dad’ right now. And he is so, so good in that scene. And I was like, oh my god, stop being such a ‘dad’!

Mon: Exactly! Because the dad is putting on the performance of being a ‘dad’, and Steven Yeun is doing an excellent job of being that dad who's trying to be a ‘dad’. It's too good.

Ron: And that's why I'm really happy that he's been nominated because this is what acting is supposed to be.

Mon: It's supposed to be understated but also feel real.

Ron: In any other year, he would have been the top favorite in this category.

Mon: Yeah, I think so too.

Ron: It's just a really good performance.

Mon: Right. And to round it all off is Riz Ahmed from Sound of Metal. This is another very understated performance. There's nothing huge and flashy. It’s really just somebody who is coping with the circumstance that he cannot envisage. And he's really struggling, because his whole life, literally, his whole life, is going to change. It's really hard to rate this performance because it's so natural. It's so effortless. If you haven't seen Riz Ahmed in other stuff, you would think this is just him being him, but there are, of course, like differences to who he probably is as a person.

But I think the recognition of this award really goes to the fact that he put in so much work to make this role look as effortless as it does. He learned how to play the drums, he learned ASL, and both of those, he just does it so naturally in the film. And the performance would have been completely derailed had he not put in that effort of all those months, it would not have been a good performance.

Like when he’s drumming, like the first scene is him drumming, and you can see that it's him. It's not like in the shadows, it's not from the back, it's not like a stunt double. Nope, it's him. And you wouldn't connect with this character if you didn't see him front and center, with those drumsticks, banging on the drums, really like, into that music.

And even with the ASL. It's his language, and that's how you're supposed to feel because that is how the character is going to communicate. And I feel like it's such an important aspect that not only did he learn it, but now he's very keen on people learning how to sign because it is such a valuable language to learn. It was so good. It was so understated. It's hard for me to even say that he actually acted but, I mean we know he did. But’s it’s just so good, so natural.

Ron: I would compare Riz Ahmed’s acting in Sound of Metal to Natalie Portman in Black Swan. That ballet performance and how it made Nina was only possible because she'd done the work of learning ballet. That's the same thing here. The only reason why we believe everything that this character is doing and going through and evolving into is because Riz Ahmed put in all that effort. It comes across as so natural that you don't think you're actually watching an actor; you're watching a person. That's what great acting is.

Again, along with Steven Yeun, any other year, Riz Ahmed definitely would have won this category. But this year, it belongs to Chadwick Boseman. He should 100% get it. What a performance to leave as his legacy.

So, moving on to the ladies. We have Viola Davis from Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. Andra Day from The United States vs Billie Holiday. Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman. Frances McDormand from Nomadland. And Carey Mulligan for Promising Young Woman.

This is a slightly harder category I would say. From the other award shows, it seems that Andra Day might be the front runner here. Unfortunately, we couldn't get to see this movie. Apparently The United States vs Billie Holiday is not a good movie. I read some reviews and it seems to be very exploitative, rather than anything else? And it's literally coasting on Andra Day’s performance.

Mon: Apparently, she sang some of the songs in it?

Ron: Yes.

Mon: I'm excited for any newbie to get awards. And when I say newbie, I mean somebody who's getting recognition for the first time at a big award show like this. I would love to have seen her performance just to rate it against these other very powerful performances. Let's see how that turns out.

My personal favorite, of course, is Viola Davis. She has my whole heart. How performance as Ma Rainey was stunning.

Ron: From that opening scene in the tent, you forget that you're watching Viola Davis. Ma Rainey was such a personality, and the way Viola Davis just embodies that. This is a woman who, when she walks into a room, everybody stands aside so she can walk through.

Mon: Yeah. One of the things that I really like about films being on Netflix is that we do have the after-film show or the after-film interviews. And for Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, they talked about bringing this film to life. It's a play and now it's film, and the research that they did, and they learned about this personality who we hadn’t heard about. And how Viola Davis and the makeup artists and the costume artists, they really tried to embody the way she looked in real life. Because with Ma Rainey, you know she's singing for a long time, it’s sweltering heat, that why she looks very greasy. Her makeup is running, but she's got this power and she doesn't care about the glamour, you know, she's got a voice, she is using that, and that's what's entertaining, and that's what's grasping the entire crowd. Viola Davis and her entire team, they really wanted to capture that, which is what they do. They do such a great job. Ma Rainey doesn't have to look like the quintessential, glamorous, polished artist that we’re so used to seeing, because she's working hard. She's got a job to do. You don't have time for all this stuff, so I really love that. And I'm pointing this out mostly because there was a little bit of backlash because of how Ma Rainey looks in the movie. Ron: Oh really.

Mon: Yeah, there were some people saying, oh, why does she have to look so tired and sweaty. Well, that was kind of the point, so that's why I'm pointing it out. It was a deliberate, intentional effort made by the creators for this film. And Viola Davis does an excellent job of encapsulating that presence and that feeling. I really love how you have this character, based on a real person, of course, but you have this character in an era where Black people really struggled to make their voices heard, get anything that they deserved. She's like the exact opposite. And I love how this film turns the tables on that. And it’s only possible because you have somebody with that presence of Viola Davis. I would love her to win this. I don't know if she will. Maybe somebody newer, like Andra Day, deserves it more. But yeah, I've got my heart set.

Ron: You haven't seen Pieces of a Woman, but I did. I think Vanessa Kirby does the job that she has to in this film. I just think that compared to everybody else on this list, I don't get it. We were talking about how Steven Yeun’s acting in Minari was very understated. Vanessa Kirby does the same thing and Pieces of a Woman but her understatedness is so understated that there is no emotion. And I don't think it's her fault. I think it's because of the direction that she was given as an actor.

Pieces of a Woman was not as good a film as I heard that it was, which was surprising to me. I don't expect histrionics all the time, but most of the time, I was like nothing is happening on the screen, and that just did not make sense to me because the writer of the film based this story on what happened to her. And her husband was actually the director of this film. I feel like they weren't on the same page, or something got lost in translation between screenplay and direction.

I think Kirby did a really good job maybe in the first like 30-35 minutes, and then after that, she was probably told just, you know, hold it back, hold it back, hold the emotion back, and she ended up doing that really well, but the final product ended up being bland. And that might also be because they tried to stuff in other bits into a story that didn't need it. What ended up happening was that her performance was overridden by other elements.

We both feel that Yeri Han from Minari should definitely have been nominated.

Mon: Yeri Han plays the wife character in Minari; she plays Monica. She could have easily been a flat character, the long-suffering wife who just does what her husband wants, who somehow survives for her kids, but she is so much more. You can see this person trying desperately to be the supportive glue of this family. You can see this person trying to strive for her own dreams, for her own ambitions, and keep it together. And it's all because of how well Yeri Han, again in an understated fashion, just carries this character. And it is a shame, a complete and utter shame, that she did not get picked as one of the nominations.

Ron: I found myself comparing Yeri Han and Vanessa Kirby so much when I was watching these two movies, and it really made me wonder what the criteria is for the Oscars to nominate people. Both of these are very understated roles, but Yeri Han the way she emotes an entire dialogue without saying a word. That's what I wanted from Vanessa Kirby. I did not get that. And there were these moments in Minari where I was like, this is how I would react. And that's exactly how she reacted. And I was like, oh man, that's the first time that's ever happened! How does that performance not get nominated. Mon: Yeah, I'm really disappointed.

Ron: I think the problem is that we are very used to the ‘wife’ in films. Yeri Han took that and turned it into a role. And I think part of the reason why Steven Yeun has been nominated, not just on the strength of his own performance, but on the strength of Yeri Han’s. Because had she been terrible, nobody would have noticed what was happening with Steven Yeun. It's the same thing that I see with Killing Eve. The only reason why we keep focusing on how good Jodie Comer is, is because Sandra Oh is brilliant. But she never gets nominated, it's always Jodie Comer. I really, really wanted to love Vanessa Kirby's performance. I read so much about how much work she did. It just didn't come across to me.

So, moving on. Frances McDormand, Nomadland. Understated, but the right kind of understated.

Mon: The thing with Frances McDormand is that she's so effortless and natural in her roles that sometimes you think that's exactly who she is as a person. But no, she's acting, and I love that about these roles that she takes. And especially the one that she plays in Nomadland, I think, had she gone melodramatic or larger than life or the other opposite like super-emotional or something, we would not have believed this character and we would not have enjoyed the journey that we were on with her. It's the fact that she's very put-together, but she's also trying very hard to hold it together, and that comes across throughout in every scene. That's what makes it so powerful. That's what makes it so natural and immersive to watch, and it's no wonder that she's been nominated.

Ron: Yeah, I think if Frances McDormand hadn’t been nominated for Nomadland, that would have been a travesty. Again, talking about Pieces of a Woman, you can see how important direction can be for an actor. Because Frances McDormand’s understatedness could have become super-bland, had she not had the director paving her path. And that's why we get a really, really powerful performance in this film. I mean, she pretty much carries the whole thing. She could have a really good chance of winning this. Mon: Yeah, I think so too. Ron: So on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Carey Mulligan’s Promising Young Woman. This is a very different kind of performance, just in this category. She feels like this person that you don't want to hang out with for a multitude of reasons. I think we’ve seen Carey Mulligan in quite a few films, so this performance does stand out because it's very different from what she usually does. She's kind of like preppy, and peppy. That's not what you expect. She does a really good job, but there's also like so much tension in this one, which she manages to carry very, very well.

Mon: What I like about this film is that it throws you into the middle of this story. There's no preface, and it's important because the story structure is quite a novelty, and I like that. And because we're thrown into the middle of it, we learn more about her character throughout the film, which makes her performance even more captivating. Why is this person who is young and desirable, and honestly, should have the world at her feet, going around with such a sad frame of mind? Why is she carrying herself in this terribly dejected fashion? Well, we find out.

I would say that this performance isn't as understated as some of the others in both these categories. It definitely has its moment where somebody could have gone completely over the top, but it never does. Because a) the writing doesn't allow for it and, b) the role wouldn't work if we were on either spectrum of super-gleeful or super-emotional. It's really somebody who is carrying a hurt inside her that she cannot fix, and you really feel that.

The funny thing about this film is that you’re left feeling so sad by the end of it, because you really understand this kind of, almost this kind of depression, that this character is facing, and you really feel it through her performance. It's a surprisingly captivating performance despite not being the quintessential Oscar-baity kind of thing. I'm not sure she's gonna win though.

Ron: I wonder whether the Oscars will do something completely different and be like, in light of #MeToo, we're just going to give it to this film.

Mon: I didn’t think of that. It could be.

Ron: Like, it says a lot about why #MeToo even exists. So, who knows? I think this is a very tough category. Let's see what happens.

Mon: Yeah.

Ron: So, moving on to the supporting roles. For the men, we have Sacha Baron Cohen for The Trial of the Chicago Seven. Daniel Kaluuya for Judas and the Black Messiah. Leslie Odom Jr for One Night in Miami. Paul Raci from Sound of Metal. And bizarrely, LaKeith Stanfield for Judas and the Black Messiah, even though he's the lead role.

Mon: Yeah, I'm a bit surprised, as well.

Ron: Apparently, they did put his name forward for the lead role and for some reason the Oscars put him and Daniel Kaluuya in the same category.

Mon: Listen, people who have limited screen time have sometimes been in the lead role category, other people, who are pretty much carrying a film have ended up in the supporting category. I've never understood the Oscars and what the criteria for these things are. It's literally like Tic Tac Toe sometimes. I'm actually really disappointed that both Daniel and LaKeith are in the same category, because they are so, so strong. They really deserve to have been not competing against each other, and definitely should have been frontrunners in their own categories. I mean Kaluuya is brilliant, he's always brilliant.

Ron: He is particularly good as Fred Hampton. I was just like, wow this is insane.

Mon: Like, you feel the emotional core of the burden that he's carrying, but you're also like a little bit inspired, maybe even a little bit scared, by the power of his performance and the power of his stage presence. I feel like he was really passionate about this role, but he doesn't go over the top with it. I'm sure he did a lot of research on Fred Hampton and how he carried himself. But it doesn't come across as this very manufactured or artificial kind of performance. And it definitely doesn't feel like some kind of weird, reverential take on this character. Because sometimes, that's also a problem, especially when you're embodying somebody who was a real personality and a very important personality. Sometimes you feel like you should only look at the good things. No one was perfect. And so, you should always approach those people as human beings first, but also respect the legacy that they've left. And I think he does a good job with that.

Ron: Well the thing is that Daniel Kaluuya actually spent time with Fred Hampton’s wife to find out what his personality was from her perspective. Of course, there were tapes and things that he watched so that he could actually get the physicality of the character, and that's why I think that he is a frontrunner in this category. Because we've seen Daniel Kaluuya in a lot of things and the way he plays this person, you forget that it is Daniel Kaluuya. Like, he's done the kind of research that allows him to become a person without actually showing us that he's acting it.

Mon: Listen, I'm never going to forgive the Academy for ignoring his excellent performance in Widows. He was so good in that film. I don't know why this role made me think of him in Widows, but I think it's that intensity? He's brought a very similar kind of intensity and I'm glad this one has been recognized at least. I really hope it does walk off with the award because, yeah, this is too good.

Ron: Absolutely, I agree with that. LaKeith is the lead in this film. I still can’t understand what the Academy is thinking. He is so good in this performance. He is this tortured young man who is just taking it one day at a time because he has no clue what to do. He gets into one scrape after the other. He thinks he has an out, and it's not.

Mon: His character is between a rock and a hard place, and LaKeith plays that to the tee. Like you can really feel it, his desperation to be normal, his desperation to fit in, his desperation to get out, and you just really feel it.

Ron: The thing is that it's very difficult to play a role like this because a lot of people just think of him as the bad guy. But there are so many layers to even bad guys. And LaKeith does it really well. Like there are times when there are emotions on his face, and I'm just like, he's just told us so much. If he was nominated for this role any other year, he would have won this. But I really feel like it's going to be done Daniel Kaluuya’s year.

Mon: Yeah. I hope so, as compared to most of the others.

Ron: Let’s talk about Paul Raci in Sound of Metal.

Mon: This was a surprise, yeah?

Ron: It was. He has a very understated role. He kind of plays like a mentor, and it's almost easy for you to forget that this is a person acting a role in a film. But then there’s this one scene, which was so quietly done. I can imagine that same scene in movies being full of histrionics, and gestures, loud voices…

Mon: Standing up and waving!

Ron: And banging tables, right?

Mon: Right.

Ron: And Paul Raci just keeps the same tone, and it's like a dagger in your heart. I feel like the power of that scene, coupled with the fact that, up until that point we had seen the kind of person he was, that's the reason why he's in this category. Because the only reason why that scene works is because we spent all this time with him. We've heard his tone of voice, we know how he feels about the main character, about their community, and you know where he's coming from. So yeah, this is a surprise, but now when I think about it, it makes sense.

Mon: Agreed.

Ron: Sacha Baron Cohen in The Trial of the Chicago Seven.

Mon: I know that he did a lot of research on the person that he was playing.

Ron: Okay.

Mon: He was concerned about this character, because we’re talking about somebody who was a real-life personality and when we say personality, we mean a personality. I can see he’s trying. The problem is, I could not see anybody but Sasha Baron Cohen when I was watching the movie. It was Cohen with big hair. And that's all I could see. I could not see him being anybody else. Is it a direction problem, is it just the role? He was not the best thing that film had in it.

Compared to the other roles that we've seen, just in this category, it doesn't even reach like halfway there. And it's not for lack of trying. As I said, there's a lot of effort put into it. I've read that he did a lot of research, he watched the tapes, blah blah blah. He was concerned about it. His concerns were warranted.

Ron: I think that was my problem with this entire film. Everybody felt like they were acting. They were acting, very well, but they were acting. Just as you said, I couldn't get past the fact that I was watching Sacha Baron Cohen.

Mon: And especially when he's doing the stand up. It looks like it's Sacha Baron Cohen doing the stand-up and not Abbie Hoffman. And it's just such a problem.

Ron: It would be an unpleasant shock if he were to win.

Mon: I don't want him to win.

Ron: No.

Rounding off the category is Leslie Odom Jr. in One Night in Miami. Leslie Odom Jr plays Sam Cooke. I really liked his performance. I liked everybody’s performances in this movie. Everybody should have been nominated. This movie he should have been nominated. I’m angry that it wasn't but let's talk about Leslie Odom Jr.

Mon: That voice!

Ron: I know!

Mon: How can you argue when you have a voice like that?

Ron: Oh my gosh. He has such an amazing singing voice. And he uses it so well in this film.

Mon: That scene when he sings that song. We know this song, but still.

Ron: Oh my god.

Mon: And again, credit to the way the film is directed that it hits you so hard when he sings that song.

Ron: The Sam Cooke character that we get in this film, he's kind of bombarded with negativity. He's trying to do things a certain way, his friends don't quite agree with that, and you can understand where they're coming from, but you can also understand where he's coming from. We could have had the table-thumping, the standing up and making a statement. But what you get is the finger-pointing.

Mon: [laughs] And understated finger-pointing. Nobody raises their voices. And that's what I really liked about the performances in general. And, of course, it comes down to the direction, doesn't it? We could have had somebody who, because they're so passionate about their points of view, that they could have raised their voices, they could have been punching each other, hitting each other. There are a few moments like that, but they're also being civil because they are friends. And I think when you have that underlying foundation of the characters, then it changes how you come to that performance. And it really comes across in Odom Jr.

Ron: The other aspect of this film is that these people were not only real but they were pillars of the community. They changed the way America lived and breathed. That can get to your head. The fact that none of the performances were affected by that is testament to the actors. I think any of the actors could have easily been nominated. I'm happy that Leslie Odom Jr did get nominated because his performance relies so heavily on reacting to things around him, and it could have gone terribly wrong in another actor's hands. He manages to keep it together, and it ends up being so memorable. But I still think this category belongs to Daniel Kaluuya. Let's see what happens on the day, but that's what I think.

Mon: Agreed.

Ron: So, let's move on to Supporting Role (Female). We have Maria Bakalova from the sequel for Borat. Glenn Close in Hillbilly Elegy. Olivia Coleman in The Father. Amanda Seyfried in Mank. And Yuh-Jung Youn in Minari. I haven't seen two of the performances in this category so that's not going to help.

Mon: There's been a lot of love for Maria Bakalova. This is a comedic performance. The Oscars aren't huge on comedy, so that would be a surprise. Now with Glenn Close in Hillbilly Elegy, I have not seen this film, I have seen stills. She uglies it up, which means she's gonna win.

Ron: Really, you think so?

Mon: Yeah, absolutely. First of all, she's a veteran actor, she's already been nominated several times, she's a favorite among the Academy-goers. So, I'm just like this category is definitely gone.

Ron: I know the Academy really loves it when ladies ugly-up.

Mon: Yeah, because they don't give actual ugly ladies any roles. [laughs]

Ron: [laughs] Oh god, why is that so true?

Mon: Listen. This category is a tough one. You know why? Because I'm not convinced by most of these.

Ron: Yeah, this is true.

Mon: Olivia Colman? I mean come on, she just won for The Favorite, right? Okay, she's hamming it up. She's acting but it's really. Here, she's not doing much.

Ron: You see, this is my problem with everything to do with The Father. I did not feel like I was watching a person; I was watching Anthony Hopkins. I did not feel like I was watching his daughter; I felt like I was watching Olivia Coleman. How does that get nominated?

Mon: I don't have an answer to that. It's unconvincing.

Ron: And the same thing with Amanda Seyfried. Mank, anyway as a film, we had a lot of issues with it. I think Amanda Seyfried tried to do what she could with the role, but the entire time I was like, I'm watching Amanda Seyfried.

Mon: And also, it’s not something new, this kind of role, this kind of character. It's not something new. I think we just want something refreshing which, for the most part, the other categories have really captured. Seyfried in Mank is just…

Ron: Seyfried in Mank.

Mon: Yeah. I mean, I guess the only performance we’re really rooting for is Yuh-Jung Youn in Minari. Because she's so fun!

Ron: She is so great. I think it helps that the role is quite different. Like, you think of grandmothers in a particular kind of way, and she totally is not.

Mon: And that's the whole point. And that's what I really like because she sort of doubles down on being this unconventional grandmom, because ‘grandmom’ is not a category of humanity. She's a person.

Ron: I love how, when her grandchildren are like, what kind of grandmum are you, you can’t bake, you don't do this, you can’t do that and she's like, why does that make me not a grandmom? She just decides that she's going to be her version of a grandmum and if that means sitting down in front of the television and watching it, that's fine! But everybody just has to deal with it. I loved it! It was just such a natural and fun performance.

So, when things kinda go bad, you're so angry at the world, you're just like, please no, no, no, don't let this happen. She's such a wonderful person! And that's why I think she deserves to win because she got all my emotions going so much. As I said earlier, I am a sucker for a grandmum character, and she's so good. She put in an amazing performance that didn’t feel like a performance. I was like, this is my grandmum.

Mon: You’re right. Absolutely. Because how the grandmum is in the second half of the film as compared to the first half of the film, they're the same person, but you would not feel the impact of the second half, if you hadn't met her and gotten to know her in the first half. And again, that's down to the fact that we had this really powerful, but very natural, performance. It feels authentic, and that's the whole point of these awards, isn't it?

Ron: Yes.

Mon: It's to give it to the best people. Yuh-Jung Youn might just be the person.

Ron: She's our pick, for sure. I feel like Maria Bakalova just might win this.

Mon: Oh wow.

Ron: I think the Academy is trying to do things differently. They want to show that they're not, you know, staid, fuddy-duddies who only give serious films all the awards. So, they might be like, it's a comedy, let's give it to her. And also, there was all that stuff about Rudy Giuliani and stuff like that, which I think might just be a reason for them handing the award over to her.

Mon: Okay, that'd be really interesting to see.

Ron: Yeah. The two acting categories for ladies is really hard this time. I think the male categories are very obvious who the winner is. The ladies, no idea.

Mon: Don't prove us wrong.

Ron: Okay, so we just want to touch on directing and film editing. There is some overlap with the Best Picture category. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Mon: Honestly, I am so torn between Emerald Fennell and Chloe Zhao. This is the first year the Academy has given to women nominations for the directing category. Let's just remind you guys that this is the 93rd Academy Award. I think both those films are so accomplished, so different…

Ron: So necessary. Either one of them could win.

Mon: Yeah.

Ron: My concern is that because there are two ladies, they're going to be like, they're in a separate category, and the rest of the guys are in the category of their own.

Mon: And that's the default category, so we're actually going to only choose between the three of them. Yeah, I hope not. Because I feel like Chloe Zhao should get it simply because Nomadland actually deals with a topic that is very popular with American film goers, and she's given it a completely new veneer, which I like. So, maybe she is front runner for it.

Ron: I also feel like Nomadland is definitely very well accomplished. I say this because it's not a very easy film to make. They’re on the move; they’re showing these very different kinds of landscapes. We're also going into these very tight interiors. She managed to balance that out very well, while also giving the performances so much room to breathe.

For me my pick would actually be Nomadland.

Mon: Interesting.

Ron: Because Promising Young Woman, another very accomplished film. I think it has a very familiar narrative structure. There are some shots which, when I thought about later on, I was like, ‘it's interesting that she used that angle’, but Nomadland just feels very different.

Mon: The thing about Promising Young Woman, as excited as I am that it's been nominated for so many categories, especially in the directing category, it feels very commercial

Ron: Yes

Mon: And mainstream. Most of these Academy Award nominations are very artsy very indie, or at least they feel like that. So Promising Young Woman with the peppy vibe and the colors and stuff, I think might be too different for what the Academy really likes to think of as cinematic excellence.

Ron: That's a good point, and that might be a reason why it wins.

Mon: Oh, I hope so.

Ron: Yeah.

Mon: You know who I’m surprised is not on here—even though we're not the biggest fans of the film—The Father, directed by Florian Zeller. I am surprised Florian isn't here, you know why? Because, as I mentioned, cinematically, it has such brilliant technique that I'm surprised the Academy didn't recognize it. I mean one of the problems that we had with it was that it's so slick, which should have shoehorned it into this category, but it didn't.

Ron: But I think that's exactly what would have happened, it would have been shoehorned into this category. Because The Father didn't do anything that we haven't already seen a billion times before. I'm sorry, that's not a unique film at all. I'm glad it didn't get nominated.

Mon: I'm surprised that Minari has been nominated. Like Lee Isaac Chung, I would not have thought that he'd be here.

Ron: Why not? Mon: Well, it’s such a personal narrative. It's just so small.

Ron: Yeah.

Mon: The Academy just love something that is larger than life, even when it's something to do with farming, you know. There's no KKK running after these people, so, like, how did this film even get noticed by the Academy. I'm surprised. I'm surprised it's in any category, but the direction I'm really surprised.

Ron: I'm trying to give the Academy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they're realizing that they've been kind of in one direction this whole time. So we're getting to see people like Emerald Fennell and Chloe Zhao and Lee Isaac Chung actually get nominated for these amazing accomplishments.

Mon: And these varied films.

Ron: Exactly. I think that Minari actually works so well because the direction is really good. He keeps it small. He doesn't aim for something too huge. We just follow this family. And that's why the final product is so good.

One thing I've never understood about the Academy, ever since their changed the Best Picture nomination number to 10, I don't know why the director category hasn't followed suit. It doesn't make any sense to me. Having said that, I am so glad that it's Minari, Nomadland and Promising Young Woman that ended up in this category. They deserve it. As far as I'm concerned, this category is between these three. These are the most innovative films in this category.

Mon: Which is exactly why David Fincher for Mank will win.

Ron: Don’t say that.

Mon: I’m sorry but we know that Hollywood loves films about Hollywood; the Academy loves to recognize films about Hollywood. This is a passion project, it's about a very controversial, personal story that many Academy Award board members are going to feel like it resonates with them...

Ron: Because they were there at the same time.

Mon: You're probably not wrong. I don't actually have any hope for anybody else in this category, I'm sorry, it's true.

Ron: But even amongst David Fincher’s work, this is not a good film.

Mon: Yeah, but tell the Academy that.

Ron: It’s so… blah. The shots are so blah. Everything we see in Mank you've seen a million times before.

Mon: I agree with you. It feels like it’s trying to be of the time that it is portraying, but at the same time, it never looks like it. Just putting a black and white filter on your film, and using the same shots that Orson Welles would have used does not make your film innovative and new.

But we just have to resign ourselves to the truth. Fincher is considered an auteur. So, he's likely to win.

Ron: As far as I'm concerned, auteurs are basically people who do the same thing over and over again. And that's what Mank feels like. You know who I would have really loved to see in this category? Regina King. I was watching One Night in Miami and the entire time I was like, “why didn't this get nominated?” It's not just the shots. It's the way she portrayed the story to us. And this is her first time directing a feature film, it doesn't feel like it. Honestly, I feel like this was the year that you should have been nominating all these people. Why is David Fincher here? I just don't think even in David Fincher’s oeuvre, Mank is not his best work.

Mon: Yeah, the only thing is with One Night in Miami, it's technically very brilliant, especially for a first-time director, but it does feel like a first-time director’s work. There is a safety in how it is created.

That being said, at least it doesn't feel like a play, which is what it's based on. But compared to the others which are nominated, I can see why Regina King was overlooked. Though the film really should have made it to the Best Pictures noms, at least.

Ron: So, Another Round by Thomas Vinterberg. See, this is the thing; how has he been nominated for directing, but his movie was not deemed good enough to be nominated for Best Picture? What is the criteria? Honestly, I just don't understand what is happening!

Because when I watch this film, it's actually very uncomfortable to watch because there's so much shakey cam.

Mon: Oh!

Ron: And I was just like, I know you're trying to set the mood that there's a lot of drinking happening here, but it's just making me feel disoriented, so I'm not enjoying this experience. I don't think he was doing anything that different. In my opinion, it is between Minari, Nomadland and Promising Young Woman because those three are the ones that really stand out in this category. And as far as I'm concerned Minari and Nomadland actually do something completely different. They are the innovators. I'm hoping for Chloe Zhao to win because Nomadland really stood out to me.

Mon: Let's quickly go over editing. This is a tough category to really understand from a lay person's point of view.

Ron: Yeah.

Mon: Because when editing is done well, you will not notice it.

Ron: Which is making me question so many entries in this editing category. Because The Father has editing that is so obvious.

Mon: I agree with you on that.

Ron: I was like, oh look, here's a cut. Oh look, here's a camera change. How is this nominated for film editing? That way, again, Nomadland, edited by Chloe Zhao—who did pretty much everything in this film, oh my gosh, how did she do it—has such good editing, because you don't notice it.

Mon: Yeah, you are on this journey with this character. You feel the land that she is traversing, you get to know the characters that she is meeting.

Ron: You feel that claustrophobia in her trailer, and how it differs from everything that’s happening around her. It's just such good editing because you don't notice anything. It's just an experience.

Mon: Yeah, there's like this moment where Frances McDormand’s character is like a few yards away from her nearest neighbor, who's also in a van, and she sees her neighbor put up a flag. And we don't really understand the significance of that flag till a few scenes later when Frances McDormand needs help and she’s knocking on this person’s door, and her neighbor goes, “didn’t you see the sign?”. You you realize the flag is basically supposed to say do not disturb. And I think that's where editing and direction comes in, because anywhere else you would be told, it would be signposted that yes, this flag is going up because she does not want to be disturbed, go away now. But here it’s backwards, and it's important for us to feel that way because the character may not have known what the flag is about. And we're in her shoes. That's the whole point. And that again addresses why this film has got as many nominations as it has. And why probably it should win.

Ron: Absolutely.

We also have Promising Young Woman here. I think the editing here is pretty commercial, it's not very different. It serves the purpose of narrating the story. So, in that sense, it's pretty technically sound.

Mon: Well, I think there's one scene which has won it the film editing nomination. We can't talk about it but in the hands of any other director, especially a male director, we would have seen that scene in a completely different way.

Ron: I actually think there are two things that have made it, editing-wise, so powerful. And the reason why it's been nominated. And in that scene, I think a lot of directors would have chosen to maybe cut. But here, the director gave her actors so much leeway to play out the scene that the editing, you don't notice it.

Mon: On the basis of just that scene that you just mentioned, I feel like this film should definitely sweep this award. Honestly, the power of that scene really comes across in the use of camera cuts, or the lack thereof.

Ron: Exactly. And that is actually one of the reasons why Promising Young Woman really works, because it knows when not to cut.

Sound of Metal.

Mon: I am truly surprised that it's in the film editing category. Are you?

Ron: I'm glad that it is, I think sound editing, it did a really great job, but I think it's really easy to focus on that aspect of the film, and forget that the actual film editing also makes the story and the sound more important. I'm going to compare it to Another Round where the editing is so jarring. And so obviously edited. I'm glad it's not in this category, but Sound of Metal doesn't do that. It moves the camera away and it cuts at certain points where the audience needs that extra information. I think the way it's edited works for this film, I don't think it's the kind of style that would work for everything else, but because it fits so well with this narrative, I think that's why it's been nominated.

Mon: Yeah, because I think with the film editing, as well as the sound editing, both of them combined, it helps you walk in the shoes of this character, which as you say, is only possible when it's a very personal, individual story like it is with Sound of Metal. I'm kind of glad it's got some technical noms. If nothing else, because we know it's a real long shot for the Best Picture award winner. It could get the technical awards.

What is the Trial of the Chicago 7 doing here?

Ron: I don't know.

Mon: I spent most of that film wondering where the sightlines were.

Ron: Yes.

Mon: Right?

Ron: Yeah.

Mon: There’s this scene where somebody is walking up a flag and the character is looking to the left, but the flag is in the center, and I'm like, “where are you standing?”

Ron: The sightlines weren’t the only problem. We have a chunk of this film taking place in a courtroom, and it felt like I was watching Law and Order. So what is the innovation here? Why has it been nominated?

You know what should have been nominated in both the directing and editing categories? Birds of Prey. Okay, look, we love this movie so we are a bit biased. But Cathy Yan did an amazing job. She should definitely have been in the directing category, and the editing the scene in Gotham PD, come on.

Mon: Well, there are two major reasons why Birds of Prey didn't get any nominations, though, I really feel like it should have. First of all, it's a very comic book-y film, and also structurally, the story is very nonlinear.

Ron: Let us put it out there that Suicide Squad won an Oscar.

Mon: I am currently speechless.

Ron: So, who do you think is going to win this? Honestly, I want Chloe Zhao to get everything.

Mon: Yeah, but I think The Father is going to win.

Ron: I think that would be a mistake.

Mon: It's going to happen.

Ron: So we're going to round off with the screenplay categories. In the adapted section we have the Borat sequel—please don’t make me say the whole name—The Father, Nomadland, One Night in Miami and The The White Tiger.

Mon: We haven't seen the Borat film so we cannot attest to its merits. This is a tough category.

Ron: Ok, so we have two films that are based on plays, The Father and One Night in Miami. I think that we’re both of the same mind that One Night in Miami is definitely superior as an adaptation of a play. The Father feels like a play on film. One Night in Miami feels like a film. So, if it's between those two, it should be One Night in Miami.

Mon: You're going to root for Nomadland, aren't you?

Ron: I am but I have to say, The The White Tiger was a really good adaptation. I thought that was a solid, solid screenplay. I'm actually really annoyed that it didn't get nominated in anything else. As far as I'm concerned, it should have been up for directing, it should have been up for Best Picture, it should have been up for Best Actor. How do these things not happen? I don't understand what the Academy does, really. Like, what is everybody sitting there doing?

Mon: Dude, the fact that a film based in India with Indian actors even got nominated for anything, is like a surprise—in a good way, I guess. It's a film that looks at the poverty and the caste system in India, without actually sensationalizing it or making it completely the norm. There are different kinds of Indians that you will meet in India, as we see in this film. And I'm just surprised that the Academy noticed that.

Ron: You know what irritates me? Slumdog Millionaire won everything, when it was a bad film. And it portrayed India in a really condescending light.

Mon: And considering it was based on a book which was hard-hitting, spoke about the issues that we face in India all the time, but had this sort of fun vibe to it, and Slumdog Millionaire was just an atrocity, as far as I'm concerned.

With The White Tiger, I was very resistant to watching it.

Ron: Me too.

Mon: But yes, while it does portray the abject poverty of sections of society—and it is a little bit scary how people on both sides can treat each other—it also has this updated 21st century mentality that we haven't seen in portrayals of India in Hollywood for a while.

Ron: This was a really good film. I am really irritated that it hasn't got the recognition that it has. I mean, Ava DuVernay was a producer on this, so… But what I loved about The White Tiger was that it didn't coast on the name Ava DuVernay. Everybody else put a lot of work into it.

Mon: And it also didn’t gratuitously show us, you know, the disgusting aspects of India. It also shows you the grandeur that is Delhi and Bangalore, while telling you that yes, there are people living in villages in absolute squalor.

Ron: But what I liked is that doesn't keep throwing that squalor in your face, because people live there. For heaven's sake, you can't just keep saying, “oh my god it's so disgusting”. No, no, this is how people live.

Mon: Respect that.

Ron: Exactly. So I'm irritated, but I really hope that it wins this category.

Mon: Yeah that would be nice, right?

Ron: Yes, I am rooting for Nomadland.

Mon: Why am I not surprised?

Ron: But I would happily let Ramin Bahrani win this for The White Tiger.

So, original screenplay. We have Judas and the Black Messiah, Minari, Promising Young Woman, Sound of Metal and Trial of the Chicago 7. One of these things is not like the others.

Mon: [Laughs]

Ron: I'm sorry, the fact that Aaron Sorkin continues to get recognized and nominated for his writing when he is a bad writer, just drives me up the wall.

Mon: It's sometimes hard to differentiate between entertaining writing, and good writing.

Ron: But is he even entertaining?

Mon: Some people find that banter entertaining.

Is this the subject matter that deserves this kind of banter, this kind of writing? No it doesn't. It requires a deft hand, it requires a respectful hand and we have mentioned this several times and we've talked about this, which is that it does not respect the horrible situation that the people in it were facing.

Ron: It should definitely not win this category.

Mon: It will win this category.

Ron: Oh gosh, your cynicism. I believe that the Academy is going to do things differently.

Mon: I'm a pragmatist and I don't believe that.

Ron: Parasite won last year. Parasite was the best film among all the nominees. There were a lot of other films that should have been nominated, we always are going to be angry about that, but Academy actually recognized how good Parasite was, and it gave it the awards that it deserved. Maybe, maybe, this is the change that we are seeing. And Trial of the Chicago 7, even though it's been nominated to make a certain group of people happy, it won't actually win.

Mon: Well, we will find out.

I think Judas and the Black Messiah has a really good chance here. I think partly because of Daniel Kaluuya’s performance and the fact that Best Picture should kind of belong to it. It just has a really strong story.

Mon: Yeah.

Ron: I know you had issues with the second act; I didn't have that. I feel like it managed to balance these really big, larger than life characters with a story that had you guessing. It was packed full of characters, like, it's very much the opposite of Sound of Metal and Minari which has very small pockets of characters. But Judas and the Black Messiah is much more sweeping, so many people and every single person matters, every single story within the story matters. And cohesively as a whole, the film works because the writing is so strong as well.

Mon: I 100% agree with you on that. I will say that when you Algee Smith men in a role, you give me more of him on screen.

Ron: [Laughing] Ok.

So, Minari.

Mon: I want this one to win.

Ron: Me too.

Mon: Because it's a very simple story. We discussed this when we talked about the film in the Best Picture category, there is a universality to the events of this film that reflects many of our journeys. And I think that's the power of this writing; you can kind of see yourself in different ways. You can see yourself in different characters from the kid to the grandma, right?

And I feel like sometimes the Academy does like these personal stories about the American Dream, which honestly Minari is doing in spades.

Ron: I also feel like the reason why Minari you could win this category is because, you know what I was saying about Pieces of a Woman and how it adds things to make it bigger than it really is. Minari never does that, it’s contained to this one family because even little things can seem big when it's your life and it's people who you love, and that's what a great story, that's what a great writer, does. So yeah, I think it might just win this category as well.

Mon: Well, I think it's funny that you mentioned that things are huge and important when it's somebody that you love, because that ties into Promising Young Woman.

Ron: I mean that entire film is about doing something for somebody that you love, and everything that they felt is amplified because of how you feel about them. But nobody else around you can even imagine it because it doesn't bother them. That person has nothing to do with them.

And I think that's why the writing in this film is quite strong, because it's through the lens of this one character. Of course, the performance that Carey Mulligan puts in does amplify just how terrible she is feeling, just how strong this loss is for her in comparison to how everybody else is actually reacting to it.

And it’s a really strong story because that tension, it’s not just well conveyed on the screen, it had to be there on the page.

It does help that the writing and directing is done by the same person. I think this year we've seen that quite a lot, even with Chloe Zhao, she did the producing, writing, editing, and directing for her film, Nomadland which is a really really accomplished, really powerful, cohesive and memorable product.

Nomadland is not the kind of movie that you and I would watch, and maybe not even enjoy it but this one, my god. And the same thing with Promising Young Woman, she wrote it, directed it, produced it, and you can see the final product.

Mon: It's the ability to translate exactly how you feel on the page to the screen. And I think so often you see that divide because the person who directs a movie, sometimes isn't in sync with the person who wrote it, and that really undercuts important subject matters.

Ron: This is my problem with Pieces of a Woman, and that's why Vanessa Kirby's performance, it's not that good. It just doesn't work because the people around her weren't working together, though I don't know why.

Mon: I'm partial to Promising Young Woman winning as well, because it's a topical issue, and it's well written, it's entertaining in a very scary fashion.

Ron: Exactly. I mean this is a suspense thriller about a topic that a lot of people have had to deal with, but it comes across as a film that is also entertaining, so it's actually a good one for this category.

So finally Sound of Metal.

Mon: This one surprised me.

Rob: The writing for Sound of Metal feels just like a person's story like they're going day by day. That can actually be really hard to write. Again like Minari, this doesn't try too hard, it doesn't go too far, it knows what its aim is, and it stays within that scope. I think the problem with things like The Trial of the Chicago Seven is that the scope was so huge that the final product is, well, it's just not very good, and it doesn't do justice to the characters, or the narrative.

Sound of Metal is exactly the opposite. It takes this one person, his journey, and it just runs with it. And the other thing is that, a lot of films feel like, you know, we shouldn’t be linear because that's cliched or it's been done. But Sound of Metal works so well because of its linear narrative; it doesn't keep going back and forth. You are taking this journey with this person. So yeah, I think it has a pretty good chance as well.

So, I think we want four of these films to win. [laughs] And we don’t care about Aaron Sorkin. I would say the Academy is trying. We have unexpected entries this year in the major categories, which is exciting. The diversity is there. There's room for so much more. But I think one of the biggest problems that the Academy has had this year is by trying to play it safe with certain choices. My hope is that the Academy voters will see the innovation of films like Judas and the Black Messiah, Minari, Promising Young Woman, Nomadland. Sound of Metal and really begin to usher in a whole different way of filmmaking, because we can't be something if we can't see it. We've seen it with Parasite, are we going to see it this year?

Who do you think should win these categories at the Academy Awards 2021? We'd love to hear from you.

You can find us on Twitter @Stereo_Geeks. Or send us an email [email protected]. We hope you enjoyed this episode. And see you next week!

Mon: The Stereo Geeks logo was created using Canva. The music for our podcast comes courtesy Audionautix.

[Continuum by Audionautix plays]

Transcription by Otter.ai, Ron, and Mon.