Oscar - Main Categories

Best Picture:

This is an epic discussion. For once, it really will be a nail biter on Oscar night. Okay, it will probably be Argo, but I can't help hoping.

My full best picture breakdown will follow soon.

Best Director:

Michael Haneke - Amour
Ang Lee - Life of Pi
David O'Russell - Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg - Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin - Beasts of the Southern Wild

Anyone's guess. Had Ben Affleck nominated, he'd be your man, scooping up gold with Argo's unstoppable winning streak. Then again, had Ben Affleck nominated, he'd be the frontrunner, not the underdog, and his film arguably wouldn't be enjoying such an unstoppable winning streak. But then again, who knows? Even the British and the French awarded Argo over the other brilliant American films of 2012. Affleck being outside the race as he is, Best Director is wide open.

Let's presume Benh Zeitlin is the contender that's just happy to be there for his micro budget, breathtaking Beasts of the Southern Wild. That's one down.

David O'Russell seems the most lightweight contender, but his film has a fanatic support base that takes his quirky mental illness rom com very seriously indeed. It was fairly rapturously received by the Academy with not just nominations in the big four - Picture, Director, Editing and Screenplay - but every one of the four acting categories as well. His film is a strong contender for Best Actress and Supporting Actor and remains an outside threat for Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture - so a Best Director win is not out of the question. What he has going for him, other than an extremely popular film, is that, unlike Spielberg and Ang Lee, he has never won an Oscar and, unlike Haneke and Zeitlin, everybody knows and, surprisingly (given his notorious fallouts with Lily Tomlin and George Clooney), likes him. There could be a perception that he is due after not winning for The Fighter. What he has working against him is that every other director deserves it more. I just can't see Kathryn Bigelow being snubbed and David O'Russell winning. But stranger things have happened.

That leaves three distinguished directors at the top of their game: Spielberg, Ang Lee and Michael Haneke. Haneke would be the art house pick. He is a first-time contender with a respectable, distinct filmography whose film was a surprise hit with the Academy. His leading lady is a big threat to win Best Actress and he is all but guaranteed to win Best Foreign Language Film. There is no Oscar precedent for a Foreign Language Film actually winning Best Director (although they were fond of nominating Federico Fellini in the 60s and 70s), presumably cause it's hard to really notice the directing when you have to read all those damn words at the bottom of the screen. Technically The Artist was a french film, but not a language one, so it doesn't count. Haneke's films are also known to be cold and, while Amour isn't, it is uber sad, in a very detached, realistic way. 

Which leaves the more likely Steven Spielberg and Ang Lee. The Academy adored their films, adorning them with 12 and 11 nominations respectively. Both directors are previous winners who have lost Best Picture in legendary upsets. Both are also respected enough to warrant additional directing Oscars on their mantelpiece. With Argo the de facto Best Picture winner, however, both men would be winning detached Directing Oscars for the second time in their careers (Spielberg won Best Director for Saving Private Ryan when Shakespeare in Love took Best Picture, and Lee won Best Director for Brokeback Mountain while - shudder - Crash took Best Picture), which would be a curious distinction.

I favour Ang Lee for two reasons:

1. Spielberg has two previous wins - for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. If the Academy is going to give him a third Director gong, it will be because they love Lincoln. And if they love Lincoln that much, it would win Best Picture as well. But given the Argo situation, that won't be happening, so I just don't see Lincoln winning an isolated Director Oscar. That is weird logic, I know, but there it is.
2. Ang Lee has only one previous win, and it makes more sense for Life of Pi to win an isolated directing Oscar. Though it feels just a slight touch too lightweight to win Best Picture, it is an undeniable director's accomplishment - Lee balances epic spectacle with nuanced spiritual metaphors and gentle emotions and pulls off both with aplomb. His film is already likely to win 3 to 5 technical Oscars; adding Best Director to the list seems as plausible as anything, to me anyway.

Will win: Ang Lee

Should win: In this list? Probably Spielberg.

Could win: Michael Haneke

Best Actor:

Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
Denzel Washington - Flight

Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper are Box Office stars making good as legit Oscar Contenders, and are sure to secure good ratings for the Oscars Telecast. But neither hold a candle to Daniel Day-Lewis' landmark performance. That doesn't mean Bradley Cooper can't win. But I don't want to think about that. So let's move on.

Denzel Washington is a hugely accomplished actor turning in a great character study as a brilliant but reckless pilot struggling to face up to his alcoholism. In another year, he would be a strong contender to win. But even Denzel boozer redemption can't beat Daniel-Day Lewis channeling Abraham Lincoln.

Joaquin Phoenix is a sadly unpopular actor turning in a blazingly brilliant performance in a sadly unpopular film. His against-the-odds nomination (which should have been a slam dunk Day-Lewis threatener) is a testimony to the power of his performance, but sadly he's not currently likeable enough to give ol' Dan a run for his money.

Daniel Day-Lewis loses himself in his nuanced, gentle, funny, inspiring, unsentimental, intimate performance as probably America's greatest president since Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet. Even though this will be the THIRD Golden man Day-Lewis takes home (and remember how nearly he won for Gangs of New York), it seems nothing but logical to give him the prize. And although he has enjoyed a practically unbeaten winning streak so far, his win will still feel like a triumph rather than a bore. There is more than enough unpredictability elsewhere.

Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Could win: Bradley Cooper Daniel Day-Lewis

Best Actress:

Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Quvenzhane Wallis - Beasts of the Southern Wild
Naomi Watts - The Impossible

An 85-year-old french woman, an indomitable 9-year-old, a bizarrely underappreciated Australian thesp and two rapidly rising stars battle it out for Best Actress.

Both Naomi Watts - as a real life Tsunami survivor and mother hanging on to life by a thread - and Jessica Chastain - transforming from a delicate, driven CIA operative to a fierce, relentless terrorist catcher over the span of ten years - should be strong contenders for the prize: Watts has been overlooked for years and Chastain has made herself impossible to ignore in the space of just 48 months.

Let's face it, though - Best Actress is now a two-horse race between the irresistible Jennifer Lawrence and the brilliant Emmanuelle Riva. With dozens of Critics awards to her name, a Golden Globe and the influential endorsement of the Screen Actors Guild, Lawrence has the clear edge to win for breathing new, unpredictable life and captivating energy into Tiffany, a typical tramp with a heart of gold. She's extremely funny, she's constantly surprising, and her emotional beats are genuinely touching. To add to that, Lawrence is young, hot, hard working and almost bizarrely level-headed (she took her parents to the SAG awards). She also owned the Box Office this year, headlining the Hunger Games franchise with another strong performance. Being likeable and owning the Box Office is a trick that worked wonders for Sandra Bullock just three ominous years ago, and Lawrence gives a better performance, although she has less industry cred. It also doesn't hurt having Harvey Weinstein backing your campaign.

But Emmanuelle Riva has an ace up her sleeve - simply the most breathtaking female performance of the year. She's been surprisingly overlooked in the awards race - sidelined by the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild in favour of hotter Frenchy Marion Cotillard - but those that have had the good sense to nominate her have also been smart enougn to let her win (with the exception of the Critics Choice Awards, who went with Jessica Chastain). The BAFTAs signalled her first victory directly against Lawrence and, sadly, she wasn't there to make an acceptance speech (a good speech does wonders for a campaign, and Lawrence gives great speeches). But BAFTA upsets are known for creating Oscar prescendents (see Marion Cotillard finally getting the edge over the great Julie Christie in 2008 or The Pianist suddenly becoming a real contender after winning big at the BAFTAs in 2003). The Oscars were one of the few awards bodies outside Europe to generously appreciate Amour with five nominations, so presumably enough Academy members actually saw Amour to know that no-one deserves it more than Riva. If they need more convincing, someone should mention that, if she wins, it will be on her 86th birthday and she will be handed the award by hugely charming frenchman Jean Dujardin. That's a better morning after story than Lawrence peaking at 22.

Will win: Emmanuelle Riva (I know I am voting against the odds, but what's the use of predicting the obvious?)
Should win: Emmanuelle Riva
Could win: Jennifer Lawrence


Best Supporting Actor:

Alan Arkin - Argo
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Christoph Waltz - Django Unchained

Not since 1995 has this category been so hard to predict. That year, Brad Pitt had won the Golden Globe (12 Monkeys), Ed Harris the Screen Actors Guild (Apollo 13), Tim Roth the BAFTA (Rob Roy) and they all contended for the Oscar, which Kevin Spacey won (for his legendary performance in The Usual Suspects). The Academy made the right call and, to be fair, it was a plausible call after Spacey's good run with the Critics Awards.

This year, Christoph Waltz has the Golden Globe and the BAFTA, Tommy Lee Jones has the Screen Actors Guild, Phillip Seymour Hoffman won the Critics Choice, but nothing else, and is the only contender whose film isn't in the Best Picture race. Alan Arkin and Robert De Niro have no big wins (De Niro even lost the Golden Satellite, where Silver Linings Playbook cleaned out), but Arkin is the only acting nominee from the De Facto Best Picture frontrunner (and Screen Actors Guild ensemble winner) and De Niro is an Oscar veteren in a hugely popular film with more acting nominations than anything else.

For the first time in Oscar history, there is not a single first-time Oscar nominee among the Supporting Actor contenders, and - to up the stakes - each of these men have an Oscar on their mantelpiece already. Which makes for an interesting race.

Alan Arkin & Christoph Waltz are the most recent winners and, arguably, don't stray far from their previous winning roles. Waltz bested the strongly buzzed Leonardo DiCaprio to a supporting nod for Django, and it's easy to see why - he is the only sustainably likeable character in the film and has all the best dialogue (and he sure knows how to deliver Tarantino dialogue). He's brilliant, but his work is more subtle than in Inglorious Basterds and giving him another award for another Tarantino film so soon may feel like overkill. Arkin, on the other hand, has a tiny part in Argo, but all the best lines. He is reliably cranky and funny as a jaded Hollywood Producer and aces all his scenes, but he won just six years ago as the cranky, funny grandpa in Little Miss Sunshine, and he lacks the tender moments in Argo that he had in Little Miss Sunshine. The only reason to think he could win is that Argo is winning everything.



Hoffman is the only one in the bunch never to have won Supporting Actor, which seems an odd distinction to make since he did win Best Actor for Capote but, given that he is one of the most reliably brilliant and brilliantly reliable supporting actors in Hollywood, it seems only fair that he should have a Supporting Actor gong to go with his Capote gong. And there's no doubt he is deserving - his complex performance as a charismatic cult leader struggling to conceal - and deny - his own flaws and insecurities is easily the best in the category (although to be fair it is actually a lead performance). Sadly his film wasn't particularly embraced by the Academy and he feels destined to be an also-ran.

Tommy Lee Jones and Robert De Niro are probably the easiest to imagine as winners. The case for each of them:

Robert De Niro has been absent from the Oscar race for a good 21 years. And with good reason. The legendary actor has been making the worst movies of his career, one after the other. That he redeems himself in Playbook is significant, and welcome, but he hardly stretches himself far from the cantankerous father he played in the Meet the Parents movies. That being said, this is a strong supporting part, even if it doesn't live up to De Niro's best work (little could). He plays a difficult, superstitious OCD gambler, husband and father. His mental illness, unlike the cute, quirky variety afflicting Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, is genuinely unpleasant at times, and affords De Niro some good screen rants. More significantly, he also has tender moments with Bradley Cooper, even shedding a few tears, which are probably the bits that will earn him the win. He has won no prizes for this part, but Silver Linings Playbook is a hugely popular film, and De Niro is an Oscar legend who has been doing some solid campaigning. He hasn't won since 1981. A third Oscar seems plausible.

Tommy Lee Jones is great fun as the grumpy (seems to be a bit of a trend this year), acerbic Thaddeus Stevens, forced to publicly compromise his strong ideals to see his cause succeed. It's a meaty performance with some great lines, plenty of good laughs and a significant chunk of the film's climax. His sourpuss demeanour at the Golden Globes earned him momentary grumpy cat meme status, and he didn't show up to collect his award from the Screen Actors Guild. He doesn't seem too interested in campaigning for the award, which shouldn't make a difference but does. So who knows how this will turn out for him. If Lincoln does well, he'd be unstoppable, but that seems unlikely. He also turned in a strong performance opposite Meryl Streep in Hope Springs, which could count in his favour. He won supporting actor for The Fugitive in 1994 and was nominated once, for Lead Actor for In the Valley of Elah, since.

Will win: Robert De Niro

Should win: Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Could win: Tommy Lee Jones

Best Supporting Actress:

Amy Adams - The Master
Sally Field - Lincoln
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
Jacki Weaver - Silver Linings Playbook

Amy Adams is unsettlingly creepy as the devoted wife and disciple of Seymour Hoffman's cult leader - who may or may not be aware of the extraordinary power she wields over him; Sally Field redeems Mary Todd Lincoln from the footnotes of history, playing her in multiple shades of intelligence, social awareness, vigor, intelligence, obsession, barely suppressed hysteria and madness; Helen Hunt is brave, warm, honest and mostly nude as a compassionate sex surrogate (note, not a prostitute) and Jacki Weaver is the most lovable mother of the year, making crabby snacks and home mades as she quietly keeps her family of crazies together.

But Anne Hathaway has owned this Oscar from the moment the first Les Mis trailer showed her singing I Dreamed a Dream, with a shaved head, waning hope and plentiful supply of bitter tears. Her live singing, single take, close up performance of the song has almost become a cliché, but that shouldn't detract from the sheer power and force of her performance. It's a tricky thing to pull off and Hathaway is intensely mesmerising as she gives herself completely to the part she saw her mother perform on stage as a little girl. Tragic prostitute with a heart of gold who sings? No competition.

Will win: Anne Hathaway
Should win: Arguably, Sally Field
Could win: Highly unlikely, Sally Field

Best Original Screenplay:

Wes Anderson & Roman Coppolla - Moonrise Kingdom
Mark Boal - Zero Dark Thirty
John Gatins - Flight
Michael Haneke - Amour
Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

Mark Boal may have won in 2010 for The Hurt Locker, but there's no one who deserves it more this year. His painstakingly, and controversially, researched procedural of the hunt for Bin Laden is nothing short of masterful. But sadly his film has suffered badly from the controversy surrounding it's depiction of torture. His recent win from the Writer's Guild may or may not have redeemed in but, sadly, Boal is not currently the frontrunner he should be.

John Gatins, an open former alcoholic, presumably poured much of his heart and soul into the story of a heroic pilot struggling to come to terms with his alcoholism. It's a strong character piece but likely not enough to wipe out the competition - where he goes up against three Best Picture nominees.

Wes Anderson is back in the Original Screenplay race, this time with Roman Coppolla, and his tale of troubled pre-teen lovers fleeing their small town angst is as tender as it is unpredictable. It's got all the usual Anderson trademarks - precocious children, emotionally stunted grown ups, random activities for Bill Murray - but touches on something enigmatically poignant.

Michael Haneke wrote and directed a spare, ferociously unsentimental portrait of a loving, complex elderly couple facing the realities of physical decay and death. It's a downer, but a touching one, and it has a lovely circular structure that echoes the way we tend to end life the same way we started.  

Which just leaves Tarantino's anarchic, post-modern take on American slavery. It's a conversation-starter, I'll give it that, and its red hot anger at America's sordid, lingering, past is seductive, but it's not the best Tarantino effort - it's overlong, indulgent and morally unsettling. From the film's opening scene it is clear that there is no moral higher ground here; in Tarantino'd bloodthirsty world the oppressed, given the chance, gleefully turn as sadistic and inhuman as their oppressors. That belies the phenomenal, unwarranted restraint with which Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela demanded rights for black citizens in America and South Africa respectively. But, you know, it's bold and it's funny and Tarantino lost to Mark Boal in 2010. Though this is a far less sophisticated script than Inglorious Basterds, conventional wisdom says the Oscar is Tarantino's to lose. I'm not convinced he won't, though. I just don't know who they're likely to prefer.

Will win: Mark Boal (again, I am voting against logic here)
Should win: Mark Boal
Could win: Michael Haneke

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Tony Kushner - Lincoln
David Magee - Life of Pi
David O'Russell - Silver Linings Playbook
Chris Terrio - Argo
Benh Zeitlin & Lucy Alibar - Beasts of the Southern Wild


This one should be Tony Kushner's to lose - his detailed, thoughtful account of Lincoln's struggle to get slavery abolished in a country that didn't want to let it go is both a fascinating window on an amazing man and a time and place. Based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's definitive biography on Lincoln, Kushner's gorgeous dialogue illuminates ideas and dilemmas we should would do well to keep discussing today. It's a detailed labour of love that should easily win, but sadly there is the matter of:

Argo keeps winning everything. The Academy might resist the trend and vote otherwise, but groupthink is a powerful thing - if everyone else thinks something is that good, there must be something to it. There's nothing wrong with Chris Terrio's script. It's a near-perfect thriller blended with an unlikely Hollywood farce and it all happens to be true. Personally, the resolution was a bit too tidy for my liking, but it's good writing nonetheless. Doesn't mean it's the best, though.

David O'Russell is a big potential upset here, as he's made no secret of why he adapted Matthew Quick's novel - to make his son, who himself suffers from mental illness, feel like he has a place in the world. And it's a beguiling backstory that's hard to resist. It even makes you forget that this is basically an upgraded romantic comedy. But I guess there's nothing wrong with a good romantic comedy. Especially if it gives people hope.

David Magee beautifully distilled Yann Mantell's sleeper hit literary novel, and Benh Zeitlin crafted the most poetic script of the year from Lucy Alibar's play. But this is a three-way race:

Will win: Chris Terrio
Should win: Tony Kushner
Could win: David O'Russell

Best Editing:

William Goldenberg - Argo
Michael Kahn - Lincoln
Tim Squyres - Life of Pi
Jay Cassidy & Crispin Struthers - Silver Linings Playook
William Goldenberg & Dylan Tichenor - Zero Dark Thirty

I include Editing as a Main Category, rather than a technical one, as it so often has a direct bearing on the directing, and therefore the Best Picture, race.

William Goldenberg is a double nominee. Zero Dark Thirty is the film he should win for, Argo is the film he will win for. Simple as that. (Barring Lincoln, Life of Pi or Silver Linings Playbook taking over the Best Picture race).

Will win: William Goldernberg (Argo)
Should win: William Goldenberg & Dylan Tichenor (Zero Dark Thirty) 
Could win: Jay Cassidy & Crispin Struthers (Silver Linings Playook)

Oscar Technical Categories

Cinematography:

Roger Deakins - Skyfall
Janusz Kaminski - Lincoln
Seamus McGarvey - Anna Karenina
Claudio Miranda - Life of Pi
Robert Richardson - Django Unchained

Claudio Miranda seems to have this category all but sewn up, with landmark work in a popular film, but surprises do happen - last year there was no film more jaw-droppingly visual than Tree of Life, but lenser Emmanuel Lubezki went home empty handed, losing his Oscar to two-time previous champ Robert Richardson for the lovingly rendered Hugo (hard not to be glad about that one). Life of Pi need not worry about any such upsets, though. Unlike divisive outsider Tree of Life, Pi is the second most nominated film at the Oscars, with no cause for backlash.

Miranda's only real competition is Skyfall's Roger Deakins, who has nine unsuccessful previous Oscar nominations to his legendary name. Deakins claimed the top prize from the American Society of Cinematographers, who would logically want to endorse traditional lensing, as opposed to Life of Pi's digitally enhanced approach. But the Academy has had no trouble embracing Virtual Cinematography with Avatar and even, to an extent, Hugo. Statistically, the odds in this category are always in favour of the Best Picture nominee, which also gives Miranda the edge over Deakins.

The other nominees are last year's winner Robert Richardson, for Django Unchained, frequent Spielberg collaborator (and two-time winner, for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan) Janusz Kaminski and Seamus McGarvey, who probably made a strong bid for the prize for 2008's Atonement, but is unlikely to have enough momentum to pull off a surprise win for this year's divisive Anna Karenina. 

Conclusion: Roger Deakins is a living legend and turned in probably the most beautiful action film ever, but Life of Pi remains the most talked about visual achievement of the year.

Will win: Life of Pi
Should win: Skyfall
Could win: Skyfall

Original Score


Mychael Danna - Life of Pi

Alexandre Desplat - Argo
Dario Marianelli - Anna Karenina
Thomas Newman - Skyfall
John Williams - Lincoln


Though a respectable list, some of the year's best scores (The Master, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty) have been sadly left off, but I will surely rant and rave about that elsewhere. For now, who among the safe five will claim the prize?

Like Skyfall cinematographer Roger Deakins, Thomas Newman has ten nominations to his name (think Shawshank Redemption, American Beauty and WallE), with no wins. Newman's Skyfall score is probably the most urban and inventive of the five, but his layered, urban action score is unlikely to bag him the big prize, although BAFTA thought otherwise, so he remains a threat.

Alexandre Desplat has five unsuccessful prior nominations and scored no less than nine films in 2012, including Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Moonrise Kingdom, Ruse and Bone and Rise of the Guardians. Two of these went on to be Best Picture nominees and he is nominated for the de facto Best Picture winner, Argo. Seems like a logical winner, but his vibey, suspenseful, sometimes sentimental middle eastern score simply isn't his most distinctive work.

Dario Marianelli is a recent winner for Atonement (swoon), while Spielberg staple - and five-time winner (from 48 nominations) John Williams delivered a spare, dignified score with playful Southern hayseed interludes which is surprisingly fun, but only stands any chance of winning if Lincoln sweeps. And let's not get our hopes up.


Which leaves Mychael Danna, channeling whimsical wonder, danger and Parisian / Indian vibes for Ang Lee's Life of Pi. The Oscar is his to lose.

Will win: Mychael Danna - Life of Pi
Should win: Thomas Newman - Skyfall
Could win: Alexandre Desplat - Argo

Production Design & Set Decoration:

Anna Karenina
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln

A bunch of good eggs. Anna Karenina takes literal the Shakespeare adage that all the world is a stage and lets the great Russian melodrama play off entirely in sets constructed inside an old theater.

There is similar innovation in Les Miserables, which strikes a careful balance between realism and stylised theatrical sets to evoke 19th century France.

The Hobbit initially covers the same Shire ground as the Lord of the Rings trilogies, but soon explores brand new forests, Goblin caves and VIP sections of Rivendell in gorgeous detail, not to mention the awesome art-deco-ish designs of the lost Dwarf mountain kingdom. While much of The Hobbit's execution is CGI, the design remains breathtaking.

Life of Pi may seem an odd pick, considering it's mostly the story of a dude and a tiger in a boat, but the production design is a significant layer to the visual experience that is Life of Pi. Those ocean scenes were filmed in a giant water tank with bluescreen backdrops before the digital awesomeness was added; the meerkat island scenes were first filmed in a Taiwanese Banyan tree reserve before CGI rounded it out and the gorgeous scenes in Parisian India themselves leave plenty to ogle. 

Finally, Lincoln plays off in beautiful, fanatically detailed historical sets filled with significant character and period detail that helps transport us back to a critical moment in history.

So who wins? Hard to say. The Art Directors Guild divide their awards into Contemporary, Period and Sci Fi / Fantasy categories and awarded Skyfall, Anna Karenina and Life of Pi respectively. The BAFTAs went with Les Miserables, the Golden Satellites went with Lincoln and the Critics Choice chose Anna Karenina. 

Karenina would appear to be the logical frontrunner (and could tie in nicely with its expected Costume Design win), but that could all change if Life of Pi, or Les Miserables, sweep the technical awards. Or Lincoln sweeps in general. But let's not get out hopes up.

Will win: Anna Karenina
Should win: Anna Karenina 
Could win: Life of Pi 

Costumes:

Jacqueline Durran - Anna Karenina

Paco Delgado - Les Miserables

Joanna Johnston - Lincoln

Eiko Ishioka - Mirror Mirror
Colleen Attwood - Snow White and the Huntsman

The inclusion of both Snow White movies is refreshing and a welcome departure from the Best Picture race. Snow White and the Huntsman's Colleen Attwood is the veteran of the category, with nine previous nominations and three wins to her name. Charlize Theron spent not a moment of the film looking less than awesome but, suffice it to say, Huntsman as a whole isn't exactly the pinnacle of Attwood's career.

Mirror Mirror's Eiko Ishioka has won previous nomination - and win - a full twenty years ago for Bram Stoker's Dracula. Mirror Mirror seems like the featherweight in the race, but its costumes are the most inventive of the bunch and Ishioka is a distinctive talent (with notable work for Tarsem Singh and Bjork) who passed away in January 2012. If anyone could pull off a surprise win, it's Ishioka. You never count out the film with the Queen.

Joanna Johnston is a first time nominee for her detailed period costumes for Lincoln. Other than Sally Field's suitably flashy get ups, her costuming is mostly on the understated side and, while they are gorgeously effective, flashy tends to win in this category. Flashy Queens.

Paco Delgado is another first-time nominee, producing stylised costumes for a huge cast that evoke the stage without pushing the point. While his Les Mis costumes certainly don't lack flash and colour, they're more on the gaudy squalor side of things, as the story demands, which is why Anna Karenina has the edge.

This is Jacqueline Durran's third nomination for her outstanding work on Joe Wright's period films (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement). Anna Karenina is gorgeous eye candy, with the costumes easily holding their own alongside the Oscar-nominated sets and lensing. With the most lavish, opulent period costumes for a large cast, Anna Karenina seems easily the frontrunner, challenged only by the inventive Mirror Mirror.

Anna Karenina and Mirror Mirror were each honoured by the Costume Designers Guild (in the Period and Fantasy fields, respectively), but Mirror Mirror failed to be nominated at the BAFTAs or the Critics Choice Awards, both of which Anna Karenina won. Mirror Mirror did, however, prevail over Karenina at the Golden Satellites. But who cares about the Satellites? The strongest case for Mirror Mirror is that the movie with the Queen in it is usually the winner.

Will win: Anna Karenina

Should win: Anna Karenina

Could win: Mirror Mirror

Make Up & Hairstyling

Les Miserables

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Hitchcock

Squalid 19th Century Parisian suffering, Middle Earth and 1950s Hollywood. Singing squalor wins.

Will win: Les Miserables

Should win: Les Miserables 

Could win: The Hobbit

Visual Effects:

Life of Pi

Prometheus

The Avengers

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Snow White and the Huntsman

Who are we kidding? Life of Pi has already made it into the Visual Effects annuls. On top of that, it's the only Best Picture nominee in the list. It has had a virtually perfect winning streak so far (barring the odd Golden Satellites award for Flight, not nominated here). Think leaping whales, epic boat sinkings and Richard Parker. It's in the bag.

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Life of Pi

Could win: Avengers

Sound Editing:

Life of Pi

Skyfall

Argo

Django Unchained

Zero Dark Thirty

The Sound Editing award is for the sourcing and recording of original sounds for a film. War and action films tend to dominate. Expect the prize to go to one of the Motion Picture Sound Editors winners - Skyfall or Life of Pi. 

Will win: Life of Pi

Should win: Zero Dark Thirty

Could win: Skyfall

Sound Mixing:

Life of Pi

Skyfall

Les Miserables

Argo

Lincoln

Sound Mixing, on the other hand, is the art of taking available sounds (including those created by the sound mixing team) and blending them together into the film's scenes for optimum effect. Musicals almost always dominate this category when they are in the running, and Les Miserables is particularly worthy as it blends live singing with separately recorded orchestral arrangements for wall-to-wall singing. It also has the Cinema Audio Society's Award, and the BAFTA to its name. In the bag.

Will win: Les Miserables

Should win: Les Miserables

Could win: Life of Pi

On Life of Pi and the matter of Virtual Cinematography

With Life of Pi all but sweeping the year's cinematography awards, and expected to take the Oscar on 24 February as well, I'm struggling to make peace with the odd idea of virtual cinematography being honoured over traditional lensing. I appreciate the need for virtual cinematography and certainly admire its results - the visual awesomeness of Avatar, Tron Legacy and Life of Pi is undeniable - but where is the line between Cinematography and Visual Effects?

There's no doubt that Life of Pi is the visual movie event of the year, but to see the prize for best lensing go to a digitally manufactured product is odd. In the past few years, it has been the Academy's preference: Avatar winning for an almost entirely virtual world in 2010, Hugo (with its virtually filled in cityscapes) beating the jaw dropping photography of Tree of Life in 2011. It could be that both those films were simply more popular than their contenders, but it's interesting how easily the Academy has embraced the reliance on CGI in this most essentially cinematic craft.

The acting fields are notoriously resistant to motion-capture performance (Andy Serkis, in particular, has been repeatedly snubbed for his groundbreaking work as Gollum, King Kong and Caesar in The Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit, King Kong and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, respectively), even though the primary work is done by an actor and only digitally adapted in post-production (much like the seascapes of Life of Pi). Somehow they still see Gollum and Caesar as a Visual Effects achievement, rather than an acting one. Any arguments about unfair disadvantages from digitally "enhanced" acting count just as strongly against virtual cinematography.

Of course, digitally enhanced cinematography isn't a new phenomenon. Back in 2001, Bruno Delbonnel was one of the first to use computers to enhance the hues and tones of his footage in post-production for Amélie. But is it cheating, or at least an unfair advantage? Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps it's just how the industry is changing. When it comes to complex, effects-driven 3D films like Avatar or Life of Pi, digital enhancement is a fairly logical extension of the filming process, but when it comes to handing out little gold men for the year's best representation of the Cinematographer's trade, what are Cinematographers awarded for? Lighting? Composition? Movement? Visual metaphor? Mood? Technical dexterity or innovation? Getting the right angle on a gorgeous landscape? Of course it depends from film to film. So when a film and story like Life of Pi is so reliant on the poetry of its visuals, a cinematographer who rises to the occasion, with or without the help of computers, to deliver what his director envisions is one worth awarding (although I'd argue we'd be falling over ourselves in a whole different way if he did it without the computers).

So if the visual design and execution and effect is what we're awarding, regardless of how the cinematographer got there, why not recognise some of the incredible landscapes created by Pixar in recent years? The great (Oscarless) Roger Deakins, for example, consulted on the "cinematography" of Wall-E, advising the technical team on effective lighting and realistic camera movement (to create a more immersive cinematic experience with all the authentic bumps and shakes of a real camera). There's no denying the visual beauty of a film like WallE, or the technical brilliance of the underwaterscapes in Finding Nemo (which go to great pains to capture the light and shade of an ocean backdrop). So what sets WallE apart from Life of Pi, or even Avatar, where a large chunk of the film is digitally animated?

While we're at it, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland won an Oscar for its Production Design, even though much of the execution was digital. Burton Produced Nightmare Before Christmas, on the other hand, features iconic, influential sets as tangible as the chair you're presumably sitting on, only miniature. But what did it contend for at the Oscars? Visual Effects. Once again, WallE features impeccably designed sets, but you'd barely see it contend for them. And while inserting a photo-real (for back then) Gollum into an actual real life background will win you a Visual Effects Oscar, placing animated fish into a photo-real (if mildly stylised) ocean backdrop will not even get you nominated. But perhaps I am splitting hairs.

So what's the distinction? Does it only count as cinematography or production design if it features at least some real actors? Perhaps the distinction is the real collaboration between two worlds - it's okay that Avatar or Life of Pi were largely finished on computers, because they started on real sets, with real cameras, even if just for the bones of the eventual visuals. For Pixar, it's all computer. Perhaps that is a fair distinction.

On Oscar night, both Claudia Miranda and the Visual Effects team will pick up Oscars for their respective contributions to the film's astounding visuals. And power to them. Digital enhancement is here to stay and, if it  ups our movie going & movie making experience, let's embrace it (even if it means Roger Deakins goes home empty handed, again).


While we're at it, let's take a look at some of the good old-fashioned camera work that was overlooked by the Academy this year, after the cut:

Help bring Roots, Rhythm & Revolution to Grahamstown Arts Festival

Support the Arts on Indiegogo:

Benh Zeitling's Glory at Sea

Now that the Academy has bestowed its love and approval upon Beasts of the Southern Wild, it's only fair to stand back and look at what director Benh Zeitlin has achieved: Beasts is his first feature, which he adapted from Lucy Alibar's play, directed (obviously) and composed the brilliant score for. With a tiny (estimated) budget of $1 800 000 and a cast of first-time actors, Zeitlin has created an instant classic - poetic, wild, emotionally powerful with a distinctively voice woven into every element, and a brave, provocative point of view showing us a world and perspective we've likely never even considered.

It bodes us well, then, to have a look at Zeitlin's 2008 short film, Glory at Sea. Plenty of Beasts vibes. In fact, it seems to contain all the seeds that would eventually become Beasts. I await his next move with fascination. Thanks to Awardsdaily for the link.

And in the wake of the Oscar nominations... (and the Golden Globes, and the Critics Choice winners)

Well, there's nothing better than surprises from the Oscars (when you have a natural resistance to Groupthink), and this year sure had its fair share! Thanks to the early voting date, voters had to get up to speed with all the contending films earlier than usual, and vote without the templates of the major Guild Awards (the disconnect between the Oscars and Guilds that announced just before voting cutoff shows that the majority of voters probably didn't wait 'til the last minute... or last minute online voting was a disaster...).

Any which way, the Oscars had to think for themselves this year. And the results are refreshing (even if it is weird not having the two de facto frontrunners out of the race for Best Director). It sucks for Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow, but it keeps the race unpredictable, for a change!

The biggest surprises?

Ben Affleck & Kathryn Bigelow's snubs in Best Director put a serious damper on their respective films' Best Picture campaigns, which puts a serious damper on many a Oscar predictor's forecasts. The resistance against Zero Dark Thirty is clear, but Argo's recent wins at the Golden Globes and Critics Choice keep it a threat to win Best Picture (even if it means the dubious honour of joining Driving Miss Daisy as the only films to win Picture without even a nomination for Director).

More realistically, it makes Lincoln the real frontrunner, and a worthy one - great film, great writing, great performances, great director stretching himself... - but also a somewhat slow and intellectual one. Awardsdaily's Sasha Stone smartly points out that Academy voters clearly preferred films that moved them - Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild  - over films that made them think or demanded debate - Argo, Zero Dark Thirty. Which does not bode too well for Lincoln as a Best Picture winner (remember that even Saving Private Ryan was bested for Picture by Shakespeare in Love). The other film they showered mildly excessive love upon? Silver Linings Playbook. Which becomes your new runner up frontrunner. I like the film, but it's a bit lightweight for me, given the competition.

Which brings us to...

Jacki Weaver nominated for Best Supporting Actress, which bodes very very well for Silver Linings Playbook, which scored the big 4 (Picture, Director, Screenplay & Editing) plus nominations in every acting category. It's also worth noting, again, that David O'Russell bested Biglow, Affleck, Tom Hooper & Quentin Tarantino for that Director slot. Not insignificant. But I digress. Jacki Weaver is great in Playbook and her nomination is a great twist ending to the race between Ann Dowd and Nicole Kidman (and arguably perpetual Emmy winner Maggie Smith) for the fifth Supporting Actress slot. It's easy to be glad for the lovely Mrs Weaver (although it's equally easy to feel really sorry for the quit brilliant Mrs Dowd). But so it goes. Ann Dowd's career is still changed, although not to the degree she may have hoped.

And to belabour the point:

Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild killing the competition. The Foreign and independent success stories of the year, without a doubt. Two wildly brilliantly works of cinematic art by an old (and brand new) master. They killed the critics awards, but remained Oscar outsiders. Beasts was a good Best Picture contender (although a presumed 9th or 10th spot contender), while Amour was the Foreign Language Film frontrunner, and a Director dark horse contender, but I think few expected both to score Best Picture, Best Director, Original and Adapted Screenplay (respectively) and Best Actress nominations. Very significant. And very satisfying. (If you are not following Amour director Michael Haneke's parody Twitter account, incidentally, do so now.)

Which brings us to:

Emmanuelle Riva and Quvenzhané Wallis shaking up the Best Actress race. The oldest and the youngest contenders have joined the race. It's no longer simply Jennifer Lawrence vs Jessica Chastain, or even Naomi Watts pulling an Adrien Brody-style secret-option-C Win. Now it's Riva vs everyone else. And literally anyone could win. Except, probably, Wallis, who I think many would feel is just too young. But, for the first time in years, we have a real race. And not just in Best Actress. For now, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actor are literally anyone's game, which, at this point of the race, is quite something.

Precursor / Oscar disconnect. Both the Best Director and Best Actress races will be significantly out of sync with the Precursor awards this year so, while Ben Affleck scoops up every award along the way, he won't contend at the Oscars and, while Jennifer and Lawrence flash their new Golden Globes and battle it out at the Screen Actors Guild, it doesn't mean the Oscar doesn't go to Emmanuelle Riva. You could call it a travesty, but I'm loving it.

Joaquin Phoenix in, John Hawkes out. Thankfully, Joaquin Phoenix's startling performance in The Master proved simply too brilliant to snub but, perhaps understandably, Bradley Cooper and Silver Linings Playbook had become simply too big to ignore, so John Hawkes got shafted for The Sessions, and it's a real pity but so it goes.


Enough surprises. Some random trivia:

• Robert De Niro & Steven Spielberg have each hit their 7th career nominations
• At a mere 7 years old, Quvenzhane Wallis becomes the youngest Best Actress nominee in history (Justin Henry was 8 when he was nominated as supporting actor for Kramer vs Kramer and Tatum O'Neal was 10 when she won supporting actress for Paper Moon, while Anna Paquin won her supporting Actress Oscar for The Piano at 11).
• Emmanuelle Riva turns 86 on Oscar night, and would become the oldest Oscar winner (Christopher Plummer currently holds the record for his win for Beginners at 82. 
• For the first time in Oscar history, there is not a single first time nominee in Supporting Actor or Supporting Actress.
• Every single Supporting Actor nominee is a previous supporting actor nominee (seriously, this has never happened before)
• Every single Supporting Actor nominee is a previous Oscar winner, and four of the five won for Supporting performances. Epic. Or thoroughly irrelevant.

Full list of nominees after the cut (via Awardsdaily, because I'm too lazy / smart to retype them):

And just before the Oscar nominations hit...

Forecasting the Oscars is not really about the Oscars, because even the Oscars are not really about the Oscars. It's about loving movies (The Oscars themselves may be about making more money out of movies, and winning Emmys, but let's not judge). We love movies and we love to see things we love, things that moved us, things that wowed us, things that altered us, praised and celebrated. And we love to bitch and moan when stuff we love is sidelined for stuff we didn't much care for.

Be that as it may, tracking the Oscar race (the whole silly spiel leading up to the whole silly event) is fun for two reasons - 1) for some reason it's fun to guess how the Academy is going to think, and to see how the general consensus shapes up from the early Film Festivals to the myriad of awards that start pouring in at year end - seeing the year in cinema shape up to what the records will remember. 2) Tracking the whole thing allows you to keep up with the also-rans, the almost-made-its, the coulda-been-contenders, those who thankfully missed the cut and those who inexplicably got shafted.

I will passionately write in favour of the overlooked when the dust of D-Day has settled, but in anticipation of tomorrow, let's have a look at the groupthink as it stands now. For purposes of this post, I will refer to the conglomerate of Critics Groups Awards as "The Critics", and to the conglomerate results of other groups like Film Festivals and Award-giving bodies from the Gotham Awards to the Golden Globes as "The Precursors".

Best Picture:

See here.

Best Director:

The Critics backed Kathryn Bigelow for Zero Dark Thirty (still with a massive lead, despite Torture Porn backlash), Ben Affleck for Argo (slowly becoming Bigelow's less-controversial alternative), Paul Thomas Anderson for enigmatic The Master, Ang Lee for the gentle, technically astounding Life of Pi and Steven Spielberg for his manically detailed biopic of the great President, Lincoln (threatening to sneakily become the one to beat).

Click to enlarge (regrettably abbreviated for the sake of space)

The Precursors also favoured Kathryn Bigelow, closely by Ben Affleck, Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee and David O'Russell for crowd pleasing indie rom com Silver Linings Playbook, in that order.

That gives us a logical top four of Bigelow, Affleck, Spielberg and Lee, which matches yesterday's Director's Guild nominees. But the fifth slot remains open for the taking. The Critics went for Paul Thomas Anderson, but the Academy is unlikely too (too weird, too much ungrateful Joaquin Phoenix), The Precursors favoured O'Russell, and the Directors Guild threw a bone at much criticised previous winner Tom Hooper for Les Miserables. The BAFTA's are reminder that you can't count out Quentin Tarantino for the ever-popular and daring Django Unchained, or Michael Haneke scoring an art-house slot for critically raved Amour.

On the outskirts with multiple nominations? Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild, Wes Anderson for Moonrise Kingdom and Leos Carax for Holy Motors. 

My guess? Bigelow, Affleck, Spielberg, Lee and Tarantino. But honestly, I'm hoping for a surprise. So let's say Haneke!

Click to enlarge

Best Actress:

An interesting field with Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) and Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) way out in the lead, hitting every single note that counts.For the remaining three? Anyone's guess, although we can guess fairly closely by now.

After Jennifer Lawrence, The Critics backed french veteran Emmanuelle Riva in a big way, citing her even more often than Jessica Chastain. But sadly she is likely to be snubbed by the Oscars as Marion Cotillard is already in the mix, and nominating two subtitled performances is just asking too much, and Marion Cotillard is better known. And hotter. Sorry Emmanuelle. We continue to hold out hope, though. After that, they pushed the youngest contender of the year - Beasts of the Southern Wild's Quvenzhane Wallis, hoping for a  Keisha-Castle Hughes Whale Rider type miracle, and Naomi Watts surviving a Tsunami in The Impossible.

Click to enlarge

The Precursors have Chastain and Lawrence perfectly on par, followed by Marion Cotillard, Emmanuelle Riva and Quvenzhane Wallis.

On the outskirts are Helen Mirren as Alma Reville in Hitchcock, and a trio of brilliant, underseen performances skirting infidelity: Ematatzy Corinealdi in Middle of Nowhere, Michelle Williams in Take This Waltz and Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea. Interestingly, Keira Knightley's adulterous Anna Karenina was almost uniformly snubbed (only gaining notice from the Golden Satellites).

Click to enlarge

Although it's hard to vote against the iconic, much-loved Riva and Wallis, Naomi Watts, Marion Cotillard and Helen Mirren scored campaign-making twin nominations from the Screen Actors Guild and the Golden Globes, and have career credibility to back them. Cotillard and Mirren proved their popularity with BAFTA
nominations today (although so did Riva), while Watts is massively overdue for her second nomination.

My prediction? Chastain, Lawrence, Watts, Cotillard and Mirren, although I continue to hope for Riva.


Best Actor:

A very tight race between six very strong contenders. It seems a shame to shut out any one of Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln, Joaquin Phoenix as an alcoholic seemingly functioning entirely outside of society's rules in The Master, John Hawkes touching and funny as real-life quadriplegic Mark O'Brien falling for the sex surrogate he hires to see if his naughty bits work in The Sessions, Hugh Jackman singing everyone to tears (in a good way) in Les Miserables,  Denzel Washington digging up the soul of a complex alcoholic / hero in Flight and Bradley Cooper trying to get the better of Bi-Polar in Silver Linings Playbook, but one of them is going to miss out.

On the face of it, Bradley Cooper seems the least heavy-weight of the bunch, but the Precursors have him out front as the most consistently nominated Actor of the year (beating even Daniel-Day Lewis with two additional nominations, AND an additional win). Everyone else sits squarely with five nominations a piece, and it will be for the Academy to decide who they like best. Joaquin Phoenix's snub by the Screen Actors Guild (presumably for expressing his dislike for The Oscars and the campaigning it takes to win them) is probably bodes poorly for him, as is the general lack of support for his tricky, artsy film. But his performance seems too huge, too iconic, too brilliant to ignore.

John Hawkes was overlooked at the BAFTAs, although co-star Helen Hunt was nominated, but the two have been campaigned and nominated so consistently as a pair, it is hard to imagine him missing.

Click to Enlarge

The Critics went for Daniel Day-Lewis in a huge, almost unrivaled, way, followed by Joaquin Phoenix, John Hawkes, Denzel Washington and, interestingly, Holy Motors' multi-character weirdo Denis Lavant pushing out both Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper.


In the final evaluation, I'm going with Daniel Day-Lewis being unshakable, Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper being too enticing as Box Office stars making good (and presumably attracting significant Oscar viewership as well), Denzel Washington being too respected to pass up, and Joaquin Phoenix too brilliant not to be forgiven, leaving John Hawkes sadly on the sideline. But only time will tell.

Click to Enlarge

Supporting Actress:

Anne Hathaway has already won Best Supporting Actress for singing, crying, shaving her head and dying, all at once, in Les Miserables, although the critics gave quite a push for Sally Field as Lincoln's unstable, quietly hysterical other half in Lincoln. They're both guaranteed their spot, as is Helen Hunt as a self-possessed sex surrogate calmly baring all in The Sessions. 

Battling out the final two slots are the ever reliable Amy Adams as Phillip Seymour Hoffman's stern, mysterious and frankly creepy wife in The Master, Ann Dowd as an impressionable fast food store manager performing horrendous deeds with presumably good intentions in Compliance and Nicole Kidman going full-on trashy Southern prison slut in The Paperboy. 

Adams is all but locked, save that odd SAG snub, while Kidman was all but missing in the race until her SAG / Golden Globe double-whammy. Dowd is the most hit-and-miss, as far as prescursors go, but was universally praised for her breakthrough performance, and has made it abundantly clear how much a nomination would mean for her career.

On the outskirts are British lovelies Judi Dench at her best yet as the impeccable M in Skyfall, and Maggie Smith throwing around racist one-liners, and turning into a good person, in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.

My guess would be that both Kidman and Dowd make it in a last minute sweep of hype, and Amy Adams is left out cold.

So: Anne Hathaway, Sally Field, Helen Hunt, Ann Dowd and Nicole Kidman.

Supporting Actor:

This year, the supporting actor race is riddled with previous winners: Tommy Lee Jones (Supporting Actor Winner for The Fugitive) and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Lead Actor winner for Capote) have their nominations in the bag for Lincoln and The Master, respectively, and likely go head-to-head for the win.

Christoph Waltz (Supporting Actor winner for Inglorious Basterds), has proven ever popular since Django Unchained came on the scene, and looks set to reap his second nomination off of Quentin Tarantino's writing, while Javier Bardem (Supporting Actor winner for No Country for Old Men), delivers an astonishing, campy, whispery villain in Skyfall.

Veterans Alan Arkin (Supporting Actor winner for Little Miss Sunshine) and Robert De Niro (Supporting Actor winner for The Godfather Part II and Lead Actor winner for Raging Bull) round out the list with celebrated, if not brilliant, turns in Best Picture frontrunners Argo and Silver Linings Playbook respectively. I'm as happy as anyone to see De Niro back in the game, but in all honesty his performance is good but not brilliant. The same could be said of Arkin, although Argo needs an acting nomination to stay in the running as a Best Picture winner.

Click to Enlarge

The wildcards are Leonardo DiCaprio, seemingly desperate for an Oscar (and lately a persistent also-ran) as a colourful Tarantino villain in Django Unchained and Matthew McConaughey, making sure he stayed in conversation this year with not one, not two, but four acclaimed performances in Magic Mike, Bernie, Killer Joe and The Paperboy.

In the final equation, my guess is for Hoffman, Jones, Arkin, Waltz and DiCaprio. Although I would prefer Bardem over DiCaprio, personally.

Click to Enlarge

Let the good times roll! We'll celebrate and lament in the morning!

Kick-Ass Trilogies: Parts 6 to 10

It's great when an awesome movie comes along. It's even better when three of them come along, telling when sprawling, awesome, interconnected story. Our celebration of the most kick-ass cinema trilogies continues below.

Kick-Ass Trilogies Parts 1 - 5 here.

6. The Three Colours Trilogy 

Krzysztof Kieslowski's thematically intertwined meditations on the colours of the french flag and how the political ideals they represent - liberty, equality and fraternity - apply to modern french society. If that all sounds incredibly high minded, the trilogy is essential viewing simply as a series of cinematic tone poems built around three beguiling french leading ladies- kicking off with Blue, which follows a widow's intense and impressionistic journey to creative and emotional liberty following the death of her famous composer husband; shifting tone drastically for White's dark screwball comedy of a humiliated man-turned-beggar trying to restore equilibrium to his life through revenge; and landing somewhere in between for Red's poignant examination of human connection and social contracts in general, and of the slowly growing relationship between a taciturn old man and a gentle student / part-time model, in specific. While White is at somewhat tonal odds to Blue and Red, each film earns its place in this ambitious, carefully executed trilogy. Each film ends in tears (both good and bad) and features an exceptional Zbignieuw Preisner score. If that all still sounds too serious, there are cartoons below.

7. The Toy Story Trilogy 

Toy Story broke exciting new ground for animation and not only invigorated an industry, but irrevocably changed it - mostly for the better. It endures as a film because, beyond the landmark technological advances,  is a story full of real laughs and genuine heart. Toy Story 2 copied the formula, but somehow managed to improve on all the best elements of the original (although the Sarah McLachlan musical moment is too much for me) doing, in other words, exactly what a sequel should. The third instalment had every reason to be stale, but showed up startlingly fresh, funny, sprawling and more heart-wrenching than ever. Let's just hope the anomaly of continuing returns shows up for the dubious fourth instalment.

8. The Terminator Trilogy 

He said he'd be back, and he was. The Terminator established Ah-nold and his lifeless one-liners as an eternal part of the pop-zeitgeist, well weaving an astonishingly satisfying time-travel tale. But as legendarily thrilling as The Terminator is, Judgment Day is even better, but in completely different ways. Where else does the villain from the first return as the hero of the second, without falling flat on his credibility? Linda Hamilton and Robert Patrick must take much of the credit for the success of Judgment Day (whose relentless chase all but traumatised me as a kid), while the groundbreaking visual effects are still reason enough to revisit the either of the first two films (if any of the many other reasons don't do it for you). The third instalment is negligible, but succeeds in not failing. It's perfectly okay.

9. The Alien Trilogy 

Although not envisioned as a trilogy, the Alien trilogy benefits from a trio of legendary, divergent, directors. Ridley Scott's Alien is a classic, claustrophobic haunted house thriller with gorgeous production design, a sensational monster in the shadows, and a dashing new star in her tighty wighties. James Cameron's Aliens replicates the premise - complete with something-is-still-in-your-escape-pod ending - but expands it into a heart-pounding actioner with, as the title suggests, an army of aliens to the original's solitary stalker. Ripley trades her tiny panties for fierce maternal instincts and an iconic action heroine is born. The oft-derided third instalment was disowned by director David Fincher, but is in retrospect an entertaining, gloomy horror that annihilates everything that came before, including Ripley while it shifts the focus to the evil government bureacrats behind the Alien missions as the real villains. If nothing else, it's a final, intense face-off between Ripley and the Alien, and provides the necessary thrills admirably. Alien Resurrection? An ill-judged reboot / spinoff. Don't talk about it.

10. The Back to the Future Trilogy

Really this is the same movie made three times - in 1960s suburbia, a technologically-advanced 2015, and the Wild Wild West. But what a movie. How can you dislike something made with so much joy, intention to please and iconic 80s styling? The original has by far the tightest plot - as 80s teenager Marty McFly travels back in time to make sure his parents fall in love and, well, make him - while the originals are just good fun as Marty meets different versions of his family and friends in the near-ish future and distant past, and eventually learns that reacting to taunting bullies just gets you in trouble. Best viewed back-to-back with family / friends and plenty of junk food.

Ground rules after the cut: