With the announcement of this year’s Academy Awards nominations, Academy members responded to the natural and political disasters of the moment in the name of solidarity. A remarkable consensus has developed among a few films that, in one way or another – whether using bold arts or traditional methods, realistic or fictional stories – embody, display, or at least seem to celebrate the liberal values of pluralism, equality, pluralism and democracy. Resisting the arrogance of power, whether political or economic. This time, the Oscars are all about the gigs.
The degree of apparent consensus is extraordinary, as seen in the 10 films nominated for Best Picture, the themes they address, and the concentration of nominations throughout: six nominations for “Anora,” about the repressive imprint of Russian oligarchs; Ten for “The Savage,” a Holocaust survivor’s confrontation with a predatory American businessman; Eight for Completely Anonymous, a biopic about the generational revolution icon; Eight for the “secret meeting,” where the coalition unites behind a progressive to resist a narrow-minded reactionary; Five for “Dune: Part 2,” about sand (and revolt against tyranny); Thirteen by Emilia Perez, the story of a trans woman and the cis woman who empowers her transition; Three for “I’m Still Here,” a drama about resistance to right-wing military dictatorship; two for “Nickel Boys” (the year’s actual best movie), based on the true story of an isolated Florida reform school killer; Five for “The Substance,” about the age-related exclusions that women experience, especially in Hollywood; And ten for the movie “The Wicked,” a story of racism and oppressive and illegitimate power.
Although the range of artistic achievement here is widely diverse, from the originality of “Nickel Boys” to the splendor of “Conclave,” Academy membership sends an unambiguous message as to what it stands for, and what it will not stand for. Gestures are symbolic, but so are films. They are commodities, too, of course, and Hollywood’s assertiveness has been made even stronger by its embrace of Dune: Part II and Wicked, two of the year’s biggest box office hits. Not all of these films have been profitable, but they all bask in the glow of success, heralding the idea that businesses are confident in doing well while doing well.
One of the nominees for Best Documentary Feature is said to be, “No other land“, about the destruction of a Palestinian village by Israeli forces, has not yet been picked up by an American distributor. So far, it has only been shown independently, and will be screened at Film Forum starting January 31. Perhaps the political principle at work only goes so far. It is worth Also mentioning that two short films have been released by The New Yorker We are Among the candidates in their categories“Live-action movie”I’m not a robot,“Directed by Victoria Warmerdam, and the documentary”incident,” directed by Bill Morrison, which recreates, through surveillance and camera footage, the killing of a black civilian at the hands of police.
Certainly, the acting categories are emblematic of the apolitical biases inherent in the Oscars — ideas of professionalism and technique that only occasionally intersect with perfect artistry. On the one hand, it is difficult to make a wrong choice; Actors at all levels of filmmaking put their bodies on the line, demonstrating the essential strength of controlling themselves and mastering their art while the camera is trained on them. However, control and command, which are most evident at the higher levels of action, are not the essence of cinematic acting. Cameras see through ingenuity to reveal states of being. Great cinematic acting does not necessarily depend on theatrical accuracy, but it presents a different aspect of theater: the emotional illusion of the actors’ presence. (This is why great acting is usually found in exceptionally well-directed films, ones that have an original vision of the relationship between actors and the very forms in which they are presented.) This year’s acting nominations are no different, with all impressive actors selected, almost all in familiar poses.
Of note is Demi Moore’s nomination for The Substance, a bombastic sci-fi piece of body horror. The fact that she has not played major roles in recent years underscores the accuracy of the film’s critique of sexism in Hollywood. It’s also a sign that the kind of sublime, central film melodrama, at which Moore excelled, has been neglected. It’s an inherently democratic genre, but current examples advance mostly by inflation and skewness — “Anora” and “The Brutalist,” in their different ways, show both tendencies — with results that lack the spirit and artistry characteristic of classics of the genre.
In terms of international features, this year’s list offers quite the oddity: “Holy fig seed“, an Iranian film directed by Mohammad Rasoulof, is officially nominated for Germany. The attribution is technically accurate (one of the production companies that produced the film is a German company), and perhaps morally as well: Rasoulof, who faces prison time in Iran after making the film there Secretly, he fled the country and now lives in Germany. My thanks to the German committee that selected the film as Germany’s submission for the Oscars – but the Academy’s system of putting such selections in the hands of the countries’ official film bodies is indefensible. Because it gives repressive regimes a veto over films produced in opposition, it is urgent that the Academy – which has taken active measures to expand its membership internationally – take control of its own operations and create a better system for nominating international features.
Since this is an unusual year with so many key questions to consider (and a small group of films that excel in multiple ways), I’m sticking to fewer categories. My picks are in no particular order, except for the winners, which are first and in bold.
Best photo
“attack”
The drop from the best of the year to the rest is relatively sharp. I won’t read too much into this, but as it becomes more difficult for independent and international films to attract audiences, it becomes more difficult for distributors to release them. (I note, for example, that the first two months of 2025 saw relatively little of the counterprogramming that was used to smooth out the winter doldrums.) However, because there is a huge gap between a handful of the year’s best films. The rest, a relatively small number, will carry significant weight in various categories of cinematic work.
It is surprising and dismaying to note the dearth of international films among the best films of the year. This is also not a trend, just a passing blip: as I mentioned last month in my post Best of the tourseveral international films I watched last year that would have ranked high on my list were postponed to 2025 or not even picked up for distribution.
I’ve written at length about my top ten films with one exception: Steve McQueen’s “Blitz,” a film that has been the victim of critical misunderstanding. As a drama with a racial emotional kick – a lone child facing dangers while trying to find his way home – it has been wrongly disparaged as sentimental, conventional or even compromising. The events take place in London during World War II. The child in question is black, and the film’s depiction of racist attitudes and actions, amid the city’s heroic efforts to cope with Nazi Germany’s bombing campaign, is part of a busy, meticulous, and wide-ranging historical reconstruction. Although his characters are brought to life through vivid and nuanced performances, this is not a drama about personal psychology but about mindsets. McQueen turns societal attitudes and assumptions into action, in the form of a romantic Dickensian adventure. He also invests the film with a tinge of Dickensian exaggeration, which I think explains its rejection by some critics who nonetheless embraced, for example, the overt caricatures of “Wicked.” The mix of tones in McQueen’s film is a challenge, not a relief.
Best director
