For example, the 2017 winner, Moonlight, barely had a release in my hometown, far outside of any major cities. As soon as it won big at the Oscars, cinemas everywhere were screening it, and audiences were suddenly flocking to see this film that had been named the Best Picture of the year. I have been cynical towards the Academy Awards in the past, but right now I want to put that aside for a while. I am so unbelievably glad that Parasite will now be getting the same opportunity that Moonlight did, earning a far wider release than it previously had up to this point.

Parasite’s Best Picture win was the biggest upset in this year’s ceremony, winning over the expected 1917, though there were plenty of other smaller twists along the way, many of which were still very well deserved. Ford v Ferrari nabbed Best Film Editing away from the expected winner, Parasite, and 1917 got one over Avengers: Endgame with its win for Best Visual Effects.

Though it had the most nominations out of all the films this year, Joker ended up with only two wins, those being the two it deserved most – Best Original Score and Best Actor. This is the second time in Oscars history that two actors have won Academy Awards for playing the same part, the first being Marlon Brando and Robert de Niro’s portrayals of Vito Corleone in The Godfather I & II, and with Heath Ledger winning for his version of the Joker in 2008’s The Dark Knight.

Joaquin Phoenix telling the audience to stop clapping as he accepted his award was a funny aside, but his speech was socio-political on an epic scale, and stood out alongside Brad Pitt and Bong Joon-ho’s as the best of the night. Phoenix’s humility is rare for an actor of his calibre, but it is also clear that he doesn’t enjoy the pomp of the awards and applause, so I will stop myself before going overboard in praise of him.

For the second year in a row the Oscars went without a host, leaving the individual presenters with the job of keeping the evening flowing along smoothly and lightly. Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig’s “acting” bit was hilarious, and they proved that should the Academy ever decide that they need a host again, they would be more than capable. Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Will Ferrell also bounced off each other wonderfully in their bit, attempting and failing to determine the role of a cinematographer.

The lowlight of the ceremony came in the form of Rebel Wilson and James Corden dressing up as their characters from Cats and mocking the movie in the most awkward, stilted sketch of the evening. At this point the joke feels beaten to death, and especially when it came to their announcement of the Best Visual Effects winner, the bit started to drag out to the point of frustration.

The Best Original Song category this year was a little more disappointing than usual, though Elton John took both the award and our hearts with his song “(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again”. Idina Menzel’s performance of “Into The Unknown” from Frozen II could have been one amongst many that came and went without much to say about it, but the decision to include the voice actresses from each dubbed language version of the film made it far more memorable and shone a light on the amazing non-American talent out there – apparently a running theme of the night.

After a celebration of songs from movie history, Eminem made a baffling appearance that had little connection to the rest of the evening, singing his song “Lose Yourself” from the 2002 film 8 Mile. As far out of left field as it was, he still had everyone in the audience bobbing and attempting to rap along, and it was a welcome break from the more formal proceedings. Billie Eilish’s subdued rendition of “Yesterday” beneath the In Memoriam carried the night through its most sombre moment as well, as we remembered filmmakers and stars such as Agnès Varda, Kobe Bryant, and Kirk Douglas.

No Academy Awards ceremony is ever without a few missteps, but this year’s had a lot more hits than misses. Between the performances and presenters, the 2020 Academy Awards were a fun and entertaining three and a half hours spent celebrating accomplished filmmakers, all of whom deserved their accolades. Parasite’s win in particular is both a huge shock and a welcome step forward for the Academy as they embrace more international, independent films. It is winners like these that restore my faith in an organisation that believes Crash and Green Book were truly the best films of their respective years. Parasite’s win is a win for cinema in general, and sends a message to Hollywood about the kinds of movies we want to see more of.

What did you think of the 2020 Oscars? Tell us in the comments below!

The post The Highs and Lows of the 2020 Oscars appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

There is an argument to be made in Noah Baumbach’s Oscar-nominated drama ‘Marriage Story’ that neither Charlie nor Nicole are especially good people, but they are certainly sympathetic. Even when they are sinking to new lows, making things pettier and harder for each other, we find ourselves only wanting to draw closer and entangle ourselves in their messy, awkward lives. Especially when it comes to the central conflict of the film, neither of them are completely at fault – the only real antagonist in ‘Marriage Story’ is the divorce process, which is conducted more like a business transaction than a personal affair.

Once the lawyers get involved, the divorce starts to turn into a contest of who can emerge with more dignity intact. Somehow there is an expectation that none of this should be personal, but it absolutely is. Material possessions are completely irrelevant, but instead what is at stake is something far more central to our humanity and self-worth. Everything about Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson’s performances is vulnerable, drawing on a common longing for stability and anger directed at those who threaten it.

What is wonderful about ‘Marriage Story’ as an exploration of divorce isn’t just that we see how much the two repel each other, but that it is equally clear how they once fell in love and worked together as a couple. As romantic and professional partners, Nicole and Charlie share common interests and make up for each other’s shortcomings, illustrated in the opening sequence. Contempt is meaningless on its own, but by peeling back the layers to reveal the genuinely loving relationship it mutated from, the impact is even more devastating.

At first it appears that Baumbach isn’t doing a great deal of visually interesting work with the camera, especially since a lot of the colours are muted, but it is in his blocking of the actors within dialogue heavy scenes that he demonstrates his ability to weave a comfortable domesticity into even the tensest moments. When the characters air their frustrations, they use their actions almost as distractions, moving through their homes performing menial chores, and grounding themselves in the familiar even as they traverse new, difficult territory. The camera peeks at them through doors and glides with them down hallways, making us feel at home with Charlie and Nicole, and letting the growing tension become even more personal.

In one particular scene towards the end, movement is stripped back and the stillness of the actors becomes deeply uncomfortable. Charlie forces the appearance of a responsible relationship with his son, Henry, to impress a family-court evaluator, and yet in doing so he is suppressing their usual organic interactions. He no longer inhabits his home comfortably, and the fluidity that the rest of the film thrives off is suddenly gone, replaced with a stilted politeness. The idea that the insertion of bureaucracies into private lives is the death of naturalism and compassion pervades ‘Marriage Story’, and Baumbach’s direction of his actors to convey this is brilliantly effective.

The six nominations that ‘Marriage Story’ has received are mostly well deserved. The exception here is the nomination for Randy Newman’s score, which doesn’t add any depth or emotion to the film that isn’t already present in the performances or screenplay. Laura Dern is a clear frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress, and though it is unlikely that they will win in their respective categories, both Driver and Johansson are deserving of their own acting awards too. The autobiographical element of ‘Marriage Story’ may have provided a basis for Baumbach to shape this story into something personally meaningful, but it is his masterful cast direction and naturalistic dialogue that makes it such a rich, engaging experience for audiences.

What do you think about Marriage Story being nominated? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: ‘Marriage Story’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

As social commentary, which it very much aspires to be, ‘Joker’ is simplistic in its handling of its potentially rich subject matter. There is a long history of cinema examining disenfranchised masculinity, class warfare, mental illness, and violence as a means of expression, and in attempting to pay homage to these films, ‘Joker’ is effectively reminding us of how much more interesting and profound they are. Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘The King of Comedy’ are the clearest influences here, but there are also direct references to classics such as ‘Network’ and ‘The French Connection’. ‘Joker’ never reaches the same depths as these films, since Arthur Fleck’s descent into violent madness is far more straightforward and free of complications that made characters like Travis Bickle so unpredictable. There is an element of ambiguity as we doubt whether certain scenes really take place, and yet the reveal that Fleck may be an unreliable narrator leaves us wondering… so what? It might be fun to question how much of Fleck’s story is actually true, but it doesn’t inform the themes of the story in the same way the open-ended final scene of ‘Taxi Driver’, for example, lets us consider whether a violent individual’s desires can ever truly be satiated.

More than anything else, the failings of ‘Joker’ lie in its screenplay. It is lines like “All I have are negative thoughts” and “Everyone is so awful these days” that describe in the plainest terms exactly what we are already seeing onscreen, telling us rather bluntly what the film wants to say. It is only through Phoenix’s professionalism that these lines are given some depth, saving this film from getting too caught up in its own heavy-handed message.

Writing aside, ‘Joker’ does succeed on some levels other than Phoenix’s performance. Todd Phillips includes some anachronistic hints towards a more contemporary society, even though the film appears to primarily be set in the 70’s. The spread of the clown meme, the viral standup video, and the talk show format may have been used to create a sense of timelessness, but they rather work better as hints of something a little more relevant in the film’s critique of modern media and the mob mentality that drives trends at the expense of individual welfare.

The costume and makeup department have also created a definitive look for the Joker that rivals Heath Ledger’s own gritty look from ‘The Dark Knight’. Much like John Wayne Gacy’s clown makeup, Phoenix has sharp corners around his eyes and mouth rather than the traditional rounded off edges, giving off an air of austerity. He also adorns himself in second-hand, colourful, pastel suits, like a toned down version of Cesar Romero’s Joker from the 1960’s ‘Batman’ television show. The overall impression is that of man mid-breakdown, caught between expressions of humour and anger, and ultimately one who merges both.

Joker isn’t a terrible movie, but nor do I think it’s a good one. The controversy it has sparked around whether it might encourage violence is certainly undeserved, but its popularity does represent a certain gratuitous cynicism that is currently very common. It is leading the Oscars with 11 nominations this year, more than any other film, though other than Phoenix locking down Best Actor it is unlikely to win in any of the biggest categories given its competition. If ‘Joker’ influences future mainstream movies to take a more serious look at relevant social issues then we might be able to retrospectively appreciate it for that, but as a standalone film it struggles to develop an engaging voice that holds up to any sort of interrogation.

What do you think of Joker being nominated for Best Picture? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: ‘Joker’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

There is a tinge of regret in Sheeran’s narration as he revisits his life from the 50’s all the way through to the present day. Though he thinks of his friends from those days fondly, including Hoffa himself, he struggles to reconcile his nostalgia with the growing understanding of how painful it was for family to live through it. His daughter, Peggy, stares in silence as she watches her father’s crimes build, like the ever-watching eye of God quietly judging his actions.

As minor characters come and go, we are given glimpses into their ultimate fates through freeze frames and title introductions. A sinister undertone is established, reminding us that those who choose organised crime as a career are effectively cutting their lives short. Those who do make it to old age aren’t much better off either, as an elderly Sheeran comes to realise all his work and connections have resulted in nothing but pain for those still alive. He continues to keep his secrets, but for what? Who is he protecting? We can almost see Scorsese questioning the value of his career that has largely focused on men like this, searching for some kind of virtuous meaning in his work that will last long after he retires.

At three and a half hours ‘The Irishman’ often feels bloated, diverging from its central narrative to explore more of Sheeran’s smaller jobs that ultimately feel inconsequential. I have never been one to go in for Scorsese’s mob films though – it is often his more laser-focused character studies such as ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘Raging Bull’ that engage me on a deeper level, and as a result a lot of ‘The Irishman’ feels like a distraction from a much more interesting story about those who are affected by, but not directly involved in, organised crime rings. It isn’t until its last act that ‘The Irishman’ starts to give voices to these people, culminating in a conversation between Sheeran and his daughter, Dolores, that is perhaps the most human part of the film. “You weren’t a bad father,” she says. “We were just afraid of you.”

‘The Irishman’ has been nominated in ten categories at the Academy Awards this year, including Best Visual Effects for its digital de-ageing of its main cast. Its effect isn’t quite perfect – it glasses over de Niro’s eyes, which is particularly noticeable in his scenes as a young Frank Sheeran. It also isn’t enough to cover up his awkward, stiff movements that betray his true age, though the seams start to show less as the CGI is gradually stripped back.

The Netflix curse will certainly be a factor that keeps ‘The Irishman’ from winning Best Picture, but more than that it will likely lose the votes of Academy members who are already less than excited to watch a film of this length, even if it is by such a respected director. There is no pressure to reward Scorsese with a “career” Oscar this year either, given that he won both Best Picture and Best Director for ‘The Departed’ in 2007. His best chances would lie with his fans’ ability to rally behind him and garner support, but ‘The Irishman’ just doesn’t hold the same widespread appeal as many of the other Best Picture nominees this year.

What do you think about The Irishman being nominated for Best Picture? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: ‘The Irishman’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

Outside of Rick’s attempts to revive his dying career there is little contour to the film’s plot, eschewing a traditional narrative structure in favour of presenting a series of snapshots of life in 1960’s Hollywood. Tarantino is playing around in the sandpit of an era that has been part of his identity for his entire life, and his expression of unrestrained joy in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ is incredibly inviting to those who are well acquainted with the culture of that time, and those who are only now being introduced to it.

Throughout the film, there is an undercurrent of Tarantino reflecting on his own career as it comes to an end, this being his penultimate film if we are to take his word at face value. Scorsese shares a similar reflection in ‘The Irishman’, also nominated for Best Picture this year, but Tarantino’s thoughts dwell less on his personal regrets, and more on what the world should have done differently.

If only the bright idealism of the 60’s never came to an end. If only the good guys always won and the bad guys were always punished, much like the fairytales we tell. If only audiences were more forgiving to ageing professionals in the film industry. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick Dalton shares Tarantino’s wishes, particularly the latter, and becomes the strongest binding force in the film by pulling together the many scattered elements into his own arc.

The most effective scenes in ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ are those that let Tarantino indulge his love for genre films, such as the Western-tinted Spahn Ranch scene, and the sequences that allow DiCaprio to fully inhabit the eccentricities and egotism of Rick Dalton. In his conversation with a child movie star, his trailer breakdown, and his teary moment of glory after cast and crewmembers heap praise on him for a powerful performance, he is playfully satirising the personalities that populate Hollywood, and he even reaches a moment of self-recognition in the ridiculous seriousness of it all. For a city populated by people who play pretend, there is a lot of self-importance going around, and in his direction of his cast Tarantino fully realises the comic potential of that.

When it comes to Tarantino’s trademark hyper-violence, directing any criticism towards it feels utterly pointless given how embedded it is in his filmography. Of course it’s over-the-top, of course it’s uncomfortable to watch, that’s entirely the point. It also usually serves a purpose in narrative, whether it is to point at the dark senselessness and messiness of the hitmen’s careers in ‘Pulp Fiction’, or to satiate a character’s need for vengeance. In ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’, there is still that element of revenge present in its final scene when we finally see the violence unleash, but the real indignation does not belong to Cliff and Rick in the same way it belonged to the Bride, Django, or Marsellus Wallace. It belongs to Tarantino, and by proxy it belongs to us, assuming that we are more clued in on the real history of the Manson Family than the characters we are watching. It’s only with all this context that I am going to apply the word here that I usually roll my eyes at when used to describe Tarantino’s violence – this scene is gratuitous, because it only exists to serve our own desire for catharsis with little connection to the narrative elements that preceded it.

The Golden Globes have not historically been a completely reliable predictor of what will win Best Picture at the Oscars, but there is still a slight correlation there. This century alone, roughly 50% of Oscar Best Picture winners have also won one of the two Best Motion Picture awards at the Golden Globes. Not great odds to go off on its own, but taking into consideration that the only thing the Academy loves more than movies about movies is celebrating veteran filmmakers who are still going strong, and suddenly this film’s chances start looking more solid. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has struck a chord with a mainstream audiences and critics alike, and with so much love for it going around, it has become an obvious frontrunner in this year’s Oscar race.

What do you think of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood being nominated for Best Picture? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

With the Oscars nearly upon us, it is a time to reflect on all of the amazing movies of the year. The range of movies this past year has truly been astonishing. Films such as Joker, which in years past would just be an action film, went deeper into the mind. 1917 incorporated astonishing cinematography to bring the warfront to life. Even Netflix’s Marriage Story received tumultuous praise. And amidst all of these films came a story about family, Little Women.

Little Women amassed a whopping six Academy Award Nominations. Amy Pascal received a nomination for best picture, Saoirse Ronan for best actress, Florence Pugh for best supporting actress, Alexandre Desplat for best original music score, Greta Gerwig for best adapted screenplay, and Jacqueline Durran for best costume design. Yet as all of these nominations rolled in, there is one glaring nomination missing: best director. While six nominations are a feat in and of itself, the woman who brought all of this together was snubbed from a directorial award.

While six nominations is an amazing amount, the snub towards Gerwig was still felt and noticed. Many may argue that there is nothing to complain about, but this snub only fuels the Oscars history of shutting out female directors. So, instead of asking “why are people mad,” perhaps instead ask:

“Why are we still having this conversation?”

Female directors have notoriously been snubbed for as long as the Oscars have run. Out of the 92 years of the Oscars, only five women have been nominated for best director. That’s right, five women. Of those five only one woman has won an Academy Award for best director. Kathryn Bigelow made history in 2010 winning the Academy Award for best director for The Hurt Locker. In the years since that monumental win, only one more woman has been nominated: Greta Gerwig.

In 2018, Gerwig was nominated as best director for her film, Lady Bird. In her solo-directorial debut, Gerwig presented Lady Bird, a coming-of-age story that shows the ups and downs of our personal relationships. But even with this film’s popularity, Gerwig still lost to Guillermo del Toro for The Shape of Water.

Fast forward to 2019 and Gerwig brought to life the fan favourite Little Women. Amongst the handful of Little Women film adaptations, Gerwig’s Little Women stands apart. Gerwig took the beloved March sisters and made them more. Jo is an independent woman determined to make it on her own. Meg chose love and a family. Beth helped spread joy to those who may not otherwise feel it. And Amy became a woman that many can relate to.

It is a film that celebrates women and the multifaceted nature of individuality. It highlights the relationships and people that help one grow. It shows that any woman can achieve what she sets her mind to. It is truly a movie of today. Even through the post-Civil War setting the March sisters are a force to be reckoned with, something that any woman can relate to. And that is the genius behind Gerwig’s Little Women. All of the characters are relatable in some aspect, including Amy, the March sister that often gets all the hate because her character is rarely fleshed out enough to serve any purpose other than as a plot thickener.

Yet, even with all of this Gerwig was not recognised for all that she accomplished with this film. Gerwig is a woman who successfully created a film that amassed a total of six nominations, but even that was not enough to earn a place amongst the men nominated for best director.

With all that being said, I want to end on a high note and give recognition to all of the amazing women who have been nominated for an Academy Award for best director:

1. Lina Wertmüller for Seven Beauties
2. Jane Campion for The Piano
3. Sofia Coppola for Lost in Translation
4. Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker
5. Greta Gerwig for Lady Bird

It is not a long list, but it opens a conversation.

The post Greta Gerwig: A Continuation of Female Director Snubbing appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

‘Parasite’ follows the schemes of the impoverished Kim family conning their way into the employment of the much wealthier Park family, and little else can be said about its narrative without spoiling a string of major developments. The titular parasite is perhaps one of the most difficult parts of the film to pin down to a singular explanation. For most of the first act, one might think it is clear that the Kims are the parasites, since they are sucking wealth and resources from their employers, but it isn’t quite that simple. Determining what exactly the title refers to becomes more complicated the further along the film progresses, as it asks us a number of questions regarding the economic system we live in. Which demographics get taken advantage of in our society? In what ways and to what extent does it impact them? Who are the people that take advantage of others? Are they justified in doing so? To whom are we directing our anger, and who should we be directing it towards? What does it take to break the system? Is it even worth attempting to do so?

These questions are made even harder to answer when one considers that the affluent characters in ‘Parasite’ aren’t particularly bad people. While they certainly present obstacles and frequently test our patience, they are never made out to be the villains of the piece, and this is to the film’s credit. ‘Parasite’ dwells in a space of moral ambiguity, where an action as innocent as a poorly timed sniff has insidious implications, or where the vilest act comes from a place of righteous anger.

In ‘Parasite’, wealth is a buffer between individuals and adversity, and while Bong Joon-Ho initially mines this for comedy it gradually evolves into a much darker statement on how few people truly benefit in a capitalist social structure. As a result of their sheltered lives, the Parks are easily manipulated and fail to see the world as it is beyond the walls of their mansion. They outsource their domestic duties to the Kims, who appear to be sharper and more diligent, making the wealth disparity between the two families seem even more arbitrary.

Throughout the film Bong Joon-ho moves the camera up and down flights of stairs, dimly illuminating the subterranean rooms with dirty, artificial lights. These are the places that keep the lower classes out of mind and out of sight, and from where they struggle amongst themselves to escape.

Yang Jin-mo’s tightly paced editing balances our focus between separate groups of people, locations, and actions taking place simultaneously, contrasting the lifestyles of each family even further. It also allows each actor within this ensemble cast to have several shining moments, a difficult feat for a film that could have spread itself too thinly in less skilled hands.

Though the cast standouts are Song Kang-ho as Kim Ki-taek, the father of the Kim family, and Park So-dam as Kim Ki-jeong, his daughter, it is the dynamics that emerge from within ensemble as a whole that makes ‘Parasite’ as funny, tense, and devastating as it is. And of course, the way each production element of the piece binds together can only be attributed to Bong Joon-ho’s masterful direction. Though he plays with such a broad range of film styles and ideas about social inequality, none of them are unrefined or underdeveloped, and each brings its own distinct flavour to a movie that never stops evolving.

The chances of ‘Parasite’ winning Best Picture are slim, but the possibility isn’t completely ruled out. On one hand, there has historically been a prejudicial attitude against foreign films in the Academy, typified by the disappointing loss that ‘Roma’ suffered at the Oscars last year. On the other, every so often the Academy does get it right, with the success of ‘Moonlight’ in 2017 being particularly notable. Though it has oddly missed out on acting nominations, ‘Parasite’ isn’t exactly lacking in other categories. It has Best International Feature Film locked down, and though he is up against tough competition, Bong Joon-ho may even have a fair shot at winning Best Director. Of all this year’s Best Picture nominees, ‘Parasite’ will likely be the one we will still be talking about long into the future. We will just have to wait and see whether the Academy recognises this.

What do you think about Parasite‘s chances of winning Best Picture? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: ‘Parasite’ appeared first on The Nerd Daily.

George McKay has acted in mainstream films and television shows before, but he has never been a household name. In 1917 he demonstrates an immense level of dedication to his part on par with A-list celebrities of his own generation, and in doing so he is hopefully opening a gateway to much more substantial acting opportunities in the future.

Given the stupidly difficult nature of creating a movie that appears to be all shot in one take (or two, if we are nitpicking), blocking actors and crew members becomes a task that can take months of preparation. The director, Sam Mendes, and McKay worked closely for this long stretch of time during pre-production, running through every bit of action and dialogue so they could measure out how large each part of the set would need to be, whether it was an underground tunnel or hundreds of metres of war trenches.

In the climactic scene of the piece, McKay’s soldier Will runs perpendicular to a line of men charging across no man’s land, in a last minute attempt to fulfil his mission before it is too late. It is this moment that we finally grasp the full spectacle of every production element coming together: McKay’s physicality bearing the weariness of wartime and a striking likeness to Florya, Thomas Newman’s epic score pressing the action forward, Mendes’ meticulous blocking of every extra and explosion on set, and Roger Deakins’ gliding cinematography framing Will as a singularly motivated agent moving through a wave of chaos.

As technically brilliant as 1917 is across its departments, its awards buzz has largely been centring on its one-shot device, which allows its plot to unfold in real time. We have seen similar techniques used in films like Russian Ark and Birdman, but its use here to build tension is most akin to Hitchcock’s 1948 thriller Rope, in which two friends cover up what they consider the “perfect murder”. The effect of refusing to cut away lets us feel the value of each lost second, the deep melancholy of solitude, and at one point, the unflinching pain of a sad, slow death. Though there are few stretches of time where the device is not completely warranted, Deakins’ persistence remains, and his cinematography effectively details every waking moment of Will’s journey.

World War I is curiously lacking the same amount of coverage in Hollywood as World War II and the Vietnam War, though this may be in part because it was more Britain’s war than the United States’. Mendes has stated in interviews that he was motivated to create 1917 based off his grandfather’s experiences, making it a wholly more personal war movie than many others, but it is also his spotting of this gap in mainstream movie coverage that allows the film to feel like a piece of cinema that stands apart from its influences.

1917 has earned 10 nominations in total this Oscar season, mostly in the well-deserved technical categories, and it wouldn’t be surprising at all to see it take home a handful of them. Its wins for Best Motion Picture – Drama and Best Director at the Golden Globes, while not guarantors of its success, may influence Academy voters when they come to consider 1917 as a contender for Best Picture. We will only be able to tell whether it will continue to hold up as a definitive, visceral World War I classic years into the future, but it has made a good start towards that this awards season.

What do you think of 1917 winning Best Picture? Tell us in the comments below!

The post Oscars 2020 Countdown: 1917 appeared first on The Nerd Daily.