The Nats blasted through the Cards after sneaking past the heavy favorite Dodgers. Their pitching (Sanchez, Scherzer and Strasburg) has been lights out for the last coupla weeks but the Cards were overmatched and the Dodgers were ready to lose, so seeing the Nats here isn't a shock. But as good as that pitching has been, it's hard to imagine they're gonna dominate the Astros lineup.
The Astros are the best team in baseball, have been all year long and frankly I thought that only the Yankees (*) and Dodgers (well, and the Cubs) had any chance of beating them this year and they'll been facing none of these teams in the next round, so it already feels over.
In this matchup the Astros have the better offense, defense, pitching, coaching and the home field advantage. In baseball that doesn't always matter, the better team really only has slightly better than 50/50 chance of winning in a 7-game series. But I'm not going upset here. The Astros bats can occasionally go cold and that Nats starting pitching is pretty damn good, but I don't see the Astros losing more than two games.
Gotta go Astros over the Nats in 6.
Revisiting my pre-season over/under predictions, how did I do this season?
Right
Red Sox (yeah, they had regression written all over them but I still had them in the play-in game), Blue Jays (yeah, they were what I thought they'd be)
Twins (they really pulled it together this year, I knew they'd be good but they were even better than I thought), White Sox (yup, they were pretty terrible), Royals (yup, they were pretty terrible)
A's (good squad, they always play hard), Rangers (they were I thought: slightly underrated but not really good enough to make a run)
Nats (losing Bryce Harper was all they needed to take off), Mets (barely covered but they did), Phillies (I knew adding Bryce Harper was not gonna get them where they wanted to go)
Cards (yeah, felt time for them to reassert their leadership in this division), Reds (not bad actually, they could've been a lot worse), Pirates (that Renaissance they'd had for the last few years felt like a mirage and it was)
Dodgers (the class of the division for the foreseeable future), D-Backs (not bad but nowhere near the post-season), Rockies (mediocre as usual)
Wrong
Yankees (thought they'd be good but they were even better), Rays (didn't see them as a playoff team but they were tough), Orioles (wow, even worse than I thought they'd be!)
Indians (I thought 90 W's would take that division, not even close and their 93 W's didn't even get them in the play-in game), Tigers (omg, were they really that bad?)
Astros (man, I knew they were the best team but they blew my expectations out of the water), Angels (thought they'd be ready to make a move this season...nope), Mariners (not sure what happened to them, felt like they were growing nicely)
Braves (they were better than I thought they'd be but somehow I knew they would be), Marlins (yuch, they're even more terrible than I would've thought possible)
Brewers (thought they'd finish behind the Cubs, they did not), Cubs (thought they'd finish ahead of the Brewers, they did not)
Padres (did I really think they were gonna be good?), Giants (better than I thought they'd be, still waiting for them to truly bottom out but maybe they never will)
My post-season predictions
I did have the Nats over the Dodgers and the Cards but I whiffed on picking the Mets in the play-in and the Cubs coming out of the NL.
I was okay in the AL: I had Red Sox (instead of the Rays) over A's, I had the Yankees over the Indians (instead of the Twins) and the Astros over the Yankees in the finals.
I had Astros over Cubs in 7, still feel like I got a good shot of coming out with the champion.
(*) If you haven't watched the end of that game, this is a long clip but totally worth it.
Showing posts with label 2019. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2019. Show all posts
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Friday, June 28, 2019
2019 Gold Cup Quarterfinals
A
Mexico started off hot, easily won the group, but seemed to run out of gas (Martinique gave 'em a run). Arguably the best team in group play.
Canada won the games they should've won, lost the match they should've lost.
Martinique lit up Cuba and gave a full effort against Mexico. (Kinda wish they were moving on)
Cuba sucked--sucked bad! I guess I should've known they're not good at soccer (you ask Henry Kissinger, he'll tell ya the same thing) but I thought they'd have some spice to them.
B
Haiti came up big in the final match against Costa Rica. They've got good athletes but I wasn't particularly impressed with their on-ball action. They've got a puncher's chance to move on.
Costa Rica should've won this group but didn't win the game they needed to win. Instead of playing Canada, they're playing Mexico, which is a huge difference.
Bermuda was fun, man. Played Haiti and Costa Rica close and thumped Nicaragua. I was more impressed with the Caribbean teams than I expected to be.
Nicaragua was not good. They were not in any of their three matches.
C (The most mixed up group)
Jamaica has a lot of nice athletes but I've never been sold on their ability to play soccer. Against Curacao they must've missed on 400 scoring chances! So will they keep getting enough chances to score or will they keep disappointing in the box?
Yeah, Curacao! I gave them no chance and they actually looked pretty good in all three matches. (That late goal against Jamaica was the highlight of the whole tourney so far)
Honduras came up too little, too late.
El Salvador, too, was in the mix in this group but just didn't get it done.
D
USA! USA! I wasn't skeptical, so much as I just had no idea what to expect. Thumping Guyana was expected but thumping Trinidad was not at all expected--and such a pleasant surprise! And finishing off Panama was a solid performance by a confident squad, that didn't even play their best side. Very impressive, USA looks very good moving forward.
Panama was fine. I dunno, they didn't blow me away.
Guyana played hard and even managed a good result against Trinidad. All in all I misjudged the Caribbean squads, those smaller countries came to play.
Trinidad was disappointing but USA shredding their defense took it out of 'em, I reckon.
Quarters
Haiti-Canada
Canada is probably the better team but they're not great, while Haiti has enough athletes to sport better big play capability. I'd say Haiti has a better chance to connect on a corner kick but this has PK's written all over it.
Mexico-Costa Rica
Costa Rica has had some fine squads in recent years but I didn't see anything in the group games to make me think they're gonna be able to hang with Mexico. Gotta take Mexico to advance.
Jamaica-Panama
Two kinda disappointing sides. Jamaica never seemed very likely to finish their chances, Panama never seemed likely to move forward well enough to finish. Another one that could go to PK's though I suspect Jamaica is the better team.
USA-Curacao
I've admired Curacao's effort so far but USA seems to have their shit together, gotta ride the Americans to get to the final.
Mexico and USA are the two best teams (as they always should be) and I'd be kinda surprised (and more than a little disappointed) if they don't face off in the finals.
Mexico started off hot, easily won the group, but seemed to run out of gas (Martinique gave 'em a run). Arguably the best team in group play.
Canada won the games they should've won, lost the match they should've lost.
Martinique lit up Cuba and gave a full effort against Mexico. (Kinda wish they were moving on)
Cuba sucked--sucked bad! I guess I should've known they're not good at soccer (you ask Henry Kissinger, he'll tell ya the same thing) but I thought they'd have some spice to them.
B
Haiti came up big in the final match against Costa Rica. They've got good athletes but I wasn't particularly impressed with their on-ball action. They've got a puncher's chance to move on.
Costa Rica should've won this group but didn't win the game they needed to win. Instead of playing Canada, they're playing Mexico, which is a huge difference.
Bermuda was fun, man. Played Haiti and Costa Rica close and thumped Nicaragua. I was more impressed with the Caribbean teams than I expected to be.
Nicaragua was not good. They were not in any of their three matches.
C (The most mixed up group)
Jamaica has a lot of nice athletes but I've never been sold on their ability to play soccer. Against Curacao they must've missed on 400 scoring chances! So will they keep getting enough chances to score or will they keep disappointing in the box?
Yeah, Curacao! I gave them no chance and they actually looked pretty good in all three matches. (That late goal against Jamaica was the highlight of the whole tourney so far)
Honduras came up too little, too late.
El Salvador, too, was in the mix in this group but just didn't get it done.
D
USA! USA! I wasn't skeptical, so much as I just had no idea what to expect. Thumping Guyana was expected but thumping Trinidad was not at all expected--and such a pleasant surprise! And finishing off Panama was a solid performance by a confident squad, that didn't even play their best side. Very impressive, USA looks very good moving forward.
Panama was fine. I dunno, they didn't blow me away.
Guyana played hard and even managed a good result against Trinidad. All in all I misjudged the Caribbean squads, those smaller countries came to play.
Trinidad was disappointing but USA shredding their defense took it out of 'em, I reckon.
Quarters
Haiti-Canada
Canada is probably the better team but they're not great, while Haiti has enough athletes to sport better big play capability. I'd say Haiti has a better chance to connect on a corner kick but this has PK's written all over it.
Mexico-Costa Rica
Costa Rica has had some fine squads in recent years but I didn't see anything in the group games to make me think they're gonna be able to hang with Mexico. Gotta take Mexico to advance.
Jamaica-Panama
Two kinda disappointing sides. Jamaica never seemed very likely to finish their chances, Panama never seemed likely to move forward well enough to finish. Another one that could go to PK's though I suspect Jamaica is the better team.
USA-Curacao
I've admired Curacao's effort so far but USA seems to have their shit together, gotta ride the Americans to get to the final.
Mexico and USA are the two best teams (as they always should be) and I'd be kinda surprised (and more than a little disappointed) if they don't face off in the finals.
Friday, June 21, 2019
2019 NBA Draft Reactions (46-60)
46) Orlando Magic -- Talen Horton-Tucker (Iowa State)
2nd round grade--and even then appeared rather late in the process. Seems like a G-Leaguer.
47) New York Knicks -- Ignas Brezdeikas (Michigan)
The Wolverines were loaded with 2nd rd talent, not surprised to see him going here. (Kings traded #47 to the Knicks for #55)
48) LA Clippers -- Terence Mann (Florida State)
Consistent 2nd round grade all season long, on the rise in the last month or so. Not bad.
49) San Antonio Spurs -- Quinndary Weatherspoon (Missouri State)
Don't know him.
50) Utah Jazz --Jarrell Brantley (College of Charleston)
Don't know him. Another one that isn't on my eligible players list. (Pacers traded #50 to Jazz for a future 2nd rd pick)
51) Boston Celtics -- Tremont Waters (LSU)
Hmmm, scouted LSU and went with Waters over Naz Reid? Well, the Celtics need PG's, so worth a try, I guess, though this seems like G-League depth.
52) Charlotte Hornets -- Jalen McDaniels (San Diego State)
Seems like a decent big body down low.
53) Utah Jazz --Justin Wright-Foreman (Hofstra)
Senior from Hofstra? Okay, I'm ready for it.
54) Philadelphia 76ers -- Marial Shayok (Iowa State)
Another one I don't even see on the eligible player list.
55) New York Kicks -- Kyle Guy (Viriginia)
Great get at #55. The next Alonzo Trier?
56) Brooklyn Nets -- Jaylen Hands (UCLA)
He's had moments of buzz this season, not a bad pick at #56.
57) Atlanta Hawks -- Jordan Bone (Tennessee)
Love this guy, yet another solid pick for the Hawks!
58) Golden State Warriors -- Miye Oni (Yale)
Warriors went way far off the menu tonight. Either the scouts are geniuses or they were just looking busy on draft night.
59) Toronto Raptors -- Dewan Hernandez (Miami)
Don't know him.
60) Sacramento Kings -- Vanja Marinkovic (Serbia)
Didn't exactly burn up the mock drafts, though he was in there. (Vlade Divac's nephew?)
2nd round grade--and even then appeared rather late in the process. Seems like a G-Leaguer.
47) New York Knicks -- Ignas Brezdeikas (Michigan)
The Wolverines were loaded with 2nd rd talent, not surprised to see him going here. (Kings traded #47 to the Knicks for #55)
48) LA Clippers -- Terence Mann (Florida State)
Consistent 2nd round grade all season long, on the rise in the last month or so. Not bad.
49) San Antonio Spurs -- Quinndary Weatherspoon (Missouri State)
Don't know him.
50) Utah Jazz --Jarrell Brantley (College of Charleston)
Don't know him. Another one that isn't on my eligible players list. (Pacers traded #50 to Jazz for a future 2nd rd pick)
51) Boston Celtics -- Tremont Waters (LSU)
Hmmm, scouted LSU and went with Waters over Naz Reid? Well, the Celtics need PG's, so worth a try, I guess, though this seems like G-League depth.
52) Charlotte Hornets -- Jalen McDaniels (San Diego State)
Seems like a decent big body down low.
53) Utah Jazz --Justin Wright-Foreman (Hofstra)
Senior from Hofstra? Okay, I'm ready for it.
54) Philadelphia 76ers -- Marial Shayok (Iowa State)
Another one I don't even see on the eligible player list.
55) New York Kicks -- Kyle Guy (Viriginia)
Great get at #55. The next Alonzo Trier?
56) Brooklyn Nets -- Jaylen Hands (UCLA)
He's had moments of buzz this season, not a bad pick at #56.
57) Atlanta Hawks -- Jordan Bone (Tennessee)
Love this guy, yet another solid pick for the Hawks!
58) Golden State Warriors -- Miye Oni (Yale)
Warriors went way far off the menu tonight. Either the scouts are geniuses or they were just looking busy on draft night.
59) Toronto Raptors -- Dewan Hernandez (Miami)
Don't know him.
60) Sacramento Kings -- Vanja Marinkovic (Serbia)
Didn't exactly burn up the mock drafts, though he was in there. (Vlade Divac's nephew?)
Thursday, June 20, 2019
2019 NBA Draft Reactions (31-45)
31) Brooklyn Nets -- Nicolas Claxton (Georgia)
Started taking off not long before the draft, graded low 1st rd but early 2nd rd is probably the right place for him. Feels like the Nets got a steal at #31
32) Miami Heat -- KZ Okpala (Stanford)
Wow, he was top ten graded for parts of this season, this is a great get for the Heat. (Pacers traded #32 to the Heat for three 2nd rd picks)
33) Boston Celtics -- Carsen Edwards (Purdue)
My man! This is the guy the Celtics wanted the whole time (kinda like when the Rockets got Montrezl Harrell in the 2nd rd). Great pickup for the Celtics, Edwards has the chance to be something interesting.
34) Atlanta Hawks -- Bruno Fernando (Maryland)
Again! Top ten talent that fell a long way. Excellent night for the Hawks! (Sixers traded #34 to the Hawks for #57, a 2020 2nd rd pick, a 2023 2nd rd pick)
35) New Orleans Pelicans -- Marcos Louzada Silva (Brazil)
Seems like a Spurs player, I like it!
36) Charlotte Hornets -- Cody Martin (Nevada)
Had some exciting years with the Wolfpack, I think he'll get to play with the Hornets.
37) Detroit Pistons -- Deividas Syrvidis (Lithuania)
Seemed like a natural for the new-look Mavs but he's off to Detroit. (Mavs traded #37 to the Pistons for #45 and two future 2nd rd picks)
38) Chicago Bulls -- Daniel Gafford (Arkansas)
Hmmm, the last time the Bulls drafted an under appreciated Razorback (Bobby Portis) didn't work out that great. Oh well. I liked Portis and I like Gafford, too, good pick for the Bulls.
39) Golden State Warriors -- Alen Smailagic (Serbia)
Don't know him. I figured the Warriors would be active in the 2nd round but I'm not sure about the Warriors scouting, feels like there are interesting prospects out there and the Warriors keep going off the board. (Pelicans traded #39 to the Warriors for two future 2nd rd picks)
40) Sacramento Kings -- Justin James (Wyoming)
No idea who this guy is. I don't even see him on the list of eligible players!
41) Golden State Warriors -- Eric Paschall (Villanova)
Now here's a 1st rd talent that fell and the Warriors were there to grab him.
42) Washington Wizards -- Admiral Schofield (Tennessee)
Love this pick, getting a gritty hard-working guy at #42 is good value--and they get Jonathon Simmons to fill out the bench, too. (Sixers traded #42 and Jonathon Simmons to the Wizards for cash)
43) Minnesota T-Wolves -- Jaylen Nowell (Washington)
Don't know him.
44) Miami Heat -- Bol Bol (Oregon)
There he is. The whispers have not been good lately but #44 seems a reasonable spot to take a flyer on a guy that might have top ten talent. (Heat traded Bol Bol to the Nuggets for a future 2nd round pick and cash)
45) Dallas Mavericks -- Isiah Roby (Nebraska)
They traded away a full-on Lativian gangbanger for a kid from Nebraska? Intriguing....
Started taking off not long before the draft, graded low 1st rd but early 2nd rd is probably the right place for him. Feels like the Nets got a steal at #31
32) Miami Heat -- KZ Okpala (Stanford)
Wow, he was top ten graded for parts of this season, this is a great get for the Heat. (Pacers traded #32 to the Heat for three 2nd rd picks)
33) Boston Celtics -- Carsen Edwards (Purdue)
My man! This is the guy the Celtics wanted the whole time (kinda like when the Rockets got Montrezl Harrell in the 2nd rd). Great pickup for the Celtics, Edwards has the chance to be something interesting.
34) Atlanta Hawks -- Bruno Fernando (Maryland)
Again! Top ten talent that fell a long way. Excellent night for the Hawks! (Sixers traded #34 to the Hawks for #57, a 2020 2nd rd pick, a 2023 2nd rd pick)
35) New Orleans Pelicans -- Marcos Louzada Silva (Brazil)
Seems like a Spurs player, I like it!
36) Charlotte Hornets -- Cody Martin (Nevada)
Had some exciting years with the Wolfpack, I think he'll get to play with the Hornets.
37) Detroit Pistons -- Deividas Syrvidis (Lithuania)
Seemed like a natural for the new-look Mavs but he's off to Detroit. (Mavs traded #37 to the Pistons for #45 and two future 2nd rd picks)
38) Chicago Bulls -- Daniel Gafford (Arkansas)
Hmmm, the last time the Bulls drafted an under appreciated Razorback (Bobby Portis) didn't work out that great. Oh well. I liked Portis and I like Gafford, too, good pick for the Bulls.
39) Golden State Warriors -- Alen Smailagic (Serbia)
Don't know him. I figured the Warriors would be active in the 2nd round but I'm not sure about the Warriors scouting, feels like there are interesting prospects out there and the Warriors keep going off the board. (Pelicans traded #39 to the Warriors for two future 2nd rd picks)
40) Sacramento Kings -- Justin James (Wyoming)
No idea who this guy is. I don't even see him on the list of eligible players!
41) Golden State Warriors -- Eric Paschall (Villanova)
Now here's a 1st rd talent that fell and the Warriors were there to grab him.
42) Washington Wizards -- Admiral Schofield (Tennessee)
Love this pick, getting a gritty hard-working guy at #42 is good value--and they get Jonathon Simmons to fill out the bench, too. (Sixers traded #42 and Jonathon Simmons to the Wizards for cash)
43) Minnesota T-Wolves -- Jaylen Nowell (Washington)
Don't know him.
44) Miami Heat -- Bol Bol (Oregon)
There he is. The whispers have not been good lately but #44 seems a reasonable spot to take a flyer on a guy that might have top ten talent. (Heat traded Bol Bol to the Nuggets for a future 2nd round pick and cash)
45) Dallas Mavericks -- Isiah Roby (Nebraska)
They traded away a full-on Lativian gangbanger for a kid from Nebraska? Intriguing....
2019 NBA Draft Reactions (15-30)
15) Detroit Pistons --Sekou Doumbouya (France)
Interesting character: youngest in the draft (so he's green) but he's been playing pro since he was 15 (so he's a grizzled vet). Hey, man, Pistons are a good spot for him, he'll play and develop and get just enough edge-of-playoff reps to train his young mind for the grind. I like this pick for the Pistons.
16) Orlando Magic -- Chuma Okeke (Auburn)
I liked Okeke at Auburn, tough guy (tore his ACL, so will we see him this year?), plays smart down low. This is much higher than his projection but since he is hurt this is actually probably where he belongs. Weird that Orlando would take a red-shirt this high, they must love him. (Sneaky 2020-2021 ROY pick)
17) New Orleans Pelicans -- Nickeill Alexander-Walker (Virginia Tech)
(Seems like Orlando got these picks got out of order: I think I'd rather see Okeke in New Orleans and Alexander-Walker in Indiana. Oh well) He's a savvy player, can shoot the 3, could be good right away, although the Pelicans have a logjam at ballhandling PG, don't they? (Hmmm, is he a Jrue Holiday replacement or the low-pressure understudy?)
18) Indiana Pacers -- Gogo Bitadze (Republic of Georgia)
Big body. All I know about him is that classic picture of him sharing media day with Zion Williamson (and, well, Zion getting 99% of the attention). Pacers love their big foreigners, looking forward to see how he plays (Summer League?).
19) San Antonio Spurs -- Luka Samanic (Croatia)
He was graded as a 2nd rounder but if the Spurs like him, I bet he can play. Is he gonna be a Porzigis-type?
20) Philadelphia 76ers -- Matisse Thybulle (Washington)
Pac-12 senior that averaged less than 10ppg and had a 2nd round grade throughout the season? I'm a little skeptical but supposedly he's gonna be a great defender. But pairing another non-shooter with Ben Simmons? Still skeptical. (Celtics traded #20 to the Sixers for #24 and #34. I thought the Celtics would take Keldon Johnson here, maybe at 22)
21) Memphis Grizzlies -- Brandon Clarke (Gonzaga)
All around good player, solid athlete, shot blocker. Shweet! I like this pick. Throw him in with the new-look squad, see if he's got grit and grind. (Thunder traded #21 to the Grizzlies for #23 and a future 2nd rd pick)
22) Boston Celtics -- Grant Williams (Tennessee)
I like Williams (Vols were fierce last season) but I think this is a little high for him and seems like the Celtics are already stacked at forward so I'm not sure this is the best fit. I think he could be good and the Celtics have a ton of picks, so worth a flyer, I reckon.
23) Oklahoma City Thunder -- Darius Bazley (USA)
Don't know him, coming straight out of high school, which is where they found Terrence Ferguson. Is he a Steven Adams replacement? (I can see this guy blowing up Summer League)
24) Phoenix Suns -- Ty Jerome (Virginia)
The Suns need a proper PG (Celtics do, too, a little surprised they shipped him out), Jerome is probably just the first PG they should be looking for tonight. He's from UVA so you know he'll be a hard-nosed defender, we'll see if he can keep up with the NBA pace. (Celtics traded #24 and Aron Baynes to the Suns for the Bucks 2020 1st rd pick--wow, good deal for the Suns: a big body, reasonably priced vet and a promising PG that's better than what they would've gotten with the pick they traded)
25) Portland Trail Blazers -- Nassir Little (North Carolina)
Wow, lottery grade most of the year (though perhaps overrated a bit), slipped a long way on draft night. Good get for the Blazers, is he a Rodney Hood replacement? (Bet he's gonna ball out in Summer League!)
26) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Dylan Windler (Belmont)
Big kid that can shoot off the cut, if he can find his space gotta figure Sexton and Garland will find him for buckets.
27) LA Clippers --Mfiondu Kabengele (Florida State)
Nephew of Dikembe Mutombo, so he's really tall and can block shots. I don't know him, there are questions about his lateral quickness but can shoot 3's. Clippers traded up for him, guess they just want Mutumbo showing up at their games. (Nets traded #27 to the Clippers for #56 and Sixers 2020 1st rd pick)
28) Golden State Warriors -- Jordan Poole (Michigan)
Don't know him. The Warriors must like him because they need this pick to play next year, so whatever they see in Poole, I have to assume they got the guy they wanted. Kinda thought Bol Bol (Oregon) was a good fit here or even Keldon Johnson (Kentucky) as a part-time Klay replacement, a little surprised they went off the board, they really need every reasonably reliable low-priced warm body they can get.
29) San Antonio Spurs -- Keldon Johnson (Kentucky)
The Spurs could use perimeter shooting but I'm not sure KJ is the guy for them (I thought Suns, Celtics and Clippers were better landing spots for Johnson but I guess those teams did not agree). If the Spurs think he's a fit, then I reckon he'll be a fit (though I wouldn't be surprised if his rookie year is more G-League than San Antone).
30) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Kevin Porter Jr (Southern Cal)
Up and down in his one season at USC, talented but raw. The Cavs have completely overhauled their PG and SG positions. These kids'll get to play, looking forward to see if they're any good. (Pistons traded #30 to the Cavs for 2020 2nd rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick and cash)
Interesting character: youngest in the draft (so he's green) but he's been playing pro since he was 15 (so he's a grizzled vet). Hey, man, Pistons are a good spot for him, he'll play and develop and get just enough edge-of-playoff reps to train his young mind for the grind. I like this pick for the Pistons.
16) Orlando Magic -- Chuma Okeke (Auburn)
I liked Okeke at Auburn, tough guy (tore his ACL, so will we see him this year?), plays smart down low. This is much higher than his projection but since he is hurt this is actually probably where he belongs. Weird that Orlando would take a red-shirt this high, they must love him. (Sneaky 2020-2021 ROY pick)
17) New Orleans Pelicans -- Nickeill Alexander-Walker (Virginia Tech)
(Seems like Orlando got these picks got out of order: I think I'd rather see Okeke in New Orleans and Alexander-Walker in Indiana. Oh well) He's a savvy player, can shoot the 3, could be good right away, although the Pelicans have a logjam at ballhandling PG, don't they? (Hmmm, is he a Jrue Holiday replacement or the low-pressure understudy?)
18) Indiana Pacers -- Gogo Bitadze (Republic of Georgia)
Big body. All I know about him is that classic picture of him sharing media day with Zion Williamson (and, well, Zion getting 99% of the attention). Pacers love their big foreigners, looking forward to see how he plays (Summer League?).
19) San Antonio Spurs -- Luka Samanic (Croatia)
He was graded as a 2nd rounder but if the Spurs like him, I bet he can play. Is he gonna be a Porzigis-type?
20) Philadelphia 76ers -- Matisse Thybulle (Washington)
Pac-12 senior that averaged less than 10ppg and had a 2nd round grade throughout the season? I'm a little skeptical but supposedly he's gonna be a great defender. But pairing another non-shooter with Ben Simmons? Still skeptical. (Celtics traded #20 to the Sixers for #24 and #34. I thought the Celtics would take Keldon Johnson here, maybe at 22)
21) Memphis Grizzlies -- Brandon Clarke (Gonzaga)
All around good player, solid athlete, shot blocker. Shweet! I like this pick. Throw him in with the new-look squad, see if he's got grit and grind. (Thunder traded #21 to the Grizzlies for #23 and a future 2nd rd pick)
22) Boston Celtics -- Grant Williams (Tennessee)
I like Williams (Vols were fierce last season) but I think this is a little high for him and seems like the Celtics are already stacked at forward so I'm not sure this is the best fit. I think he could be good and the Celtics have a ton of picks, so worth a flyer, I reckon.
23) Oklahoma City Thunder -- Darius Bazley (USA)
Don't know him, coming straight out of high school, which is where they found Terrence Ferguson. Is he a Steven Adams replacement? (I can see this guy blowing up Summer League)
24) Phoenix Suns -- Ty Jerome (Virginia)
The Suns need a proper PG (Celtics do, too, a little surprised they shipped him out), Jerome is probably just the first PG they should be looking for tonight. He's from UVA so you know he'll be a hard-nosed defender, we'll see if he can keep up with the NBA pace. (Celtics traded #24 and Aron Baynes to the Suns for the Bucks 2020 1st rd pick--wow, good deal for the Suns: a big body, reasonably priced vet and a promising PG that's better than what they would've gotten with the pick they traded)
25) Portland Trail Blazers -- Nassir Little (North Carolina)
Wow, lottery grade most of the year (though perhaps overrated a bit), slipped a long way on draft night. Good get for the Blazers, is he a Rodney Hood replacement? (Bet he's gonna ball out in Summer League!)
26) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Dylan Windler (Belmont)
Big kid that can shoot off the cut, if he can find his space gotta figure Sexton and Garland will find him for buckets.
27) LA Clippers --Mfiondu Kabengele (Florida State)
Nephew of Dikembe Mutombo, so he's really tall and can block shots. I don't know him, there are questions about his lateral quickness but can shoot 3's. Clippers traded up for him, guess they just want Mutumbo showing up at their games. (Nets traded #27 to the Clippers for #56 and Sixers 2020 1st rd pick)
28) Golden State Warriors -- Jordan Poole (Michigan)
Don't know him. The Warriors must like him because they need this pick to play next year, so whatever they see in Poole, I have to assume they got the guy they wanted. Kinda thought Bol Bol (Oregon) was a good fit here or even Keldon Johnson (Kentucky) as a part-time Klay replacement, a little surprised they went off the board, they really need every reasonably reliable low-priced warm body they can get.
29) San Antonio Spurs -- Keldon Johnson (Kentucky)
The Spurs could use perimeter shooting but I'm not sure KJ is the guy for them (I thought Suns, Celtics and Clippers were better landing spots for Johnson but I guess those teams did not agree). If the Spurs think he's a fit, then I reckon he'll be a fit (though I wouldn't be surprised if his rookie year is more G-League than San Antone).
30) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Kevin Porter Jr (Southern Cal)
Up and down in his one season at USC, talented but raw. The Cavs have completely overhauled their PG and SG positions. These kids'll get to play, looking forward to see if they're any good. (Pistons traded #30 to the Cavs for 2020 2nd rd pick, 2021 2nd rd pick, 2023 2nd rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick and cash)
2019 NBA Draft Reactions (1-14)
1) New Orleans Pelicans -- Zion Williamson (Duke)
I don't love him quite as much as the rest of the world does (I'm totally ready to be proven wrong!), but he is clearly the #1 player, #1 prospect, #1 potential badass in this draft. Pelicans are gonna be high in my League Pass rankings next year!
2) Memphis Grizzlies -- Ja Morant (Murray State)
Conley's out, it's Morant's team now. While I'm not a huge fan of bringing in Crowder and Korver, it's nice to start Morant off with a coupla solid vets. I don't expect the Grizz to be good any time soon, so no pressure on him.
3) New York Knicks -- RJ Barrett (Duke)
Was the #1 prospect coming out of high school last year and struck me as the more ready-to-go player on the Duke roster last year. Hard to tell what the Knicks will be adding this summer but the Knicks have a good chance to be wildly better than last year (well, I mean, that shouldn't be that hard). And since I love youth movements, looks like I'll be watching a lot of Knicks this season.
4) Atlanta Hawks -- Deandre Hunter (Virginia)
So they traded up for Hunter. UVA (champs!) has steadily produced disciplined smart players over the years and if Hunter plays smart, he'll be a good foil for Trae Young. Seems like he'll fit in nicely between Huerter and Spellman, the Hawks got the youth movement filled out now--and they're still adding.
5) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Darius Garland (Vanderbilt)
(The Celtics willing to take back JR Smith for this pick?) They say Garland's the next Kyrie Irving (hopefully just on the court), meaning great hands, quick shot, relentlessly attacks the basket. The Cavs just brought in Collin Sexton, can he move to SG?
6) Minnesota T-Wolves -- Jarrett Culver (Texas Tech)
(Wolves just traded for this pick, are they trading it away?) Kinda thought they'd take Coby White, so is this pick future trade bait? Or is Robert Covington the next trade for the Wolves? All I saw of Culver was in the tourney, he played well but he kinda disappeared from time to time, but if he can be a reliable scorer Culver could be a sneaky ROY candidate.
7) Chicago Bulls -- Coby White (North Carolina)
Uhhhh....*sigh*....I don't think this is a good fit. White has great speed but he feels like a project to me and the Bulls are a project team who probably ought to fill out scoring and defense now and just pick up a veteran PG. But, never know, White could be the spark that raises this team up.
8) New Orleans Pelicans -- Jaxson Hayes (Texas)
Thought going for Cam Reddish was the move here, but the Pelicans went for size instead. He's a great finisher around the rim, seems like a nice fit with Zion and Lonzo. I didn't see this one coming but could be a real upside addition for the Pelicans. League Pass!
9) Washington Wizards -- Rui Hachimura (Gonzaga)
Ooh, this is a strangely good pick. I like Hachimura, can score from inside and outside and I like his steady improvement throughout college. Wizards are a dumpster fire so not sure this is the best move for his career but I think he'll play for them right away.
10) Atlanta Hawks -- Cam Reddish (Duke)
Nice! I feel like he's the guy they wanted all along so to pick him up at #10 is a beautiful thing. Reddish kinda disappeared from time to time, but he's a pro now and Trae Young will give him touches. To add Hunter and Reddish on the same night is rocketing Hawks up my League Pass rankings!
11) Phoenix Suns -- Cameron Johnson (North Carolina)
Hmmmm....he topped out at #24 in the mock draft I saw and was most recently a 2nd round projection. So...no idea what the Suns had in mind here. Big for a SF, if he can score (good 3P% in NCAA) he'll get some run, I guess. The Suns did pick up Saric, so while I don't see Johnson making an impact in that lineup, he can take his time developing throughout his rookie year. This is a weird pick.
12) Charlotte Hornets -- PJ Washington (Kentucky)
Hmmm, I figured they'd go for a Tarheel here (like Nassir Little) but I watched a lot of PJ and I liked him a lot and I think he'll be a better pro than a collegian. His comp, and this will be tough to pull off, is Draymond Green: no-nonsense big man who can handle, pass, shoot pretty well but more than anything he can be the guy in control. If the Hornets lose Kemba they'll need a leader and I think PJ can be that guy.
13) Miami Heat -- Tyler Herro (Kentucky)
Herro was nice all year long but played really well in the tourney (in that sense he reminds me of Devin Booker at UK, too, so maybe Herro blows up). Smart kid, bigger than you think, moves well, he'll give the Heat some perimeter shooting. Heat need everything, so Herro's not a bad fit here.
14) Boston Celtics -- Romeo Langford (Indiana)
Nice pick! Langford had been dropping but I was never sure why. If he's healthy I think he'll play hard and score right away (sneaky ROY pick). I think of him as an SG more than a PG, so he might not be a Celtic by the end of the summer because they've got moves to make.
I don't love him quite as much as the rest of the world does (I'm totally ready to be proven wrong!), but he is clearly the #1 player, #1 prospect, #1 potential badass in this draft. Pelicans are gonna be high in my League Pass rankings next year!
2) Memphis Grizzlies -- Ja Morant (Murray State)
Conley's out, it's Morant's team now. While I'm not a huge fan of bringing in Crowder and Korver, it's nice to start Morant off with a coupla solid vets. I don't expect the Grizz to be good any time soon, so no pressure on him.
3) New York Knicks -- RJ Barrett (Duke)
Was the #1 prospect coming out of high school last year and struck me as the more ready-to-go player on the Duke roster last year. Hard to tell what the Knicks will be adding this summer but the Knicks have a good chance to be wildly better than last year (well, I mean, that shouldn't be that hard). And since I love youth movements, looks like I'll be watching a lot of Knicks this season.
4) Atlanta Hawks -- Deandre Hunter (Virginia)
So they traded up for Hunter. UVA (champs!) has steadily produced disciplined smart players over the years and if Hunter plays smart, he'll be a good foil for Trae Young. Seems like he'll fit in nicely between Huerter and Spellman, the Hawks got the youth movement filled out now--and they're still adding.
5) Cleveland Cavaliers -- Darius Garland (Vanderbilt)
(The Celtics willing to take back JR Smith for this pick?) They say Garland's the next Kyrie Irving (hopefully just on the court), meaning great hands, quick shot, relentlessly attacks the basket. The Cavs just brought in Collin Sexton, can he move to SG?
6) Minnesota T-Wolves -- Jarrett Culver (Texas Tech)
(Wolves just traded for this pick, are they trading it away?) Kinda thought they'd take Coby White, so is this pick future trade bait? Or is Robert Covington the next trade for the Wolves? All I saw of Culver was in the tourney, he played well but he kinda disappeared from time to time, but if he can be a reliable scorer Culver could be a sneaky ROY candidate.
7) Chicago Bulls -- Coby White (North Carolina)
Uhhhh....*sigh*....I don't think this is a good fit. White has great speed but he feels like a project to me and the Bulls are a project team who probably ought to fill out scoring and defense now and just pick up a veteran PG. But, never know, White could be the spark that raises this team up.
8) New Orleans Pelicans -- Jaxson Hayes (Texas)
Thought going for Cam Reddish was the move here, but the Pelicans went for size instead. He's a great finisher around the rim, seems like a nice fit with Zion and Lonzo. I didn't see this one coming but could be a real upside addition for the Pelicans. League Pass!
9) Washington Wizards -- Rui Hachimura (Gonzaga)
Ooh, this is a strangely good pick. I like Hachimura, can score from inside and outside and I like his steady improvement throughout college. Wizards are a dumpster fire so not sure this is the best move for his career but I think he'll play for them right away.
10) Atlanta Hawks -- Cam Reddish (Duke)
Nice! I feel like he's the guy they wanted all along so to pick him up at #10 is a beautiful thing. Reddish kinda disappeared from time to time, but he's a pro now and Trae Young will give him touches. To add Hunter and Reddish on the same night is rocketing Hawks up my League Pass rankings!
11) Phoenix Suns -- Cameron Johnson (North Carolina)
Hmmmm....he topped out at #24 in the mock draft I saw and was most recently a 2nd round projection. So...no idea what the Suns had in mind here. Big for a SF, if he can score (good 3P% in NCAA) he'll get some run, I guess. The Suns did pick up Saric, so while I don't see Johnson making an impact in that lineup, he can take his time developing throughout his rookie year. This is a weird pick.
12) Charlotte Hornets -- PJ Washington (Kentucky)
Hmmm, I figured they'd go for a Tarheel here (like Nassir Little) but I watched a lot of PJ and I liked him a lot and I think he'll be a better pro than a collegian. His comp, and this will be tough to pull off, is Draymond Green: no-nonsense big man who can handle, pass, shoot pretty well but more than anything he can be the guy in control. If the Hornets lose Kemba they'll need a leader and I think PJ can be that guy.
13) Miami Heat -- Tyler Herro (Kentucky)
Herro was nice all year long but played really well in the tourney (in that sense he reminds me of Devin Booker at UK, too, so maybe Herro blows up). Smart kid, bigger than you think, moves well, he'll give the Heat some perimeter shooting. Heat need everything, so Herro's not a bad fit here.
14) Boston Celtics -- Romeo Langford (Indiana)
Nice pick! Langford had been dropping but I was never sure why. If he's healthy I think he'll play hard and score right away (sneaky ROY pick). I think of him as an SG more than a PG, so he might not be a Celtic by the end of the summer because they've got moves to make.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Recent Sports Watching
NHL
I love hockey but the Stanley Cup Finals is pretty much all I get to see. I caught Games One, Four, Five, Six and Seven and I think I found the Blues to be the better team in general. The Bruins were wild and up for anything, the Blues were more controlled and tended to want to dominate possession. But the game is all about energy and when the Bruins bring the active, they score more goals.
Blues 2-4 Bruins
Blues looked better, Bruins played better. Bruins had the energy and pretty much controlled throughout but the Blues showed flashes of an offense that could hold possession and attack.
Blues 3-2 Bruins
Bruins 7-2 Blues
Bruins 2-4 Blues
Opposite of Game One: I thought the Bruins played more compact and reliable but the Blues played wild, brought the energy and locked down this W early on.
Blues 2-1 Bruins
This series will be remembered for Game Five where the Blues committed an obvious penalty and finished the play with the goal that finished off the win. Okay: I don't watch a lot of hockey and I sometimes miss which interactions are illegal and which are just par for the course, but even I could tell right away that that was a foul--no idea how the refs missed it. Just to hammer home the point: the dude who committed the foul got the puck passed back to him after the dude he fouled turned it over--and he wasn't ready for the pass because he was already arguing with the ref who didn't even make a call! That makes him the guiltiest-looking human being I have ever seen. That kid with the chocolate icing smeared on his face who has no idea what happened to the cake has been moved to 2nd place. The Blues dude gave up on the play to start arguing--that's guilty! That alone should be 2 minutes in the box! And even though the Bruins dominated the final ten minutes or so of that match, they could not overcome the Blues' lead.
Bruins 5-1 Blues
Game Six was set up for the Blues to finish it off, but they didn't show up, man. I thought the Blues were the better team but they played tight and got frustrated by their inability to score. This game was still close deep into the 3rd, Blues sorta checked out by the end, Bruins piled it on, Blues got chippy late but never challenged the scoreboard. Again, I generally thought the Blues were the better team but once the Bruins started scoring, they just piled it on. (I think Binnington (Blues goalie) has been great and should be MVP if the Blues win; but he does have two games (Three and Six--both home games!) where he got beaten like a Bond villain and that is awkward)
Blues 4-1 Bruins
USA Friendlys
USA 0-1 Jamaica
USA 0-3 Venezuela
Well, the bad news is USA looked straight fucking horrible in both of these games: no creativity, no attack, no teamwork, sloppy in the backline, and no individual standouts. The good news is...the afternoons were sunny and breezy. This isn't USA's A-team, rather these were a coupla last look-over games before the Gold Cup, so I don't anticipate this is a preview of that (thank god!). That said, I doubt Jamaica or Venezuela brought their top squads, either, so this is a reminder that everyone else's depth is still greater than ours. (*sigh* Shouldn't USA be better by now?) Int'l soccer comes and goes so its hard to know what the Gold Cup will bring, I try to enjoy each tourney as the discrete event that it is. So I expect USA will be in, say, the final four, but we could just as easily get bounced by Martinique or somebody. I won't make a prediction because I have no idea what will happen.
Champions League
Liverpool 2-0 Tottenham
Ain't gonna lie: this was the dullest Champions League match of the whole season. I just happened to have seen that Liverpool won just as I was about to sit down and watch the replay (thank you Yahoo Baseball! (*)), which didn't surprise me, so I hoped at least for an exciting match. Not really. Liverpool got a PK on basically the first play of the game (dude, why was the defender waiving his arm like that? Wtf was that guy doing?), drilled it and that was pretty much it because Tottenham never could get any offense going. It stayed that way for 80 minutes or so, got a little more furious on the way out, but not much more because Liverpool was the better team throughout and sat on their one-goal lead to strangle this game. They stuck a late goal (nice finish) but that didn't do much to diminish the general lameness of this game.
That's too bad, I kinda loved this whole tournament. I watched as much this year as I've probably ever seen and I dug all of it. I was so into Ajax, really impressed by Barcelona, Juventus overachieved, Real Madrid underachieved, Bayern Munich got real old real fast and, holy shit, Man U was in the quarters (how on earth did that happen?). The big what-if is PSG, all they had to do was slip past a hapless Manchester and they might've done some damage. Liverpool was the best team of the whole tourney (they did beat Barca, too, so they earned the crown) and Tottenham just kept managing to survive all the way to the last game (if it was two games, I'd make it even odds for them to come back and take it).
French Open
I saw virtually none of this (I'm not an early morning sorta joe) except the very end of Thiem over Djokovic in the semifinals. The match was called the night before (for some reason), then suffered a long rain delay the next morning, then back and forth all the way. I expected Djokovic to take control but he never quite did, I expected Thiem to falter but he never quite did. Tennis is weird that way: the competition is so close at this level that the tiniest differences loom large. Either way, the winner was gonna get smoked by Nadal (hey, Thiem took a set off him, nice work).
(*) Angry old man rant: back in the day the sports ticker across the bottom of the screen during a ball game was the greatest invention since the flush toilet and I have actual memories of the ticker itself (1996 SEC Tourney B-ball final, I still don't believe UK lost that game). But now in a day and age when I get any score any time anywhere in the universe, I don't need the damn ticker. And putting in Bundesliga scores is supposed to make you look cool--but I watch my soccer on DVR, so now I have to start avoiding the damn ticker that I haven't needed in forever and just takes up space on the screen. Do you get it? The ticker actually interferes with my love of sports! Like the beeper and the VCR, it had its time and place and now it just takes up space.
I love hockey but the Stanley Cup Finals is pretty much all I get to see. I caught Games One, Four, Five, Six and Seven and I think I found the Blues to be the better team in general. The Bruins were wild and up for anything, the Blues were more controlled and tended to want to dominate possession. But the game is all about energy and when the Bruins bring the active, they score more goals.
Blues 2-4 Bruins
Blues looked better, Bruins played better. Bruins had the energy and pretty much controlled throughout but the Blues showed flashes of an offense that could hold possession and attack.
Blues 3-2 Bruins
Bruins 7-2 Blues
Bruins 2-4 Blues
Opposite of Game One: I thought the Bruins played more compact and reliable but the Blues played wild, brought the energy and locked down this W early on.
Blues 2-1 Bruins
This series will be remembered for Game Five where the Blues committed an obvious penalty and finished the play with the goal that finished off the win. Okay: I don't watch a lot of hockey and I sometimes miss which interactions are illegal and which are just par for the course, but even I could tell right away that that was a foul--no idea how the refs missed it. Just to hammer home the point: the dude who committed the foul got the puck passed back to him after the dude he fouled turned it over--and he wasn't ready for the pass because he was already arguing with the ref who didn't even make a call! That makes him the guiltiest-looking human being I have ever seen. That kid with the chocolate icing smeared on his face who has no idea what happened to the cake has been moved to 2nd place. The Blues dude gave up on the play to start arguing--that's guilty! That alone should be 2 minutes in the box! And even though the Bruins dominated the final ten minutes or so of that match, they could not overcome the Blues' lead.
Bruins 5-1 Blues
Game Six was set up for the Blues to finish it off, but they didn't show up, man. I thought the Blues were the better team but they played tight and got frustrated by their inability to score. This game was still close deep into the 3rd, Blues sorta checked out by the end, Bruins piled it on, Blues got chippy late but never challenged the scoreboard. Again, I generally thought the Blues were the better team but once the Bruins started scoring, they just piled it on. (I think Binnington (Blues goalie) has been great and should be MVP if the Blues win; but he does have two games (Three and Six--both home games!) where he got beaten like a Bond villain and that is awkward)
Blues 4-1 Bruins
Game Seven: Whoever brings the energy will win the game. Bruins came out crazy but the Blues were able to snake two goals (one right before halftime--I love/hate those!) and seem pretty well in control after the 1st period. But I thought both teams were frisky and in it to win it, so I still expected more goals, maybe even a tie game going into the 3rd. But the 2nd period was pretty even, both teams played better defense than offense, which kinda surprised me: I thought we'd see more playmaking, more guys trying to be the hero, rather than tightening up on D. But the 2nd period was pretty conservative as neither team ever got their offense set up. Still close enough where anything can happen. But a beautiful counter attack goal by the Blues with around 9 minutes left sucked the life of the Bruins. Their defenders start slacking out there, Blues got another goal and this game was over. The Bruins scored a late on to give the fans something to cheer about (nice top shelf knuckleball).
Good win for the Blues! As I keep saying, I thought the Blues were the better team throughout and when they played their game, they were gonna win. Games One, Three and Six were the ones the Blues didn't show up for, those are the ones they lost. The Bruins had a wider range of play, at their best their offense was overpowering but at their worst they couldn't hold their zone against the Blues attack. I don't watch enough hockey to know how momentous this was, but it was the first Cup for the Blues and they were in dead last in the league on January 1, so they've come a long way in the last six months.
USA Friendlys
USA 0-1 Jamaica
USA 0-3 Venezuela
Well, the bad news is USA looked straight fucking horrible in both of these games: no creativity, no attack, no teamwork, sloppy in the backline, and no individual standouts. The good news is...the afternoons were sunny and breezy. This isn't USA's A-team, rather these were a coupla last look-over games before the Gold Cup, so I don't anticipate this is a preview of that (thank god!). That said, I doubt Jamaica or Venezuela brought their top squads, either, so this is a reminder that everyone else's depth is still greater than ours. (*sigh* Shouldn't USA be better by now?) Int'l soccer comes and goes so its hard to know what the Gold Cup will bring, I try to enjoy each tourney as the discrete event that it is. So I expect USA will be in, say, the final four, but we could just as easily get bounced by Martinique or somebody. I won't make a prediction because I have no idea what will happen.
Champions League
Liverpool 2-0 Tottenham
Ain't gonna lie: this was the dullest Champions League match of the whole season. I just happened to have seen that Liverpool won just as I was about to sit down and watch the replay (thank you Yahoo Baseball! (*)), which didn't surprise me, so I hoped at least for an exciting match. Not really. Liverpool got a PK on basically the first play of the game (dude, why was the defender waiving his arm like that? Wtf was that guy doing?), drilled it and that was pretty much it because Tottenham never could get any offense going. It stayed that way for 80 minutes or so, got a little more furious on the way out, but not much more because Liverpool was the better team throughout and sat on their one-goal lead to strangle this game. They stuck a late goal (nice finish) but that didn't do much to diminish the general lameness of this game.
That's too bad, I kinda loved this whole tournament. I watched as much this year as I've probably ever seen and I dug all of it. I was so into Ajax, really impressed by Barcelona, Juventus overachieved, Real Madrid underachieved, Bayern Munich got real old real fast and, holy shit, Man U was in the quarters (how on earth did that happen?). The big what-if is PSG, all they had to do was slip past a hapless Manchester and they might've done some damage. Liverpool was the best team of the whole tourney (they did beat Barca, too, so they earned the crown) and Tottenham just kept managing to survive all the way to the last game (if it was two games, I'd make it even odds for them to come back and take it).
French Open
I saw virtually none of this (I'm not an early morning sorta joe) except the very end of Thiem over Djokovic in the semifinals. The match was called the night before (for some reason), then suffered a long rain delay the next morning, then back and forth all the way. I expected Djokovic to take control but he never quite did, I expected Thiem to falter but he never quite did. Tennis is weird that way: the competition is so close at this level that the tiniest differences loom large. Either way, the winner was gonna get smoked by Nadal (hey, Thiem took a set off him, nice work).
(*) Angry old man rant: back in the day the sports ticker across the bottom of the screen during a ball game was the greatest invention since the flush toilet and I have actual memories of the ticker itself (1996 SEC Tourney B-ball final, I still don't believe UK lost that game). But now in a day and age when I get any score any time anywhere in the universe, I don't need the damn ticker. And putting in Bundesliga scores is supposed to make you look cool--but I watch my soccer on DVR, so now I have to start avoiding the damn ticker that I haven't needed in forever and just takes up space on the screen. Do you get it? The ticker actually interferes with my love of sports! Like the beeper and the VCR, it had its time and place and now it just takes up space.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
2019 MLB Over/Unders
Glad to have baseball back. Not so psyched about yard work also making a return but always a good time welcome back annual MLB prognostications (even if I am a few days late...oh well).
NL
East
Nationals (88.5)(over)
I had Harper on my Fantasy team last year because I figured a high profile star in a walk year was primed for a monster season. Nope. His pathetic batting average and so-so power numbers basically doomed me (man, if I'd pick my man Jose Ramirez, I would've finished better and enjoyed my time more!). So I think the Nats will be better without him and the Phillies will be disappointing with him. (Listen, Bryce will suck for a coupla years, then when the next big thing comes along and we've forgotten about Bryce completely, then he'll have his Renaissance and we'll all be gushing over him again) I like the Nats to win the division and the Phillies to finish a shockingly bad 3rd place.
I think the Mets will be pretty good and I can even see them making a late push in September before settling into 2nd place ahead of the Phillies. The pitching is gonna be really good, I think the lineup is gonna be better than you think, too.
Braves shocked me last year, feels like I ought to be ready for them to shock me again. So I'm going under.
Central
Cards (88.5) (over)
Cubs (88.5) (over)
Brewers (86.5) (under)
Pirates (77.5) (under)
Reds (79) (under)
The Cards-Cubs rivalry that baseball fans have long told themselves exists seems to finally be coming to fruition. The Cubs are built to dominate, don't understand why they haven't, while the Cards are built to always be pretty good and should be looking to bounce back from a weird year. I like the Cubs to come up big this year with the Cards hot on their heels all season. Should be good stuff!
The Brewers felt like they were moving in the right direction the last coupla years but I think they take a step back this year and find themselves in the wake of a Cubs-Cards boatrace.
The Pirates are backsliding and that's a sad thing to see after a brief period of relevance.
The Reds will suck bad this year, it seems.
West
Dodgers (93.5)
Padres (78.5)
Giants (73.5)
The Dodgers (like all LA teams) feel like it is their birthright to win the NL pennant every year. After two straight World Series appearances, that feeling is only getting stronger. But I feel like their pitching is not getting stronger and while they should be among the league leaders, I think they'll scuffle in the dog days and this race should be closer then you think.
The Padres are delusional but I think their delusions will be somewhat rewarded and they'll have a shot at winning this division (though I think they'll fail to catch even a Wild Card).
The Rockies' homefield advantage notwithstanding, I think they'll struggle hard all year, with all time bizarre home/road splits.
The D-Backs just never look right to me. I think they'll start poorly but finish strong (playing spoiler to the Padres down the stretch).
The Giants overachieve so much that we forget sometimes how not very good they ought to be.
AL
East
Yankees (96.5) (under)
Red Sox (94.5) (under)
Rays (84.5) (under)
Blue Jays (74.5) (under)
Orioles (59.5) (over)
The Yankees-Red Sox race will be compelling all season long--right into the playoffs. I think the Yankees lineup is a little stronger than the Sox and they'll pull out the division late.
When the Rays first started, they were awful year after year, doing everything wrong. But for the last decade or so, they've become one of those reliably not-bad teams every year. I think they'll be deep in the Yankees-Red Sox shadow but still be not-bad all season long.
The Blue Jays made a run in the last few years but it feels like its time for a full-on re-tool.
The Orioles will bottom out badly this year. Damn shame because Baltimore is a true baseball town.
Central
Indians (90.5) (under)
Twins (84.5) (over)
White Sox (74.5) (under)
Tigers (68.5) (over)
Royals (69.5) (under)
I think my Indians have one more year left of winning the AL Central (but 2020 could be really ugly). Neither the lineup, nor the pitching will be quite as good as recent years but I think they're still good enough to win this division.
The Twins are moving in the right direction, building up from the bottom, but I think it'll take one more year to catch the Indians.
The White Sox felt primed to make a splash in the off-season but bungled their chances and it'll doom them on the field again.
The Tigers and Royals are both moving in the wrong direction and are chasing each other to the bottom.
West
Astros (96.5) (under)
A's (83.5) (over)
Rangers (71) (over)
The Astros are the class of the non-Yankees/Red Sox American League and should dominate this division again.
I think the A's and Angels will duel each other for Wild Card spots, I'll take the A's to secure it late.
The Mariners won't be as bad as they look, I think they're a more savvy organization than they're given credit for (but they won't be very good).
The Rangers are bottoming out. If they draft well, they can get back into it next year.
Playoff predictions
NL
Cards over Mets in play-in
Cubs over Cards, Nats over Dodgers
Cubs over Nats
AL
Red Sox over A's in play-in
Astros over Red Sox, Yankees over Indians
Astros over Yankees
I'll take the Astros over Cubs in 7
NL
East
Nationals (88.5)(over)
Mets (85.5)(over)
Phillies (89.5)(under)
Braves (86.5)(under)
Marlins (63.5)(over)I had Harper on my Fantasy team last year because I figured a high profile star in a walk year was primed for a monster season. Nope. His pathetic batting average and so-so power numbers basically doomed me (man, if I'd pick my man Jose Ramirez, I would've finished better and enjoyed my time more!). So I think the Nats will be better without him and the Phillies will be disappointing with him. (Listen, Bryce will suck for a coupla years, then when the next big thing comes along and we've forgotten about Bryce completely, then he'll have his Renaissance and we'll all be gushing over him again) I like the Nats to win the division and the Phillies to finish a shockingly bad 3rd place.
I think the Mets will be pretty good and I can even see them making a late push in September before settling into 2nd place ahead of the Phillies. The pitching is gonna be really good, I think the lineup is gonna be better than you think, too.
Braves shocked me last year, feels like I ought to be ready for them to shock me again. So I'm going under.
The Marlins won't be that bad. I say this with confidence because they're trying to be bad--and they never accomplish their goals!
Central
Cards (88.5) (over)
Cubs (88.5) (over)
Brewers (86.5) (under)
Pirates (77.5) (under)
Reds (79) (under)
The Cards-Cubs rivalry that baseball fans have long told themselves exists seems to finally be coming to fruition. The Cubs are built to dominate, don't understand why they haven't, while the Cards are built to always be pretty good and should be looking to bounce back from a weird year. I like the Cubs to come up big this year with the Cards hot on their heels all season. Should be good stuff!
The Brewers felt like they were moving in the right direction the last coupla years but I think they take a step back this year and find themselves in the wake of a Cubs-Cards boatrace.
The Pirates are backsliding and that's a sad thing to see after a brief period of relevance.
The Reds will suck bad this year, it seems.
West
Dodgers (93.5)
Padres (78.5)
Rockies (84.5)
Diamondbacks (75.5)Giants (73.5)
The Dodgers (like all LA teams) feel like it is their birthright to win the NL pennant every year. After two straight World Series appearances, that feeling is only getting stronger. But I feel like their pitching is not getting stronger and while they should be among the league leaders, I think they'll scuffle in the dog days and this race should be closer then you think.
The Padres are delusional but I think their delusions will be somewhat rewarded and they'll have a shot at winning this division (though I think they'll fail to catch even a Wild Card).
The Rockies' homefield advantage notwithstanding, I think they'll struggle hard all year, with all time bizarre home/road splits.
The D-Backs just never look right to me. I think they'll start poorly but finish strong (playing spoiler to the Padres down the stretch).
The Giants overachieve so much that we forget sometimes how not very good they ought to be.
AL
East
Yankees (96.5) (under)
Red Sox (94.5) (under)
Rays (84.5) (under)
Blue Jays (74.5) (under)
Orioles (59.5) (over)
The Yankees-Red Sox race will be compelling all season long--right into the playoffs. I think the Yankees lineup is a little stronger than the Sox and they'll pull out the division late.
When the Rays first started, they were awful year after year, doing everything wrong. But for the last decade or so, they've become one of those reliably not-bad teams every year. I think they'll be deep in the Yankees-Red Sox shadow but still be not-bad all season long.
The Blue Jays made a run in the last few years but it feels like its time for a full-on re-tool.
The Orioles will bottom out badly this year. Damn shame because Baltimore is a true baseball town.
Central
Indians (90.5) (under)
Twins (84.5) (over)
White Sox (74.5) (under)
Tigers (68.5) (over)
Royals (69.5) (under)
I think my Indians have one more year left of winning the AL Central (but 2020 could be really ugly). Neither the lineup, nor the pitching will be quite as good as recent years but I think they're still good enough to win this division.
The Twins are moving in the right direction, building up from the bottom, but I think it'll take one more year to catch the Indians.
The White Sox felt primed to make a splash in the off-season but bungled their chances and it'll doom them on the field again.
The Tigers and Royals are both moving in the wrong direction and are chasing each other to the bottom.
West
Astros (96.5) (under)
A's (83.5) (over)
Angels (82.5) (over)
Mariners (71.5) (over)Rangers (71) (over)
The Astros are the class of the non-Yankees/Red Sox American League and should dominate this division again.
I think the A's and Angels will duel each other for Wild Card spots, I'll take the A's to secure it late.
The Mariners won't be as bad as they look, I think they're a more savvy organization than they're given credit for (but they won't be very good).
The Rangers are bottoming out. If they draft well, they can get back into it next year.
Playoff predictions
NL
Cards over Mets in play-in
Cubs over Cards, Nats over Dodgers
Cubs over Nats
AL
Red Sox over A's in play-in
Astros over Red Sox, Yankees over Indians
Astros over Yankees
I'll take the Astros over Cubs in 7
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
2019 Academy Awards (the lookback)
I never watch the Oscars. Like an NBA All-Star Game (which I also never watch), it sounds like it'll be fun to get a bunch of stars together but mostly its boring. My interest is in the movies themselves, which is why I would rather watch a movie than the Oscars. But I am curious to see what won, so looking back over the winners: Roma won more than I thought it would as did Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book, so those were the undercurrent films the Academy wanted to remember (I thought it would be Vice); and it was Green Book that snatched Best Picture rather than A Star is Born. I only got one of the four acting categories (and if I'd been watching, I probably would've switched back to Christian Bale after Bohemian Rhapsody took both the sound categories). A few of these I nailed, mostly I was wrong. Oh well.
Picture: Green Book
I dug Green Book and it is a worthy recipient. But I am surprised because I thought it was a little mainstream for the highbrows, a little cheesy for the masses, and the bit of negative criticism it received was right as the voting opened. But rather than a glum night, picking up Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor shows a deeper appreciation of this film than I thought was out there. I'm cool with this, Green Book was just outside my top ten (#12 actually), it was one of my more favorite movie going experiences this year, a surprisingly funny and resilient film. I suspected that something other than Roma, the odds-on favorites, would win (do you know how many foreign language films have won Best Picture? Not a lot), but if the Academy is going to reach for something (I thought they'd reach for A Star is Born), why not go with Bohemian Rhapsody? The amount of trophies it picked up is indicative of its underlying popularity, why not go ahead and give it the big prize? Instead, Green Book gives outsiders the chance to vent their frustrations on the perception of the film (that it is a milquetoast piece of feel-good fakery made by pseudo-right-wingers) rather than the actual film (which was actually quite enjoyable and in the end the most popular film within the Academy). This is a curiously Trump-y move by the Academy: the members get to burnish their politically correct bonafides while thumbing their nose at those that would question their choices. (Also, I haven't heard anyone say what they would've preferred instead of Green Book, I don't hear anyone say that Roma got robbed or Black Panther or Vice or Bohemian Rhapsody, just that Green Book is unacceptable)
Actor: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody)
I got this one right. Freddie Mercury is beloved, man, and by all accounts Malek nailed his look and passion, which are not easy to do. Four of the five nominees were from biopics (and Bradley Cooper was playing the 4th version of his character), so the popularity of the subject was destined to make a huge difference.
Actress: Olivia Colman (The Favourite)
I loved The Favourite (#3 in my top ten) and Colman is great in it. An interesting detail of the ensemble: any one of Colman, Emma Stone or Rachel Weisz could've been considered the lead with the other two being supporting. Colman was great (as were Weisz and Stone), I'm all in on this choice, but I am surprised they passed on Glenn Close.
Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Green Book)
Another good choice. I thought he was a co-lead rather than a supporting, but the other relative nominees determine the categorization. Ali and Viggo made for a great pair and I thought the most laudable quality of the screenwriting was its ability to push the two together, then pull apart and back together with relative ease. The tension between the two never boiled over but it never went away and that push-and-pull is hard to pull off in the screenwriting and the chemistry of the actors. A little surprised they gave Ali his second Oscar in three years, thought this would go to one of the old-timers, but not a bad choice.
Supporting Actress: Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk)
I'm okay with King here, she was good--indeed, I wanted more of her in the movie because what was there was only a hint of the family dynamic. I didn't dislike the performance but I would not have put her ahead of Amy Adams (thought she'd be part of the Vice onslaught) or the pair from The Favourite (a little surprised Colman won when neither of the supporters did).
Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Roma )
An excellent choice, Cuaron is truly one of the best in the game these days, good to see him getting the recognition. I thought Roma would be a bit of a disappointment on Oscar night but it did well.
Original Screenplay: Green Book (Nick Vallelonga, Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly)
I thought it was a good choice. The dialogue and the machinations are well-constructed, they give the actors and the director good stuff to work with. I'm pleased to see this was a little more well-regarded than I realized.
Adapted Screenplay: BlackKklansman (Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmot, Spike Lee)
Meh. I'm not surprised this won but I don't think it's a good choice. If they just wanted to throw Spike an Oscar, I thought giving one to Terence Blanchard's score made more sense. In the wake of complaints that Green Book didn't deserve its awards, I would point out that this was a career award for Spike, not an acknowledgment that this was the best screenplay of the year...because it was not...not by a long shot...not in the top twenty....not at all worthy of this honor on its own. But congratulations, Spike.
Cinematography: Roma (Alfonso Cuaron)
Badass, man. To win Best Director and Best Cinematographer in the same year is baller. He deserved them both and especially this one. I'm a sucker for that sharp black and white and he does it well here.
Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody (John Ottman)
Ottman is also a composer making him the perfect choice to cut a music movie. I haven't seen this movie but this--rather than Vice--was the big winner tonight.
Production Design: Black Panther (Hannah Bechler, Jay Hart)
Okay, this doesn't strike me as the best candidate among the nominees, but it was a fine-looking film, a big hit and very easy on the eyes, so not a controversial choice.
Visual Effects: First Man (Paul Lambert, Ian Hunter, Tristan Myles, JD Schwam)
I got this one right. The action scenes of First Man are really marvelous, they have a style and feel that is quite unlike the action hero stuff we've been getting pounded with for the last decade. Everything here heightens tension in its editing, sound design and general visual look, and though the film was not bad, ultimately underrated (#13 for me), the way the action scenes mix with the period piece family stuff is a marvelous juxtaposition and that begins on the set. This was my first choice anyway, I'm glad to see the Academy agreed.
Costumes: Black Panther (Ruth E. Carter)
I had this one (though I thought I was picking an underdog). I watched this again recently and I was really struck by the sheer variety of styles and utilities of the costumes themselves and multiplicity of looks the actresses in particular got to show off. Superhero movies tend toward tights and capes but this one had a much wider palette making it a good choice.
Hair/Makeup: Vice
Yeah, the first step to Bale's transformation is in the hair and makeup, to perfect his look and to age him in character is really marvelous stuff. I had this one but this was just a toss-up (I could've said the same things about Mary Queen of Scots, where the two lead actresses have a lot of different looks and lighting schemes to work with).
Score: Black Panther (Ludwig Gorranson)
Uh...okay. I had this firmly in 5th place of the nominees. Not sure how you skip over a Terence Blanchard, a Wes Anderson, a Marc Shaiman musical starring Lin-Manuel Miranda and the sublime brilliance of If Beale Street Could Talk. I'm not down with this one, the Academy had a ton of better choices, not sure where this came from.
Song: A Star is Born ("Shallow")
Good song from a good musical-ish film, good performance from the non-actress lead, this was the clear choice. (But, again, I still can't get over how reviled A Star is Born was this season, I guess it just got swamped by Bohemian Rhapsody)
Sound Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Sound Mixing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Yeah, you knew it was on when this took both the sound categories. A Quiet Place and First Man were both overwhelming accomplishments of sound design but people vote for the movies they like and they liked this. The effect of splitting sound into two categories instead one is it allows for juggernauts to suddenly take over the show; Bohemian Rhapsody didn't exactly take over the night but the fans were given plenty to cheer for in a way that First Man, Vice and A Star is Born ended up not getting.
Doc: Free Solo
Little surprised RBG didn't win, though this looked like a fairly strong collection of choices. I'm not deep into this season's docs so I hesitate to discern the deeper motives of the Academy here.
Foreign: Roma
Excellent choice. My favorite film this year was a foreign film (the Brazilian film, Zama) but this was #4 in my top ten and as lovely-to-look-at as any film I saw all year. I thought it was a strong enough Best Picture candidate that it might split votes and lose this one--and I am a little surprised the Academy showed good love to Cold War and then didn't choose it for Best Foreign, it is a sexier, livelier, and almost as visually lovely film.
Animated: Spider Man Into the Spider Verse
Excellent choice. I am not a comic book guy nor am I a superhero guy, so I was not the ideal audience for a multiple Spider-Man adventure. All the more impressive then that I really did like it (#14) and appreciated the technical heights they reached (when I was actually pretty skeptical of that as self-congratulating puffery going in), it was ambitious and creative in a way that most superhero movies are not and really stood out from the other nominees.
To recap my picks: I was correct on Actor, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costumes, Hair/Makeup, Song and Animated. I was totally wrong on my thought that Vice would be the surprise hit of the night, more or less missed on my thought that Roma would mostly strike out and I did not see the groundswell for Bohemian Rhapsody (though I don't see how it could've been the best choice in the sound categories). The only truly egregious award in my opinion is Best Score for Black Panther (though let me repeat: BlackKklansamn was absolutely not the best screenplay of the year). I had some okay moments here, but 7 out of 21 is not a particularly good job of reading the Academy this year. Oh well.
Picture: Green Book
I dug Green Book and it is a worthy recipient. But I am surprised because I thought it was a little mainstream for the highbrows, a little cheesy for the masses, and the bit of negative criticism it received was right as the voting opened. But rather than a glum night, picking up Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor shows a deeper appreciation of this film than I thought was out there. I'm cool with this, Green Book was just outside my top ten (#12 actually), it was one of my more favorite movie going experiences this year, a surprisingly funny and resilient film. I suspected that something other than Roma, the odds-on favorites, would win (do you know how many foreign language films have won Best Picture? Not a lot), but if the Academy is going to reach for something (I thought they'd reach for A Star is Born), why not go with Bohemian Rhapsody? The amount of trophies it picked up is indicative of its underlying popularity, why not go ahead and give it the big prize? Instead, Green Book gives outsiders the chance to vent their frustrations on the perception of the film (that it is a milquetoast piece of feel-good fakery made by pseudo-right-wingers) rather than the actual film (which was actually quite enjoyable and in the end the most popular film within the Academy). This is a curiously Trump-y move by the Academy: the members get to burnish their politically correct bonafides while thumbing their nose at those that would question their choices. (Also, I haven't heard anyone say what they would've preferred instead of Green Book, I don't hear anyone say that Roma got robbed or Black Panther or Vice or Bohemian Rhapsody, just that Green Book is unacceptable)
Actor: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody)
I got this one right. Freddie Mercury is beloved, man, and by all accounts Malek nailed his look and passion, which are not easy to do. Four of the five nominees were from biopics (and Bradley Cooper was playing the 4th version of his character), so the popularity of the subject was destined to make a huge difference.
Actress: Olivia Colman (The Favourite)
I loved The Favourite (#3 in my top ten) and Colman is great in it. An interesting detail of the ensemble: any one of Colman, Emma Stone or Rachel Weisz could've been considered the lead with the other two being supporting. Colman was great (as were Weisz and Stone), I'm all in on this choice, but I am surprised they passed on Glenn Close.
Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali (Green Book)
Another good choice. I thought he was a co-lead rather than a supporting, but the other relative nominees determine the categorization. Ali and Viggo made for a great pair and I thought the most laudable quality of the screenwriting was its ability to push the two together, then pull apart and back together with relative ease. The tension between the two never boiled over but it never went away and that push-and-pull is hard to pull off in the screenwriting and the chemistry of the actors. A little surprised they gave Ali his second Oscar in three years, thought this would go to one of the old-timers, but not a bad choice.
Supporting Actress: Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk)
I'm okay with King here, she was good--indeed, I wanted more of her in the movie because what was there was only a hint of the family dynamic. I didn't dislike the performance but I would not have put her ahead of Amy Adams (thought she'd be part of the Vice onslaught) or the pair from The Favourite (a little surprised Colman won when neither of the supporters did).
Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Roma )
An excellent choice, Cuaron is truly one of the best in the game these days, good to see him getting the recognition. I thought Roma would be a bit of a disappointment on Oscar night but it did well.
Original Screenplay: Green Book (Nick Vallelonga, Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly)
I thought it was a good choice. The dialogue and the machinations are well-constructed, they give the actors and the director good stuff to work with. I'm pleased to see this was a little more well-regarded than I realized.
Adapted Screenplay: BlackKklansman (Charlie Wachtel, David Rabinowitz, Kevin Willmot, Spike Lee)
Meh. I'm not surprised this won but I don't think it's a good choice. If they just wanted to throw Spike an Oscar, I thought giving one to Terence Blanchard's score made more sense. In the wake of complaints that Green Book didn't deserve its awards, I would point out that this was a career award for Spike, not an acknowledgment that this was the best screenplay of the year...because it was not...not by a long shot...not in the top twenty....not at all worthy of this honor on its own. But congratulations, Spike.
Cinematography: Roma (Alfonso Cuaron)
Badass, man. To win Best Director and Best Cinematographer in the same year is baller. He deserved them both and especially this one. I'm a sucker for that sharp black and white and he does it well here.
Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody (John Ottman)
Ottman is also a composer making him the perfect choice to cut a music movie. I haven't seen this movie but this--rather than Vice--was the big winner tonight.
Production Design: Black Panther (Hannah Bechler, Jay Hart)
Okay, this doesn't strike me as the best candidate among the nominees, but it was a fine-looking film, a big hit and very easy on the eyes, so not a controversial choice.
Visual Effects: First Man (Paul Lambert, Ian Hunter, Tristan Myles, JD Schwam)
I got this one right. The action scenes of First Man are really marvelous, they have a style and feel that is quite unlike the action hero stuff we've been getting pounded with for the last decade. Everything here heightens tension in its editing, sound design and general visual look, and though the film was not bad, ultimately underrated (#13 for me), the way the action scenes mix with the period piece family stuff is a marvelous juxtaposition and that begins on the set. This was my first choice anyway, I'm glad to see the Academy agreed.
Costumes: Black Panther (Ruth E. Carter)
I had this one (though I thought I was picking an underdog). I watched this again recently and I was really struck by the sheer variety of styles and utilities of the costumes themselves and multiplicity of looks the actresses in particular got to show off. Superhero movies tend toward tights and capes but this one had a much wider palette making it a good choice.
Hair/Makeup: Vice
Yeah, the first step to Bale's transformation is in the hair and makeup, to perfect his look and to age him in character is really marvelous stuff. I had this one but this was just a toss-up (I could've said the same things about Mary Queen of Scots, where the two lead actresses have a lot of different looks and lighting schemes to work with).
Score: Black Panther (Ludwig Gorranson)
Uh...okay. I had this firmly in 5th place of the nominees. Not sure how you skip over a Terence Blanchard, a Wes Anderson, a Marc Shaiman musical starring Lin-Manuel Miranda and the sublime brilliance of If Beale Street Could Talk. I'm not down with this one, the Academy had a ton of better choices, not sure where this came from.
Song: A Star is Born ("Shallow")
Good song from a good musical-ish film, good performance from the non-actress lead, this was the clear choice. (But, again, I still can't get over how reviled A Star is Born was this season, I guess it just got swamped by Bohemian Rhapsody)
Sound Editing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Sound Mixing: Bohemian Rhapsody
Yeah, you knew it was on when this took both the sound categories. A Quiet Place and First Man were both overwhelming accomplishments of sound design but people vote for the movies they like and they liked this. The effect of splitting sound into two categories instead one is it allows for juggernauts to suddenly take over the show; Bohemian Rhapsody didn't exactly take over the night but the fans were given plenty to cheer for in a way that First Man, Vice and A Star is Born ended up not getting.
Doc: Free Solo
Little surprised RBG didn't win, though this looked like a fairly strong collection of choices. I'm not deep into this season's docs so I hesitate to discern the deeper motives of the Academy here.
Foreign: Roma
Excellent choice. My favorite film this year was a foreign film (the Brazilian film, Zama) but this was #4 in my top ten and as lovely-to-look-at as any film I saw all year. I thought it was a strong enough Best Picture candidate that it might split votes and lose this one--and I am a little surprised the Academy showed good love to Cold War and then didn't choose it for Best Foreign, it is a sexier, livelier, and almost as visually lovely film.
Animated: Spider Man Into the Spider Verse
Excellent choice. I am not a comic book guy nor am I a superhero guy, so I was not the ideal audience for a multiple Spider-Man adventure. All the more impressive then that I really did like it (#14) and appreciated the technical heights they reached (when I was actually pretty skeptical of that as self-congratulating puffery going in), it was ambitious and creative in a way that most superhero movies are not and really stood out from the other nominees.
To recap my picks: I was correct on Actor, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costumes, Hair/Makeup, Song and Animated. I was totally wrong on my thought that Vice would be the surprise hit of the night, more or less missed on my thought that Roma would mostly strike out and I did not see the groundswell for Bohemian Rhapsody (though I don't see how it could've been the best choice in the sound categories). The only truly egregious award in my opinion is Best Score for Black Panther (though let me repeat: BlackKklansamn was absolutely not the best screenplay of the year). I had some okay moments here, but 7 out of 21 is not a particularly good job of reading the Academy this year. Oh well.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
2019 Academy Awards
End of the movie season, time to look back in award predictions form. For each category I've added my personal fave (which included more nominated films than I would've thought), as well as who I think will win.
Documentary
The only one of the nominees that I saw was RBG, which is much more about the phenomenon of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a cultural icon than about the importance of her legal career (IMHO this doc actually diminishes her contributions to our current cultural landscape and does little to truly show what was important about her). So does the Academy reward the feel-good nature of the movie or realize that it's not particularly good? Hard to tell. The other nominees all sound interesting and I'd love to catch up with them and though each has its admirers, none were nearly as high profile as RBG. (My personal fave: Shirkers (I found it utterly fascinating. I'm a sucker for movies about movies because filmmakers have an insight to the making of movies that they don't have in, say, a critical appraisal of a supreme court justice's career; not sure why it didn't get a nomination)) My pick: RBG
Visual Effects
Feels like the big summer action flicks (Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Solo: A Star Wars Story) will cancel each other out though they each have the selling points: Avengers was the highest grossing/arguably most popular film of the year, RP1 was clever in its use of familiar imagery, Solo was an underappreciated adventure film that already seems due for a reappraisal. I didn't see Christopher Robin, not sure what that's bringing to the table, though the popular and critical buzz would suggest it is 5th out of these nominees. Though much was made of First Man's practical effects (suggesting more Cinematography and Editing), it feels like this is the proper place to reward what turned out to be an underrated movie. (My personal fave: First Man (Say what you will about the family elements of this biopic (which I found half well crafted, half heavy handed), the action scenes were riveting)) My pick: First Man
Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
Personally I think of these two categories as Sound Design, since each film only has one soundtrack. I don't know how to differentiate between these two awards--and since four of the five nominees in both are the same, it doesn't feel like the Academy does either. A Quiet Place had the most unique soundtrack of any film in years and since it is nominated for Editing and not Mixing, I'm guessing it will win the one it's up for. First Man had an amazing soundscape (Chazelle has the music of film well within his grasp, precisely why that dude's gonna be around for a while) and I suspect will win Mixing. Black Panther and Roma were both fine films but I didn't notice anything particularly above-and-beyond about the sound (I think I would've gone for Isle of Dogs and If Beale Street Could Talk here instead). A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody are both music films and have their own unique challenges but seems like they'd cancel each other out. (My personal faves: First Man and A Quiet Place) This could be a telling moment for Roma, if its gonna have a big night it might nab one or both of these (Bohemian Rhapsody, too). My picks: A Quiet Place (for Editing) and First Man (for Mixing).
Original Song
Best Song, it seems to me, has more to do with the marketing of the film or even the credits of the film more than the film itself. Of these nominees only Mary Poppins Returns could rightly be called a Musical, so what does any particular song really have to do with anything? A Star is Born is at least about songwriters, so I guess I'd go with that. If you're looking for a long shot in your Oscar picks, keep an eye on Ballad of Buster Scruggs here. Why? Because Black Panther, RBG and A Star is Born came out early in the season and while Mary Poppins Returns wasn't a failure, it wasn't the mighty blockbuster it might have been; I'd bet that in the last coupla months more Academy voters watched Buster Scruggs than the other nominees. (Personal fave: none; but off the top of my head, Bad Times at the El Royale had a ton of lovely songs that were actually pivotal to the character development, though none were original, which just harkens back to my point that Hollywood doesn't make many musicals any more making this category anachronistic) My pick: A Star is Born
Score
This category is wide open. If Beale Street Could Talk garnered the most early praise for its score, Mary Poppins Returns is a full-on musical featuring some of the biggest musical talents in the biz, Isle of Dogs has a genuinely engaging score (and--there it is again--sound design), while BlackKklansman offers a good opportunity to reward the long, underappreciated film career of Terence Blanchard. I don't really know why Black Panther is here, the score is fine but I didn't find it particularly noteworthy, just a chance to pad the film's resume without giving it any sexier nominations, I suppose. Not sure how this one shakes out, the nominees are very distinct from each other, not merely in terms of the music itself but of the musicianship (hey, personalities matter and I have no idea which of these composers is the most well-liked/well-respected). (My personal fave: If Beale Street Could Talk, though I really admired the kinda-perfect score of the bizarre Estonian film, November) My pick: If Beale Street Could Talk (but I can see BlackKklansman winning if only because this is probably Spike Lee's most watched film by the Academy in many years and Blanchard does have a long glorious history in the film score world).
Makeup/Hair
Hmmm....does the Academy reward the audaciousness of putting disgusting pustules all over the beautiful Margot Robbie's face or Christian Bale for (reportedly) gluing his lips together to give him that perfect Dick Cheney look? I can't see this award going to a foreign film nobody saw no matter how great the makeup was--and supposedly Border is pretty great. Also, I can't help but point out how badly the world--not just me!--must've hated A Wrinkle in Time if it didn't get a nomination here. And I know there are only three nominations in this category but I would've given one to Uncle Drew, some phenomenal work in that movie. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: toss-up....I'll go with Vice
Costumes
Another wide open category. Black Panther, as a super hero movie, seems like an odd choice here but the costumes are quite varied and kinda important to character development (probably not a criterion that goes into most voters' judgment, but always held a soft spot for me). Ballad of Buster Scruggs, too, as an anthology has a variety of different looks and needs from its costumes. Mary Queen of Scots and The Favourite are costume dramas of a similar time period (ehh, not really, but what's a hundred years or so?), and might overlap in the minds of some voters. Mary Poppins Returns, too, might overlap with The Favourite as the designer (Sandy Powell) is the same for both. I'm not sure what will win, but I am surprised there wasn't a nomination for Ocean's 8, where the wild and extravagant costumes are actually significant to the plot. Also, I'm a little tired of costume dramas getting all the love when a film like Mid-90's relied on costuming as much as any other movie I saw this year. (My personal fave: The Favourite--hell, Harley's wigs alone deserve their own award!) My pick: I'll say Black Panther (it will feel like a surprise if it wins but it really does possess a wide variety of interesting looks and when that movie got its pre-Awards second wind, I can see the costumes being much admired)
Production Design
This is one of those categories where I could be wildly misinterpreting what it is trying to represent. But of these nominees none were in my top five of production design (instead I had Isle of Dogs, Hotel Artemis, Zama, At Eternity's Gate, If Beale Street Could Talk) and while the nominees are all visually fine films, I attribute something other than Production Design in each case: Black Panther (special effects), First Man (editing and sound design), Roma (cinematography), The Favourite (costumes, cinematography) (never saw Mary Poppins Returns, though I suspect there I would champion choreography and special effects). Not that production design is absent in any of these films, it just doesn't strike me as the core element of success of any of these films. So what takes the Award? Normally I would say this is a cascade award rather than a stand-alone, so whichever film has the bigger night will win this so if Roma has a big night, it could scoop this one up but I think it'll go to a film that doesn't otherwise win anything. (My personal fave: Isle of Dogs, prompting the question: how do we evaluate the production design on animated films?) My pick: Mary Poppins Returns
Editing
This category is a headscratcher. Not only does it not have any of the films I thought featured praise-worthy editing (such as First Man, Searching, The Other Side of the Wind, Shirkers, The Rider, Black Panther, Isle of Dogs, Sorry to Bother You, At Eternity's Gate, Solo: A Star Wars Story, They Will Never Grow Old, The Front Runner), it actually has two nominees that I thought had some mediocre-at-best editing: BlackKklansman (I thought the KKK/Black Student Union sequence was more troubling than useful, the action scenes at the climax were clumsy and the tacked-on Charlottesville stuff was for political shock value, not for the betterment of the story being told in the film) and Vice (the movie is a collection of random scenes with no real purpose, I don't blame the editing but the editing isn't good enough to make something out of nothing). I liked Green Book but it wasn't because of the editing, which was rather ordinary and the editing in The Favourite is fine but not in my top ten. (I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody, won't comment). So what is this Academy going for here? I dunno. (My personal fave: First Man) My pick: Vice
Cinematography
Feels like this one belongs to Roma. My controversial hot take of the upcoming Oscars: I think this is the only prize that Roma will win. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous (even though Cuaron was without his usual Hall of Fame camera man, Emmanuel Lubezki) but the film is slow paced, black and white, goes a long time before defining its story and is Netflix's first big score, all of which seem like they could be downers to most voters and though the film is much lauded, I suspect it has a lot more detractors than you realize. Throw in that its also nominated for Best Foreign, which I think splits its Best Picture chances and wins neither award, thus keeping it from having the big night everyone expects. This is the one prize the film absolutely positively clearly deserves, so I think everyone votes for it here, but I think all the other factors work against it in the other categories. We'll see. The other titles are all worthy nominees (I don't know Never Look Away but Caleb Deschanel has been doing good work for eons), but Cuaron by himself made a pretty god damn beautiful movie. (My personal fave: Roma) My pick: Roma
Foreign Film
The only two I saw were Roma (easily in my top ten) and Cold War (liked it, didn't love it), though I am familiar with the directors of the other films. As I just wrote above, I don't think Roma wins this. I can see Cold War winning or possibly Shoplifters, which was the big winner at Cannes this year. I just don't think Capernaum or Never Look Away will have enough support to get there, so do the voters go for the Eastern European torrid love story or the Japanese off-kilter family film? (My personal fave: Zama, a Brazilian film and my favorite film of the year). My pick: Cold War (I think the voters are gonna dig the look and feel of it and Cold War is black and white sexy jazz depressing while Roma is black and white dysfunctional family depressing)
Animated
I should start by saying that The Incredibles and Wreck-It Ralph were two of my favorite animated films of the last 20 years...and that their sequels were both major disappointments for me: uh....shouldn't it have been called Ralph Wrecks the Internet? Seems like some low-hanging fruit there; and honestly I kinda fucking hated Incredibles 2, a lifeless, brainless, soulless piece of crass contractual obligation. Isle of Dogs was a fine film, a brilliant achievement in one sense but kinda run of the mill Wes Anderson in another sense (and its release came with some grumpy politically correct controversy, too, has that already been forgotten?). I didn't see Mirai but I just don't see how it outshines the other nominees. Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse was much ballyhooed for its unique visual look and though it took me a while to get into it, I understand the praise: it wanted to incorporate a number of different styles with in which required created its in overarching look to accommodate them all, impressive once it really sinks in. (My personal fave: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse) My pick: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse (for being innovative rather than being a sequel or simply an addition to an established oeuvre)
Original Screenplay
The critics revived interest in Paul Shrader's film First Reformed (considered "original" even though ten minutes in I was like, 'Oh yeah, this is Winter Light' (*)), though it kinda came and went without fanfare earlier in the year; it was the kind of movie that really divided people--you either loved that ending or you hated it (though somehow I remained rather lukewarm). Roma was a visual feast and while I appreciate the Screenplay nomination, I think this is a strange choice and one that I don't think will win. Green Book was an open-hearted crowd pleaser that even managed to outlast its critics (frankly, I thought the Shirley family's complaints were pretty minimal in the context of the movie itself), and while it could definitely win I can see the Academy thinking it wasn't edgy enough. The screenplay of The Favourite is the perfect vehicle for a trio of outstanding performances more than a stand alone piece of art, I can see the Academy thinking the actresses did all the heavy lifting. I thought Vice was not a very good movie to begin with but the gall of using a dead man to be the voice of conscious is pretty god damn presumptuous on the screenwriter's part and then Dick Cheney's monologue to the camera at the end completely deflated everything the film had been building (I am in the minority of finding the film as a major disappointment); that said I think the Academy finds it clever and 'speaking truth to power'. Gotta complain that Eighth Grade didn't get its obligatory nomination for Best Screenplay, it truly deserved a Best Actress nod, too, but to get shut out completely was the surprising snub of the season to me. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: Vice
Adapted Screenplay
I watched all four versions of A Star is Born last year and I thought the 2018 version to be the 2nd best (the original still rules because all the remakes miss the point (**)). To take on such a venerable property is ballsy to begin with, then to cast a non-actress to star and a non-director to lead while forcing these two to write songs together makes this a much more accomplished picture than the recent buzz would seem to suggest. I liked If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins will get more chances, this nomination just cements his status) and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (since Woody Allen has finally been flushed out of the movie business, guess the Coens will get his annual nomination?) is fine but I don't see either of them as superior pieces of screenwriting. BlackKklansman was a so-so picture (am I the only one that noticed that?) with a third act that drifts all over in a most unsatisfying fashion. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me. (My personal fave: Death of Stalin, one of the films of this season that I look forward to seeing again and again) My pick: Can You Ever Forgive Me (I've long been a Nicole Holofcener fan and this is her best chance to get some love, although Spike Lee could certainly win for the same reason)
Director
Alfonso Cuaron (Roma) is the obvious choice here and if you're seeing a Roma onslaught then he would definitely win; but I don't see the onslaught coming, I feel like Roma will have turned off as many people as it turned on. Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War) is an interesting choice, he's done good work for a while now, but I don't think enough people saw this to earn him the trophy (the fact he got nominated at all is kinda cool). Spike Lee (BlackKklansman) has been around forever and this is his first nomination, I wouldn't be shocked if he won but I think the nomination is a make-up call not a sign of overwhelming support. Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite) is, I think, among the very best directors in the world right now, though his films are sometimes kinda hard to take making this nomination a bit of a shock to me; this year, though, he's put his own stamp on an accessible film and I think he's very deserving, but I'd be surprised if enough people truly appreciate the kind of director he is to give him this award. I personally thought nothing of the film Vice, but I think I'm very much in the minority and since this category is a bit of a clusterfuck (and since Cuaron has already won before), I think the Academy makes a bold move and goes with Adam McKay, a guy that has steadily built admirers in the industry over the years. (My personal fave: Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite). My pick: Adam McKay (Vice)
Actor
I was way out of step in this category, only Dafoe appeared in my top five. I admired the hell out of At Eternity's Gate and the way Willem Dafoe keeps finding new roles to give audacious performances is inspiring; too bad nobody saw the movie. Viggo and Ali made a good pair (another example of the need for an Ensemble Award) but the story itself was the star of the show and given the good dialogue, this does not strike me as a film driven by performances (indeed, I can imagine this film being just as beloved with two no-name actors). Cooper deserved to be nominated for Best Director but not for Best Actor; dude, he just mumbles and plays air guitar most of the time, a fine performance but not the centerpiece of the film itself nor one of the more notable performances of the year (I feel like Cooper pissed Hollywood off or something, I don't understand the Academy's reception to the film at all). When I first saw the trailer for Vice, I was blown away by Bale as Dick Cheney; unfortunately, the movie itself was no better than the trailer and I found Bale's performance rather tedious after two hours, watching him pull on the Dick Cheney fat suit didn't get deeper or more interesting over time. I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody but I can certainly attest to the cult of Freddie Mercury that has arisen in the last decade or so and I'm not surprised the film was a big hit with the fans (and largely panned by the critics). Gotta complain: if you want to see a ballsy, invigorating performance from a guy that's giving you what no one else would give, check out Brady Jandreau in The Rider; which of these five actors could've played that part? None. (My personal fave: John C. Reilly (Stan & Ollie), an underappreciated film and, holy fuck, Reilly is fucking amazing!) My pick: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) (are we seriously gonna let Dick Cheney beat out Freddie Mercury? Is that the America you want to live in?)
Actress
My two favorite female performances this season were Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) and Olivia Colman (The Favourite) and Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) was not far out of my top five. The other two films I didn't see. If A Star is Born was lining up as the big winner it feels like it ought to be then I'd say Gaga is a shoo-in to take the prize, but I think she's kinda alienated the Academy and as an outsider (sorta), I feel like the Academy is pulling away from her when they ought to be embracing her. Colman is an excellent choice but I think that film was such an ensemble that unless either Stone or Weisz won, too, I don't see Colman winning. Aparicio is phenomenal but this is one of those occasions where the nomination is the recognition, I'd be pretty shocked if she actually won. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me and while folks love seeing a comic take a dramatic turn, this is another case where I think the nomination itself is the extent of the recognition McCarthy will receive. That leaves Glenn Close; I didn't see the film but she's long been pretty great, feels like this is her year for a lifetime achievement Oscar. Gotta complain that Elsie Fisher (Eighth Grade) was left out, she totally carried an unorthodox movie by a first-time director, she deserves to be here. (My personal fave: Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) My pick: Glenn Close (The Wife)
Supporting Actor
Okay this category has basically two different groups: high profile, working, in demand guys (Ali, Rockwell, Driver) and old favorites that you don't see much of any more (Grant, Elliott). I did not see Can You Ever Forgive Me but of the other four, none appeared in my top five for Supporting Actor. Isn't the whole point of Vice that George Bush was insignificant and not really in control? So why are you nominating the guy that played him in the movie--especially since he isn't even in it that much? Driver is a fine young actor, he'll definitely have chances to get back in the coming years, but in BlackKlansman he's basically just playing an ordinary cop in an ordinary cop film--Topher Grace is the high risk/low reward performance that has to be perfect in order to hold the film together--why didn't he get this nomination? Ali should've been considered a lead actor--yes, the film is the white guy's memoir and we see a little more of him but what we get from his scenes is merely to set him up in contrast to the black guy, thus both characters are indispensable to each other and they are twin leads, so this nomination isn't really ideal. Sam Elliot is a beloved character actor, been around forever and given many underappreciated performances but this isn't one of them; in A Star is Born his character is one note and repetitive and since he didn't go ten seconds in the movie without multiple F-bombs, the scene they'll have to show at the ceremony is his final scene with Cooper which is actually Cooper's scene. How you gonna give the award for a money shot scene that isn't even his? (My personal fave: Topher Grace (BlackKklansman), playing sublime evil and laughable buffoon simultaneously is virtually impossible and without him this movie doesn't work at all) My pick: Sam Elliott (A Star is Born) (I'm going the old favorite route and since Grant should've won the BAFTA, I figure Elliott wins the Oscar)
Supporting Actress
I was in line with this category as Adams (Vice) and Stone and Weisz from The Favourite were in my top five, too. The other two nominees, Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk) and Marina de Tavira (Roma) were also fine choices. Stone and Weisz, both previous Oscar winners, feel like they'll split votes (this is the perfect argument for an Ensemble Award). The nomination for de Tavira is her recognition, I don't see how she wins. King was the popular choice in the critics' polls (I don't think I saw anyone other than her winning those) but the film had a mild overall reception and personally I don't think she had enough presence in the film outside a sequence late in the 3rd act to really compare with, say, Stone or Weisz. I thought Adams was the best part of Vice (or at least, she's the part that makes the movie make sense) and I think Vice is going to be the surprise winner this evening. (My personal fave: Amy Adams (Vice)) My pick: Amy Adams (Vice)
Best Picture
From the first moment I saw it in October, A Star is Born seemed like the obvious pick for Best Picture; but it went cold in the Golden Globes and doesn't seem to have the necessary buzz about it going into voting. I dunno why, seems like everything the Oscars is looking for: a woman's story, a time-honored remake, a bold musical, loving nods to LGBT and African-American communities, star-making performance in the lead, hugely successful soundtrack, directed by a popular actor, big box office--what more does Oscar want? Throw in that there's no clear usurper and it still seems plainly obvious to me that A Star is Born will win. Black Panther was a hugely popular film very very early in the season but cooled off and this nomination feels liked a tossed bone rather than a groundswell for re-appreciation. BlackKklansman is Spike Lee's first nominee for Best Picture, but that in and of itself doesn't seem like enough to win it a lot of votes (throw in that it's actually a fairly routine cop story, albeit with some twists, and it probably isn't even Spike's 10th best movie). Bohemian Rhapsody has a built in audience due to the staggering emergence of the cult of Freddie Mercury (a Reddit invention, as near as I can tell), and was well-liked by the masses though not by the critics; this doesn't feel like a Best Picture to me (but keep an eye on the Sound categories: if it wins there that could signal a big night). Green Book was a well-crafted crowd pleaser that emerged from Toronto (if you'll recall this won the audience award rather than the bigger-hyped First Man and A Star is Born), then fell upon some criticism; the nominations represent the bounce back from potential controversy but I'm not sure there's enough support going forward to win any awards. Roma is in a tricky place: as Netflix's first big time Oscar-bait title, it has suffered from being much-admired by the handful of people that saw it on the big screen, but a bit of a snooze to those who watched on Netflix; also, being a front runner for Best Picture might undermine it's chance of winning Best Foreign (and vice versa), so outside of Cinematography, I think it gets shut out. The Favourite was my personal favorite of these nominees and while it clearly has its admirers, I don't see it beating out the more high profile films in this category. Vice is an audacious movie, an inventive and ambitious movie but while I think it wins a pile of awards, giving it the top prize might feel like some kind of affirmation of Dick Cheney. My pick: as improbable as it feels, gotta go with A Star is Born (while this may seem out of left field, I think Bohemian Rhapsody is the other one that could win)
Recap
In looking back over this past season for this post, I found myself edging away from the conventional wisdom and seeing a variety of upsets/weird choices, instead. The Critics polls and Guild Awards were all over the place suggesting no single dominant film, so I don't think Roma steamrolls the competition. I think the post-Oscar buzz is going to be about the shock of how little Roma wins but over time people will look back and see the Cinematography prize and the other nominations and think that's about right. I think Vice is the one that people want to vote for but cautiously: I have it winning Editing, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Director and Makeup but not winning Best Picture or Best Actor--which seems like the obvious choice--because the technical awards suggest a level of mastery of skewering Dick Cheney, while giving it Picture or Actor would feel like an affirmation of Dick Cheney (does that make sense?). I'm using the 1950 Oscars as my model, where All the King's Men won Picture, Actor and Supporting Actress but A Letter to Three Wives won Director and Screenplay: the Academy wanted to highlight an edgy hit movie driven by great performances while acknowledging that the quiet comedy/drama was actually a better movie. Giving Best Picture--and nothing else--to A Star is Born gives the historical impression that this was the dominant film of the season and by not girding it with technical awards, makes it feel like an empty hit movie rather than a superior production. And it keeps the Academy from going too far in a political (Vice) or politically correct (Roma or Green Book) direction.
I think Vice is going to be the surprise star of the night, Roma won't get much love and A Star is Born for Best Picture will be the talk of the town (for a week or so). That said, I'm probably wrong on all this and the oddsmakers that say Roma is a shoo-in to collect all the hardware will probably be proven right. We'll see.
Random open letter to the Academy
The controversy this year (well, the most recent controversy) was about the Awards show producers trying to force a number of the winners into the commercial breaks in a futile bid to shorten the running time of the TV broadcast. Academy members reacted with fury and rightly so: the whole point of the show is to honor people, so why are you dis-honoring them?
Here's a modest solution: divide the Oscars into three shows and own the whole weekend (NFL Draft style). Most of the technical awards are handed out the night before the Oscars, so expand that first night, which is crucial to industry insiders but less attractive for a mass audience. They can go hognutty with intricate distinctions of editing, sound editing, special effects, hair/makeup, musical composition, and other technical achievements on the first night. The second night could be all about genre distinction: foreign, doc, animated, here's where you could add the obligatory highest box office award, short films and even expand out for different types of dramas, comedies, actioners, etc. Then cut the mass market show down to the bare bones: Picture, Actors, Director, Screenplays, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costume, Score, Editing, Art Design, Sound Design, (personally I couldn't care less about Best Song, but that's probably one of the more popular awards, so it would probably stay). Then encourage the various Guilds to schedule their awards in the week before the Oscars, so that the whole week is a full-on dedication to the year's films. Let the first two Oscar nights trickle upward to create more interest in the shorter, sweeter big night. And as for host, musical numbers, opening monologue--get rid of all of that crap! The regular people back home want the red carpet pre-game show and they want the big awards--and that's it! They don't care about the difference between sound mixing and sound editing, they don't see the short films so they don't care about them, most of the foreign titles aren't available until after the Oscars and the monologue and musical numbers are more likely to be alienating than memorable. Hollywood people can give themselves a whole raft of extra awards by adding two extra ceremonies, where they'll be free to wallow around in their own self-indulgence--and it can be put on pay-per-view or at least be more impactful on blogs, podcasts and social media.
This is a win-win: the TV audience just gets the meat instead of the fat while the Hollywood crowd gets to have all the fat they want. By spreading it out, the Academy gets to do more, create more buzz, own the whole weekend (or even the whole week), and still put out a shorter more concise ceremony with better ratings, pleasing for the casual fans and the hardcore insiders at the same time. Just a thought.
(*) Fwiw, I read the description of his next film, it's 7 Men from Now, an old Bud Boetticher film. Hey, if you're gonna rip off old movies, Bergman and Boetticher are good places to start.
(**) The original A Star is Born (1937) is about a girl that wants to be a star and a guy that desperately wants to maintain the stardom he used to have before he met this girl. But in the remakes the woman has to be dragged into the spotlight while the man is rather indifferent to the stardom he has or used to have (especially the Kris Kristofferson version--I never understood anything about what that character wanted). The original is a gritty cynical movie about the fake magic of Hollywood--amazing considering how early it was in the history of Hollywood! The remakes ignore how grubby the woman's desire for stardom is and downplay the man's devastating craving to retain relevance, tending to paint the woman as lucky (instead of ambitious) and the man as merely alcoholic (instead of heartbroken). The 2018 version is awkward in that it isn't portraying the dominant cultural expression of the time--dude, if the world's greatest Southern rock guitar player walked into a Brooklyn drag bar at 2am, are we really sure that anyone would know who he was? Really? I'll buy it for the sake of the movie but I'm not sure that's true at all. To me the one really stinging criticism of A Star is Born (2018) is that stardom is a different thing in the social media world than it was in Depression-era Hollywood (1937), the early days of television (1954) or the heyday of arena rock and FM radio (1976) and this film chooses to harken back rather than portray the world as it is now. Those versions all owned the world they lived in, this one merely suggests that it is possible that these people still exist.
Documentary
The only one of the nominees that I saw was RBG, which is much more about the phenomenon of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a cultural icon than about the importance of her legal career (IMHO this doc actually diminishes her contributions to our current cultural landscape and does little to truly show what was important about her). So does the Academy reward the feel-good nature of the movie or realize that it's not particularly good? Hard to tell. The other nominees all sound interesting and I'd love to catch up with them and though each has its admirers, none were nearly as high profile as RBG. (My personal fave: Shirkers (I found it utterly fascinating. I'm a sucker for movies about movies because filmmakers have an insight to the making of movies that they don't have in, say, a critical appraisal of a supreme court justice's career; not sure why it didn't get a nomination)) My pick: RBG
Visual Effects
Feels like the big summer action flicks (Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Solo: A Star Wars Story) will cancel each other out though they each have the selling points: Avengers was the highest grossing/arguably most popular film of the year, RP1 was clever in its use of familiar imagery, Solo was an underappreciated adventure film that already seems due for a reappraisal. I didn't see Christopher Robin, not sure what that's bringing to the table, though the popular and critical buzz would suggest it is 5th out of these nominees. Though much was made of First Man's practical effects (suggesting more Cinematography and Editing), it feels like this is the proper place to reward what turned out to be an underrated movie. (My personal fave: First Man (Say what you will about the family elements of this biopic (which I found half well crafted, half heavy handed), the action scenes were riveting)) My pick: First Man
Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
Personally I think of these two categories as Sound Design, since each film only has one soundtrack. I don't know how to differentiate between these two awards--and since four of the five nominees in both are the same, it doesn't feel like the Academy does either. A Quiet Place had the most unique soundtrack of any film in years and since it is nominated for Editing and not Mixing, I'm guessing it will win the one it's up for. First Man had an amazing soundscape (Chazelle has the music of film well within his grasp, precisely why that dude's gonna be around for a while) and I suspect will win Mixing. Black Panther and Roma were both fine films but I didn't notice anything particularly above-and-beyond about the sound (I think I would've gone for Isle of Dogs and If Beale Street Could Talk here instead). A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody are both music films and have their own unique challenges but seems like they'd cancel each other out. (My personal faves: First Man and A Quiet Place) This could be a telling moment for Roma, if its gonna have a big night it might nab one or both of these (Bohemian Rhapsody, too). My picks: A Quiet Place (for Editing) and First Man (for Mixing).
Original Song
Best Song, it seems to me, has more to do with the marketing of the film or even the credits of the film more than the film itself. Of these nominees only Mary Poppins Returns could rightly be called a Musical, so what does any particular song really have to do with anything? A Star is Born is at least about songwriters, so I guess I'd go with that. If you're looking for a long shot in your Oscar picks, keep an eye on Ballad of Buster Scruggs here. Why? Because Black Panther, RBG and A Star is Born came out early in the season and while Mary Poppins Returns wasn't a failure, it wasn't the mighty blockbuster it might have been; I'd bet that in the last coupla months more Academy voters watched Buster Scruggs than the other nominees. (Personal fave: none; but off the top of my head, Bad Times at the El Royale had a ton of lovely songs that were actually pivotal to the character development, though none were original, which just harkens back to my point that Hollywood doesn't make many musicals any more making this category anachronistic) My pick: A Star is Born
Score
This category is wide open. If Beale Street Could Talk garnered the most early praise for its score, Mary Poppins Returns is a full-on musical featuring some of the biggest musical talents in the biz, Isle of Dogs has a genuinely engaging score (and--there it is again--sound design), while BlackKklansman offers a good opportunity to reward the long, underappreciated film career of Terence Blanchard. I don't really know why Black Panther is here, the score is fine but I didn't find it particularly noteworthy, just a chance to pad the film's resume without giving it any sexier nominations, I suppose. Not sure how this one shakes out, the nominees are very distinct from each other, not merely in terms of the music itself but of the musicianship (hey, personalities matter and I have no idea which of these composers is the most well-liked/well-respected). (My personal fave: If Beale Street Could Talk, though I really admired the kinda-perfect score of the bizarre Estonian film, November) My pick: If Beale Street Could Talk (but I can see BlackKklansman winning if only because this is probably Spike Lee's most watched film by the Academy in many years and Blanchard does have a long glorious history in the film score world).
Makeup/Hair
Hmmm....does the Academy reward the audaciousness of putting disgusting pustules all over the beautiful Margot Robbie's face or Christian Bale for (reportedly) gluing his lips together to give him that perfect Dick Cheney look? I can't see this award going to a foreign film nobody saw no matter how great the makeup was--and supposedly Border is pretty great. Also, I can't help but point out how badly the world--not just me!--must've hated A Wrinkle in Time if it didn't get a nomination here. And I know there are only three nominations in this category but I would've given one to Uncle Drew, some phenomenal work in that movie. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: toss-up....I'll go with Vice
Costumes
Another wide open category. Black Panther, as a super hero movie, seems like an odd choice here but the costumes are quite varied and kinda important to character development (probably not a criterion that goes into most voters' judgment, but always held a soft spot for me). Ballad of Buster Scruggs, too, as an anthology has a variety of different looks and needs from its costumes. Mary Queen of Scots and The Favourite are costume dramas of a similar time period (ehh, not really, but what's a hundred years or so?), and might overlap in the minds of some voters. Mary Poppins Returns, too, might overlap with The Favourite as the designer (Sandy Powell) is the same for both. I'm not sure what will win, but I am surprised there wasn't a nomination for Ocean's 8, where the wild and extravagant costumes are actually significant to the plot. Also, I'm a little tired of costume dramas getting all the love when a film like Mid-90's relied on costuming as much as any other movie I saw this year. (My personal fave: The Favourite--hell, Harley's wigs alone deserve their own award!) My pick: I'll say Black Panther (it will feel like a surprise if it wins but it really does possess a wide variety of interesting looks and when that movie got its pre-Awards second wind, I can see the costumes being much admired)
Production Design
This is one of those categories where I could be wildly misinterpreting what it is trying to represent. But of these nominees none were in my top five of production design (instead I had Isle of Dogs, Hotel Artemis, Zama, At Eternity's Gate, If Beale Street Could Talk) and while the nominees are all visually fine films, I attribute something other than Production Design in each case: Black Panther (special effects), First Man (editing and sound design), Roma (cinematography), The Favourite (costumes, cinematography) (never saw Mary Poppins Returns, though I suspect there I would champion choreography and special effects). Not that production design is absent in any of these films, it just doesn't strike me as the core element of success of any of these films. So what takes the Award? Normally I would say this is a cascade award rather than a stand-alone, so whichever film has the bigger night will win this so if Roma has a big night, it could scoop this one up but I think it'll go to a film that doesn't otherwise win anything. (My personal fave: Isle of Dogs, prompting the question: how do we evaluate the production design on animated films?) My pick: Mary Poppins Returns
Editing
This category is a headscratcher. Not only does it not have any of the films I thought featured praise-worthy editing (such as First Man, Searching, The Other Side of the Wind, Shirkers, The Rider, Black Panther, Isle of Dogs, Sorry to Bother You, At Eternity's Gate, Solo: A Star Wars Story, They Will Never Grow Old, The Front Runner), it actually has two nominees that I thought had some mediocre-at-best editing: BlackKklansman (I thought the KKK/Black Student Union sequence was more troubling than useful, the action scenes at the climax were clumsy and the tacked-on Charlottesville stuff was for political shock value, not for the betterment of the story being told in the film) and Vice (the movie is a collection of random scenes with no real purpose, I don't blame the editing but the editing isn't good enough to make something out of nothing). I liked Green Book but it wasn't because of the editing, which was rather ordinary and the editing in The Favourite is fine but not in my top ten. (I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody, won't comment). So what is this Academy going for here? I dunno. (My personal fave: First Man) My pick: Vice
Cinematography
Feels like this one belongs to Roma. My controversial hot take of the upcoming Oscars: I think this is the only prize that Roma will win. The cinematography is utterly gorgeous (even though Cuaron was without his usual Hall of Fame camera man, Emmanuel Lubezki) but the film is slow paced, black and white, goes a long time before defining its story and is Netflix's first big score, all of which seem like they could be downers to most voters and though the film is much lauded, I suspect it has a lot more detractors than you realize. Throw in that its also nominated for Best Foreign, which I think splits its Best Picture chances and wins neither award, thus keeping it from having the big night everyone expects. This is the one prize the film absolutely positively clearly deserves, so I think everyone votes for it here, but I think all the other factors work against it in the other categories. We'll see. The other titles are all worthy nominees (I don't know Never Look Away but Caleb Deschanel has been doing good work for eons), but Cuaron by himself made a pretty god damn beautiful movie. (My personal fave: Roma) My pick: Roma
Foreign Film
The only two I saw were Roma (easily in my top ten) and Cold War (liked it, didn't love it), though I am familiar with the directors of the other films. As I just wrote above, I don't think Roma wins this. I can see Cold War winning or possibly Shoplifters, which was the big winner at Cannes this year. I just don't think Capernaum or Never Look Away will have enough support to get there, so do the voters go for the Eastern European torrid love story or the Japanese off-kilter family film? (My personal fave: Zama, a Brazilian film and my favorite film of the year). My pick: Cold War (I think the voters are gonna dig the look and feel of it and Cold War is black and white sexy jazz depressing while Roma is black and white dysfunctional family depressing)
Animated
I should start by saying that The Incredibles and Wreck-It Ralph were two of my favorite animated films of the last 20 years...and that their sequels were both major disappointments for me: uh....shouldn't it have been called Ralph Wrecks the Internet? Seems like some low-hanging fruit there; and honestly I kinda fucking hated Incredibles 2, a lifeless, brainless, soulless piece of crass contractual obligation. Isle of Dogs was a fine film, a brilliant achievement in one sense but kinda run of the mill Wes Anderson in another sense (and its release came with some grumpy politically correct controversy, too, has that already been forgotten?). I didn't see Mirai but I just don't see how it outshines the other nominees. Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse was much ballyhooed for its unique visual look and though it took me a while to get into it, I understand the praise: it wanted to incorporate a number of different styles with in which required created its in overarching look to accommodate them all, impressive once it really sinks in. (My personal fave: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse) My pick: Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse (for being innovative rather than being a sequel or simply an addition to an established oeuvre)
Original Screenplay
The critics revived interest in Paul Shrader's film First Reformed (considered "original" even though ten minutes in I was like, 'Oh yeah, this is Winter Light' (*)), though it kinda came and went without fanfare earlier in the year; it was the kind of movie that really divided people--you either loved that ending or you hated it (though somehow I remained rather lukewarm). Roma was a visual feast and while I appreciate the Screenplay nomination, I think this is a strange choice and one that I don't think will win. Green Book was an open-hearted crowd pleaser that even managed to outlast its critics (frankly, I thought the Shirley family's complaints were pretty minimal in the context of the movie itself), and while it could definitely win I can see the Academy thinking it wasn't edgy enough. The screenplay of The Favourite is the perfect vehicle for a trio of outstanding performances more than a stand alone piece of art, I can see the Academy thinking the actresses did all the heavy lifting. I thought Vice was not a very good movie to begin with but the gall of using a dead man to be the voice of conscious is pretty god damn presumptuous on the screenwriter's part and then Dick Cheney's monologue to the camera at the end completely deflated everything the film had been building (I am in the minority of finding the film as a major disappointment); that said I think the Academy finds it clever and 'speaking truth to power'. Gotta complain that Eighth Grade didn't get its obligatory nomination for Best Screenplay, it truly deserved a Best Actress nod, too, but to get shut out completely was the surprising snub of the season to me. (My personal fave: The Favourite) My pick: Vice
Adapted Screenplay
I watched all four versions of A Star is Born last year and I thought the 2018 version to be the 2nd best (the original still rules because all the remakes miss the point (**)). To take on such a venerable property is ballsy to begin with, then to cast a non-actress to star and a non-director to lead while forcing these two to write songs together makes this a much more accomplished picture than the recent buzz would seem to suggest. I liked If Beale Street Could Talk (Barry Jenkins will get more chances, this nomination just cements his status) and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (since Woody Allen has finally been flushed out of the movie business, guess the Coens will get his annual nomination?) is fine but I don't see either of them as superior pieces of screenwriting. BlackKklansman was a so-so picture (am I the only one that noticed that?) with a third act that drifts all over in a most unsatisfying fashion. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me. (My personal fave: Death of Stalin, one of the films of this season that I look forward to seeing again and again) My pick: Can You Ever Forgive Me (I've long been a Nicole Holofcener fan and this is her best chance to get some love, although Spike Lee could certainly win for the same reason)
Director
Alfonso Cuaron (Roma) is the obvious choice here and if you're seeing a Roma onslaught then he would definitely win; but I don't see the onslaught coming, I feel like Roma will have turned off as many people as it turned on. Pawel Pawlikowski (Cold War) is an interesting choice, he's done good work for a while now, but I don't think enough people saw this to earn him the trophy (the fact he got nominated at all is kinda cool). Spike Lee (BlackKklansman) has been around forever and this is his first nomination, I wouldn't be shocked if he won but I think the nomination is a make-up call not a sign of overwhelming support. Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite) is, I think, among the very best directors in the world right now, though his films are sometimes kinda hard to take making this nomination a bit of a shock to me; this year, though, he's put his own stamp on an accessible film and I think he's very deserving, but I'd be surprised if enough people truly appreciate the kind of director he is to give him this award. I personally thought nothing of the film Vice, but I think I'm very much in the minority and since this category is a bit of a clusterfuck (and since Cuaron has already won before), I think the Academy makes a bold move and goes with Adam McKay, a guy that has steadily built admirers in the industry over the years. (My personal fave: Yorgos Lanthimos (The Favourite). My pick: Adam McKay (Vice)
Actor
I was way out of step in this category, only Dafoe appeared in my top five. I admired the hell out of At Eternity's Gate and the way Willem Dafoe keeps finding new roles to give audacious performances is inspiring; too bad nobody saw the movie. Viggo and Ali made a good pair (another example of the need for an Ensemble Award) but the story itself was the star of the show and given the good dialogue, this does not strike me as a film driven by performances (indeed, I can imagine this film being just as beloved with two no-name actors). Cooper deserved to be nominated for Best Director but not for Best Actor; dude, he just mumbles and plays air guitar most of the time, a fine performance but not the centerpiece of the film itself nor one of the more notable performances of the year (I feel like Cooper pissed Hollywood off or something, I don't understand the Academy's reception to the film at all). When I first saw the trailer for Vice, I was blown away by Bale as Dick Cheney; unfortunately, the movie itself was no better than the trailer and I found Bale's performance rather tedious after two hours, watching him pull on the Dick Cheney fat suit didn't get deeper or more interesting over time. I didn't see Bohemian Rhapsody but I can certainly attest to the cult of Freddie Mercury that has arisen in the last decade or so and I'm not surprised the film was a big hit with the fans (and largely panned by the critics). Gotta complain: if you want to see a ballsy, invigorating performance from a guy that's giving you what no one else would give, check out Brady Jandreau in The Rider; which of these five actors could've played that part? None. (My personal fave: John C. Reilly (Stan & Ollie), an underappreciated film and, holy fuck, Reilly is fucking amazing!) My pick: Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) (are we seriously gonna let Dick Cheney beat out Freddie Mercury? Is that the America you want to live in?)
Actress
My two favorite female performances this season were Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) and Olivia Colman (The Favourite) and Yalitza Aparicio (Roma) was not far out of my top five. The other two films I didn't see. If A Star is Born was lining up as the big winner it feels like it ought to be then I'd say Gaga is a shoo-in to take the prize, but I think she's kinda alienated the Academy and as an outsider (sorta), I feel like the Academy is pulling away from her when they ought to be embracing her. Colman is an excellent choice but I think that film was such an ensemble that unless either Stone or Weisz won, too, I don't see Colman winning. Aparicio is phenomenal but this is one of those occasions where the nomination is the recognition, I'd be pretty shocked if she actually won. I didn't see Can You Ever Forgive Me and while folks love seeing a comic take a dramatic turn, this is another case where I think the nomination itself is the extent of the recognition McCarthy will receive. That leaves Glenn Close; I didn't see the film but she's long been pretty great, feels like this is her year for a lifetime achievement Oscar. Gotta complain that Elsie Fisher (Eighth Grade) was left out, she totally carried an unorthodox movie by a first-time director, she deserves to be here. (My personal fave: Lady Gaga (A Star is Born) My pick: Glenn Close (The Wife)
Supporting Actor
Okay this category has basically two different groups: high profile, working, in demand guys (Ali, Rockwell, Driver) and old favorites that you don't see much of any more (Grant, Elliott). I did not see Can You Ever Forgive Me but of the other four, none appeared in my top five for Supporting Actor. Isn't the whole point of Vice that George Bush was insignificant and not really in control? So why are you nominating the guy that played him in the movie--especially since he isn't even in it that much? Driver is a fine young actor, he'll definitely have chances to get back in the coming years, but in BlackKlansman he's basically just playing an ordinary cop in an ordinary cop film--Topher Grace is the high risk/low reward performance that has to be perfect in order to hold the film together--why didn't he get this nomination? Ali should've been considered a lead actor--yes, the film is the white guy's memoir and we see a little more of him but what we get from his scenes is merely to set him up in contrast to the black guy, thus both characters are indispensable to each other and they are twin leads, so this nomination isn't really ideal. Sam Elliot is a beloved character actor, been around forever and given many underappreciated performances but this isn't one of them; in A Star is Born his character is one note and repetitive and since he didn't go ten seconds in the movie without multiple F-bombs, the scene they'll have to show at the ceremony is his final scene with Cooper which is actually Cooper's scene. How you gonna give the award for a money shot scene that isn't even his? (My personal fave: Topher Grace (BlackKklansman), playing sublime evil and laughable buffoon simultaneously is virtually impossible and without him this movie doesn't work at all) My pick: Sam Elliott (A Star is Born) (I'm going the old favorite route and since Grant should've won the BAFTA, I figure Elliott wins the Oscar)
Supporting Actress
I was in line with this category as Adams (Vice) and Stone and Weisz from The Favourite were in my top five, too. The other two nominees, Regina King (If Beale Street Could Talk) and Marina de Tavira (Roma) were also fine choices. Stone and Weisz, both previous Oscar winners, feel like they'll split votes (this is the perfect argument for an Ensemble Award). The nomination for de Tavira is her recognition, I don't see how she wins. King was the popular choice in the critics' polls (I don't think I saw anyone other than her winning those) but the film had a mild overall reception and personally I don't think she had enough presence in the film outside a sequence late in the 3rd act to really compare with, say, Stone or Weisz. I thought Adams was the best part of Vice (or at least, she's the part that makes the movie make sense) and I think Vice is going to be the surprise winner this evening. (My personal fave: Amy Adams (Vice)) My pick: Amy Adams (Vice)
Best Picture
From the first moment I saw it in October, A Star is Born seemed like the obvious pick for Best Picture; but it went cold in the Golden Globes and doesn't seem to have the necessary buzz about it going into voting. I dunno why, seems like everything the Oscars is looking for: a woman's story, a time-honored remake, a bold musical, loving nods to LGBT and African-American communities, star-making performance in the lead, hugely successful soundtrack, directed by a popular actor, big box office--what more does Oscar want? Throw in that there's no clear usurper and it still seems plainly obvious to me that A Star is Born will win. Black Panther was a hugely popular film very very early in the season but cooled off and this nomination feels liked a tossed bone rather than a groundswell for re-appreciation. BlackKklansman is Spike Lee's first nominee for Best Picture, but that in and of itself doesn't seem like enough to win it a lot of votes (throw in that it's actually a fairly routine cop story, albeit with some twists, and it probably isn't even Spike's 10th best movie). Bohemian Rhapsody has a built in audience due to the staggering emergence of the cult of Freddie Mercury (a Reddit invention, as near as I can tell), and was well-liked by the masses though not by the critics; this doesn't feel like a Best Picture to me (but keep an eye on the Sound categories: if it wins there that could signal a big night). Green Book was a well-crafted crowd pleaser that emerged from Toronto (if you'll recall this won the audience award rather than the bigger-hyped First Man and A Star is Born), then fell upon some criticism; the nominations represent the bounce back from potential controversy but I'm not sure there's enough support going forward to win any awards. Roma is in a tricky place: as Netflix's first big time Oscar-bait title, it has suffered from being much-admired by the handful of people that saw it on the big screen, but a bit of a snooze to those who watched on Netflix; also, being a front runner for Best Picture might undermine it's chance of winning Best Foreign (and vice versa), so outside of Cinematography, I think it gets shut out. The Favourite was my personal favorite of these nominees and while it clearly has its admirers, I don't see it beating out the more high profile films in this category. Vice is an audacious movie, an inventive and ambitious movie but while I think it wins a pile of awards, giving it the top prize might feel like some kind of affirmation of Dick Cheney. My pick: as improbable as it feels, gotta go with A Star is Born (while this may seem out of left field, I think Bohemian Rhapsody is the other one that could win)
Recap
In looking back over this past season for this post, I found myself edging away from the conventional wisdom and seeing a variety of upsets/weird choices, instead. The Critics polls and Guild Awards were all over the place suggesting no single dominant film, so I don't think Roma steamrolls the competition. I think the post-Oscar buzz is going to be about the shock of how little Roma wins but over time people will look back and see the Cinematography prize and the other nominations and think that's about right. I think Vice is the one that people want to vote for but cautiously: I have it winning Editing, Supporting Actress, Original Screenplay, Director and Makeup but not winning Best Picture or Best Actor--which seems like the obvious choice--because the technical awards suggest a level of mastery of skewering Dick Cheney, while giving it Picture or Actor would feel like an affirmation of Dick Cheney (does that make sense?). I'm using the 1950 Oscars as my model, where All the King's Men won Picture, Actor and Supporting Actress but A Letter to Three Wives won Director and Screenplay: the Academy wanted to highlight an edgy hit movie driven by great performances while acknowledging that the quiet comedy/drama was actually a better movie. Giving Best Picture--and nothing else--to A Star is Born gives the historical impression that this was the dominant film of the season and by not girding it with technical awards, makes it feel like an empty hit movie rather than a superior production. And it keeps the Academy from going too far in a political (Vice) or politically correct (Roma or Green Book) direction.
I think Vice is going to be the surprise star of the night, Roma won't get much love and A Star is Born for Best Picture will be the talk of the town (for a week or so). That said, I'm probably wrong on all this and the oddsmakers that say Roma is a shoo-in to collect all the hardware will probably be proven right. We'll see.
Random open letter to the Academy
The controversy this year (well, the most recent controversy) was about the Awards show producers trying to force a number of the winners into the commercial breaks in a futile bid to shorten the running time of the TV broadcast. Academy members reacted with fury and rightly so: the whole point of the show is to honor people, so why are you dis-honoring them?
Here's a modest solution: divide the Oscars into three shows and own the whole weekend (NFL Draft style). Most of the technical awards are handed out the night before the Oscars, so expand that first night, which is crucial to industry insiders but less attractive for a mass audience. They can go hognutty with intricate distinctions of editing, sound editing, special effects, hair/makeup, musical composition, and other technical achievements on the first night. The second night could be all about genre distinction: foreign, doc, animated, here's where you could add the obligatory highest box office award, short films and even expand out for different types of dramas, comedies, actioners, etc. Then cut the mass market show down to the bare bones: Picture, Actors, Director, Screenplays, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Costume, Score, Editing, Art Design, Sound Design, (personally I couldn't care less about Best Song, but that's probably one of the more popular awards, so it would probably stay). Then encourage the various Guilds to schedule their awards in the week before the Oscars, so that the whole week is a full-on dedication to the year's films. Let the first two Oscar nights trickle upward to create more interest in the shorter, sweeter big night. And as for host, musical numbers, opening monologue--get rid of all of that crap! The regular people back home want the red carpet pre-game show and they want the big awards--and that's it! They don't care about the difference between sound mixing and sound editing, they don't see the short films so they don't care about them, most of the foreign titles aren't available until after the Oscars and the monologue and musical numbers are more likely to be alienating than memorable. Hollywood people can give themselves a whole raft of extra awards by adding two extra ceremonies, where they'll be free to wallow around in their own self-indulgence--and it can be put on pay-per-view or at least be more impactful on blogs, podcasts and social media.
This is a win-win: the TV audience just gets the meat instead of the fat while the Hollywood crowd gets to have all the fat they want. By spreading it out, the Academy gets to do more, create more buzz, own the whole weekend (or even the whole week), and still put out a shorter more concise ceremony with better ratings, pleasing for the casual fans and the hardcore insiders at the same time. Just a thought.
(*) Fwiw, I read the description of his next film, it's 7 Men from Now, an old Bud Boetticher film. Hey, if you're gonna rip off old movies, Bergman and Boetticher are good places to start.
(**) The original A Star is Born (1937) is about a girl that wants to be a star and a guy that desperately wants to maintain the stardom he used to have before he met this girl. But in the remakes the woman has to be dragged into the spotlight while the man is rather indifferent to the stardom he has or used to have (especially the Kris Kristofferson version--I never understood anything about what that character wanted). The original is a gritty cynical movie about the fake magic of Hollywood--amazing considering how early it was in the history of Hollywood! The remakes ignore how grubby the woman's desire for stardom is and downplay the man's devastating craving to retain relevance, tending to paint the woman as lucky (instead of ambitious) and the man as merely alcoholic (instead of heartbroken). The 2018 version is awkward in that it isn't portraying the dominant cultural expression of the time--dude, if the world's greatest Southern rock guitar player walked into a Brooklyn drag bar at 2am, are we really sure that anyone would know who he was? Really? I'll buy it for the sake of the movie but I'm not sure that's true at all. To me the one really stinging criticism of A Star is Born (2018) is that stardom is a different thing in the social media world than it was in Depression-era Hollywood (1937), the early days of television (1954) or the heyday of arena rock and FM radio (1976) and this film chooses to harken back rather than portray the world as it is now. Those versions all owned the world they lived in, this one merely suggests that it is possible that these people still exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
