Oscar Seasoning: Who’s Gonna Win and Who Should Win
None of these predictions are legally binding...
The 96th Academy Awards will take place this Sunday. It’s been a long Oscar season, between the cultural phenomenon that was Barbenheimer, the omnipresent streaming service debates, a strike-dominated festival circuit, and so much Discourse. This season’s slate of ten nominees is, all things considered, pretty solid. I’ve made my dislike of Maestro clear but there isn’t really a bona fide stinker among the group. There’s nothing here on the level of callous ineptitude of a, say, Bohemian Rhapsody. Not to give the Academy too much credit, of course. It’s still all reasonably safe, with no big surprises or the like.
I, like every other critic on the planet, have put together my list of predictions, preferred choices, and omissions I’m still salty about. Don’t put any money down based on my guesses!
BEST PICTURE
There’s not really a battle here either. We all know this is Oppenheimer’s year, and rightly so. It’s a brilliant film, a true cultural moment for 2023, a box office smash, and perhaps the best thing Christopher Nolan has ever made (although it’s a close race with Dunkirk for me.) It’s swept the major precursor awards and I just can’t see something like Poor Things acting as a spoiler. I’ve heard compelling cases for Barbie winning, partly to celebrate its immense achievements but also as a consolation for the lack of a Greta Gerwig Best Director nod. I see the logic – see Argo – but can’t imagine them pulling it off, not when the competition is so far ahead.
Is Oppenheimer the best nominee? I think The Zone of Interest is the most artistically stunning of the ten listed films, but it’s also far too challenging and politically pointed to win over the Academy. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s been nominated for as many awards as it has. Overall, there’s no nominee here whose victory would make me furious. Aside from Maestro, but even then, I’d mostly be tired.
WHO WILL WIN: Oppenheimer.
WHO SHOULD WIN: The Zone of Interest.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: There are a few contenders here – All of Us Strangers, The Boy and the Heron, Priscilla – but I’m going to go with May December, which was such a sublime F*ck You to the entire movie-making industry that I truly believe it hit too close to home for voters.
BEST DIRECTOR
This category faced some serious flack for the absence of Greta Gerwig, but here’s the thing: Who do you remove in her favour? This is one of the most excellent Best Director line-ups in recent memory. I would be thrilled with any win. Imagine Justine Triet taking it! Or Yorgos Lanthimos! Or Martin f*cking Scorsese!
But yeah, it’s Nolan’s to lose. He’s been overdue for some time and has been the subject of “when is he gonna win an Oscar” think-pieces since The Dark Knight. Whatever you think of him personally, he is one of the most important and influential filmmakers of his era, and he pulled off one hell of a tightrope walk with Oppenheimer. Not many directors would have gotten to make a $100 million three-hour biographical drama mostly comprised of conversations about ethics and science. Fewer could have made it a cultural touchstone for the 2020s.
But personally, as I said in the above category, The Zone of Interest is the film I keep coming back to. Jonathan Glazer really has done something here I’ve never seen before, and on a basic craft level, I’ve been obsessed with it for weeks now. The sound design alone! That ending! The performances! It shouldn’t have worked, but it did and now it feels as though we’ve discovered something new about the artform of cinema. That doesn’t happen very often so we should celebrate it in some form.
WHO WILL WIN: Christopher Nolan.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Jonathan Glazer.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Yes, I think Greta Gerwig would have been a highly deserving nominee, but my vote goes to the one and only Hayao Miyazaki for The Boy and the Heron, my favourite film of 2023.
BEST ACTOR
For a while, this felt like a two-horse race between Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti, but with the former taking home the SAG Award, the winds seem to be blowing more in Murphy’s favour. Both actors have compelling narratives, gave top performances, and are bolstered by films that everyone seemed to love. It’s not impossible to imagine Giamatti, one of the most beloved character actors of his generation, winning thanks to his industry-wide popularity. He’s worked with everyone and nobody has a bad thing to say about him. But you could make the same case with Murphy, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. Plus Oppenheimer is far harder to overlook than The Holdovers, a smaller and less attention-grabbing piece of work. A Giamatti win is not impossible here, but I feel comfortable with my call.
WHO WILL WIN: Cillian Murphy.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Cillian Murphy.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Franz Rogowski’s turn as a selfish director who cheats on his husband with a woman in Ira Sachs’ Passages is a volcano of charisma and callousness. And slutty shirts. He’s going to be a major star one day and get his Sandra Huller-esque nom, trust me.
BEST ACTRESS
Now here is a race. It’s Lily Gladstone versus Emma Stone. The relative newcomer in a quietly devastating role who could make history, or the former winner turned power producer in her bravest performance yet. Frankly, I think both are deserving winners, and I would also sacrifice an avocado or two to make a Sandra Huller victory happen. Stone seems to have the edge in terms of precursors but Gladstone won the SAG Award, which is often pivotal. Personally, I want Lily to take it. What she does in Killers of the Flower Moon is astonishing. She acts DiCaprio off the screen with the subtlest of reactions. Subtlety doesn’t usually do well against bigger work, and Stone is doing some stellar physical comedy and candid sexuality that we don’t usually see in a mainstream American release. I’ll cheer for both wins but Lily’s one would make me happier. Screw it, I’ll put my money on Lily.
WHO WILL WIN: Lily Gladstone.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Lily Gladstone.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Oof, so many. Cailee Spaeny in Priscilla, Greta Lee in Past Lives, Juliette Binoche in The Taste of Things, Teyana Taylor in A Thousand and One. I’ll give a shout-out to Mia McKenna-Bruce in the British indie drama How to Have Sex, for the way she heartbreakingly embodied a teenage girl’s realization that she’s not as mature as she’s been led to believe. She’s got the potential to be the next Florence Pugh.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
One of the seeming locks of the evening, it’s RDJ’s time. He’s had perhaps the greatest comeback in Hollywood history and, post-Iron Man, he’s reminding people that he can do more than Tony Stark. Oppenheimer is overloaded with incredible supporting performances – I’ve gone to bat for RDJ’s most frequent scene partner, Alden Ehrenreich, many times – but it’s not hard to see why Downey has been singled out. The narrative is too juicy and he is very strong as Lewis Strauss, a social-climbing loser who is watching his carefully crafted plans crumble before his eyes.
I do want to give a shout out to Mark Ruffalo for his hysterical turn in Poor Things as Victorian Zapp Brannigan, although I also think Willem Dafoe should have been in this category. I also want to call attention to perhaps the best work in this category and that’s Robert De Niro in Killers of the Flower Moon. We take De Niro for granted because his Greatest Actor Ever reputation is so immense and it’s been kicked at too many times by bad movies where he doesn’t seem to care. What he does in Killers is some of his finest work, embodying the insidious charm of a man who abuses his privilege to decimate the Native American population of his town. We talk a lot about The Zone of Interest as the best representation of the banality of evil, but De Niro’s work in Killers more than meets that.
WHO WILL WIN: Robert Downey Jr.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Robert De Niro.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Charles f*cking Melton?! It’s astonishing that one of the best performances of 2023 was snubbed like this. The Oscars don’t deserve him.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
What is there to be said here? It’s the safest lock of the evening. Da’Vine has cleared away space on her shelf, already laden with awards, to make way for that Oscar. It’s such an inevitability that I feel like Randolph’s moment has almost been downplayed. It’s weird that the most prolific winner of the season is being sidelined because the narrative is so secure. Make no mistake though, Da’Vine is a highly deserving winner for The Holdovers, although I wouldn’t be mad if Danielle Brooks pulled an upset for The Color Purple.
WHO WILL WIN: Da’Vine Joy Randolph.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Da’Vine Joy Randolph.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Julianne Moore does some of her finest work in May December, as did Penelope Cruz in Ferrari, but I have to give it to Sandra Huller for The Zone of Interest. What she does with that role is unnerving, turning the wife role into a dense portrait of evil in its most mundane form. Anne Hathaway also didn’t get enough love for Eileen as the seductive psychiatrist of the eponymous lead’s nightmares.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Over the last couple of weeks, we've seen American Fiction emerge as the frontrunner here, which would mean that a possible Oppenheimer sweep in the major above-the-line categories is out of the question. American Fiction became an instant player in this season when it won the TIFF Audience Award (I was at Toronto last year, and even in a quiet strike-impacted fest, it was hotly buzzed.) It's a savvy satire about art and commerce, it's a piece of writing about writing, and it's also very funny. I've been told by some that it dilutes the caustic tone of the novel, which I haven't read, but most voters don't concern themselves with whether or not the script is a good adaptation of the book. They just look at it as a film independent of all that, categorization aside.
It's a strong category, with Barbie here over Original Screenplay due to WGA rules. I would personally probably give it to Oppenheimer, which is such a major undertaking that Nolan made seem easy. I have some big issues with the Poor Things adaptation and things it changes from the wonderful and very Scottish novel. The Zone of Interest is also so unlike the Martin Amis novel it's ostensibly based on that it barely feels like an adaptation.
WHO WILL WIN: American Fiction.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Oppenheimer.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: The Boy and the Heron is an adaptation in the same way that The Zone of Interest is, but that beautiful, opaque and challenging script is some of Miyazaki’s best work and should have been acknowledged as such. Also, it’s weird that Killers of the Flower Moon is absent here, although if you’ve heard the whispers about its secret authorship, that might not be too surprising.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
If Justine Triet is to win anything for Anatomy of a Fall, one of the breakout non-English language films of the season, it will be in this category. She and partner Arthur Harari did an impeccable job in turning the courtroom drama genre into a dissection of a marriage and study of the inherent unknowability of humanity. It reminded me that we used to get so many of these sturdy courtroom movies in the '90s and that there's a real gap in the market for that kind of serious, non-action, adult-oriented storytelling. Anatomy of a Fall is much better than your bog-standard John Grisham novel, though, and I do worry that some voters might see its tightrope walk act and think it was somehow easy for Triet and Harari.
Spare a thought for May December, one of 2023's best films and nominated only in this category. I maintain it was too good for the Academy, or at least too uncomfortable for them to fully confront, but damnit I would love to see Samy Burch win this one. It won't happen, alas, and here I believe the nomination is the win.
WHO WILL WIN: Anatomy of a Fall.
WHO SHOULD WIN: May December.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: A Thousand and One, The Iron Claw, You Hurt My Feelings, so many. But I'll give my votes to Asteroid City - the sheer layers of that story, like a Russian doll, only further dazzle me the more I think about that film - and Beau is Afraid - the sheer audacity of it deserves more love, but let's be honest, it was always going to be loathed by the average Academy voter. As Ari Aster intended it!
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
This is a category where voters get lazy. It's why Disney and Pixar are essentially the default winners 90% of the time, even when their work is weak or up against far superior work. But even Wish was so bad that it couldn't get shortlisted. Elemental is perfectly sweet and benefitted from a slow-burn box office success, but then you have both The Boy and the Heron, the not-so-final film of an animation legend, and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, the critically and commercially successful sequel to a previous Best Animated Feature winner. If voters go lazy in any way, it'll be to vote for the latter, but it'll be a highly deserving win. Actually, I think that's exactly what they'll do. But again, The Boy and the Heron was my favourite film of 2023 and I think Miyazaki really should have more than one competitive Oscar.
WHO WILL WIN: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.
WHO SHOULD WIN: The Boy and the Heron.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: You could certainly make a good case for both Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem and Suzume. I haven’t seen either so don’t ask me!
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
One of my favourite nominations of the season is the legendary Edward Lachman getting in for El Conde, the "what if Pinochet was a vampire and Thatcher was his undead mother stand-in" satire. It’s on Netflix. Go watch it!
I think this is another Oppenheimer lock, even though the competition is generally excellent. Hoyte van Hoytema is perhaps the most influential non-Deakins cinematographer of the past decade thanks to films like Her and Spectre, and his Nolan collaborations are undeniable. He's also never won an Oscar before and has weirdly only been nominated once before. Seriously, no nomination for Her? Spectre? Interstellar? Let the Right One In? Strange.
WHO WILL WIN: Oppenheimer.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Oppenheimer.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: The hazy soap opera nightmare of May December. Pawel Pogorzelski's vision of an endless anxiety attack in Beau is Afraid. The grimy noir of Eileen through Ari Wegner’s lens.
BEST SCORE
Another Oppenheimer lock. Ludwig Göransson does consistently great work in film and you certainly walk away from this one remembering the score. A posthumous win for the iconic Robbie Robertson would be nice but the momentum simply isn't there. No disrespect to John Williams, a god among men, but why is he nominated for the fifth Indiana Jones movie? Especially when Mica Levi didn't make the cut for their astonishing and deeply disturbing score for The Zone of Interest. Their music for that film, which bookends the actual story like a soundscape, is the audio equivalent of picking at a scab.
WHO WILL WIN: Oppenheimer.
WHO SHOULD WIN: Killers of the Flower Moon.
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: The Zone of Interest.
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
If you want to feel inadequate today, just remember that Billie Eilish is about to become a two-time Oscar winner and she’s only 22. “What Was I Made For?” is obviously a very moving song that makes excellent use of Eilish’s higher register, both sob-inducing and thematically relevant to Barbie. But come on, “I’m Just Ken” is right there. You’re going to make poor Ryan Gosling do the dance on stage then not award the song?
And if you too are wondering why the hell Diane Warren keeps getting nominated in this category for songs nobody has listened to in movies that might not exist? I have no idea. I think her name is just printed on the ballot at this point in time. She’s a legendary songwriter but all of her Oscar bait songs are genuinely terrible.
WHO WILL WIN: “What Was I Made For?”
WHO SHOULD WIN: “I’m Just Ken.”
WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: “Dear Alien Who Art in Heaven” from Asteroid City! Honestly, Academy, the consistent disrespect towards Wes Anderson is exhausting.
I’ll leave it there since I think the remaining categories are pretty safe predictions (and also I haven’t seen all of the International Feature nominees and don’t want to make a judgment of that.) My hope is that Jimmy Kimmel continues his run as a surprisingly decent host for the most thankless job in American entertainment, that we get some good speeches, and that someone is nervy enough to merely utter the words “ceasefire” and “Palestine.”
There have been better years for Oscar nominees, but there have also been far worse ones, so I’m always thankful for a slate of nominations that isn’t irredeemably dull or questionable. Look, I’m still in pain over the Bohemian Rhapsody and Green Book year. Most of the time, the best we can hope for as Oscar nerds is a solid if unspectacular bunch of winners. But we have had some good years, as the Parasite season proves. In the year of Barbenheimer, The Zone of Interest, The Holdovers, and Killers of the Flower Moon, it feels like we have opportunities more for good than bad. Frankly, unless there’s a Maestro sweep, I’ll be content with any result. It ain’t happening, Bradley.
Thanks for reading. Who are you rooting for this Sunday? Who are you still mad wasn’t nominated? Let me know in the comments!
If you want to support my work but don’t want to pay Substack (fair), I have a Ko-Fi account!