In this episode, we review two more films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. I call this grouping “Genocidal Husbands.” Yes, it is strange that we would have two major nominated films on that topic but indeed we do. Check out the episode as we wind down to the end of our list and approach the 96th Annual Academy Awards on March 10.

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 58 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

The 96th Annual Academy Awards are just a few days away as I’m writing this. We still have four more Best Picture Nominees and two episodes to cover them. We have saved some of the best for last.

When I came up with the idea of grouping the Best Picture Nominees into pairs, I didn’t have all 5 pairs figured out. But now that we are down to the end, my little gimmick for grouping the films in twos has worked out much better than I thought it would.

This week’s grouping is called “Genocidal Husbands”. We have two films about marriages in which the husbands engaged in rampant, racist, murder of people based on their ethnic background. It’s strange that we would have two such films in the same year.

The first one is “The Zone of Interest” directed by Jonathan Glaser. It is the story of Rudolf Höss who was the Commandant of the Auschwitz Concentration camps. He and his wife Hedwig live in a spacious villa with a huge garden that includes a swimming pool, a greenhouse, and stables for his horses. The other side of the tall garden wall is the camp where Jewish prisoners are sorted. Those capable of working are sent to local factories as slave labor. Those who are too weak are killed in gas chambers and the bodies burned in furnaces.

Although this is a British production by a British director, the entire film is in German with English subtitles.

The film does not show us the horrors going on in the camp but we hear them quite vividly. From time to time, you can hear screaming and occasional gunfire as unruly prisoners are eliminated. There is only one brief scene at the camp itself and the camera stays focused on the face of Höss as he oversees the unloading of train loads of prisoners. We hear the screaming of men women and children and again occasional gunfire dealing with those who are uncooperative.

The majority of the film simply shows us the day-to-day happy life of this couple who enjoy the benefits of his position. The renovation of their house and the construction of the garden and other outbuildings were all performed by or paid for by local businessmen as a kickback for getting the slave labor from the camp. In one scene, Höss meets with a pair of contractors who have come up with a more efficient design for the furnaces.

Höss and his wife have 5 children ranging from an infant up to a teenager. Their eldest son enjoys playing with his collection of gold teeth that have been extracted from the prisoners. Hedwig enjoys receiving fine fur coats and jewelry stolen from the Jews and she distributes other lesser-quality pieces of clothing to their household servants.

The family enjoys picnicking, fishing, and swimming in the nearby river. However, one day the river is polluted by ash and human remains. Rudolph has to scurry out of the river where he is fishing in hip waders and get his children out of the water quickly to run home and be scrubbed vigorously with hot water.

The movie was filmed using remotely operated hidden cameras placed around the house and grounds so that the actors would not be distracted by them. There are no movie lights used. Everything is shot digitally with natural lighting. They would act out long scenes and would be unaware of what part of the scene the cameras were focused upon. The actors said that it made their performance more natural because they didn’t have to worry about hitting their marks. They just played out the scene.

Except for one scene, I don’t recall seeing any close-ups in the entire film. During conversations, there is little or no back-and-forth editing between the participants. The cameras are static.

In one particular scene, while Rudolph is discussing the new furnaces in his office with the contractors, Hedwig is entertaining her friends, and a Polish servant girl scurries around the house serving drinks and collecting the Commandant’s bloody boots to be cleaned by another servant. The scene was filmed with 10 remotely controlled cameras in fixed locations. It is edited together to follow the servant girl as she wanders between the rooms. It’s as if this is all happening in real-time and we are voyeuristically watching it unfold. I have linked a YouTube video about the filming of that particular scene. It’s really fascinating.

The actual Höss home still exists in Poland adjacent to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial. Director Jonathan Glaser visited the museum and spent years researching the film including material from the museum’s archives. This included written testimony and interviews of the actual servants who worked in their home.

The movie was filmed on location in Poland just a hundred yards from the actual home. They found an appropriate abandoned home and renovated it. It took months to re-create the garden which is meticulously identical to the original. The museum was cooperative in the production and there is an epilogue scene filmed in the museum. I have linked the museum/memorial website in the description.

There is very little plot to the film. We are simply a fly on the wall witnessing the normality of these deeply evil people.

The only plot point occurs about halfway through the film is that Rudolph is reassigned to a new position in the Nazi hierarchy. He delays telling his wife about the move for over a week which upsets her greatly. She has worked hard to create the idyllic garden behind the house and to create a luxurious life for herself, her husband, and their children. She begs him to allow her to stay in the home as he travels to his new assignment. He petitions his superiors to allow her to stay behind and they agree. One of the servants whose testimony is in the museum archives was the source for the information that the couple argued over this incident so it is entirely authentic to what it was really like in the Höss household.

Eventually, Hitler approved a new plan to bring 700,000 Jews from Hungary to the camps in Poland for extermination and war production. Höss will be returning home to his wife and family to supervise the massive new importation of Jews. Himmler describes it as “Operation Höss”. Rudolph excitedly calls his wife to share the good news. She is mildly happy but ultimately just complains that he called her so late at night. Couldn’t this have waited?

And that’s basically it. That’s the movie in a nutshell.

I’ve summarized the entire plot. There is no “action” per se. We just our witness to the casual approach that these people have to evil.

Fortunately, the film only lasts one hour 45 minutes and that is more than enough time for it to make its point.

Rudolph is played by German actor Christian Friedel who is unknown to me and his IMDb listing doesn’t show anything I recognize.

Sandra Hüller was similarly unknown to me until I saw this year’s nominated film “Anatomy of a Fall.” Both of them deliver chilling performances although it’s a bit difficult to judge their performance with a lack of close-up shots.

The film has 5 Oscar nominations. In addition to Best Picture, it is also nominated for Best Foreign Film and Best Director Jonathan Glaser. Also nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay by Jonathan Glaser very loosely based on the novel of the same name by Sir Martin Amis. Sadly, Amis died on the same day that the film made its debut at the Cannes Film Festival where it was awarded the “Grand Prize of the Festival”.

None of those Oscar nominations are likely to win in the face of stiff competition however it is also nominated for Best Sound and although I’ve not looked up what other films are nominated in that category, it should definitely win. The entire premise of the film is that you hear the horror but do not see it.

By the way, it was easy for the actors to ignore the sound during filming because they did not have any of those sound effects of dying people during the shooting of the film.

It was nominated for 9 BAFTA awards and it won Best British Film of the Year, Best Film Not in the English Language, and of course Best Sound.

It was nominated for three Golden Globe Awards. IMDb lists 158 nominations and 51 wins.

The film has earned just over $7 million in the US and Canada and $16.5 million worldwide.

For the most part, the film is an impossible pain to watch. But then again, that’s the point, isn’t it? Is quite strange that the film can be simultaneously boring and horrifying. It is an amazing piece of filmmaking and I understand why it received its nominations. I think they are all well deserved. But I cannot recommend the film. Although I’m glad I saw it, and I am fascinated by the way it was produced, it is my least favorite of the 10 Best Picture Nominated films.

* * *

In our second film this episode, we get a different look at genocide this time a little closer to home. Martin Scorsese directs “Killers of the Flower Moon.” It is based on the true story of the Osage Native American tribe in Oklahoma in the 1920s who discovered oil on their lands. Then one by one, they are killed off by white people in an attempt to steal their oil rights.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Ernest Burkart, a young man who returns home to Oklahoma after serving as a cook in the Army during World War I. He is taken under the wing of his uncle William Hale played by Robert De Niro. Hale who goes by the nickname “King” is a wealthy rancher in the area who is very powerful in the nearby town of Fairfax.

Ernest is unable to perform manual labor because of a hernia condition but King finds work for him as a driver. The Osage people have become extremely wealthy and Ernest finds employment driving around an Osage woman named Mollie. At Uncle King’s encouragement, Ernest courts and eventually weds Mollie thus making him a partial heir to her oil rights.

King is the leader of a conspiracy to kill off the Osage oil rights holders one by one. Some are simply murdered in cold blood. Some fall victim to accidents. Some are staged suicides. Wherever possible, the powerful white men tried to marry into the Osage families so that their rights would eventually fall to them.

The story jumps in time in several places as we see Ernest and Mollie begin to raise a family. Molly suffers from severe diabetes and King and her doctors arrange for her to be given insulin treatments which are a brand-new therapy during the time the story takes place.

King claims to love the Osage people and befriends many of them. The Osage for the most part believe that he is their friend.

The tribal Council hires private investigators because the local authorities will not investigate the deaths of the oil rights holders. The investigators mysteriously disappear. Eventually, they send a representative to Washington DC to request that the federal government investigate these deaths. For some reason, he never arrives. Then Mollie joins a large Osage delegation who travel to DC themselves and insists on being seen by someone who will investigate the deaths. DC eventually sends investigators.

King insists that Ernest get his wife under control and keep her from being such a troublemaker. They add drugs to her insulin injections and keep her in a drug-induced stupor.

As members of Mollie’s family are killed off, Ernest serves as a go-between between King and the suckers they get to commit the murders. He begins to realize that at some point his wife is going to be next. Even though he is been on board with the plan all along, he truly loves his wife and doesn’t want to lose her or leave his children motherless.

So, what will Ernest do? Does he dare stand up to his powerful uncle and the other powerful white men of the community and testify against them? If he does so, he will naturally have to reveal his role in the conspiracy. While that might save the life of his wife, it will in all likelihood destroy their relationship when his involvement becomes public knowledge.

DiCaprio does a wonderful job portraying this man who participates in such evil acts yet grows a conscience when he realizes the evil is eventually targeting his immediate family. You feel every bit of his struggle with his conscience. You feel he really loves his wife yet he feels bound by loyalty to his powerful uncle. It’s an amazing performance and his Oscar nomination as Lead Actor is very much deserved.

De Niro of course turns in a phenomenal performance as the sly and duplicitous kingpin of the entire plot. He is nominated for an Oscar as Supporting Actor as he should be.

Mollie is played by Native American actress Lily Gladstone. She is the first Native American nominated for a lead role and would make more history should she win. She won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress in a Drama as well as the SAG Award for Lead Actress. I think Emma Stone who won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress in a comedy probably has a lock on the Oscar for Lead Actress but the Academy might not be able to resist the opportunity to make history. This one is pretty much a tossup. I can’t tell you who is going to win

While her performance was probably my least favorite of the five nominees, I will grant that it was worthy of the nomination. I would not bump her to make room for Margo Robbie in “Barbie” or Natalie Portman in “May December” who gave amazing performances but were not nominated.

I don’t think it’s a spoiler to tell you that we do find out what decision Ernest makes and the consequences of that decision. I won’t tell you what that is.

However, how that information is presented is a bit strange. There is sort of an epilogue in the form of a radio drama that we see performed on a theater stage in front of an audience. It’s sort of a 1930s version of a true crime podcast in which actors and a narrator tell the story of what happened. Martin Scorsese himself makes a cameo appearance in the radio play. While it was good to know how the story wrapped up and I was satisfied with how it was wrapped, I found that epilogue in the form of a radio play to be quite bizarre. I might have preferred an ordinary montage sequence with some sort of voiceover narration.

The film has earned 10 Oscar nominations: Best Picture, Best Director for Martin Scorsese, Lead Actress Lily Gladstone, Lead Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, Supporting Actor Robert De Niro, Production Design, Costume Design, and Cinematography all of which are very much deserved. It was also nominated for musical score, a song that I don’t remember, and film editing none of which I have an opinion about.

It received 9 BAFTA nominations and 7 Golden Globe nominations.

As you might expect from a Martin Scorsese epic, the runtime is 3 hours 26 minutes yet the pacing does not feel particularly slow.

Produced on an estimated budget of $200 million it earned nearly $68 million in the US and Canada and over $156 million worldwide yet it was made for Apple TV streaming so it’s difficult to say if it turned a profit depending on how much Apple paid for it. Those numbers don’t show up in the box office figures.

It is my sixth favorite of the 10 Best Pictures. I found it engaging, and well worth my time. It’s everything you expect from people like Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro. You can’t go wrong with a trio like that. I highly recommend it. It is still playing in some theaters and is currently available for streaming on Apple TV+ and for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

* * *

After doing all the editing on this episode I have a few more thoughts to share.

On a YouTube channel called “Native Media Theory,” Native American Elias Gold gives a review of the film from an indigenous perspective. He has some interesting insights. He talks about the complaints that not enough of the film was told from the Native American perspective. It was all about Ernest and King Hale, and not so much about Mollie and her family.

But he reveals that the book and the original screenplay told the story strictly from the point of view of the FBI agents who came into the town to investigate after all of the killings. So, the film is much more representative of the indigenous you than the book was. Scorsese has really stepped up in that regard to tell a much more interesting and balanced story than he would have if you stuck to the original book.

Gold also supposes that the film was not made for an indigenous population. It was made for white people so that we can take a hard look at our own biases. We need to look at the people in the film who were complacent in what was going on even if they weren’t actively participating.

The same thing could be said for the other film “The Zone of Interest.” Thousands of people knew what was going on in the camps but remained silent and were thus complicit.

So, both Jonathan Glaser in “The Zone of Interest”, and Martin Scorsese in “Killers of the Flower Moon” in what ways are we complacent by our silence about the racism that still exists in the world today?

Some things to think about.

I’ve linked Mr. Gold’s YouTube video in the description. I highly recommend that you watch it. It gives an interesting perspective from an indigenous person.

* * *

So, that wraps up our look at genocidal husbands. It’s bizarre that we even have such a category but I think the phrase is applicable to both of these films.

In our next episode, we present the final two of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture and they are among the best of the best. We have a pair of biopic’s about amazing geniuses. Christopher Nolan gives us a fascinating look at physicist J Robert Oppenheimer who led the efforts to develop the first atomic bomb in “Oppenheimer”. And spoiler… My favorite film of the year is Bradley Cooper directing and starring in “Maestro”. The story of famed composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein.

At the end of our final episode in the series, I will have a brief recap of all 10 Best Picture films, as well as the 20 lead and supporting actors and actresses as well as the 10 nominated screenplays. I will recap my favorites in order and then I will pick who I think will win even though I may or may not agree with the favorites.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, (in a way I found many of these movies) consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

In this episode, we are going to take an extremely brief look at 4 films that were nominated for major awards but were not among the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 57 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

In this episode, we are going to take an extremely brief look at 4 films that were nominated for major awards but were not among the 10 films nominated for Best Picture.

We start off with the Netflix film “Nyad” the story of famous long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad brilliantly portrayed by Annette Benning who is nominated as Best Lead Actress. She is accompanied by my all-time favorite actress Jodie Foster who plays Nyad’s best friend and coach Bonnie Stoll. She has received a Supporting Actress Nomination. The chemistry between these two is phenomenal. Together they put on a master class in acting. Both nominations are very much deserved.

Nyad set several records for long-distance offshore swimming. She swam completely around Manhattan Island, swam 89 miles from the Bahamas to Florida, and swam from Capri to Naples Italy in record time among other records. She is most famous however for her attempt to swim 103 miles from Havana Cuba to the Florida Keys at age 28. Unfortunately, she failed. She was a frequent commentator on ABC Sports Olympics coverage and was a successful author and businesswoman.

At age 60, Nyad realized she had unfinished business. She began training to tackle her white whale quest of the Cuba to Florida swim. At first, she trained alone and then eventually revealed to her friend Bonnie that she was going to make the Cuba attempt again. Bonnie began coaching her and assisting her in recruiting sponsorships.

Some initial test swims of 12 or 24 hours did not go well but she eventually built up her stamina and skills and began preparing for the attempt.

She recruited a man named John Bartlett as her navigator. He operated a charter boat in the area and was an expert on the currents and weather of the area. Nyad partially blamed her previous failure on the inexperience of her navigator. Bartlett is played by one of my favorite character actors Rhys Ifans. He recently appeared in HBO’s “House of the Dragon” and was in “Spider-Man: No Way Home” but I especially appreciated his performance in three seasons of the spy series “Berlin Station” which I highly recommend. I mentioned last week that his performance was more interesting to me than anything Ryan Gosling did in “Barbie” and I would have nominated him instead as Supporting Actor.

We follow Nyad through three more unsuccessful attempts at the Cuba crossing. She risks shark attacks and deadly jellyfish stings as well as a severe storm all of which nearly killed her. Unlike other such attempts, she did not use a shark cage. Rather she relied on electronic shark repellent systems. She also had to develop a special suit and mask to protect her from potentially deadly jellyfish stings. After these failures, her friend Bonnie, navigator Bartlett, and her entire team give up and encourage her to abandon her quest.

The film is a fascinating look at how a driven person surrounds themselves with supporters to help them achieve their goals but that those supporters pay a personal cost to be a part of the driven person’s life. This theme was especially meaningful to me as someone who is dependent upon a team of people just to live an ordinary productive life with a disability. After 68 years of being dependent upon other people for everything, I’m beginning to feel the weight of the cost it has on my friends and family. So the film triggered many emotions in me.

Nyad was raised to believe she has a great destiny in the water. She often tells the story of how her father explained that the word “Nyad” was the name of the Greek mythological nymphs who swam the oceans.

Once her friends realize that she is going to proceed with or without them, they relent and join her for one final try. I don’t think is a spoiler to say that her fifth attempt was successful.

The film fails to address the fact that her successes were not universally recognized by the marathon swimming community. For technical reasons, her successful swim from Cuba to Florida was insufficiently documented for her record to be officially recognized. Her record was removed from the Guinness Book of Records because they rely upon sanctioning bodies for such records. Still, there were over 40 witnesses to her swim and if she did not meet all of the exact technical requirements for the record to be recognized, it is nevertheless an amazing accomplishment.

I’ve been a huge fan of Jodie Foster for as far back as I can remember. I often joke about the difference between me and John Hinckley, Jr. whose obsession with Foster led him to attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

Hinckley was obsessed with Jodie Foster and I claim there is nothing unusual or insane about that. I am similarly obsessed. Hinckley also hated Ronald Reagan as did I although not enough to want to kill him. There is nothing inherently insane about having those two views. The thing that separates me as a Foster-obsessed Reagan-hating person from a nut job like John Hinckley is that he somehow connected the two. That’s why he’s nuts and I’m not. Or at least I like to think so.

Even accounting for my obsession with Foster, you will probably agree she delivers a memorable performance, and as I said earlier, her chemistry with Benning is amazing. By the way, although both characters are lesbian, they are just friends in this story. Nyad explains early on that they dated briefly decades ago but are just friends. Still, you feel every bit of the great love they have for one another as friends.

Foster is my biased pick for Supporting Actress but I think that Da’Vine Joy Randolph in “The Holdovers” is more likely to win given her wins at the Golden Globes and BAFTA awards. I very much enjoyed Randolph’s performance and I will not be disappointed if she wins.

Benning is my second favorite choice as Lead Actress behind Sandra Huller in “Anatomy of a Fall” but Emma Stone is the odds-on favorite for “Poor Things”.

This Netflix film was released in November and shown in theaters only long enough to be Oscar-eligible. Its worldwide gross is only $16,056 according to IMDb. It is currently still available on Netflix. I highly recommend it.

* * *

Our next film is another Netflix biopic. “Rustin” is the story of civil rights activist Bayard Rustin who planned and organized the 1963 March on Washington DC where Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

Rustin is played by Colman Domingo and has earned a much-deserved Lead Actor nomination for the role. In that category, I greatly appreciated all five nominees and would place Bradley Cooper in “Maestro” as my favorite with the remaining four performances in a tie for second place. I just can’t decide.

Rustin was as openly gay as one could be in the early 1960s. We see the consequences of that situation as he is forced out of the civil rights movement for fear that his sexuality will damage the cause. When there were accusations that he was in a homosexual relationship with Dr. King, He offered to resign from the NAACP and expected King to refuse the resignation. When King accepted the resignation it caused a great rift between the two friends that lasted for several years.

Rustin had studied the nonviolent philosophies of Gandhi and is credited with introducing King to the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience.

Rustin conceived the idea of the largest nonviolent protest in history. A march on Washington DC that would attract 100,000 people. It was to be a two-day affair that included encircling the White House, protesting outside Congress, and a gathering at the National Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Ultimately, he was forced to scale it back to a single-day event at the National Mall. The event was still a massive success that drew 250,000 people.

The film chronicles his difficult quest to gain respect in the movement in the face of his homosexuality. His primary detractor is NAACP chairperson Roy Wilkins portrayed by comedian Chris Rock. Although Rock does an acceptable job in a dramatic role, I could not help thinking of him as Chris Rock trying to be dramatic. His performance was not strong enough to make me forget his comic roots.

We get brief cameo appearances by actors we have talked about for their other nominated work. specifically, Jeffrey Wright plays Rep. Adam Clayton Powell and Da’Vine Joy Randolph plays Mahalia Jackson who sang at the event.

Rustin reconciled his relationship with Dr. King and they worked together on the March. When accusations arose again against Rustin, this time Dr. King supported his friend.

Similar to “Nyad”, we see the effect that this highly motivated, obsessed, driven person has on his friends and colleagues around him and the price they have to pay for being his friend.

I first became aware of Colman Domingo from his excellent work in the TV series “Fear the Walking Dead” where he plays a highly troubled character Victor Strand. In that series, he is often the villain but he is one who you can root for as he tries to constantly redeem himself. He also does an admirable job playing Mister in this year’s musical remake of “The Color Purple”.

In addition to his Lead Actor Oscar nomination, he was also nominated for the Golden Globe and a BAFTA nomination for the role. He is named as part of the ensemble cast in the SAG nomination for “The Color Purple”.

The film has appeared in a number of film festivals and saw limited theatrical release but no box office figures are available. It has been on Netflix since November and is still available.

The true life story is compelling and well worth your time.

* * *

In our next film, Danielle Brooks has received an Oscar nomination for Supporting Actress in her work in the 2023 remake of “The Color Purple.” She is most famous for her work in 89 episodes of the Netflix series “Orange is the New Black.” Unfortunately, despite its popularity, I never watched the series so I was unfamiliar with her work.

I’m more embarrassed that I had never seen the original 1985 version of “The Color Purple” directed by Steven Spielberg. Initially, I could not understand why such an iconic and beloved film not yet 40 years old needed to be remade. Then I discovered that the new version was based on a Broadway musical adaptation of the story.

It seems strange to make a musical as is such a dark topic. But my three favorite musicals of all time in order are “Jesus Christ Superstar”, “Les Miserables”, and “Phantom of the Opera.” Although there are some upbeat numbers in those shows, none of them could be described as happy, feel-good stories. So the idea of taking the story of a woman who is used and abused and essentially made a slave of her husband could theoretically be ripe for appropriate musical treatment.

Sadly, this film is not an appropriate treatment of such a dark story. I am deeply surprised that Stephen Spielberg, Oprah Winfrey, and author Alice Walker are all listed as Executive Producers. They signed off on this travesty.

I watched the original and the remake simultaneously. How? I would watch 15-20 minutes of one film and then switch to the other one to see how it treated the same material. While indeed there are some happy moments in the early part of the story as Celie and her sister Olivia are young girls and this story does have a happy ending, the bulk of the story is a deeply tragic story of a woman who is sold by her father to be the wife of a horrible abusive farmer. Although they are all black and the story takes place from 1909 through 1947, he treats her as if she were a slave.

There are only one or two musical numbers that I felt were appropriately somber and emotional to fit the tone of the story. The vast majority of the numbers except for those during the happy ending and some numbers in a juke joint bar are completely tone deaf to the seriousness of the subject at hand.

I could write an extensive review almost scene by scene of everything wrong with this musical adaptation. But it’s not worth my time nor yours to do so.

Ultimately, we are only here to talk about the nominated performance of Danielle Brooks. It is difficult to be objective about her performance in a film which I so deeply hated. Brooks plays Sophia which is the same character played by Oprah Winfrey in the original film. One cannot help but compare the performances. While Brooks did an adequate job of playing the character as feisty and at times providing much-needed comic relief, overall her performance is nowhere near as moving during the tragic parts of her story as was Oprah’s original portrayal.

Sophia talks back sarcastically to the wife of the mayor of the town and ultimately strikes the mayor across the cheek which lands her in jail for many years. In Spielberg’s version, she comes out of the experience severely scarred with her left eye almost completely closed from the beatings she took over the years. In this version, there are no visible scars from her experience. Thus, the experience to me seems to be diluted or dare I say “whitewashed”.

I suppose to be fair, we ought to judge her performance on its own and not in comparison to the previous version. The kindest thing I can say about her in that regard is that her performance was adequate. I have no complaints about it. But I would not have nominated her.

I would have rather seen this Supporting Actress nomination go to Julianne Moore in our next film “May December” or Erika Alexander as Jeffrey Wright’s girlfriend in “American Fiction”.

I’ve done some soul-searching about my dislike for the film. I’ve asked myself, “Is this a case of a privileged old liberal white guy taking offense on behalf of bright people over this film?” I have concluded that if this was the story of white women who were being abused and enslaved by their husbands I would be just as offended by a lighthearted musical treatment of the topic.

The film was released on Christmas Day in the US. With an estimated budget of $100 million, it has earned only $60 million in the US and Canada and just $67 million worldwide. It is currently available for streaming on Max or for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

Okay, don’t hold back Chris… Tell us what you really think. I cannot recommend this film.

* * *

Our final film this week could similarly be accused of not taking a serious topic seriously enough. “May December” is a Netflix film starring Julianne Moore in a fictional story of a woman named Gracie Atherton who at age 36 had an affair with a Korean-American 13-year-old boy named Joe Yoo. She was the manager of a pet store and he worked as a stock boy there. Their affair was discovered and she was sentenced to jail where she gave birth to his child.

The film takes place 20 years later. Gracie was released from jail, and she and Joe were married. They had two more children. Their oldest daughter is in college and the twin boy and girl are about to graduate high school.

Natalie Portman plays TV actress Elizabeth Barry who is preparing to make a movie based on Gracie’s story. She visits the Atherton-Yoo family to interview Gracie and Joe so that she can accurately portray their story in the upcoming film. The couple is very cooperative with Elizabeth and they invite her to a family cookout, a family dinner, and other opportunities to get to know the family.

Elizabeth also interviews Gracie’s ex-husband, her children from the previous marriage, her lawyer, and other people around town who were familiar with the events from 20 years ago. I especially enjoyed her interview with Gracie’s lawyer who said that he had defended murderers, arsonists, rapists, gangsters, and other unsavory characters as a defense attorney in New York City. He had moved to Savannah Georgia to escape that kind of practice. He said that defending all of these horrible people never got him on the front page of the New York Times yet when he came to Georgia and soon after defended Gracie, that landed him on the front page of the New York Times.

Joe who is now in his 30s, is still very much emotionally a 13-year-old boy and Gracie often treats him as such. He is employed either as an x-ray technician or a radiologist in a hospital but it is not clear which. They live in a large well-furnished home on a lake or river. It’s unclear how they can afford such a place so perhaps he is a doctor. They never explained. Gracie spends her time baking and selling her baked goods to friends and neighbors who seem to only purchase them because they feel sorry for her.

There are several plot lines that seem to go nowhere as Elizabeth investigates the events from 20 years ago. Gracie is a highly emotional person who at one point breaks down hysterically simply because someone canceled a baking order.

The musical score accompanying the film features bold dramatic orchestral stings that seem to indicate something dramatic is about to happen. Yet in one example of such a musical cue during a cookout, Gracie is staring into the refrigerator and then calmly declares, “I don’t think we have enough hot dogs.” That’s hardly the dramatic moment that the music indicated we were going to see.

On initial viewing, I didn’t understand the film at all. Apparently, I was trying to take it too seriously. I was only reviewing the film because it was nominated for an Oscar for Original Screenplay. I did not notice until later that it had also been nominated for a Golden Globe as a comedy. Except for things like the overly dramatic “we need more hot dogs” and some over-the-top acting, I didn’t see anything funny about it.

So, I went looking for reviews of the film to try to figure out what others had seen in the film that I was missing. I came across a YouTube video by a reviewer I had never heard of named Broey Deschanel. Her video was titled “May December and the Melodrama of Film Twitter”. The 53-minute video talked about a Twitter debate over whether or not the film was a melodrama and whether or not the term “camp” applied to the film.

I had a rather generic layman’s understanding of the term “melodrama” even though we have briefly touched upon it in my writing seminar. But Ms. Deschanel gives an extensive history of the term from its earliest days in classic theater through more modern plays and especially in films of the 1930s through 1950s. She outlines several elements of what constitutes melodrama and as she was doing so I suddenly began to understand “May December”.

In some respects, it seems that the film is one giant inside joke for film aficionados. It is either an attempt to create a modern-day melodrama or it is a spoof of classic melodramatic films. I’m not sure which.

At one point, Ms. Deschanel is talking about Roger Ebert’s review of an earlier satirical look at the melodrama genre.

Ms. Deschanel: Roger Ebert uses that quote a decade later in his review of “Written on the Wind”. He says something in that review that caught my attention. “Written on the Wind”, like “Stella Dallas”, appears to be played straight. But while I didn’t cry while watching it, I did feel myself chuckling now and then at the ridiculousness of its stakes. Ebert points out this new, ironic take on the melodrama that Sirk is adopting and in that irony, that satire is humor. He says “If you only see the surface, it’s trashy soap opera. If you can see the style, the absurdity, the exaggeration and the satirical humor, it’s subversive of all the 1950s dramas that handled such material solemnly. Sirk’s style spread so pervasively that nobody could do melodrama with a straight face after him. (Roger Ebert, “Written on the Wind” rogerebert.com (1998))” Ebert ends his review with one blazing question. One test of satire is: At what point do we realize the author is kidding?” Which is how we arrive at this current discourse around “May December.”

Me: At what point do we realize the author is kidding? In my case, the answer clearly is I didn’t get the joke until I learned the history of melodrama as presented in this YouTube review.

The video also discusses whether or not the film is appropriately called “Camp”. Author Susan Sontag wrote one of the definitive essays on camp. She said that sometimes something is knowingly camp and other times it is unknowingly camp. She seemed to prefer the latter. The film director, Todd Haynes claims that his film is not camp. Either he is continuing to tease us or the film is unknowingly camp.

If you watched the film and didn’t understand it as a satirical look at melodrama, I encourage you to watch the YouTube review which I have linked in the description of this podcast. And even if you’re not interested in this particular film, that YouTube video is a fascinating look at the history of melodrama and camp satire. I think it is well worth your time.

So on initial viewing, I thought the film was a ridiculous mess. But viewed as satire, I begin to understand it on some levels.

I can’t recommend the film unless you are just curious about it. Many people are offended that someone would treat such a serious topic in a satirical comedic way. Then again, as Ms. Deschanel points out, one of the most beloved comedies in film history is Mel Brooks’ “The Producers” which is about a bunch of people creating a musical play about Nazi Germany including a hilarious number titled “Springtime for Hitler”.

This Netflix film saw only a limited theatrical release. With an estimated budget of $10 million, its worldwide gross is only $3.4 million. Box office numbers for Netflix films really don’t mean anything. It is still available exclusively on Netflix.

IMDb reports 176 nominations and 34 wins.

In addition to its Original Screenplay Oscar nomination, it had 4 Golden Globe nominations.

So, that wraps up our look at four films with five nominations that were not Best Picture.

Next week, we tackle a pair of films in a category I call “Genocidal Husbands” and we will follow that up with our final episode in this Oscar series “Genius at Work.”

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

This week we continue looking at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. This week we look at two vastly different films on the same theme In a category we call “Revenge of the Robot Women.” It’s going to be tight, but I plan to get out three more episodes before March 10 when the Oscars are awarded. Wish me luck.

Hi, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode 56 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

This week we continue looking at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. This week we look at two vastly different films on the same theme In a category we call “Revenge of the Robot Women.” Consider this plot line…

A beautiful young woman is not naturally born but is an artificial creation. She is confined in a world created for her by her maker. She lives a happy yet mundane life. She slowly becomes aware that she is more than what her maker envisioned. Her natural curiosity and a desire to contemplate what life has to offer sends her on a quest into another world. It is a strange bizarre environment that is alien to her but she explores it with vigor and discovers that there is more to her and to life than she believed was possible. In the end, she becomes an independent, self-actualized woven who is in control of her life. At first, she exacts revenge on the men who tried to possess and control her but ultimately finds a way to peacefully coexist with the males of the species.

Pop quiz: is this a description of the film “Barbie” or “Poor Things”?

Answer: Both.

There was so much hype this year about the popularity of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” that we shipped their names together and came up with “Barbieheimer” to describe the phenomenon of people who went to both films on the same day. It was only a coincidence that the films were released about the same time and unexpectedly found overlapping audiences which led to the Barbieheimer phenomenon.

There should have been media hype about “Barbie’s” connection not to “OppenheimerInclude but to “Poor Things”. While “Barbie” and “Poor ThingsEnclosed are vastly different in approach and style, the outline in my opening paragraph is a reasonably accurate summation of both films. The filmmakers used vastly different approaches to tell the same story of a woman discovering her potential.

“Barbie” is set in the fantasy world known as Barbieland and is occupied by the namesake toy. She journeys into the “real world” and although we are familiar with it, it is an alien landscape to her. Her fantasy world is all she has ever known.

In contrast, Bella Baxter is the creation of a mad scientist. He discovered the body of a pregnant woman who had lept to her death off a bridge into a river. He salvaged the brain of her unborn child and implanted it in her 30-year-old body. He then re-animates her in a scene typical of any Frankenstein movie you ever saw. Her literally infant mind develops quickly and approaches life with an insatiable curiosity which eventually leads her to discover the pleasures of sex. First, by herself, then with a lover, and finally as a French prostitute. All of which is depicted in explicit detail.

So, while there was an unlikely crossover of audience between “OppenheimerEnclosed and “Barbie”, “Poor Things” is extremely R-rated and not appropriate for the typical Barbie viewer.

It’s more likely you are familiar with “Barbie” given its popularity so let’s talk about “Poor Things” first.

Willem Dafoe plays Dr. Godwin Baxter, a brilliant surgeon who bears horrible scars and disfigurement on his face. This is the result of his father performing multiple medical experiments on him when he was a child. These experiments included genital torture. To say that his physical scars are only part of his problem is an understatement.

Rather than be called by his given name Godwin, he prefers to be referred to as God and makes that request unapologetically. He is a deeply twisted individual.

Emma Stone plays his creation Bella Baxter whose origin we described earlier.

Ramy Youssef plays Max McCandle, an ambitious medical student who is recruited as God’s Igor-like assistant (without the hunchback). Max’s job is to observe Bella and record in notebooks everything that she does as she rapidly progresses in mental and emotional capability.

As the film opens she has the mind of a very young child. She is awkward both physically and emotionally. Yet she begins progressing rapidly. Even her hair grows at an astonishing rate of an inch every few days. No explanation is ever given why.

God keeps the girl isolated in his mansion/laboratory to keep the experiment of development pure and untainted. But God himself also avoids appearing in public because of his disfigurement. Bella isn’t his only experiment. The courtyard of his villa is occupied by strange hybrid creatures such as a goat with a dog’s head or a dog with a duck’s head, I forget what weird combinations he has running around his courtyard.

When Bella reaches a mental age of what appears to be maybe 8-10 years old she discovers on her own the joys of masturbating her adult body and asks, “Why don’t people do this all the time?”

God notices her sexual awakening as well as Max’s attraction to her. So, God concludes that the next phase of the experiment should be that Bella and Max are wed. He employs attorney Duncan Wedderburn played by Mark Ruffalo to draw up a marriage contract that includes the provision that Bella must remain sequestered in God’s house.

Intrigued by this strange request, Duncan sneaks off into the mansion to meet Bella for himself and discovers this childlike creature in the body of a beautiful woman. He decides that he, not Max, should be the one to introduce her to adult life. He is quite a cad and a sleazy person and plans to exploit her for his own pleasures. Together he and Bella plot her escape and they go off on a romantic tryst to Lisbon Portugal where they engage in frequent sex and debauchery.

The setting for the film is a bit of a steam-punk Victorian setting. All of the interiors look relatively normal for such a setting but the moment that Bella goes anywhere outside, everything takes on a surreal dreamlike quality which by comparison would make a Wes Anderson film seem boringly normal and realistic.

This film makes use of varied cinematic styles and techniques to set the mood. While sequestered in God’s house, the film is in black-and-white. But like Dorothy escaping Kansas to Oz, once she leaves the house and goes on her adventure with Duncan, everything is in bright oversaturated color. Most of the color sequences were shot using Kodak Ektachrome which gives that bright oversaturated look. Those that were shot on other types of color film were color-adjusted to match. Ektachrome is a slow film that requires significant lighting the filmmaker had to use other films when more light was not available. The cinematographer also makes use of a variety of strange lenses including highly distorted fisheye lenses and some scenes filmed with a 4 mm lens look as though we are looking through a peephole. I never did figure out exactly what these varied points of view were designed to evoke.

Bella has absolutely no inhibitions and no filter so she says exactly what she is thinking at any moment. At one point while they are out to dinner, a baby is crying nearby and she announces, “I must go punch that baby.” Duncan has to restrain her as she rises to actually do it.

Bella leaves Duncan to explore the city on her own and fearful that he will lose her, he drugs her, stuffs her in a trunk, and takes her on a cruise ship where she will be unable to escape him. Aboard the ship, she befriends other passengers. By this time she has begun reading and has gained advanced intelligence. She debates philosophy with her new friends as she reads volumes of books to expand her mind.

Meanwhile, Duncan gambles at the ship’s casino and wins a small fortune. When the ship docks at its next port, Bella notices that there are poor people in the world with sick and dying children. She takes all of Duncan’s money and tells the ship’s porter to give it to all of those poor unfortunate people. She didn’t notice how broadly the porter smiled as he took the money obviously for himself.

Now penniless, they are forced off the ship in France and Bella happily turns to a life of prostitution because it gets the money she needs and involves her favorite pastime sex.

Duncan goes insane having lost complete control of her. We later see him as a shell of his former self in an insane asylum. Bella is now a highly intelligent self-actualized person who is not going to be exploited by anyone.

Although the film is highly bizarre and the surreal setting and weird cinematography can make it difficult to watch, overall I found it quite funny, strangely enjoyable, and worthy of the accolades it has received.

Emma Stone is nominated for an Oscar for Lead Actress. She has already won the Golden Globe for Lead Actress Comedy and the BAFTA Lead Actress.

Even though this is a bizarre character who is played over the top, it is a fantastic bit of acting. She transforms from the childlike creature we see at the beginning of the film through the sex-crazed uninhibited adolescent into a sex-crazed young woman and eventually a highly intelligent philosopher. It is an amazing acting feat. With those wins already chalked up she is the odds-on favorite for the Oscar but might face stiff competition from Lily Gladstone in Killers of the Flower Moon. If Gladstone wins it would make her the first Native American to win in that category.

I will rank it as my 7th favorite film of the 10 Best Picture Nominees but don’t take that as a slight. I very much enjoyed it.

I cannot recommend it to everyone. You have to have a bizarre sense of humor and can deal with the explicit sex scenes and the overall surreal nature of the film. I liked it. But I’m weird. It’s a strange new take on the Frankenstein legend.

The film has earned 11 Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Director for Yorgos Lanthimos who is also nominated by the Directors Guild, Lead Actress Emma Stone, Supporting Actor Mark Ruffalo, Adapted Screenplay by Tony McNamara based on the novel by Alasdair Gray, Cinematography, Production Design, Costume Design, and Makeup and Hairstyling all of which are richly deserved. It is also Oscar-nominated for Original Music Score and Film Editing for which I have no opinion.

Mark Ruffalo gives a memorable performance as the sleazy lawyer who tries to exploit Bella. And what’s not to like about Willem Dafoe as a mad scientist? I wish that Dafoe had gotten more nominations. Ruffalo probably won’t win for Supporting Actor but he is definitely worthy of the nomination.

It has 11 BAFTA nominations including Best Picture and Best British Film of the Year. Its 7 Golden Globe nominations also included Supporting Actor Willem Defoe. Emma Stone won the Globe for Lead Actress in a Comedy and the film won Best Comedy.

Stone and Dafoe have also received SAG nominations for lead and supporting roles respectively.

IMDb lists 395 nominations and 90 wins at the time of this writing. It has earned over $32 million in the US and Canada since its December premiere and over $93 million worldwide. It is available for rent or purchase on Amazon or YouTube.

* * *

For our purposes, I’m going to assume you have not yet seen “Barbie” but given its popularity that is probably not true. Anyway, “Barbie” is set in the fantasy world of Barbieland. It is occupied by dozens of women all named Barbie and a bunch of men all named Ken. Our lead character played by Margo Robbie is known in the film as “Stereotypical Barbie” She is the swimsuit-wearing, dream house-residing, pink convertible-driving Barbie that you normally think of when someone says “Barbie”. Other Barbies include an African-American president, astronauts, doctors, lawyers, the entire Supreme Court, Nobel laureates, and every other occupation ever imagined for Barbie.

The main Ken is played by Ryan Gosling. He is the stereotypical Ken who is blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and who hangs out at the beach. He is accompanied by a variety of other Kens of various ethnicities. None of them have an occupation except beaching. He’s not a lifeguard by the way. He just hangs out at the beach and spends his days pining for the attention of Barbie.

It is a perfect world in which all of the Barbies are happy. They believe that they have saved the women of the real world because they have proven that Barbie can be anything and so can you. Although Barbie’s daily routine is monotonous and repetitive, one day she starts feeling some existential dread. She starts thinking about death. She also has other bizarre feelings that are foreign to her. Among the transformative changes she experiences is that suddenly her feet are no longer fixed in the typical high-heel-wearing position that Barbies are known for. Her heels actually begin touching the ground.

She is directed to seek help from “Weird Barbie” who is brilliantly played by Kate McKinnon. Weird Barbie has bizarre makeup drawn on her face in crayon. She is always in an awkward pose usually very severe splits. Her hair is a mess. She is what happens to Barbies who are played with two hard and left in a box in the basement for too long.

Weird Barbie advises stereotypical Barbie that something is wrong with the girl who is playing with her. The girl is unhappy and her negative emotions are bleeding over into stereotypical Barbie. This has opened a portal between Barbieland and the Real World. Her only remedy is to travel to the Real World, find the girl who plays with her, and figure out what is troubling her.

Barbie sets out on this quest and is accompanied by Ken who stows away in the back of her dream car.

Barbie finds the Real World to be completely unlike what she expected. She believed that because she was a role model who proved that women could do anything, she expected the real world to be dominated by powerful independent women. Obviously, it is not. On the other hand, Ken is pleasantly surprised that men are respected and not just unimportant companions for the Barbies. He does some research and discovers that the world is a patriarchy in which men rule. While our Barbie seeks out her owner, Ken returns to Barbieland and begins taking over as he teaches the other Kens the principles of patriarchy.

Initially, Barbie believes that her owner is a young tween girl named Sasha but soon discovers that Sasha and her friends hate Barbies.

Sasha: We haven’t played with Barbie since we were like five years old.

Girl 1: Yeah, I hated dolls with hair.

Girl 2: Me, I played with Barbie but it was like the last resort.

Girl 3: I loved Barbie. [Sasha gives her a nasty look]

Sasha: You’ve been making women feel bad about themselves since you were invented… You represent everything that is wrong with our culture. Sexualized capitalism. Unrealistic physical ideas…

Barbie: no, no, no. I am technically Stereotypical Barbie but…

Sasha: You set the women’s movement back 50 years. You destroy girls’ innate sense of worth and you are killing the planet with your glorification of rampant consumerism.

Barbie: No. I’m supposed to help you and make you happy and powerful…

Sasha: Oh, I am powerful. And until you showed up here and declared yourself “Barbie” I hadn’t thought about you in years you fascist!

Eventually, Barbie discovers that the source of her angst is actually Sasha’s mother Gloria played by America Ferrera. Gloria is a secretary at Mattel. In her spare time, she begins designing new Barbies based on her own inner fears and turmoil. She found her old Barbie and began playing with it as an adult and that is the source of our main character’s transformation.

The FBI alerts the executives at Mattel that their creations have infiltrated the real world. In a panic, the Mattel executives led by their CEO Will Farrell eventually round up Barbie and attempt to put her in a box to be transported back to Barbieland. This will close the portal and set things right. Barbie escapes Mattel headquarters with the help of Gloria and Sasha.

Then Barbie takes Gloria, and Sasha with her when they return to Barbieland where they discover that the Kens have taken over. They brainwashed all of the other Barbies including the president, the Supreme Court, doctors, lawyers, etc. into being airhead women who are obsessed with serving the needs of the Kens.

In a pivotal scene, Gloria delivers a monologue about how difficult it is to be a woman in the modern world.

Gloria: [to Barbie] You are so beautiful. So smart. And it kills me you don’t think you’re good enough. Like we always have to be extraordinary. But somehow we are always doing it wrong. You have to be thin but not too thin and you can never say that you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy. But also you have to be thin. You have to have money but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. Sigh… You have to be a boss but you can’t be mean. You have to lead but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You are supposed to love being a mother but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman but also always be looking out for other people…

This causes the brainwashed Barbies to snap out of it.

Can they regain control of Barbieland? What will the Kens do if they succeed? And now that stereotypical Barbie has been to the real world and had her eyes opened to the imperfection of reality, what will her life be like? Can Gloria and her daughter Sasha heal their broken relationship?

Writer/director Greta Gerwig has created a phenomenal work in this film. It is a hilariously funny yet deeply poignant and touching exploration of the roles of men and women. Even though I’m male and never played with Barbies, it nearly brought me to tears of nostalgia over my love of my favorite toys.

I can’t discuss this film without mentioning the opening scene which is a parody of a classic film. I don’t want to spoil it for you so I will describe it in detail in a spoiler section at the end of this podcast that you can skip. For now, let me just say that I have not laughed harder at a film in decades than I did in that opening scene. As it unfolded, I realized what was happening. I realized very early what film it was spoofing. At one point I said to myself, “If that girl playing with dolls starts to do what I think she’s going to do, I’m going to lose it.”

She did.

I must’ve laughed out loud for 10 minutes. I had to pause the movie. Wiped my eyes. Details in the spoiler section.

The film has earned 8 Oscar nominations yet many critics claim that the lack of a nomination for director Greta Gerwig and lead actress Margo Robbie were a serious snub. I have to disagree. Keep in mind that there are 10 films nominated for Best Picture but only 5 nominations for Best Director and 5 nominations for Lead Actress.

Let’s look briefly at the competition for director. Justine Triet did an amazing job in “Anatomy of a Fall” and happens to be a woman so we can’t say it was sexist that Gerwig did not get nominated. Just because Martin Scorsese has been nominated as Best Director 10 times, that’s more than any other living director, it does not mean he should not be nominated for his amazing work in “Killers of the Flower Moon”. Christopher Nolan very much deserves his nomination for “Oppenheimer” and is likely to win. Yorgos Lanthimos showed amazing creativity and vision in bringing to life the bizarre world of Bella Baxter in “Poor Things.” Finally, a film we have not yet discussed “The Zone of Interest” also is a stellar achievement by director Jonathan Glaser. He has found a new and innovative way to explore the horrors of the Holocaust without showing us any of those horrors. We simply hear them. I would bump no one from this list to make room for Gerwig. She did get a nomination from the Directors Guild.

Along with Noah Baumbach, Greta Gerwig is Oscar#nominated for Adapted Screenplay. I believe this is where her creativity and contribution to this film truly are Oscar-worthy. It is a brilliant screenplay.

That nomination is not without controversy. The Academy considers it an Adapted Screenplay because she did not create the characters Barbie, Ken, and others. This is a ridiculous distinction. There is nothing in the lore of Barbie remotely related to the story she has created. This is not an adaptation of an existing Barbie-themed book, cartoon, or any other work. The children who play with Barbie create their own stories. Barbie as created by Mattel is simply an image. Not a character. This isn’t like Transformers or G.I. Joe or other toys with movie, TV, or comic book tie-ins.

Typically when a work is listed as an Adapted Screenplay such as “American Fiction” the credits list the author of the book upon which it is based. This was also true with “The Zone of Interest”, and ”Poor Things”. Christopher Nolan has made it clear that “Oppenheimer” is the result of research from many sources including written biographies of the real man.

While I cannot defend the criticism that she was snubbed by the lack of a Director nomination, the criticism of this screenplay being listed as “adapted” is very much an appropriate complaint. This is a highly original screenplay.

The Writers Guild of America nominated it as an Original Screenplay as they should have.

Let’s look at Margo Robbie’s competition. We’ve not yet talked about the film “Nyad” in which Annette Benning plays long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad. It is an amazing performance. A very memorable character. Lily Gladstone’s performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon” while not my favorite among the five nominees is certainly Oscar-worthy. Carey Mulligan’s performance as actress Felicia Montealegre the wife of composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein in “Maestro” was a quality performance. German actress, Sandra Hüller was previously unknown to me. She delivers one of my favorite performances of the year in “Anatomy of a Fall”. She is also quite chilling in “The Zone of Interest” as Hedwig Höss the wife of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss but was not nominated for that role. Had these films premiered in different calendar years she might have been nominated for both performances. And finally Emma Stone will likely win for “Poor Things”. Who would you bump? I wouldn’t bump any of them.

The question we should be asking is how did Ryan Gosling get nominated for Supporting Actor as Ken? He did a good job. It was a funny character. But I don’t think there is anything that special or memorable about his performance. In fact, I went back and watched the entire film a second time just to focus on his contribution. I saw nothing after two viewings that impressed me that much.

In contrast, I will long remember Willem Defoe in “Poor Things” although I can understand why he would not be nominated in the same film in the same category as Mark Ruffalo. Nominating 2 Supporting Actors in the same film usually means neither of them will win. I would’ve liked to see a nomination for Rhys Ifans who played in “Nyad” as navigator John Bartlett who helped Nyad make her way from Cuba to Florida. I will long remember that performance after I’ve forgotten Gosling. Although I hated the musical remake of “The Color Purple” I could’ve given a Supporting Actor nomination to Coleman Domingo for his role in tha Christina film. Fortunately, he is nominated as Lead Actor for “Rustin”.

America Ferrera has a Supporting Actress nomination which is very much deserved. Her monologue that I discussed previously was brilliantly delivered and other aspects of her performance are quite memorable.

Although “Barbie” ranks only as my 8th favorite of the 10 nominated films, I very much enjoyed it. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

The film has 8 Oscar nominations. Best Picture, Supporting Actor for Ryan Gosling, Supporting Actress for America Ferrera, Production Design (much-deserved), and Costume Design (also much-deserved). They have gone to meticulous detail to re-create Barbieland based on actual products sold such as houses, cars, and especially clothes.

There are about 6 or 7 big musical production numbers and songs. Two of the songs are nominated for Oscars. “I’m Just Ken” by Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt wasn’t a bad song.

[Excerpt from “I’m Just Ken” plays]

But the odds-on favorite for the whole category is “What Was I Made For?” by Billie Eilish O’Connell and Finneas O’Connell.

It’s a very touching and emotional song. It has already won two Grammys: Song of the Year, and “Best Song Written for Visual Medium”. The song won a Golden Globe. Here is a brief excerpt from the music video by Billy Eilish. Check out the link to the full video in the description. It’s a very touching video itself.

[Excerpt from “What Was I Made For?” plays]

“Barbie” received 5 BAFTA nominations. There were 9 Golden Globe Nominations and it won the Globe for “Cinematic and Box Office Achievement” whatever that means. Robbie, Gosling, the ensemble cast, and stunt ensembles have received SAG nominations.

Overall IMDb lists 417 nominations and 167 wins to date.

With an estimated budget of $100 million, released in July it has earned over $600 million in the US and Canada and $1.445 billion worldwide. [Note: This makes Gerwig the first female director to break the $1 billion glass ceiling.]

It is still showing in theaters and is available for streaming on Max and available for purchase or rental on Amazon and YouTube.

Note that on Max streaming there is a special version that includes an American Sign Language interpreter superimposed in the lower right corner of the screen in addition to the usual closed captions. If you watch it on Max, I recommend you view that version to inflate those viewing numbers and encourage Max and other streaming services to provide such versions. I did not find the interpreter distracting.

In previous episodes, I said I was only able to see 9 of the 10 Best Picture Nominated films. Good news… “The Zone of Interest” is now available for digital download rental or purchase so I have now seen all 10 films plus four other films that were nominated for acting or screenplay awards but were not listed for Best Picture. I’m going to try to get three more episodes before the Oscars are awarded on March 10. I’ve not been able to get them out on time on Monday but we are going to go full speed ahead. I will try to get these episodes out between now and the Oscars.

Stay tuned after my typical closing for a spoiler-filled description of the opening scene of Barbie which made me laugh so hard I cried.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

Okay, I want to talk about the opening scene but I didn’t want to spoil it in the main section of the review. However, I just discovered that the opening scene I’m about to talk about was spoiled in a teaser trailer that was released before the film. If you’ve not seen that trailer only continue if you’ve seen “Barbie” or don’t care if it’s spoiled.

The film opens with Helen Mirren doing a voiceover narration…

Narrator: Since the beginning of time… since the first little girl ever existed, there have been dolls.

But they were always baby dolls thus putting the girls in the role of mother. The scene shows about half a dozen girls aged 4 or 5 years old sitting on a rocky terrain outdoors playing with baby dolls, strollers, teacups, and plastic dishes.

That stark scenery along with the phrase “since the beginning of time” immediately told me this was a reference to the opening “Dawn of Man” sequence of the classic Stanley Kubrick film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” In case you are unfamiliar with that sequence, it shows a bunch of prehuman apelike creatures struggling to survive in a harsh rocky desert environment. Suddenly a giant dark gray monolith appears in their midst. One of them cautiously approaches the slab and touches it. It emits a strange sound. Suddenly the creatures have gained great intelligence. They discover how to use tools. Specifically, one of them picks up a long bone from a carcass and begins swinging it as a club. He discovers it makes him powerful and he begins violently smashing a pile of bones sending bone shards flying in every direction. He then tosses the bone into the air triumphantly and we get a crossfade to the year 2001 and a shot of an orbiting satellite. Mankind has transformed from primitive tools like a bone club to the sophisticated technology of space travel.

Back to “Barbie”… The narrator says that this baby doll and mother will play continues until…” Then we get the iconic music “Also Sprach Zarathustra” from “2001”. We cut to a 10-foot-tall Barbie doll that suddenly appears on the landscape in the same way that the monolith appeared in “2001”. Or rather Margo Robbie as Barbie.

The girls cautiously approach Barbie as the music continues. When they touch her, a strange buzz sound emanates.

Then we get a close-up of one of the girls holding her baby doll with two hands by the doll’s feet.

It was at that instant that I said to myself, “Oh my God… If she starts bashing that doll on the rocks and busting up the plastic dishes I’m going to lose it.”

Just as I expected… The little girl begins swinging in a baby doll and violently smashing it into the ground crushing her plastic dishes and the skulls of the other porcelain dolls sending debris flying everywhere. She then flings the doll into the air and we get a crossfade to the Barbie logo.

I was laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe. I had to pause the movie and dry my eyes before I could continue. I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard at a film.

If you’re not a mega fan of “2001: A Space Odyssey” then you probably did not laugh as hard as I did. But I hope you did watch the movie before you read this and I hope you enjoyed it at least half as much as I did.

As I explained, I found out much later that this 2001 spoof appeared in a teaser trailer way before the movie opened. Several people on YouTube have created side-by-side views of the “Barbie” trailer and the opening scenes of 2001. However, these mashups are based on the trailer which is a shorter sequence than appears in the actual film. The sequence in the film is and the girls smashing the baby dolls are much more violent. I would try to make my own side-by-side comparison based on the film but I would probably get a copyright violation for it. Perhaps someone else will dare to do so.

I’ve provided a link to the “Barbie” trailer as well as one of the better side-by-side comparisons between it and “2001”. You really need to see the full beginning of the movie to really appreciate it. [Late update: I found a YouTube clip of the full opening. See the links.]

Tune in next week for more movie reviews as we continue Contemplating Life. Fly safe everyone.

This week we continue with our look at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. On the menu, this week is a pair of films I called “Alien Relationships”. Okay… That is clickbait. They are not about little green men. We have a pair of foreign language films which technically makes them alien to us in the US.

Hi, this is Chris Young, and welcome to episode 55 of Contemplating Life– Oscar Edition

This week we continue with our look at the 10 films nominated for Oscar in the Best Picture Category. On the menu, this week is a pair of films I called “Alien Relationships”. Okay… That is clickbait. They are not about little green men. We have a pair of foreign language films which technically makes them alien to us in the US.

One of these films I greatly enjoyed. The other one wasn’t bad but I’m not excited about it.

Let’s start with the so-so film and then finish strong.

“Past Lives” is a Korean film about a girl named Na Young and her childhood friend Hae Sung. The story begins in South Korea when the pair are about 11 or 12 years old. Their friendship is about to grow into a budding romance when Na Young’s family decides to immigrate to Canada. Na Young takes the English name Nora. Hae Sung is deeply disappointed to lose his friend. We see brief scenes of Nora arriving in Canada and struggling to fit in at school in this strange new country.

We then fast forward 12 years Nora is now in New York City studying to be a playwright. She comes from a creative family. Her father was a filmmaker and her mother an artist. One day, she decides to start looking up old friends from Korea as she is reminiscing with her mother. She asks, “What was the name of that boy I had a crush on? We went on one date.” Her mother reminds her it was Hae Sung. A quick search reveals that the boy had posted a message on a Facebook page about her father’s films saying that he was looking for the filmmaker’s daughter Na Young.

Hae Sung is now serving in the South Korean army because they have mandatory military service for young men. Nora decides to contact him and they begin a long-distance online relationship which grows rapidly into something quite significant.

Nora is tied up in rehearsals for her play. When Hae Sung completes his military service he enters college to study engineering. Given the time difference between New York and Seoul, their online meetings are often at the wee hours of the night. Eventually, Nora decides they need to take a break from their online video chats. She said she can’t concentrate on her work because she’s constantly thinking about looking up flight schedules to Korea. His studies are suffering as well but it is her decision to pause the relationship.

Once again, Hae Sung feels abandoned by the woman he loves. He accepts her decision only reluctantly.

Shortly thereafter, she attends an artist’s residency program in a rural location where she meets a young American writer named Arthur.

The movie again jumps 12 years and Nora is married to Arthur. We learn little about their life together until late in the movie.

The last half of the movie shows us when Hae Sung travels to New York to visit his now-married old girlfriend. As Nora and her husband are anticipating the visit from her old friend she explains a bit of Korean philosophy to Arthur. She says, “There is a word in Korean. In-Yun. It means “providence” or “fate”. But it’s specifically about relationships between people. I think it comes from Buddhism and reincarnation. It’s an In-Yun if two strangers even walk by each other in the street and their clothes accidentally brush. Because it means there must have been something between them in their past lives. If two people get married, they say it’s because there have been 8,000 layers of In-Yun over 8,000 lifetimes.”

The question the film poses is, “With which of the men in her life does she have the strongest In-Yun?” Is she destined to be with Arthur or with Hae Sung? How much In-Yun did she have with either of these men in a past life or is this just the first of many lives she will live with one or the other of them?

When Hae Sung arrives, he and Nora wander around New York City sightseeing and reminiscing for a couple of days. She then comes home and talks about the experience with her husband and we begin to learn more about their relationship. Arthur notes that this would make a great story in which he was the evil white husband who kept her from her destiny with her childhood sweetheart. She laughs it off but we doubt the strength of her relationship with her husband as we learn more about their history.

I enjoyed the movie but I am not sure it is Oscar-caliber. I found the pace to be extremely slow.

Greta Lee plays the adult Nora. Previously, I very much enjoyed her work as TV executive Stella Bak in the Apple TV+ series “The Morning Show”. Hae Sung is played by Teo Yoo who I have not seen before and his IMDb credits don’t include anything you probably ever saw.

Interestingly enough although both are of Korean descent, Lee was born in the US, and Teo Yoo was born in Germany. He studied at the Lee Strasburg Institute in New York and then moved to Seoul in 2009.

The performances were adequate but nothing extraordinary. I thought that the 40-year-old Greta Lee’s portrayal of the 20-something-year-old version of Nora showed some great acting skills but compared to Lee’s outstanding work in “The Morning Show” overall her performance in this film did not impress me. In interviews both Lee and Teo Yoo have raved about the opportunity to play such characters but it just didn’t do much for me. I suppose if there is any nomination with which I could agree it might be for the screenplay but that is a weak endorsement.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s a nice little story of unrequited love and a marginally interesting exploration of the idea of fate when it comes to relationships.

Those of you who are familiar with my autobiographical episodes of this podcast know about my relationship of unrequited love with my childhood sweetheart Rosie. That includes a reunion with her many years after we parted ways after high school. At that reunion, I got to meet her husband. So there are many parallels between this story and my own life. Yet, I did not feel it triggered any emotions in me. Perhaps I never grew to care much about the characters. I didn’t have the feeling that they were telling “my story” despite the parallels.

I was however moved by the final scene of the film but I can’t tell you how or why without spoiling the ending. At the very end of this episode, I will put a brief epilogue explaining my reaction to the final scene. It will include a huge spoiler warning in front of it in case you want to skip it.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, Korean-born writer-director Celine Song is nominated for Best Original Screenplay Oscar. She has also been nominated by the Directors Guild for Outstanding Achievement in Directing a First Time Feature Film. Her only other credit on IMDb is as a staff writer for the fantasy series “The Wheel of Time.”

IMDb lists 197 nominations and 68 wins including three BAFTA nominations for Best Film Not in the English Language, Screenplay, and Lead Actor for Teo Yoo.

Also, five Golden Globe nominations for, Best Drama, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Non-English Film, and Greta Lee for Lead Actress in a Drama.

The film opened in June 2023 and has earned nearly $11 million in the US and Canada and over $23 million worldwide.

Is currently available for streaming on Paramount+ with Showtime and available for rent or purchase on Amazon and YouTube.

* * *

Our second film this week is the French film “Anatomy of a Fall”. German actress Sandra Hüller plays a successful novelist named Sandra Voyter. She is married to an unsuccessful writer named Samuel Theis played by Samuel Maleski. I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that the actors share the first names of their characters or if the part was written for them or what. They have an 11-year-old son Daniel who is visually impaired.

Early in the film, Daniel finds his father has fallen from a third-story attic window to his death. The question is, did he fall accidentally? Was this a suicide in which he jumped? Or did Sandra push him out the window?

After some meetings with her lawyer and interviews by the police, the film jumps one year later to a trial in which she is charged with the murder of her husband. The majority of the film is a courtroom drama in which we try to form our own opinion as to what really happened.

The visually impaired boy is the only witness to events and his recollection has varied between interviews with investigators.

Through the testimony in the courtroom, we gradually come to understand the deeply troubled marriage. Sandra is German but had agreed to live in France even though she is not happy there. Samuel is frustrated by his own lack of success and jealous of his wife’s success. One of her most successful books is based on an undeveloped idea that Samuel had. She testified that he agreed to let her develop the story but when it was a big success, it only furthered his sense of failure.

Samuel blames himself for their son’s visual impairment. It was caused by an accident a few years ago. He was supposed to pick up his son after school but forgot. Samuel sent the babysitter to pick up the boy late and as the boy ran to meet her, he was struck by a car. There is tension because Samuel blames himself for the accident. Sandra blamed him but claims to have gotten over it. It is unclear how much the boy blames his father for his condition.

In Samuel’s unsuccessful attempts to come up with a winning story idea, he decided to begin making audio recordings of his everyday life hoping to find inspiration. Sandra was aware of some of these recordings but not aware of a very key recording that was made a few days before his death. Samuel recorded a bitter argument between the two of them unbeknownst to her. The recording was played in open court.

As the audio recording was being played in court, the film shows us the scene as it actually occurred right up until the point when the argument became physical. It then switches back to the courtroom where you can only hear what happened but not actually see the truth. You can hear items crashing and the sound of a physical struggle. We only have Sandra’s testimony as to what was going on during the crashing sounds.

I thought that the scene depicted during the playing of the audio recording was one of the most realistic and believable portrayals I had ever seen of a domestic argument. It was not the usual over-the-top melodramatic shouting match that you typically see depicted in film or TV. It was a pointed conversation between people in a deeply troubled marriage trying to understand each other’s position.

That scene was so well-written that it is the major reason why this film is my favorite screenplay of the year. The rest of the story is quite compelling and well-written as well.

The dialogue is a combination of English and French with English subtitles. In the home, she and her husband spoke English because her French was poor and his German was poor. In the courtroom, the proceedings take place in French however Sandra eventually insists on speaking English and using an interpreter.

I was fascinated by the significantly different courtroom procedures used in France. It is vastly different from what we are accustomed to in American and British courtroom dramas. When a witness is on the stand, the prosecutor and the defense have the opportunity to turn to the defendant and begin questioning them about what the witness just said. The defendant can immediately rebut testimony.

Both the prosecution and defense are given great leeway to expound their theory of the case while questioning a witness. To the extent that American dramas reflect American courtrooms, normally such exposition would be met with an objection, “Is there a question in that statement?” Only once during the proceedings did the judge admonish the defense attorney to “Save it for your closing arguments.” American court proceedings seem to be totally limited to a question-and-answer format except for the opening and closing statements yet in this courtroom, the attorneys had much leeway to argue their case.

I have no idea how accurate was this depiction of French courtroom procedure. Nor do I know how accurate American TV and film dramas depict our actual courtroom procedures. My only experience of real courtroom proceedings was the hours I wasted watching the O.J. Simpson trial which could hardly be construed as an ordinary proceeding.

Throughout the film, as my opinion wavered back and forth as to Sandra’s guilt or innocence, I was worried that the film would end with us not knowing what really happened. For now, I will say I was initially satisfied with the ending but upon further review, I had some doubts. I won’t explain that because it would spoil too much. See the spoilers section at the end of this episode only if you have seen the film.

None of the cast were familiar to me. Their credits are all French and German films Sandra Hüller gives an outstanding performance which has earned her lead actress nominations for both Oscar and Golden Globes. Note that she also stars in the nominated film “The Zone of Interest” but that is the one film that I’ve not yet been able to see. I’m really looking forward to her performance there even though it did not receive any acting nominations. I’m a bit surprised she did not receive a SAG nomination.

In addition to the Best Picture nomination, writer-director Justine Triet is nominated as Best Director and along with co-author Arthur Harari is nominated for Best Original Screenplay. The film has earned 7 BAFTA nominations. The film was awarded the prestigious Palme d’Or which is the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. The boy’s service dog was also awarded the Palme Dog at Cannes – seriously that sounds like a joke I made up but there really is such an award. Who knew? It also has an Oscar nomination for Film Editing for which I have no opinion. IMDb lists 191 total nominations and 66 wins.

It opened in August in France and October in the US. On an estimated budget of $6.6 million, it has earned $4.5 million in the US and Canada and nearly $28 million worldwide.

This was my second favorite nominated film this year and tied with “American Fiction” for my favorite screenplay. I highly recommend it. It is still being shown in theaters and is available to rent or purchase on Amazon Prime and YouTube.

Next week, I will review the hit film Barbie and another film closely related to it. Guess what… I’m not talking about Oppenheimer! Tune in next week to find out. Stay tuned after my typical acknowledgments and closing remarks for some spoiler-filled comments about this week’s films.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

Okay, here we go with the spoilers. Do not proceed unless you’ve seen the movie or don’t care if the endings are spoiled.

I said that “Past Lives” should have resonated with me more because I was much like Hae Sung who had an ongoing crush on his junior high school sweetheart Rosie. Like Hae Sung, many years after Rosie and I parted ways I had the opportunity to see her again and to meet her new husband. There was only one part of that parallel to my life that touched me emotionally. At the end of the film, Nora bids farewell to her visiting childhood friend, walks back to her apartment, hugs her husband, and begins sobbing uncontrollably.

If you’ve heard my Episode 22 in which I read my award-winning story “The Reunion” you will know that after bidding farewell to Rosie, her husband, and the school where we spent our teen years, I cried all the way home. But I never thought about what Rosie’s reaction might have been. I wondered if she went home, hugged her husband, and cried as well.

Let’s talk about the ending of “Anatomy of a Fall.” The boy Daniel returns to the witness stand after hearing of all the turmoil between his parents which was played out in open court. Among the things he discovered was that Sandra claimed that at one point, she had found Samuel unconscious and he had vomited up a large amount of aspirin which she claimed was a failed suicide attempt. This bolstered her claim that the fall from the third-story window was a successful suicide attempt and she did not murder her husband.

The boy recalled that his dog got sick at about that time and had to be taken to the vet. He concluded that the dog had eaten some of his father’s vomit before Sandra discovered him unconscious. The boy deliberately gave his dog an overdose of aspirin to see if it reacted the same way. It did. This led him to conclude that his father really had attempted suicide. There was still the possibility however that Sandra had given Samuel the overdose.

The boy then relates a story about a conversation he had with his father on the way to the vet with the dog. The father was explaining that the dog had been loyal and served him well but he needed to prepare for the fact that someday the dog would no longer be with him. It was obvious to us the audience and to Daniel that Samuel was really talking about the day when his father would no longer be there. Daniel concluded that his father was preparing him for the day when he might be successful in his suicide attempt.

Based on Daniel’s testimony, the jury believed it and acquitted Sandra.

I was pleasantly surprised that the ending was unambiguous. At least I felt that way for a time.

Shortly after seeing the film, I read a review by Adam-Troy Castro who is a famous science fiction and horror author. He publishes a brief movie review on his free Patreon page every day. His review of the film convinced me to rethink the ending and now I’m not so sure my initial assessment was correct.

When Daniel and his mother are reunited after the trial, it is an awkward reunion. One might have expected that Sandra would thank her son for “telling the truth”. But that did not happen. It leaves you wondering. Did Daniel make up the story about his father trying to prepare him for the day when he would be gone? Did he lie to save his mother? If he did lie, was it simply to avoid the loss of both parents? Was he sympathetic to her that she suffered an unhappy marriage? Did Daniel blame his father for his blindness?

That kind of ambiguity which can at one moment make you believe one version of events and then again make you doubt them indicates a very cleverly crafted piece of writing.

It would’ve been disappointing if the film simply left you hanging without an opinion one way or the other of what really happened. But this clever bit of storytelling gave you a simple explanation but hinted that there might be a different conclusion. So I was not at all disappointed by the ambiguity. Rather, I was intrigued by it.

Okay. that’s it for our spoiler cast. See you next week as we continue Contemplating Life. Fly safe everyone.

This week we conclude a two-part special that traces my entire history as a movie fan. In this episode, we focus on my obsession with 3D, IMAX, and the evolution of special effects. I recommend you watch the YouTube version because I’ve included lots of movie clips.