You will note that I described both possibilities as massive upsets and that these were my rooting interests, not my predictions. As far as predictions go, Best Actress is a lock for Jessie Buckley and Best Actor is probably going to Michael B. Jordan, but Timothée Chalamet might still pull it out.
Please write your take on Sentimental Value! I am a huge fan of Joachim Trier's two earlier films (Oslo, Aug 31 and Worst Person) but I just didn't *get* this one; I understood the father-daughter conflict but it was too abstract, too theoretical (the only scene that I loved was the low-key conflict at Christmas dinner where the father defends the value of having children). A review I read on the internet said that the way to understand the movie is to see the father as reaching out to a daughter he has always neglected and the only way he can do that is by writing a film and asking her to star in it. That improved things a little bit for me but I think I still find it too abstract, especially as we never see the film within a film (which we are assured is a masterpiece but whose one scene was mostly a dud).
I think the right way to understand the father in general is that he doesn't know how to relate to anyone outside of the context where he is their director. He cast his other daughter in a film when she was a child, and it was the only time she got his attention; she loved it, and then was devastated when the film ended and he promptly vanished from her life. We only learn about this because he decides he wants to put her son in a small role in his new film, and she objects because she doesn't think that experience will be good for her son. She sees this as a fundamentally exploitative kind of relationship, and she's not entirely wrong, but it's also *real* and *profound* -- that's in fact why it could be so painful once severed.
Now he's reached out to his other daughter, a successful actress, to star in his film. But it's not that he wants a relationship and this is the only way he knows how to forge one; this is the only kind of relationship he has, so the fact that he's doing this *is* him thinking about her, investing in her, caring about her. It's not an expression of those things; it *is* those things, for him. And he wrote a part for her that reveals that he understands her, sees her, in a way that she is flabbergasted by. She had no idea he understood, because he would be completely incapable of communicating any of his understanding in any way *other* than by making a film, because that process is where the understanding *actually comes from.*
I don't find that abstract at all; I understand it very well, on a personal level. It's quite sad, actually, but sadly kind of true, at least for a lot of people.
I think that makes a lot of sense! I should say that it's not that I find the idea abstract; it's that I found the movie's characters too abstract for the conceit to work for me on an emotional level.
The only movie on your list that I saw was "Weapons," and I thought it was amazing.
That's what makes horse races! But have you really not seen any other Oscar nominees from 2025?
I don't get out much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKwCCLIXhUM
Thanks. Thoughtful as usual. However I predict your favorites for Best Actor & Best Actress WON'T win! (Kate Hudson? - NO WAY!)
You will note that I described both possibilities as massive upsets and that these were my rooting interests, not my predictions. As far as predictions go, Best Actress is a lock for Jessie Buckley and Best Actor is probably going to Michael B. Jordan, but Timothée Chalamet might still pull it out.
Please write your take on Sentimental Value! I am a huge fan of Joachim Trier's two earlier films (Oslo, Aug 31 and Worst Person) but I just didn't *get* this one; I understood the father-daughter conflict but it was too abstract, too theoretical (the only scene that I loved was the low-key conflict at Christmas dinner where the father defends the value of having children). A review I read on the internet said that the way to understand the movie is to see the father as reaching out to a daughter he has always neglected and the only way he can do that is by writing a film and asking her to star in it. That improved things a little bit for me but I think I still find it too abstract, especially as we never see the film within a film (which we are assured is a masterpiece but whose one scene was mostly a dud).
I think the right way to understand the father in general is that he doesn't know how to relate to anyone outside of the context where he is their director. He cast his other daughter in a film when she was a child, and it was the only time she got his attention; she loved it, and then was devastated when the film ended and he promptly vanished from her life. We only learn about this because he decides he wants to put her son in a small role in his new film, and she objects because she doesn't think that experience will be good for her son. She sees this as a fundamentally exploitative kind of relationship, and she's not entirely wrong, but it's also *real* and *profound* -- that's in fact why it could be so painful once severed.
Now he's reached out to his other daughter, a successful actress, to star in his film. But it's not that he wants a relationship and this is the only way he knows how to forge one; this is the only kind of relationship he has, so the fact that he's doing this *is* him thinking about her, investing in her, caring about her. It's not an expression of those things; it *is* those things, for him. And he wrote a part for her that reveals that he understands her, sees her, in a way that she is flabbergasted by. She had no idea he understood, because he would be completely incapable of communicating any of his understanding in any way *other* than by making a film, because that process is where the understanding *actually comes from.*
I don't find that abstract at all; I understand it very well, on a personal level. It's quite sad, actually, but sadly kind of true, at least for a lot of people.
I think that makes a lot of sense! I should say that it's not that I find the idea abstract; it's that I found the movie's characters too abstract for the conceit to work for me on an emotional level.