Picks for Oscars 2024: What will win, what should win in a year of movie riches

posted in: News | 0

It’s peculiar to look back at the movie year 2023, so full of gratifying work in so many directions, from the vantage point of relatively early 2024. There isn’t enough in theaters these days, certainly not enough good stuff. In the big-budget commercial realm, “Dune: Part Two” is an outlier, not a harbinger. It’s a hit right now, as opposed to its original 2023 release date, due to writers’ and actors’ strikes, and to the stonewalling of producers and streaming companies expecting employees to come to the studio definition of “their senses.”

From our vantage point, last year feels more like last century. Did it really happen? Did the Barbenheimering of the universe really happen? How did a quiet, mellow beauty of a (relatively inexpensive) A24 release, “Past Lives,” find a global audience? It was almost as if the pandemic was a bad, collective dream, and we woke up as one and thought let’s go to the movies! I’ve quoted the play before, but not this particular line: In “Once in a Lifetime,” the 1930 Kaufman & Hart satire on Hollywood at an earlier crisis point, a studio mogul pines for the pre-talkie days when he was rich, on top and “even if you made a good picture, you made money.”

That was 2023. Even some good ones made money. But there’s a flip side to everything. The year that gave us the probable multi-Oscar winner “Oppenheimer” (worldwide gross: $958 million) indicates that certain phenomena cannot expect an encore. Christopher Nolan’s big noise, coupled with Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” (worldwide gross: just shy of $1.5 billion), amounts to tragically little in the conglomerative debt loads blocking the movie industry’s view of a bright future.

Take “Barbie.” Its profits mean little to Warner Bros. Discovery. CEO Jeff Zaslav has billions to go before he sleeps, at least untroubled, and before the company stock recovers from its debt load. He’s vexed by the “generational disruption we’re going through,” as he said on a W.B.D. earnings call last year, quoted in a New York Times Sunday Magazine feature.

When you’re stuck with “a streaming service that’s losing billions of dollars,” he said, “it’s really, really difficult to go on offense.”

Yes. And when a billion-dollar smash means so little to a too-large company’s bottom line, something has gone crazy wrong with the business itself.

So we wait for miracles this year, and for a stronger, fuller slate in 2025. Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony marks Hollywood’s 96th festival of statuettes and humility. We’re still here, some of us watching, even. And while we’re still here, if we can’t take the time to cheapen the entire medium with a few Oscar night predictions, then we really have lost our way.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST PICTURE

“American Fiction”

“Anatomy of a Fall”

“Barbie”

“The Holdovers”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Maestro”

“Oppenheimer”

“Past Lives”

“Poor Things”

“The Zone of Interest”

What will win: “Oppenheimer.” Made too much money to ignore; a tastefully assaultive technique kept it moving; also mostly very good.

What should win: “Past Lives.” My favorite of 2023, therefore deserving of the best picture Oscar. It’s automatic.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST DIRECTOR

Jonathan Glazer, “The Zone of Interest”

Yorgos Lanthimos, “Poor Things”

Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer”

Martin Scorsese, “Killers of the Flower Moon”

Justine Triet, “Anatomy of a Fall”

What will win: Christopher Nolan, “Oppenheimer.” Second directorial nomination, after “Dunkirk.” A new-style directorial superstar devoted to both film and digital and the largest possible screen experience.

What should win: Jonathan Glazer, “The Zone of Interest.” Because he co-wrote and then visualized a striking reminder that evil is an all-too-human construct.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST ACTOR

Bradley Cooper, “Maestro”

Colman Domingo, “Rustin”

Paul Giamatti, “The Holdovers”

Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer”

Jeffrey Wright, “American Fiction”

What will win: Cillian Murphy, “Oppenheimer,” and I only recently changed my prediction on this. Which means I’m probably wrong.

What should win: Jeffrey Wright, “American Fiction.” Like Murphy, a first-time nominee; also terrific in nearly everything, including the leading role here, largely reactive but in Wright’s hands, more than a sounding board.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST ACTRESS

Annette Bening, “Nyad”

Lily Gladstone, “Killers of the Flower Moon”

Sandra Hüller, “Anatomy of a Fall”

Carey Mulligan, “Maestro”

Emma Stone, “Poor Things”

What will win: Lily Gladstone, “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Yes, it’s more of a supporting turn, and the film doesn’t give her character the emphasis warranted in the second half. But she’s excellent.

What should win: Sandra Hüller, “Anatomy of a Fall.” A great, versatile genius at casual-seeming complexity.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Sterling K. Brown, “American Fiction”

Robert De Niro, “Killers of the Flower Moon”

Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer”

Ryan Gosling, “Barbie”

Mark Ruffalo, “Poor Things”

What will win: Robert Downey Jr., “Oppenheimer.” Good work; disguised just enough (baldpate, specs) to wow people.

What should win: Sterling K. Brown, “American Fiction.” Or, yes, Mark Ruffalo for “Poor Things,” the wittiest simultaneous under/overacting of 2024.

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Emily Blunt, “Oppenheimer”

Danielle Brooks, “The Color Purple”

America Ferrera, “Barbie”

Jodie Foster, “Nyad”

Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers”

What will win: Da’Vine Joy Randolph, “The Holdovers.” Very, very good, even if the role lacks a third dimension as written; she has won everything under the sun leading up to the Oscars.

What should win: America Ferrera, “Barbie.” I’m alone on this, but there it is.

NOMINATIONS FOR ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

“Anatomy of a Fall”

“The Holdovers”

“May December”

“Maestro”

“Past Lives”

What will win: “Anatomy of a Fall.” It wouldn’t stun me if director/co-writer Justine Triet’s well-liked courtroom drama upsets the apple cart Sunday and wins best picture. Surely it’ll be many Oscar voters’ second choice, and with the weighted ballots, who knows? But it appears to have original screenplay in the bag.

What should win: “Past Lives.” Beautiful from the first, unheard conversation at the bar to the last, unspoken words just before the car arrives.

NOMINATIONS FOR ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

“American Fiction”

“Barbie”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

“The Zone of Interest”

What will win: “American Fiction.” Writer/director Cord Jefferson solved nearly all the potentially dated limitations in 20-year-old source material.

What should win: “Barbie.” Stuck, absurdly, in the wrong category — does basing something on a line of dolls constitute an “adaptation”? But either way, funny, rueful, perceptive, humane and alive.

NOMINATIONS FOR ANIMATED FEATURE

“The Boy and the Heron”

“Elemental”

“Nimona”

“Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse”

“Robot Dreams”

What will win: “The Boy and the Heron”

What should win: “The Boy and the Heron”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

“Barbie”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Napoleon”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

What will win: “Poor Things”

What should win: “Poor Things”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST COSTUME DESIGN

“Barbie”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Napoleon”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

What will win: “Poor Things”

What should win: “Poor Things”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

“El Conde”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Maestro”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

What will win: “Oppenheimer”

What should win: “Killers of the Flower Moon”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST EDITING

“Anatomy of a Fall”

“The Holdovers”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

What will win: “Oppenheimer”

What should win: “Killer of the Flower Moon”

NOMINATIONS FOR MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

“Golda”

“Maestro”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

“Society of the Snow”

What will win: “Poor Things”

What should win: “Maestro”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST SOUND

“The Creator”

“Maestro”

“Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One”

“Oppenheimer”

Related Articles

Entertainment |


Oscars producers promise surprises for Sunday’s (1 hour earlier) show

Entertainment |


Best cameo? Best hat? Ahead of the Oscars, AP hands out its own awards

Entertainment |


Review: ‘They Shot the Piano Player’ follows the trail of a Brazilian jazz giant’s murder

Entertainment |


‘Dune: Part Two’ cinematographer Greig Fraser likes shooting gritty worlds

Entertainment |


What to stream this week: ‘Wonka,’ animal queens and ‘Poor Things’

“The Zone of Interest”

What will win: “Oppenheimer”

What should win: “The Zone of Interest”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

“The Creator”

“Godzilla Minus One”

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3”

“Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One”

“Napoleon”

What will win: “Godzilla Minus One”

What should win: “Godzilla Minus One”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

“American Fiction”

“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”

“Killers of the Flower Moon”

“Oppenheimer”

“Poor Things”

What will win: “Oppenheimer”

What should win: “Poor Things”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST ORIGINAL SONG

“The Fire Inside” (“Flamin’ Hot”)

“I’m Just Ken” (“Barbie”)

“It Never Went Away” (“American Symphony”)

“Wahzhazhe (A Song For My People)” (“Killers of the Flower Moon”)

“What Was I Made For?” (“Barbie”)

What will win: “What Was I Made For?” (“Barbie”)

What should win: “I’m Just Ken” (“Barbie”)

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

“Bobi Wine: The People’s President”

“The Eternal Memory”

“Four Daughters”

“To Kill a Tiger”

“20 Days in Mariupol”

What will win: “20 Days in Mariupol”

What should win: “Four Daughters”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST INTERNATIONAL FEATURE

“The Teachers’ Lounge,” Germany

“Io Capitano,” Italy

“Perfect Days,” Japan

“Society of the Snow,” Spain

“The Zone of Interest,” United Kingdom

What will win: “The Zone of Interest,” United Kingdom

What should win: “The Zone of Interest,” United Kingdom

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST ANIMATED SHORT

“Letter to a Pig”

“Ninety-Five Senses”

“Our Uniform”

“Pachyderme”

“War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko”

What will win: “War Is Over! Inspired by the Music of John & Yoko”

What should win: “Our Uniform”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT

“The ABCs of Book Banning”

“The Barber of Little Rock”

“Island in Between”

“The Last Repair Shop”

“Nai Nai & Wai Po”

What will win: “The ABCs of Book Banning”

What should win: “The ABCs of Book Banning”

NOMINATIONS FOR BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT

“The After”

“Invincible”

“Knight of Fortune”

“Red, White and Blue”

“The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”

What will win: “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”

What should win: “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”

Related Articles

Entertainment |


‘Damsel’ review: Millie Bobby Brown stars in dark fantasy lacking a pulse

Entertainment |


Movie Review: ‘Kung Fu Panda 4’ is a sweet, fun and well executed passing of the torch

Entertainment |


Interior design isn’t just for humans. There are better ways to incorporate your pet too

Entertainment |


“Resident Alien” is Netflix’s newest hit TV show. Star Alan Tudyk thinks he knows why

Entertainment |


Comic Richard Lewis’ final resting place is at the Temple of Aaron cemetery in Roseville

Working Strategies: Leveraging LinkedIn when Changing Careers

posted in: Society | 0

Amy Lindgren

Second Sunday Series – Editor’s Note: This is the seventh of 12 columns on making a career change which appear the second Sunday of each month, from September through August. Last month’s column discussed résumé strategies for career-changers, while the months before focused on the back-to-school decision for career changers; career change steps in your 60s; 10 ideas for choosing a new career; a sample timeline; and questions to consider when changing careers. 

Are you changing careers? We need to talk about LinkedIn. As you probably know, LinkedIn is a social media platform geared to the world of work.

Unlike Facebook or TikTok where you might share family stories or amusing selfies, LinkedIn is where you post your vocational profile and then connect with others on work-related topics.

In the LinkedIn world, the pages that can be seen by others comprise your “profile.” The profile itself contains multiple elements, including your photo, a summary statement (called “About”), your work experience, education, volunteering … pretty much everything you might put on a résumé, but in an online format. There’s even a place to post your actual résumé, for others to download.

You might be wondering, if the LinkedIn profile replicates and even includes your résumé, why not just use your résumé and be done with it? One word: Recruiters.

LinkedIn is a favorite first stop for recruiters and hiring managers, even before they write a job posting. If they find a viable candidate online, they might be able to skip the formal posting process. Or, they may influence the outcome by reaching out to interesting individuals (you?) to encourage their application.

But they can’t do that if they don’t know you exist, which is why you need to be where they’re looking. This is especially true for career changers, who aren’t as likely to be found by other recruiting methods or even by word-of-mouth. When you’re changing careers, your old contacts may not be as helpful, simply because they’re embedded in your old field.

Which brings up additional reasons LinkedIn is important — it provides networking access to a new group, while also presenting job postings from its own platform.

There’s just one problem: If you’re working now in the field you plan to leave, you may not want your boss and colleagues to see you touting a new career plan on LinkedIn.

Before we launch into possible solutions to this conundrum, here’s one thing you really should not do: If you have a LinkedIn profile already, do not create a second profile.

Besides being against the rules, having two profiles confuses anyone searching for you by name — which profile will pop up? Although you could game the system, it’s really not a strategy that’s worth that many brain cells.

A better approach is to lean into your LinkedIn profile as an evolving tool. Initially it will present more of the old career than the new, before reversing the proportions as your career change officially launches. Think of it as a living online document rather than a static page that you post and never revisit.

Last month’s Second Sunday column on career-changer résumés used the example of a math teacher who becomes a statistician or business analyst. It’s fine for this résumé to clearly state the new goal because it will be seen only by the select individuals directly receiving it from the career changer.

But the LinkedIn profile is accessible by all and discretion may be needed. And yes — it’s possible to restrict access to one’s LinkedIn profile. But that’s hardly strategic for job seekers hoping to be found by employers.

To solve this dilemma, our teacher needs to scan relevant job postings to identify frequently used words and phrases. The next step is to pepper these key words into the LinkedIn profile, to become more “findable” by the search engine the recruiter is using.

Now it’s time to shift the emphasis of the profile to be less about teaching. Math, numbers, analysis, meetings, presentations, documenting, and any other skill shared in common between the two professions should be highlighted instead.

It’s also possible to experiment with the template, substituting for example “Math Instructor” for “High School Teacher” in the job title field, or forgoing the title altogether and simply listing the school district as the employer.

The About section is the best place to tilt the profile toward the new career, since this section can be used to describe applicable strengths and experiences without a template’s restrictions.

It takes strategy, but using LinkedIn during a career change is worth the effort if it means being found by hiring managers. Come back next month for more career change tips as we continue this Second Sunday series.

Related Articles

Business |


Working Strategies: 11 Reasons to Volunteer between Jobs

Business |


Working Strategies: Exit strategy – following a process for leaving your job

Business |


Working Strategies: Biting the bullet — staying in a job you don’t love

Business |


Working Strategies: Career changers, tailor your résumés

Business |


Working Strategies: More interview mistakes, and how to avoid them

Amy Lindgren owns a career consulting firm in St. Paul. She can be reached at alindgren@prototypecareerservice.com.

Attention, Chicago White Sox fans: SoxFest will return in January 2025

posted in: News | 0

SoxFest will return next year, the Chicago White Sox announced Friday.

The fan event — last held in 2020 — will take place Jan. 24-25, 2025. Location, official on-sale dates, programming and scheduled appearances will be announced later.

SoxFest has been a gathering that provides fans the opportunity to connect with former and current players, coaches and prospects while taking a look toward the upcoming season.

In a release announcing the news, the Sox said SoxFest 2025 “returns with the same community-building spirit, featuring new and reimagined programming and experiences to immerse guests into the world of White Sox baseball.”

The most recent SoxFest — the 28th edition — occurred in late January 2020. The 2021 event was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2022 SoxFest also was canceled, with the Sox noting at the time the challenges of projecting and managing COVID-19-related protocols in an indoor setting.

SoxFest did not take place last year “due to several factors,” the Sox said at the time. The Cubs have held their annual fan fest the last two years.

Friday’s announcement comes on the same day of a gathering for season ticket holders at the Field Museum.

The returning SoxFest will mark a pair of milestones in the franchise’s history in 2025 — the 20-year anniversary of the 2005 World Series championship team and the 125-year anniversary of the Chicago White Sox organization.

()

David Brooks: Models for a generous American patriotism — and national self-confidence

posted in: News | 0

I’ve been crisscrossing the country almost constantly over the last five months. When I ask people about politics, the feeling I hear most often is exhaustion. People are just tired out from the endless national crises, their dread of the 2024 presidential campaign, the ugliness of it all. Many people I talk with seem passive, discouraged and are trying, mostly in vain, to shut out the political noise. It’s almost as if people have been so beaten down by the last decade, they’ve lost the self-confidence to wish for more.

In these circumstances, I turn to two leaders who knew something about projecting hope in exhausting times: Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. They offered two very different versions of national self-confidence.

Churchill’s strongest sense was his romantic attachment to Britain’s past. At a time when it was fashionable to scorn the pompous Victorians and dismiss the ancient grandees like the first Duke of Marlborough, Churchill believed in the whole pageant of British history with the enthusiasm of a schoolboy. In the stentorian 18th-century cadences of historian Edward Gibbon and essayist Samuel Johnson, he painted a heroic portrait of that nation of shopkeepers and saw Britain’s current troubles in light of its glorious past.

In 1940, his romantic vision gave moral shape to contemporary terrors. Under his guidance, the British people came to see themselves as the phlegmatic and resolute defenders of their island home, the latest in a great line of underdog warriors. His invocations of their common past united a class-riven nation.

His confidence was not of the plucky, upbeat type. He offered instead blood, toil, tears and sweat. Like many past-minded people, his sensibility was tragic, aware that history is a procession of depravity, conflict and war, and that no generation is spared its traumas. But his historical frame of mind did give him an unshakable sense of who Britons were and what Britons must do.

He was not built to be a bobber and weaver, to shimmy in tune with passing trends. His confidence had a defensive but stalwart nature — to stick oneself down, to never waver, to be willing to fight on forever and ever, to project a rocklike firmness that turned out to be contagious. In a magnificent 1949 essay on Churchill, Isaiah Berlin noticed that Churchill idealized his fellow Brits with such intensity that he lifted “a large number of inhabitants of the British Isles out of their normal selves and, by dramatizing their lives and making them seem to themselves and to each other clad in the fabulous garments appropriate to a great historic moment, transformed cowards into brave men, and so fulfilled the purpose of shining armor.”

I see an American analogue to Churchill’s historic sensibility in Abraham Lincoln’s rhetoric during the Civil War: “Our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” And I can imagine a contemporary American leader putting our current crises in the frame of the constant and similar crises of our own national past — the populists versus the coasts, the struggles for racial justice, America’s unasked-for role as leader of the free world. I can imagine a contemporary leader with a similarly weathered but undaunted confidence in our institutions and our ideas, a leader with an acute awareness of our own national identity — the nation of the future; the beacon of democracy; the nation that, with its unbounded dynamism and immigrant drive, manages to overcome the recurring tumult caused by its own idiocy and iniquity, and in the end energizes the world.

The second very different model of confidence was projected by Churchill’s great friend FDR. Berlin wrote that Roosevelt stood out for “his astonishing appetite for life and by his apparently complete freedom from fear of the future; as a man who welcomed the future eagerly as such, and conveyed the feeling that whatever the times might bring all would be grist to his mill.”

Roosevelt looked forward with such optimism, such an assumption of abundance, such a faith in progress that he saw present difficulties as stumbles on the path to the sunlit uplands to come.

While Churchill’s political gift was steadfastness, Roosevelt’s was nimble dexterity. He relished improvisation, trying multiple things at once even if they did not fit together. His untroubled confidence in his own and his nation’s power rested upon an exceptionally sensitive awareness, conscious and unconscious, of his own milieu, his intuitive anticipation of how public opinion would flow, how events would unfold. It’s as if he had antennae that could feel the minutest vibrations across the political world.

Berlin writes, “This feeling of being at home not merely in the present but in the future, of knowing where he was going and by what means and why, made him, until his health was finally undermined, buoyant and gay; made him delight in the company of the most varied and opposed individuals.” In Roosevelt’s self-confident vision, a nation enduring depression and then war was nonetheless illuminated by the brilliance of its future days. He never lost that faith.

You may doubt it in these gloomy years, but I think even today’s America could produce a leader of FDR’s buoyancy. We have by far the strongest large economy on Earth. We have by far the most innovative technical centers, the greatest centers of learning and the mental and spiritual resources brought by millions of striving immigrants. We have more talent in America today than ever before. We need somebody who can name those strengths and connect them to our children’s future.

We’re floating upon a pessimism bubble. The underlying realities do not justify the bearish mood that Donald Trump feeds and then feeds off of. We need a leader who can counteract Trump’s sour and grievance-ridden patriotism with a vaster and more generous patriotism, drawing on the glorious inheritance left by our ancestors and lured by FDR’s buoyant faith in what’s to come.

David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Nicholas Kristof: The school issues we’re battling over aren’t the ones that matter

Opinion |


Paul Krugman: The rich spend differently from you and me

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: Gaza needs humanitarian aid now — with or without a cease-fire

Opinion |


Noah Feldman: On bump stocks, the Supreme Court is divorced from reality

Opinion |


Lisa Jarvis: Going ‘California sober’ may be bad for your heart