If you start to hear an increase in girls and women saying “praise Satan” in everyday conversation, do not be alarmed (or do), the witches are just out to play.

Witches are no stranger to film and television, and have been the main subject across genres, be it horror or a children’s film, teen screen or sitcom television. In 2018, they are on the rise again, Netflix’s latest teen drama The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, and Call Me By Your Name director Luca Guadagnino’s recent remake of the Dario Agento cult classic Suspiria being released within weeks of each other.

From the creators of Riverdale, The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is a deliciously dark and stylish adaption of the graphic novel of the same name. A satanic update on the Sabrina the Teenage Witch Archie Comics (previously seen on screen by the television series of the same name in the late 90s), the show tells the story of Sabrina Spellman (Kiernan Shipka), a half-witch, half-mortal who, on her sixteenth birthday will have her Dark Baptism and join The Church of Night. A rite of passage for every witch, including her Aunts Zelda (Miranda Otto) and Hilda (Lucy Davis) and her late father, who was once High Priest of the Church. However, by signing over her devotion to the Dark Lord, she would need to surrender her connections to mortals, including her best friends Ros (Jaz Sinclair) and Susie (Lachlan Watson), and boyfriend Harvey (Ross Lynch). With gorgeous production design of retro nostalgia, visual references to classic horror, an infusion of classic teen hits such as ‘Be My Baby’ and ‘Sixteen Candles’ in its soundtrack, and overt investigation of religion, makes for an incredibly intellectual celebration of teens and intriguing series to watch.

Kiernan Shipka as Sabrina (centre) in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina

Set in the year 1977, Luca Gudagnino’s Suspiria features Dakota Johnson as Susie Bannion, a dancer from a Mennonite community in Ohio who joins the legendary Markos Dance Academy in divided Berlin. Shrouded in mystery and reeling from the recent disappearance of dance student Patricia Hingle (Chloe Grace Moretz), Susie turns into the new protégé of company director Madame Blanc (a formidable Tilda Swinton). Suspicious of the goings on, classmate Sara (Mia Goth) starts to investigate the school, which turns out to be a front for a coven of witches. Suspiria yet again showcases Guadagnino’s key directorial style of not focusing too much on what is happening, but moreso with how it is being shown. His emphasis on mood and atmosphere is always a delight to watch, and works well for his previous films Call Me By Your Name and A Bigger Splash. Here, it does not always pull off. He crams too many different details into one narrative, which come across as biting off more than he can chew. The performances, though, especially from Johnson, Swinton and Goth, are terrific and worth witnessing. 

Dakota Johnson a Susie in Suspiria (2018)

Both of these narratives are of different mediums (one is a TV show, the other a film) and genres (teen drama vs arthouse horror). Even though Sabrina visually references Agento’s Suspiria, the 2018 version and the show are united in their exploration of male fear of female power, via the witch.

Like most religions, The Church of Night in Sabrina worships at the altar of a male all-mighty deity: the Devil himself (Praise Satan). Throughout the series, Sabrina refuses to sign the Dark Lord’s book and become a full member of the coven, receiving the full strength of her powers, unless she can maintain her mortal connections: she wants both freedom, and power. When she says this to her stylish rival Prudence (Tati Gabrielle) during episode two, Prudence laughs. The Dark Lord, she explains, is terrified of witches having both, “because he’s a man, isn’t he?”

The head of the Church of Night, and the highest reigning official, being the Dark Lord’s representative on Earth is the High Priest - a man by the name of Father Faustus Blackwood (Richard Coyle). Before him was Sabrina’s (now deceased) father. As High Priest, Father Blackwood represents the backwards, patriarchal view of the Church. He reinstates the Queen of the Feast tradition, where a witch from each family acts as a representative in a lottery to determine the Queen, who will be sacrificed and eaten at the Feast of Feasts. Ruling with an iron fist around tradition, by the end of the season, Father Blackwood has assembled his own brotherhood of Warlocks (male witches). During the season’s final moments, Blackwood, praising the birth of his son as a sign from the Dark Lord of the superiority of warlocks to witches, claims “The Church of Night is ours, boys” to a room of warlocks. A room of men chanting “Hail Judas! Hail Satan!”, denying the powerful work witches have done for the coven and throughout the season, is a bone-chilling note to end on. 

A steely determined Sabrina in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina

Meanwhile, in Suspiria, as a psychotherapist investigating the Dance Academy, Dr Klemperer (Tilda Swinton, as actor Lutz Ebersdorf) represents male naysayers, the men who would see a woman in distress and call her hysterical, call her a witch and sends her to the stake: “When women tell you the truth, you don’t pity them, you tell them they are having delusions.” The presence of Dr Klemperer was a confusing choice for the new Suspiria. He doesn’t really serve much purpose, and the focus on losing his wife during World War II’s connection to the witches was weak. However, when viewed as a representative for male fear of female power, it only seems right that witches should be his downfall.

In Sabrina, pious Aunt Zelda’s decree “our obligation is not to question, but to obey and participate” is challenged as sixteen-year-old Sabrina rebels and quite literally questions everything. The young Kiernan Shipka is wise beyond her years with the level of earnestness and steely determination she brings to the role of Sabrina. This makes Sabrina’s crusade against the Dark Lord less like a kitten growling, and more a lion roaring. This is never more evident than at the end of the second episode where Sabrina, after running from her Dark Baptism, yells in a deep and powerful voice “My name is Sabrina Spellman, and I will NOT sign it away!”. In Suspiria, the old coven need a younger body to act as a vessel for the spirit of Mother Suspiriorum, which exists in the grotesque and deteriorating body of Mother Markos. But the reign of terror cannot last, and misconceptions become their downfall at the hands of Susie, in a ripper of a sick, sly third act reveal. Johnson holds complete control, and this subtle fierceness makes me wonder why we haven’t been worshiped at her alter all along. 

Susie (Dakota Johnson) surrounded by the coven of witches in Suspiria (2018)

Witches have become an empowering figure for women. The ability to summon unseen powers to wreak havoc on all who wrong you (especially men) is enviable. In a world full of social and political unrest, danger at every corner and full of uncertainty, harnessing power is a way to harness control over your life. With an influx of witchy vibes across Instagram and popular culture, this empowerment is especially felt and embraced by young women. With Trump in the Whitehouse, Millennials and Gen Z’s are at the forefront of enacting and demanding societal and political change. The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina and Suspiria speaks to that, whether intentionally (the former) or unintentionally (the latter).

The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is now streaming on Netflix.

Suspiria is now in cinemas. 

--------

Teen Screen Cinematheque is a curated online project, presented by Cause a Cine, which aims to explore the intersection between teen screen (film and television), and classic and art cinema. You can read more TeenCinteq writing here.

By our definition, a teen film is classified as a movie about teenagers. However, as we embark on the journey exploring the intersection between classic/art cinema and teen screen, sometimes this intersection is found within the teen film itself, not via comparison.

For example, quintessential teen angst film Rebel Without a Cause (1956) would not be used as an example of teen screen (“low culture”) against a classic film because it itself is commonly acknowledged as a classic film. It would feel weird to post a quote from Clueless about having a “Twin Peaks experience”, when the TV show it references centres it’s narrative around the mystery of a dead prom queen. Although this is an ensemble show about the town of Twin Peaks, it is equally about the teenagers who try their own hands at helping to solve the case as it is about the adults.

So, what makes these things have Classic status? I’ve narrowed it down to a few factors.

What Makes a (High Art) Classic Film – Rebel Without a Cause

James Dean as Jim Stark in Rebel Without a Cause (1956)

The 1950s was a high time for teen films, as it was the decade where the term really came into full force. Being a “teenager” hardly exited before then, and it was truly enforced through Hollywood jumping on the band wagon, especially with the series of “I Was a Teenage…” films. However, Rebel Without a Cause endures partly because of the way it portrayed the complexities and anxieties of being a teenager, and partly due to the mysterious allure of James Dean who died a month after the film was released.

Other teen films such as Grease, Dirty Dancing and The Breakfast Club are classics because of the way they explore the complexities of being a teenager—and also due to age. These films have stood the test of time and continue to be popular. However, they aren’t “classic” in the high art sense. This is due to the language used and how the films are perceived. Dirty Dancing is a terrific coming of age film about a seventeen-year-old Baby and her sexual awakening, as well as being the first film to talk about abortion in a serious, non-demonising way. It deals with issues in a serious manner but persists in popular culture as some sappy guilty pleasure film women sob in front of the TV over. Grease is nothing but a campy musical and The Breakfast Club, while being one of the best films ever made, is always talked about in terms of its teen film-ness. John Hughes was a great director—of teen films.

Rebel Without a Cause does not fall into this imposition due to the help of a particular group of voices. The film is directed by Nicholas Ray, who was a favourite of the Cahiers du Cinema: especially Francois Truffaut (whose film The 400 Blows was referenced here). As such, Ray was one of the first directors to be named an auteur, an artist. This discussion surrounding the director and the film also informs who the larger audience is: cinephiles and those who like arthouse cinema. This kind of audience operate as tastemakers in defining what is a Good Film. It is unlikely for these audiences to view teen film in the same way, unless it has been vouched for by an approving body: The Cahiers du Cinema in the 1950s, or in the case of Greta Gerwig’s Lady Bird via The Academy Awards.

What Makes an Arthouse TV Show – Twin Peaks v Riverdale

Twin Peaks vs Riverdale - Title Cards

Historically, like teen film, television would be seen as low-culture itself compared to the true art that is cinema. However, as television developed with higher production values and sophisticated storytelling, this can no longer be considered true. The high versus low art divide now exists within television itself. And I’m not just talking about reality TV versus HBO.

Twin Peaks is widely considered a Classic television show. The series is a masterpiece, it’s use of narrative and film techniques were ground-breaking for television at the time. Yet when it aired in 1990-91, the ratings fluctuated during the series, leading it to be axed at the end of series two. Usually this is a bad omen for TV shows. However, the show was created by David Lynch, and his status as a highly revered arthouse director and auteur defines how the show was received.

When actor James Marshall, who plays James Hurley in the show, was asked why he thinks the show has continue to stay so popular nearly 30 years later, he attributed it to Lynch: “certain directors are gifted with a certain magnetism and a certain sense of visual poetry that most people don't get. I think it's true art.” With this kind of language surrounding the show, no wonder it remains a classic, with a prequel film and a reboot series, Twin Peaks: The Return. The latter was even included in many critics’ Top 10 Films of 2017 lists. Lynch brought art cinema to television audiences who previously may not have thought to access it. “Lynchian” has been added to the dictionary.

It is interesting, then, to think if a show like Riverdale could ever receive the same cult following. Like Twin Peaks, Riverdale is a sleek and stylish show about a quiet and mysterious tree-surrounded town which is shaken up after the murder of the popular teenager. The title of the show is the name of the town, and its narratives focus on the relationships between all the towns-members, while the teenagers try to help solve the murder as much as the adults do. 

James Marshall as James Hurley  in Twin Peaks (left) Riverdale (right) 

When I first watched Riverdale, I was struck by the level of sophistication it possessed. With its moody, neo-noir lighting, twists and intrigue, unlike the bland looking teen dramas of the 00s (sorry One Tree Hill, I love you), Riverdale has a cinematic quality to it. Produced by The CW, Riverdale’s audience is younger than Twin Peaks. Because the network made a name for itself with shows like One Tree Hill, Smallville and Gossip Girl—a lot of teen dramas—The CW is always looked down upon as nothing but teen fodder. Despite being also available on Netflix, these pre-conceived notions about the series turn watching Riverdale into a guilty pleasure or tasteless, rather than an engrossing neo-noir.

Nowadays, “auteur” is not a term which hold a lot of weight anymore. Other than the way films and shows are perceived, ultimately, what creates “classic” status is what it adds to the medium, and also time. How has the film/show influenced the industry? It is obvious Twin Peaks continues to have influence, due to Riverdale’s similarities. Whether or not Riverdale’s distinctive neon-noir (petition to change neo-noir to emphasise the use of neon) style will influence new shows in the future and reach Classic status, only time will tell.

--

Cause a Cine and the Teen Screen Cinematheque do not own any of the images used in this post.

What We Are

Teen Screen Cinematheque is a curated online project, presented by Cause a Cine, which aims to explore the intersection between teen screen (film and television), and classic and art cinema. This project is inspired by Tabloid Art History, which publishes visual comparisons between popular culture and art history. This combination of high and low culture is something which can also occur in film, with the duelling dichotomies of high and low art. The Cinematheque will find visual references, comparisons, mentions and intersections of classic and art cinema in teen film and television, to not only bridge the gap between high and low art, but also introduce teens to classic cinema, and vice versa.

Definitions

As we embark on this journey, it is important to define what exactly we mean when we refer to teen screen.

If we are to look at “teen film and television” as anything which features an ensemble of teen characters as the protagonists, this would be an easy distinction to make. However, in terms of genre, this can propose some challenges. For example, what about coming of age?

Hadley Freeman describes the difference between teen film and the coming of age story thus: “The teen movie is a celebration of teen-ness: the tribes, the slang, the annoying parents. The coming-of-ager is a more soulful phenomenon: yes, it looks at teen life, but something deeper about the human spirit is revealed.”

It is in this way that Clueless and Mean Girls, both films about navigating high school and introducing new lingo into our everyday vernacular, count as teen film, whereas Lady Bird, a story about a young girl and her relationship with her mother during her senior year of high school, is a coming of age film.

Due to its deeper meaning, coming of age films are generally more critically acclaimed and taken seriously than that of teen films. Examples include Stand By Me, The Breakfast Club, Boyhood and Lady Bird. Teen films are predominantly all surface (even the best ones).

However, for some films, this distinction is not so clearly cut. The films of John Hughes, for example, are herald as iconic teen films, yet Freeman describes Pretty in Pink as coming of age due to the emotional journey and exploration of class differences. The same can be said for contemporary films. Love, Simon, the latest addition to the teen film cannon, is both a major studio production which celebrates teen culture, but also counts as a coming of age narrative, as the film’s titular character, Simon, navigates coming out and the courage to be true to yourself and those around you.

It seems fitting then to look at a different definition of teen film, such as John Lewis, the author of the Road to Romance and Ruin: Teen Films and Youth Culture, who defines teen films as any film about teenagers, not films targeted at them. While some films about teens are more serious in tone, they are still lacking in representation at institutions such as the Oscars or many Top 100 Movies lists.

High vs Low

This project takes inspiration from the writings of Susan Sontag, particularly, her essays Notes on Camp and On Culture and the New Sensibility, which are seminal texts in the distinction between high and low culture.

When a film which is defined as “classic” or “art” cinema, it is described in terms of poetic or pure cinema, as intellectual, as a masterpiece. In today’s culture, these films are black and white films from early and Golden Age cinema, and other critically influential films from the 20th and early 21st century. In contrast, major studio films such as romantic comedies and teen film, genres traditionally and predominantly enjoyed by young women, are looked over as tacky, commercial, and low culture. This critique forgets that these films are the same art form, and that cinema does not exist in a vacuum. As filmmaking develops, cinematic history informs each new film.

This dismissal as low culture also removes value from the tastes of young women and come across as elitist. As Sontag wrote in On Culture, “If art is understood as a form of discipline of the feelings and a programming of sensations, then the feeling (or sensation) given off by a Rauschenberg painting might be like that of a song by the Supremes.” In relation to film, the Cinematheque believes the emotions and sensations given off by an Alfred Hitchcock film could be comparable to that of watching I Know What You Did Last Summer.

While I tend to agree that not all commercial films are a masterpiece, not everyone was first introduced to film via the French New Wave or the works of Andrei Tarkovsky. A romantic comedy screened during your Saturday night sleepover or going to the cinema to see the latest comedy with your parents: these experiences are most young people’s gateway into film.

Continuing to appreciate these films as one delves more into film appreciation and film history shouldn’t negate one’s legitimacy as a cinephile, nor exist remotely as a guilty pleasure.

This mode of thinking updates that of early Cahiers du Cinema, whose founding writers started the influential film journal in response to the old regime of cinephilia, which idolised early silent film and sneered at new Hollywood. With an intense love of cinema, these men such as Andre Bazin, Eric Rohmer, Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard believed in the importance of reframing film spectatorship and bringing attention to the films they cared about. The Cinematheque is doing the same.

In an article for Film School Rejects, Emily Kubincanek writes “Millennials do care about classic movies, but need more exposure to them.” This post was written in response to an article published by the New York Post, which contended millennials do not care about classic cinema. Based on research which found that 30% of millennials surveyed admitted to not having seen a black and white film, this seems like a drastic number when placed next to a number like 85%, the number of people over 50 who have seen a black and white film. These two numbers are drastic but ignore the 70% of millennials who have seen a black and white film, only a 15% difference with those who are over 50.

While the Cinematheque wants to allow teen screen to be discussed in the same way alongside classic film, it also aims to make classic cinema more accessible. By comparing the two, and reframing in regard to their similarities, not only will the Cinematheque close the gap between high and low culture, but also celebrate that these films are not so different after all.

--

“My wish for film criticism is that it free itself at last from the ideas dictated to it by its elders, and be able to consider, with fresh eyes and mind, the works that, in my opinion, count far more in the history of our age than the pale survivors of an art that is no more.”

– Eric Rohmer, Cahiers du Cinema 26, 1953.

“If cinema can be resurrected, it will only be through the birth of a new kind of cine-love.” 

– Susan Sontag, The Decay of Cinema, 1996

By Claire. 

In its opening weekend, Ocean's 8 surpassed Solo: A Star Wars Story. Star Wars, a franchise known to be dominated by nerdy white men (obviously, this is not accurate to the entire population of Star Wars fans, but these are the ones who are driving actresses like Kelly Marie Tran off of social media due to their domination of critique and harassment), has been surpassed by an all-female heist movie. Additionally, according to Entertainment Weekly, the latest addition to the Ocean’s franchise has the biggest opening weekend out of all of the Oceans movies (not accounting for inflation).

Snaps. For. That.

Directed by Gary Ross, Ocean’s 8 stars Sandra Bullock as Debbie Ocean, the sister of recently and mysteriously deceased Danny Ocean (George Clooney, only present as a photo in this film, but centres as the link between the Ocean’s franchise). Freshly released from prison, Debbie immediately organises a team of women to pull off a multi-million-dollar heist at the most exclusive event of the year, the Met Gala. This film has the cast of your dreams: Cate Blanchett, Rhianna, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Paulson, Awkafina, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Anne Hathaway as the vapid Hollywood starlet Daphne Kluger, whom the Ocean team steal from. 

The film is a joy to watch. Despite John Mulaney’s predictions, the all-female team are supportive of one another. No one is catty or distracted or tearing another down. The characters are cunning and the best at what they do. I left the cinema thinking “I wish I was that smart.” Katie Duggan from Screen Queens had a similar reaction, and writes, “is this how badass men feel all the time? Is this why they feel like they can get away with anything?”





With a stellar line up in its cast and cool-as-heck plot, it’s easy to see why it has achieved such a big opening. This is something audiences have been waiting to see for far too long.

Despite this, the film has also received mixed reviews. Due to the attachment to the Ocean’s franchise name, some (i.e. men) can only see the film in relation to how it compares to the original (male dominated) films. This comes with the inability to critique the film on its own terms.

In the age of Twitter’s call for all female reboots, many (males) enter the cinema with the pre-determined bias of not liking reboots. Just the other day my sister told a guy on the dating app Bumble about how she was going to see Ocean's 8, and he immediately shot down the idea of ever having interest in the film because it would mess with the “unique style” of the original Ocean’s movies. Umm… what?

If people hate reboots, then how do we account for the recent return of Jurassic Park with Jurassic World? How do you account for any of the Star Wars movies made after George Lucas? I am still waiting for a sequel to Paul Fieg’s Ghostbusters, and I would love, but be very surprised, if Ocean’s 8 gets another movie. This cannot be due to the quality of the films. 2015’s Jurassic World received lukewarm reviews, with Variety calling it a “so-so return” and The Guardian declaring the film “has scales, but no soul.” Yet, this has not stopped the franchise, with its sequel also released this month.

Currently, reboots and remakes are a dime a dozen for big studio films. Logically, based on the success of certain films in the past, to replicate that format and story for a new audience seems like a safe bet and easy return. Looking at headlines from over the years, the reality is that this is not always as the case. Sometimes, the success of a film relies on the seamless combination of its ingenuity, the perfect cast and the right director. Jurassic World did not work because it could not replicate the complete unique-ness of the original Jurassic Park film. Nor could it compete with Steven Spielberg, who is one of the founders of the major studio blockbuster. And yet. 

Cate Blanchett and Sandra Bullock in Ocean's 8

Unlike Jurassic World, the likelihood for an Ocean's 8 sequel, even in these early stages, is minimal. A lot of this comes down to a lack of voices in film criticism which champion female-led films.

Over the past week, research by USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism which found most film critics are white, and male was published. The statistics, that 82% of reviews written on the top 100 films of 2017 were male, and of that number 78% were white, is not new information for female and POC critics. Unfortunately, it is the harsh reality.

Most calls for diversity in film criticism include that we need voices to champion female led movies or what are deemed “women’s films”. On the other hand, as Monica Castillo points out, not all women and POC think the same. Women don’t automatically love all films made by, or staring, women and women and POC don’t only want to review films aimed at them.

At the Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards last week, Brie Larson said “I don’t want to hear what a 40-year-old white man has to say about Wrinkle in Time. It wasn’t made for him.” Similarly, Ocean’s 8 star Sandra Bullock argued, “it would be nice if reviewers reflected who the film is for,” which, yes, sounds great, until she continues “like children should review children’s films, not a 60 year old man.”

While their hearts are in the right place, this line of thinking is reductive and restricts writer’s voices even more. Certainly, it would have been great to see more people of colour chosen to write on Black Panther, and less men writing on 2015’s Ghostbusters, but despite recent strides forward for women and diversity in film, there is still a low percentage of films out there which would qualify female and/or POC writers as the target audience.

Ocean's 8 isn’t perfect, but it shouldn’t have to be. The film is for women, and a lot of women love it. Some women don’t, but all find value in it. Unfortunately, to get to these critiques, one has to wade through all the reviews written by men. Like the guy on my sister’s Bumble, it is not uncommon for male critics, too, to be unable to see the film beyond the lens of a remake. To see the film beyond a group of women trying to replace the male characters they love so much. They miss the point.

Film critics have opinions on all films. As Hannah Woodhead wrote in a piece for Little White Lies, “[a]mazingly, women also have opinions about the Fast and Furious films, and POC writers like to talk about all your favourite white directors too.” So how do we balance this? Increase the number of voices heard in film criticism so that there is a more rounded opinion and discussion on films, from a variety of voices and perspectives. Not everyone will agree, but at least criticism can move away from collective crowd-think. Then, not only can girls see themselves in film, but maybe they can see themselves represented in film critique, too.

By Claire.

Today are the 90th Academy Awards. As I’ve mentioned before, I love Awards Season. I take it incredibly seriously, and it’s all I live and breathe January through to February each year. While I enjoy the Globes and the SAGs, the Oscars are the big one (and my favourite!)

This year, the Oscars are in March and it feels like Awards season has dragged on for so long. In reality, it’s just a week later than last year. But still, I was so excited, energised, and if we’re being honestly, just a big ball of anxiety and bafflement at the start.

After the Golden Globes, I was so annoyed at Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri winning everything, at Gary Oldman winning. This happened again at the SAGs, and again at the BAFTA's. Now, I feel old and weathered and exhausted.

When will I return from war?

I will get into why I’m hating at Three Billboards and Oldman later, but these emotions were strong, because I was passionate. This year in particular means so much to me.

It is no secret that I love Greta Gerwig, and what Lady Bird means to me. Greta is nominated for two awards: one is Best Director, making her the 5th woman overall to be nominated for that category. The other is Best Original Screenplay, which, as an aspiring screenwriter is exciting all in itself. The film is also nominated for an additional three awards, including Best Picture.

In addition to Lady Bird, we have Call Me By Your Name. I haven’t written about this film on here yet, mainly because I haven’t had the right words to convey. This film is stunning. It has taken over my life. I have seen it three times in cinema, and it still shakes me to my very core every time. CMBYN has been nominated for five awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Song and Best Lead Actor.

I love this movie, and I want it to win everything. However, I know this probably won’t happen. I like to think the Academy is changing. This is due to a new round of younger, more diverse voters, Moonlight’s win last year, and because I didn’t write an angry react post about this year’s nominations, because I am actually quite happy with them (for the first time in my life). However, I don’t have that much faith in the Academy.

To be honest, I would be happy to see CMBYN win Adapted Screenplay, and anything else would be a bonus (even though Sufjan Steven’s original and Oscar nominated song ‘Mystery of Love’ can bring me to tears, and Luca Guadagnino is a beautiful director).

But let’s get down to business:

So, who do I want to win?

(Highlighted are who I want to win, not necessarily who I think will win)

LEAD ACTRESS

Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water”
Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”
Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird”
Meryl Streep, “The Post”

Frances McDormand will probably win, and I will admit, she was the best part about Three Billboards, but god, I hope Saoirse Ronan does. I mean, this is her third Oscar nomination, and she’s only 23. She will get more nominations, but her portrayal of Christine ‘Lady Bird’ McPhearson was so natural, complex, and reflective. Ronan affords teenage girls the space to be taken seriously as complex human beings, and she did really well. So yeah, it’s not your traditional Oscar winning role, but it doesn’t mean it is not deserving.

A similar argument can be said for Lead Actor.

LEAD ACTOR

Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”
Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”
Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out”
Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”
Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

After the Screen Actor Guild Awards, where Gary Oldman beat out Timothée Chalamet yet again, I said If Timothée doesn’t win Best Actor at the Oscars, I’m going to flip a table Armie Hammer in The Man From U.N.C.L.E style.

Gary Oldman has been winning, and I haven’t seen Darkest Hour, so this is just me being petty, I guess, but portraying Winston Churchill isn’t anything new. So many people have done it. Maybe he was really good, though. He must have been to receive the Golden Globe, SAG and BAFTA for it. But the Academy loves a War story.

Obviously, I want Timothée to win. As Elio, he masterfully combines subtlety, deep emotion, comedic timing, as well as the ability to bring an entire cinema to tears with a single shot. The kid has serious acting chops. Honestly, he deserves it. But he is also so young. He has an illustrious career ahead of him, and he might win in the future. But instead of awarding people after they have had a long career, how about we give them awards when their performance deserves it?

This all being said, I would also be incredibly happy if Daniel Kaluuya wins. He was awesome in Get Out. Also, I’m a big fan in young people in the industry at the moment, these old guys have had their chance, let’s support the new generation, ja? (How Millennial of me).


SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound”
Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”
Lesley Manville, “Phantom Thread”
Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird”
Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”

I have seen I, Tonya, and yes, Allison Janney was good, and she will probably win, again, like she has won every other award this season. BUT LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT LAURIE METCALF AND MARY J. BLIGE.

Laurie Metcalf as Saoirse Ronan’s mother in Lady Bird was fantastic. She deserves an Oscar for her eye twitch after Lucas Hedges says “Lady Bird always said she lived on the wrong side of the tracks, and I thought that was just a metaphor, but there are actual train tracks.” Also, the moment when she drops Lady Bird off at the airport at the end of the film. Y’ALL.

I feel like not many people have seen Mudbound. It is a Netflix film, so it didn’t have a theatrical release, and this is probably why it hasn’t been receiving as much recognition as it deserves. Mary J. Blige was so unrecognisable in this film, in a fantastic way, and if this film was released theatrically, she would be a bigger contender, I swear to you. Mudbound is a typical Oscar film (American history, war, and racial tensions), let’s be real, here.

SUPPORTING ACTOR

Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project”
Woody Harrelson, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water”
Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”
Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Sam Rockwell is probably going to win. I hope he doesn't. There’s a lot wrong with his character, literally known as a racist cop. This racism is never punished or effectively dealt with, and when you’re introduced as a cop who tortured an African American person in custody, you need to deal with that, don’t just later redeem him by making him a half-baked redemption arc. Sure, this characterisation comes out of Martin McDonagh’s script, but the Oscars are political, and this isn’t the role which needs to be awarded right now.

This being said, without a nomination for Armie Hammer (snubbed! Oliver was his best role yet, and I’ve seen all his films), I don’t have any particularly strong opinions about this category. I loved The Florida Project, so let's go for Willem Dafoe. Sam Rockwell will most likely win, but I won’t be happy about it.

BEST DIRECTOR

“Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“Phantom Thread,” Paul Thomas Anderson
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro

Here, I'm rooting for Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele, or Guillermo del Toro. I would especially love if Gerwig won (I will most likely breakdown and cry), and I also love Peele, and what he did with Get Out. However, GDT did win the Globe, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he won, and rightly so.

Gerwig or Peele, though, would be my wildest dreams.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

“Call Me by Your Name,” James Ivory
“The Disaster Artist,” Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
“Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green
“Molly’s Game,” Aaron Sorkin
“Mudbound,” Virgil Williams and Dee Rees

CALL ME BY YOUR NAME. That script was beautiful, and a faithful adaption of the book. I want it to win, and I think it will win.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

“The Big Sick,” Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani
“Get Out,” Jordan Peele
“Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
“The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Martin McDonagh

Of course, I want Greta Gerwig to win. I feel like this one is hard to gauge. Martin McDonagh won the Globe (ugh), but I am really rooting for Lady Bird and Get Out at the Oscars. I LOVED The Big Sick, and I am so excited that it has been nominated, but I do not see it winning – but if it did it would be such a plot twist!

CINEMATOGRAPHY

“Blade Runner 2049,” Roger Deakins
“Darkest Hour,” Bruno Delbonnel
“Dunkirk,” Hoyte van Hoytema
“Mudbound,” Rachel Morrison
“The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen

I’m going to talk about cinematography for a moment, because Rachel Morrison is the first woman to be nominated for Cinematography, ever. With Mudbound, she was able to make the dusty, muddy and bleak setting look beautiful. This is not an easy feat, and could have made the film boring, but instead, it is a feast for the eyes. She is brilliant at what she does. Speaking of, she is also the cinematographer for Black Panther. Like I said, she is brilliant.

And like, because the Academy isn’t kind to women, I guess The Shape of Water or Dunkirk were pretty to look at, too.

BEST PICTURE

“Call Me by Your Name”
“Darkest Hour”
“Dunkirk”
“Get Out”
“Lady Bird”
“Phantom Thread”
“The Post”
“The Shape of Water”
“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Here we are, the big one.

I have seen all Best Picture nominations, bar Darkest Hour. This is because yet another portrayal of, and film about Winston Churchill just does not interest me.


Dunkirk was good, but it came out so long ago. It’s Nolan and about WWII so it gets an automatic nomination. I love movies about journalism, but The Post wasn’t phenomenal. That being said, it was such a great debut feature script by Elizabeth Hannah.

For Best Picture, I’m rooting for Lady Bird, Get Out, and Call Me By Your Name.

What has a large chance of winning, though, is Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and I really hope it doesn’t. The film was awarded Best Picture – Drama at the Globes, best performance by a Cast at the screen actors Guild Awards and Best Film at the BAFTA’S. And yes, this is an Oscars Film: A lone wolf seeking justice, battling the ineffective police system. With the persecution of rape being a major issue in the world, Three Billboards definitely touches a nerve. I was even affected after seeing it, posting on social media that the film is incredible and highly recommending that everyone see it. That being said, throughout the film I had an unsettled feeling, and it wasn’t until later that I figured out why.

Three Billboards thinks its saying something profound, without really saying anything at all. We are swept up by images of large billboards, Molotov cocktails, and a hardened badass woman in coveralls and a bandana, but nothing is truly engaged with. Tim Parks for The New Yorker calls this the “feel-good fallacy.” Another critique of Three Billboards is it’s racism. This sits largely with Sam Rockwell’s character, which I touched on earlier. Beyond Rockwell’s racist cop, the entire police force is racist, homophobic, or both, which is thrown around in dialogue multiple times, but never held accountable.

Due to its murky racism and politics, yet having received so many awards, it is a large possibility that Three Billboards will be this year’s Crash to Call Me By Your Name. Back in 2006, everyone knew Brokeback Mountain was supposed to win Best Picture, but Crash swept in and won instead.

But then there is me, hopelessly optimistic, thinking Three Billboards might be La La Land instead, wining the acting awards, with Call Me By Your Name or Get Out sweeping in to take Best Picture. Get Out does more as a social critique of America than Three Billboards does.

However, Lady Bird, Call Me By Your Name and Get Out are unconventional Oscar winners. Lady Bird, as a film about a teenage girl, written and directed by a woman, and Get Out, a horror film were white people are the villain, are unprecedented. Call Me By Your Name, is subtle and beautiful and visceral. Of course, so is Moonlight, but do we honestly think the Academy will award a film about gay men two years in a row?

With this in mind, I wouldn’t be surprised if The Shape of Water wins. Not my usual kind of film, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was like a fantasy, greener version of Amelie. Once we get past the whole Sexy Fish Man and Sally Hawkins Fall In Love and Have Sex weirdness, what this story truly is about is capturing those who are outcasts and feel like they are alone in the world, finding a connection. It was a gorgeous film, with fab old Hollywood musical elements and I realise that if you haven’t seen the film this might all sound so weird, but it was great. I would be so happy for it to win.

I like to hope the Academy is changing. People think the Oscars are antiquated, but to that I just say we should change what an Oscar Film looks like. Change what an Oscar Winner looks like, shake it up, keep it relevant and diverse. We can only hope this is the direction the Academy is heading, but we will have to see how today goes.