costume design

La La Land


Movie: La La Land
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Score, Original Song (x2), Production Design, Costume Design, Film Editing

I, like many, was initially put off by how many nominations this movie received. I thought it was another movie about Hollywood and the Academy was giving nominations based on relatability to their world. Thankfully, I was wrong. La La Land isn’t about the Hollywood elite. It’s simply a basic boy-meets-girl love story set in Hollywood.

Mia (Emma Stone) is a barista trying to become an actress. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is a musician trying to open a jazz club. Through song and dance and banter, La La Land tells us the story of their love.

The chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone is unparalleled in modern cinematic pairings. They do so well together. They bring the best work out of each other. Both of them performed incredibly considering they needed to act, sing, and dance. The only strange thing is that sometimes they are so natural together that it feels awkward. Because real life is awkward. Both of them had powerful moments in the film. One of those moments for Emma Stone was when she sang Audition (The Fools Who Dream)” which is one of the two Oscar nominated songs from this movie.

The other nominated song is “City of Stars

I have very little doubt that one of these two will win the Oscar. Probably “City of Stars“, let’s be real. That’s the one Golden Globe win I’ve accidentally let myself see.

Like any good musical, the music of the songs are found throughout the story to help guide the musical themes. The score is unexpectedly unforgettable. After leaving the theater, my thought was “Well, that was ok.” But two days later, I found myself humming the music at work. It ties into the movie so well that you can’t help but hear the music when thinking about the plot.

Speaking of the plot, (man, I’m killing it on transitions today), the screenplay is phenomenal. The ultimate reason why the screenplay stands out is due to the fact that it is a song-and-dance musical. Without a good screenplay, singing and dancing is just awkward. The production design is brilliant. The movie is set in modern times, but the only way you would know that is by their phones. The obscurity of the settings, set decor, costumes, vehicles, and even the hairstyles give it a timeless quality. The costume design in particular stood out to me with Emma Stone’s outfits. The outfits suggest inspiration from different eras, while still being modern. It’s a delicate balance that I can’t explain well because I’m not a fashion person.

My absolute favorite part of the movie was the cinematography. I can’t fully express my awe towards the cinematographers in words. Imagine me doing Kermit’s muppet arms and you might get a sense of how I feel about it. The coloring and lighting changes with the mood. Whatever they did with the cameras and/or lights made some of the live backgrounds look almost like extremely high quality stage sets which allowed for the musical numbers to have that old-time musical feel from classic films. You really see this in the “A Lovely Night” tap number. (The scene that’s on all the posters.)

That tap number is also the moment where you see some of the best of the film editing. With “long shot” dance numbers, music, and singing, the editors have a lot to deal with. They pulled it off quite well. Those elements also give the sound mixers and sound editors a challenge. On those accounts, the sound was flawless. The transitions from speech to song were seamless. The necessary sound effects merged perfectly with the natural sounds.

The feel of the movie seemed somewhat familiar. It’s because Damien Chazelle, who wrote and directed Whiplash, also wrote AND directed La La Land. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – when someone directs AND writes the screenplay for a film, the product more often than not comes out better. Chazelle is definitely going places. This is his second big hit in the last two years. Not to mention, that Whiplash and La La Land are really his only major productions anyway. He’s come out the gate swinging. (I think that’s mixing sports metaphors but whatever.)

I’ve seen 7/9 Best Picture nominees. Unfortunately I won’t be able to see Fences or Hidden Figures. From what I’ve seen, I want to think that La La Land will win. I didn’t think so at first, but after watching more of the BP nominees, it’d be hard to beat it. Lion might be the closest contender. I liked that the movie was nostalgic to the classic films without being cynical or satirical. The ending….well, that would be a major spoiler, but the ending is what gives it a solid berth in the Best Picture category.

Best Picture – Likely. Unless the Academy goes in a politcal statement direction. (I’m looking at you Moonlight.)
Director – I’m not too sure actually. Statistically, if it wins BP, Cazelle should win too (since it is the most nominated film). But last year is the obvious exception to that rule.
Actor – Doubt it. Sorry, darling.
Actress – Doubt it.
Original Screenplay – Possible
Cinematography – Strong yes. This is an extremely powerful category though.
Sound Editing – Possible. Arrival gives it a run here.
Sound Mixing – Possible. If it wins mixing, it’ll probably win editing.
Original Score – I so want Thomas Newman to win, but it’ll probably be either this or Lion.
Original Song (x2) – Probable. I’d pick “Audition” but it seems like it’ll go to “City of Stars
Production Design – Probable.
Costume Design – Maybe? I haven’t seen enough of the costume films to be sure. I hope so.
Film Editing – Possible. That’s also a tough category.


Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them


Movie: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
What it’s up for: Costume Design, Production Design

Does anyone else always hear the word “fantastic” in their heads with a Christopher Eccleston accent?

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them depicts one of Newt Scamander’s many adventures searching for magical creatures in the Harry Potter universe. He goes to America on a quest and ends up in New York City circa the 1920s.

This movie is fun for the Harry Potter fan. We get to see the magical community in America and how they interact with the “no-mags” (aka muggles aka non-magical persons). We get to see a bunch of new magical creatures and some familiar ones as well. It’s a bit one-dimensional and some of the characters needed better development. It’s an enjoyable story, though.

The production design of this film is structured around the 1920s. It’s a period piece, even if it is about wizards. However, there’s a certain aspect to it that suspends reality. It’s as if we’re watching an alternate reality where everything is just slightly off. Essentially, that’s what the story is so to that end, it is successful. However, there’s nothing too remarkable in the production design to make it stand out.

I could say almost the same thing about the costume design. Although there are some interesting choices in some of the designs, they look like your basic period piece choices. Maybe I’m missing something, I’m not sure. It all looked great and fit well with the production design. It just didn’t wow me.

Production Design – Unlikely. Especially going up against La La Land.
Costume Design – Unlikely. Especially going up against….La La Land. 

The Revenant

Movie: The Revenant
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Leading Actor, Supporting Actor, Director, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects

The Revenant tells the story of Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) who gets left for dead in the wilderness of the 1820s by his team. Glass’ grim determination for revenge drives him to use all the survival skills he possesses to try and get back to their fort. As a whole, the film is engaging and enjoyable. From a technical standpoint, there were certain things I just could not get past. We’ll start with the positives though.

Leonardo DiCaprio completely sells his forsaken character. He commits himself fully physically and emotionally. This is another nomination for a role with little dialogue. Even though he rarely speaks, he effectively communicates his story through his actions. However, it seems that DiCaprio had little to work with when it came to his character’s story. We are given virtually no background information or character development for Glass. In spite of that, DiCaprio creates a character that bonds with the audience and creates an emotional connection.

Similarly, Tom Hardy‘s character, John Fitzgerald, the antagonist of the film, makes himself known and hated fairly quickly despite having minimal character development. His strong character has a believable authenticity that makes him seem like he’s actually from the 1820s. The one thing that causes his character to suffer was not his fault. You could not understand half of what he said. I spent a significant amount of time lost when he was talking due to some terrible sound mixing (which I’ll get into more later).

The gorgeous cinematography captured the elements perfectly and drove the story along. They used natural light almost exclusively throughout the entire shooting process resulting in surprisingly clear and realistic shots. Lubezki is just a genius. Combine the painstaking cinematography with the unique film editing and you have a wilderness film that feels kind of like a Terrance Malick piece. There are certain scenes where Glass’ perception of reality shifts into dreams and hallucinations. There’s no transition into these stages. They just happen. Consequently there are moments where you have no idea what’s going on until it’s over. It takes nothing away from the story. It’s simply odd.

The production design also helps communicate Glass’ reality and strongly frames the impact of nature on our lost hero. The crew works with the elements in order to explain the story. That aspect was beautiful. The artificial locations (the fort, Native camps) felt authentic and kept the illusion of the historical aspect of the film intact.

The makeup and hairstyling team had an insane amount of work for this film. The makeup artists in particular had to create a number of flesh wounds and injuries for various characters as well as Native American body art. The costume design team created authentic (I assume) and intricate costumes. Each costume had a number of different elements to it.

I like Alejandro Iñárritu as a director. He made some bold choices with this film. They shot chronologically to make the experiences feel more authentic. This caused major budget problems for them when the snow melted at the end of shooting, forcing them to fly to Argentina to finish. He effectively directed several silent characters and characters speaking different languages. Overall, he did a great job. However, there were some minor issues that he had some control over that he should have resolved. Which leads me to…

The ridiculously awful sound mixing. The sound editing (creation of sounds for the film) was perfectly fine. Superb even. Elements of the mixing were good too, particularly with the incorporation of natural sounds into stereo. However, the biggest issue of the whole film has to do with dialogue. Half the time, you can’t hear the dialogue that’s in English. AND THEN a significant amount of the Native dialogue had to be redubbed after filming so the words don’t match the actors’ mouths. Iñárritu (supposedly) thought the latter wouldn’t matter because people would be focused on the subtitles. Mixing the dialogue into the background noises should have been given more of an effort. It’s possible that due to the time constraints of their post-production process, they just neglected it. I guess the Academy ignored that glaring issue when they nominated The Revenant for sound mixing.

Lastly, the visual effects. I know the whole motion-capture-bear thing has become a high-toned and fancy to-do in the technical circles. Yes, the technology is impressive. However, the end result for the bear and almost all the other animals leaves much to be desired. They all looked fake. Hair is hard to animate, but look at the recent Planet of the Apes films and you know it’s possible to create realistic looking animals. I think this may have been another area that suffered due to their time constraints. The real star of the effects team is whoever was in charge of the practical effects. So…many…fake dead animals. So…much…blood and guts. Seriously, this movie had significantly more gore than The Hateful Eight.

Best Picture – Probable but there might be a dark horse that takes the main prize
Leading Actor – I mean…if they don’t, there will be rioting
Supporting Actor – Possible
Director  – Highly likely
Cinematography – Highly likely
Costume Design – Unsure…
Film Editing – Unlikely
Makeup and Hairstyling – Highly likely
Production Design – Unlikely
Sound Editing – Unlikely
Sound Mixing – Please, lord, no
Visual Effects – Unlikely

Mad Max: Fury Road

Movie: Mad Max: Fury Road
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Director, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Makeup, Production Design, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects

I, like many, scoffed at the ten nominations for Mad MaxFury Road. On the outside, it doesn’t seem to fit your standard Academy film. It seems like a post-apocalyptic version of Fast and Furious. This is a perfect example of how you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.

Mad Max: Fury Road tells the story of a woman named Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who helps a group of female slaves escape from a mad dictator. She attempts the escape through an expansive desert, hoping to find a place of peace on the other side. As she journeys, she’s joined by Max (Tom Hardy) who is battling his own demons.

George Miller had quite the undertaking as the director. First of all, there’s virtually no dialogue. The story is built and pushed almost entirely through the action going on. Secondly, the pace of the movie stays about the same (hectic) almost the entire time. There are stunts practically every five seconds. I don’t know how many extras worked on the film (or which extras were real and which were virtual) but they were numerous. Miller pulled an amazing number of variables together to create a seamless experience. I wish I’d been able to see it in theaters for the full effect.

The cinematography was intentional, creative, and effective. It set the tone for the film. It felt like a modern version of a 1980s film – which makes sense considering this is part of the Mad Max film franchise. (Full disclosure: I’ve never seen any of the other Max films. I did quickly skim the plots of the other three on Wikipedia before watching this one, though.) It was unique and memorable. Of course, this would all mean very little if the film editing wasn’t just as good. Which it is. Everything flows well from one scene to the next. It flows so well, that you just find yourself falling into the next moment without realizing that a scene change is happening. For a movie with so much action, it would be easy to get tired of things blowing up all the time. For a movie with very little variability in pacing, it could be easy to get overwhelmed. However, the editing – combined with a narrative score (which should have been nominated) – keep you interested and engaged the entire time.

The costumes and makeup designs tell their own stories. Both are intricate and dramatic, while subtly helping to explain things. The screenplay provides little in the way of background information for the societies that are encountered in the film. The costuming helps display the state of degradation that these people have found themselves in while also helping to distinguish between different groups or types of people. The makeup brings everything full circle by providing the futuristic sense that these people are not like us.

The visual effects of the film are almost indistinguishable from the practical special effects. Although most of the scenes are simply set in the desert, there are some truly epic moments starring the visual effects. Most of the film is one huge car chase that is creatively enhanced through some CGI work. Oh, and Charlize Theron is missing an arm the whole time. I had not even realized the broad scope of the visual effects work until I had to think about it for this post. While you’re watching the movie, the CGI/greenscreen effects don’t stand out from the actors and real vehicles.

The sound editing helped create the illusion of reality almost flawlessly. For the sound mixing, I felt like there were some off moments when the vocals were mixed in. Particularly with Tom Hardy’s lines (of which there were maybe five). I’m not sure if that’s just me being picky or if they did have some dubbing issues. Everything else related to mixing seemed strong.

Production design is my last to analyze for this post because everything I could say has probably been said about any of the previous categories. The production design stands out because all the other categories are so strong. They each work together perfectly to form this immersive environment. The fact that this film stands solidly in the realm of well-crafted stories without a significant amount of dialogue is evidence of exceptional production design.

Overall, it is a great movie. It’s not my normal type of film but I enjoyed it. Something that stood out significantly to me is the fact that there were numerous times where the filmmakers had an open moment for some gratuitous nudity and they chose not to do it. There was also very little profanity. In a time where those two elements are usually crutches for filmmakers, it’s impressive to see someone make a good movie without them.

Best Picture – Unlikely. Even though it’s very good.
Director  – Unlikely. Just because of the other contenders.
Cinematography – Possible….
Costume Design -I hope so! I think it’s in the top two.
Film Editing – Not sure yet.
Makeup – Possible. Old age makeup is usually the give away for this award so I’ll have to see what happens in The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed out the Window and Disappeared first.
Production Design – Unlikely…but I think it’ll be between this and The Revenant
Sound Editing – Unlikely
Sound Mixing – Unlikely
Visual Effects – Possible


Movie: Cinderella
What it’s up for: Costume Design

The roll-out of Disney live-action remakes continues. As a whole, this movie is only ok. I don’t have much to say about it. Unfortunately, you can only remake the same movie so many times. The story of Cinderella has been done over and over and over again, in every format imaginable. Disney would’ve benefited more if they’d done what they did in Maleficent, which was to take a couple scenes from the cartoon and remake them line for line in the live-action version. That was the best part of Maleficent but I was disappointed that Cinderella had none.

It’s no surprise that it got nominated for costume design. The press and internet were abuzz with excitement over the costumes long before the movie even came out. The particular focus has been on the costumes of the stepmother (Cate Blanchett).  Although the costumes are beautiful and intricate, they’re pretty much standard fare for this category. There’s a good variety represented in the costume design category this year. At this point, I can’t make a confident prediction for who it might go to. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Cinderella win. Fun fact: Sandy Powell has been nominated twice for costumes this year – once for Cinderella and once for Carol. That alone almost guarantees her a win for one of the movies.

Hard to say at this point.



Movie: Maleficent
What it’s up for: Costuming

Maleficent had so much potential for greatness. It had the budget. It had the cast. It had a relatively good screenplay. It just seems like somewhere along the line, 30-40 minutes of the plot got cut. Every character besides Maleficent had virtually no character development. The third act of the movie felt rushed. But yes, the costumes were amazing.

Angelina Jolie was amazing as Maleficent. Much to my surprise, she redeemed the whole movie for me. I’m normally not a fan of Ms. Jolie, but this role was perfect for her. My favorite part of the movie was the scene where she curses Aurora – mostly because it was almost identical to the animated version.

I saw Maleficent when it first came out and due to time and lack of interest, I don’t have any more insights on this particular film.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Movie: The Grand Budapest Hotel
What it’s up for: Best Picture, Cinematography, Costume Design, Director, Film Editing, Makeup, Score, Production Design, Original Screenplay

This is currently my favorite movie of the year. Well, my favorite movies of the Oscar nominees. Over the past couple of years, I’ve grown to be a big fan of Wes Anderson, but The Grand Budapest Hotel brings his work to a whole new level.

The primary story of this film depicts the foibles of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, after one of his wealthy patrons dies and he is accused of her murder. The story is told by his lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori), as he aids and abets Gustave’s flee from the police and search for justice.

I was surprised when I heard that a Wes Anderson movie was nominated for Best Picture. Now, after watching, I understand why. It’s not just a comical flaunt through an nontraditional landscape. The movie takes place over three different timelines: a girl reading a book (The Grand Budapest Hotel) at the grave site of the author, the author recording a commentary of how he was inspired to write the book (with flashbacks), and the story itself. The inspiration for the entire story came from writings by Stefan Zweig and throughout the film, particularly during timelines 1 and 2, you could feel a depth to what was happening as if it had been real. (Let it be known, that I did not know about Zweig before watching the movie.) Zweig seems like a terribly interesting person and I may very well be looking him up at the library soon.

Wes Anderson both directed and wrote the screenplay, in his usual fashion. His direction of the cast keeps things moving at a rapid pace without losing the audience. The script is witty and cerebral without being overbearing. (And here I will mention that Ralph Fiennes steals the show completely with his fabulous delivery and execution of a well-written screenplay. The brilliant way he and Tony Revolori interact throughout the movie should be noted as well: they are a dynamic duo who make each other better with their performance.) The overall production design is as unique as it can be but I was surprised that it was nominated for this category too, since it feels pretty similar to most of Anderson’s other works. The cinematography (by Robert Yeoman, Anderson’s go-to cinematographer) is so gorgeous and intriguing to watch. The beginning of the film uses a fisheye lens in some creative ways that really stood out for me. The use of models for special effects is fun to watch in modern films and Yeoman and Anderson utilize them so well. They also use three different aspect ratios (one for each timeline) which keeps you on your toes. Wrapping up the creative, out-of-the-box crew is the film editor, Barney Pilling. Pilling has quite a job with the rhythmic flow of the acting and synchronizing that with the fitting Alexandre Desplat score. He accomplishes it well and the effect of all these elements combined is fantastic.

Now to makeup and costume design. The costumes do a great job of accentuating the production design. They also help tell a story in a semi-fictional world that also reflects back to a reality that existed between the world wars. The makeup is fine and good but nothing spectacular…with one exception: Tilda Swinton plays the old lady that dies and her makeup was so outrageous that I had absolutely no idea it was her until the credits.

I highly recommend Budapest. It’s uplifting, fun, and thoughtful. Go get it from Redbox and enjoy the show.

Into the Woods

Movie: Into the Woods
What it’s up for: Supporting Actress, Costume Design, Production Design

Into the woods without delay! My first experience with this play was at a high school production and my first thought afterwards was “Awesome!” and my second thought was “Goodness, that was long”.

The film version of this Stephen Sondheim play is exactly that: a play on film. Usually, stage musicals are made more fluid and become structured more like a film and less like a play when they adapt to the screen. In this category, I would place the 2004 Phantom of the OperaSound of Music, 2012’s Les Mis, and even The King and I with Yul Brenner and Deborah Kerr. Honestly, MOST stage musicals made into films fall into this category. Into the Woods was different. In that regard, it can be tough to watch for people who are expecting a movie version of a play. However, it remains engaging and entertaining for those familiar with the play and those well prepared.

The basic premise is that there are several fairy tale characters living in the same land that find themselves thrown into different and intertwining dilemmas after venturing into the woods. The first half focuses on the characters accomplishing certain goals and the second half focuses on the consequences of their efforts.

It is long, because the play is long, but had a few things cut out. In Sondheim fashion, it is quite depressing. The production design is beyond fabulous. The sets are beautiful and react to the events happening in them in a way that accentuates the plot. It deviates from the brilliant production design of Interstellar in the way a painter deviates from a photographer – both are works of art but the intention is what makes them different. It was an almost tangible experience to be in the woods with these characters. Everything works so well with the cinematography and costuming as well that it is all one fluid piece of art. The costumes are big and intricate and frame each character’s background and personality well.

Last but not least, Meryl. Meryl Streep plays the Witch who connects all the characters together. Meryl is Meryl. I really don’t have a lot to expound on for her here. She’s had more powerful roles in the past for sure but she was great as the Witch.

I enjoyed the movie, even though I forgot about the depressing nature of the story. I’d definitely see it again, though. It has a way of getting into your head that keeps you thinking.


Supporting Actress: It’s kind of a weird category this year, so I honestly don’t know yet.

Production Design: Possible

Costume Design: Probable

12 Years a Slave

Movie: 12 Years a Slave
What it’s up for: Leading Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Best Picture, Costume Design, Directing, Film editing, Production Design, Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

So after a long hard battle against my work schedule, I finally got to see 12 Years a Slave late last night. Much thanks to my mother for going with me. I’m glad I went to go see it. Without actually seeing this movie, I would not have the proper context to predict winners. This was by far the most well-made movie I’ve seen this year.

12 Years a Slave follows the true story of Solomon Northup, a free man in the pre-Civil War north, who is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the south. Solomon is given a new name and a new background and told that if he ever suggests the truth about his situation to anyone, he will be killed. He is passed around to various masters, all the while trying to figure out a way to get back home.

This is an incredibly difficult movie to watch. I would describe it as almost unbearably depressing. It’s difficult to face hard truths head on. Slavery is something that has existed since humanity began and has encompassed every race. It’s easy to point at the slave trade in America and elevate it above all other forms of slavery because it is so relatively recent and, dare I say, romanticized over other sins against humanity. But there are other stories in history of terrible periods of slavery. And the worst thing is that it is still going on now and we don’t acknowledge or realize what is happening. This article from Relevant Magazine popped up last week and it brings up some important stats about modern-day slavery and also has a link to an organization that is trying to help.

Recognizing the severity of the subject matter, I’m now going to move on to the film itself. The acting was phenomenal, although there were many times where I was distracted by seeing a familiar face pop up. The surprise actor of THIS film was Taran Killam, who plays one of the men who tricked Solomon out of his freedom. I love Taran on SNL and it was very distracting to see him as this old-timey gentleman since he plays hilarious Jebidiah Atkinson on Weekend Update. I knew Paul Giamatti was in this movie but his face distracted me a bit too. And my significant last distraction was Garret Dillahunt whose voice overcame his beard and made me see his character only as Burt Chance from raising hope.

Michael Fassbender played the cruel slave-owner, Edwin Epps, who owns Solomon through most of the movie. Out of all the supporting roles, his stood out as the most distinct. He played his part with a kind of manic disconnectedness from the severity of his lifestyle. One moment he’d seem completely focused and evil and the next he’d be playing around with one of the little slave girls. It was a role that required a wide range of expressiveness and emotion and he hit it all spot on. Lupita Nyong’o played Patsey, one of the other slaves working for Epps, who, unfortunately, was “favored” by the master. Her character is so completely tragic that it’s hard not to believe that she is real. This is a role that required SO MUCH of Lupita as an actor and as a person that it almost seems unjustifiable to give the Oscar to anyone else. Finally, Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Solomon, completely dominated the screen. There were many contemplative moments where Ejiofor wasn’t even talking and you could feel what was going on just through his eyes and body language. Honestly, besides Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips, no other leading actor has led me to such an emotional bond with his character this year.

The strong screenplay combined with the gorgeous production design and film editing creates a pressing emotional influence throughout the film. The filming locations are gorgeous and the cinematography is nothing to ignore. Everything is set up to draw the eye in to the story but not distract from whatever is happening. The costuming is solid but not groundbreaking. With all these things, you can feel Steve McQueen‘s strong direction. The movie flows smoothly throughout the story. He specifically focuses on the people and what is happening to them. He chose to make some shots longer than normal to focus attention on something or someone. And when I say “longer than normal”, I mean MUCH longer. There are several shots of just Solomon where they linger longer than our normal sense of instant gratification would like to see. What happens, then, is that the audience is forced to contemplate over this person or situation and really think about what is happening. It digs in deep to the heart of the matter and stays there.

This is an unbelievable film that helps shed new light on an old familiar face. It is definitely worth watching once to get a new perspective on slavery and to remind us that this was and still is a problem.

Leading Actor – I think so, actually.

Supporting Actor – No

Supporting Actress – I’d pick her, but I doubt she’ll win.

Best Picture – I’m gonna go out on a limb and say YES.

Costume Design – No

Directing – Another limb. Another yes.

Film editing – No

Production Design – No

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) – No

Blog at

Up ↑