Oscar pick-a-palooza: Who should win Best Director?

Barry Jenkins

The following is part five of an ongoing (and fourth annual!) series of blog posts (co-starring my friend and fellow movie aficionado and blogger Brian Wezowicz) about the upcoming 2017 Academy Awards, honoring the best of Hollywood from last year. 

Check out our previous posts on the Best Supporting Actress race here, Best Supporting Actor here, Best Actor here and Best Actress here. And stay tuned for our takes on all the other major categories.

Brian: Ha!  We agree so much because we're movie brothers from other mothers.  We have similar tastes in movies with a few obvious exceptions (cough cough, Anchorman 2, cough).  I highly respect your opinion on movies, and look forward to every one of your blog posts.

Let's move on to Best Director. 2016 was a really exciting year for up and coming directors.  This year's class featured strong with from young directors growing their already impressive resumes (Villenueve & Chazelle) or relatively first time directors (Longeran & Jenkins).

And then there's Mel Gibson... Hollywood loves a comeback and it appears that Mel is back in the good graces of The Academy.  I have not seen Hacksaw Ridge, but it appears to deliver Mel's signature combination of violence and faith in an impressive way.  I can't really complain that he's nominated since I'm so excited about the rest of the nominees.

There are a few directors that could have slid into that fifth slot over Gibson.  I'm a little surprised that Martin Scorcese was overlooked for his (by all accounts) exceptional work on high passion project, Silence.  Denzel Washington certainly deserved a look for his work on Fences, but I'll take his acting nod as recognition of his work.  David Mackenzie certainly deserved a look for his work on Hell or High Water.  I'm also surprised that Clint Eastwood didn't get a token nomination for Sully in the same way that Meryl Streep seems to get nominated for every one of her acting roles.

That being said, I'm really happy with the way this category turned out.  In my opinion, it's also one of the more wide open categories that could go a number of ways.

Here are the nominees:

Best Director:
Arrival, Denis Villeneuve
Hacksaw Ridge, Mel Gibson
La La Land, Damien Chazelle
Manchester by the Sea, Kenneth Lonergan
Moonlight, Barry Jenkins

Mel Gibson

Will Win:  Chazelle.  Hollywood loves movies about itself and LA in particular.  I think La La Land's big night will lead to a Damien Chazelle win.  The question I have is do you think we'll see a split Director/Picture scenario?

Should Win:  Barry Jenkins. By all accounts, Moonlight is an absolute masterpiece. Jenkins should win for putting this multi-year story together so seamlessly.

Dark horse:  Villenueve. Denis Villeneuve is (in my opinion) the best director working today.  He's put together a string of solid to spectacular movies, and Arrival is my favorite one yet.  I know you were not as high on it as I was, but there's no doubting Villenueve's talent.  I can't wait to see what he does with the Blade Runner sequel!

Who takes home your directing nod?

Adam: Thanks for the shout out my brother -- it's good to be back and blogging again.

Probably of all the major categories I found this one -- Best Director -- to be the most refreshing, because as you've pointed out, instead of nominating the same ol' same ol' legends like Clint Eastwood and Martin Scorsese (who is admittedly my favorite director of all time), the Academy has chosen to elevate and celebrate some new blood.

Denis Villeneuve, Barry Jenkins, Damien Chazelle and Kenneth Lonergan are far from household names but they are all visionary, uniquely talented directors whose films reflect their personality and feel like the singular work of a filmmaker with a real voice.

Chazelle's Whiplash conveyed a passion for music and performance which has now been born out in La La Land. Jenkins is a visual maestro, who elicits epically profound performances that are both quiet and realistic. Lonergan is also interested in humanity -- its fragility and beauty. Meanwhile, Villenueve is a thinking man's action director sort of operating on the same plane as Christopher Nolan but with a better facility with emotions.

The Mel Gibson phenomenon I can't quite pin down. I have never been as impressed as some people are with his talents as a director. He seems to stage effective orgies of violence, but little else. I, like you, haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but was intrigued by its premise -- about a non violent participant in war -- and perhaps it is so good it warrants his inclusion here. I have always subscribed to separating art from the artist, but Gibson has made that principle hard for me to stick to at times.

I think my main issue with him -- beyond what he's said and done -- is the failure to adequately express remorse or contrition for his actions. Roman Polanski has at least taken responsibility for his crimes (although I think he still should have gone to prison for them), whereas Gibson seems to think mea culpa are beneath him. And now, he's been rewarded with this recognition, but at what cost?

I'd have liked to see Denzel Washington here too in his place. I thought, while Fences is more of actor's picture, that he helped present the material expertly enough that it didn't feel like nothing more than a filmed play. I also think as a filmmaker Washington has really improved but clearly the academy didn't agree.

Will win: Damien Chazelle. My quibbles with La La Land are more thematic than literal. It's a wonderfully charming movie that I somehow doubt will stand the test of time -- it feels a touch too cute for the combative times in which we're living. That said, it is a technical marvel, beautifully shot and edited. And Chazelle has enough wit and sarcasm not to let his film devolve into sap. He'll likely win the big prize/

Should win: Barry Jenkins. Moonlight. He made my favorite movie of the year, so naturally I am going t get behind him for this. He'd done a few small projects before, and the one I'd seen, Medicine for Melancholy, I didn't particularly like -- so this film really took me by surprise and haunted me. He made a film about really tricky subject matter and managed not to give into cliches. Even if he doesn't win, he's got a really bright future.


Dark horse: This is a tricky one. I really feel like the race is between Chazelle and Jenkins. While I know Arrival has a lot of ardent admirers (yourself among them), I don't see them giving this award to Villeneuve. And I think for Gibson just getting back in the game is reward within itself. So I think only potential spoiler could be Lonergan because Manchester By the Sea could emerge as a consensus pick if either La La Land or Moonlight prove too divisive.

Oscar pick-a-palooza: Who should win Best Actor?

Denzel Washington in Fences

This is part four of an ongoing (and fourth annual!) series of blog posts (featuring myself and fellow blogger Brian Wezowicz) about the 2017 Academy Awards, honoring the best of Hollywood from last year. 

Check out our previous posts on the Best Supporting Actress race here, Best Supporting Actor here, and Best Actress here. And stay tuned for our takes on all the other major categories.

Brian: If 2016 was a great year for women's performances, I could make the exact opposite argument for men. To me, it doesn't seem like we've had a ton of breakout performances by leading men this past year.

Looking at the nominations, the only glaring snub would have to be Michael Keaton getting shut out for his wonderful performance in The Founder.  I guess you could make a case for Ton Hanks in Sully (a movie I thought was overrated), or maybe Andrew Garfield should have been nominated for Silence instead of Hacksaw Ridge.  I can't really recall any other male lead performances that stood out to me.  If you look at the SAG award nominations, you'll see they mirror these.

With that being said, let's discuss the nominees for Best Actor.  Casey Affleck, and his incredibly moving performance in Manchester By The Sea, seems like an almost certain lock to take home the trophy.  His less-is-more performance is cleaning up left and right during this awards season, and while Affleck certainly shines in his role, I think giving him the Oscar is not the right play.

Denzel Washington gives the performance of his distinguished career in Fences as a deeply flawed husband and father, and I think he deserves it more than Affleck in this case. I know winning it multiple times is almost impossible and winning three Oscars is almost unheard of, but Washington deserves it.  He's an American institution and this is his crowning achievement.

There is also the matter of the sexual harassment allegations in Affleck's past, and while I'm one to separate art for the artist, it's just sad to note that he's escaped relatively scratch free.  Contrast that to how allegations from Nate Parker's past completely derailed the awards chances of the wonderful, The Birth of a Nation, and I feel that criticism of Affleck in this case is warranted.

Here are the nominees:

Best Actor:
Casey Affleck, Manchester by the Sea
Andrew Garfield, Hacksaw Ridge
Ryan Gosling, La La Land
Viggo Mortensen, Captain Fantastic
Denzel Washington, Fences

Who Will Win:  Affleck.  He's cleaned up at every awards show, and it should be no different here.

Who Should Win:  Washington.  I haven't been as in awe of a performance in a long time as I was with Washington in Fences. He absolutely deserves his second Best Actor trophy (and third overall).

Dark Horse:  Ryan Gosling.  He won at the Golden Globes and La La Land has a ton of momentum going in to the big show.  I feel like one of the leads will take home a trophy, but could it be both? It'll be interesting to see how the SAG awards play out.

What do you think?

Michael Keaton

Adam: I guess you may be right. There were only a handful of really standout lead male performances for me this year. Denzel Washington did some of his best work ever in Fences, and although I have more than a few problems with Casey Affleck's off-screen persona (and the double standard that has been applied to him, which you alluded to), I must admit that his work in Manchester By the Sea is terrific and powerful.

I'm rooting for Washington because I think Fences represents a kind of culmination of all his previous work -- it was a role he was born to play and I don't know if he will ever reach a pinnacle like this again.

The rest of the nominees for me are no real threat to win. Ryan Gosling is wonderful in La La Land, charming and self-effacing, I love his comic timing in this and a slew of his recent films. Who knew he had such a natural gift for comedy? I have a lot of respect for Viggo Mortensen, but I haven't seen Captain Fantastic, so I can't speak to its worthiness, the same goes for Andrew Garfield, who has shown a lot of promise in films like The Social Network, and has a kind of sweet, old fashioned Montgomery Clift type quality that I gravitate towards. But for my money, as you mentioned Michael Keaton should have been here for The Founder, one of his career best performances, and a film that really deserves more critical appreciation.

Will win: Casey Affleck. Unfortunately, this feels like a foregone conclusion. I can't really quibble with him winning -- he is that good in this film -- and he's a talented actor (see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, it's fantastic), but I can't say I am thrilled about it. There is something smug about him, even without factoring past allegations of sexual harassment against him. I also just roll my eyes whenever one actor cleans up every precursor and its almost this self fulfilling prophecy that they will take home the Oscar.

Should Win: Denzel Washington. I just enjoyed and appreciated his performance more than Affleck's. I respected Affleck's, but I found Denzel's to be more emotionally fulfilling and compelling. This film deserves a wider audience too. Denzel and Viola Davis are the best acting duo on screen this year, elevating what could have been just a filmed play into something transcendent.

Dark Horse: Ryan Gosling. If this night turns to be some kind of epic La La Land lovefest, which is entirely plausible, considering that it's tied the record for most nominations ever, I could see Gosling getting swept in too. Its not the kind of performance that typically wins Oscars, he doesn't have a big Oscar scene per se.

He is just fun and breezy throughout, but with a quiet backlash to Affleck brewing and Fences getting good but not great praise from critics (plus Denzel already has two Oscars and Gosling has none) I could see this being a bit of an upset.

Damn, we agree on pretty much everything.

Oscar pick-a-palooza: Who should win Best Actress?

This is part three of an ongoing (and fourth annual!) series of posts (featuring myself and TooFat4SkinnyJeans' Brian Wezowicz) about the 2017 Academy Awards, honoring the best Hollywood had to offer from last year. 

Check out our previous posts on the Best Supporting Actress race here and Best Supporting Actor here. And stay tuned for our takes on all the other major categories.

Brian: Next up is Best Actress.  Some real strong performances here (plus Meryl Streep's Academy mandated nomination).  I think 2016 was a particularly strong year for women, so there were bound to be a few on the outside looking in.  This category does have a few notable snubs. Amy Adams deserved a nomination for her moving performance in my favorite movie of the year, Arrival.  The other notable snub would have to be for Annette Bening's raw performance in 20th Century Women (one of your favorites of the year).

Of the women nominated, this appears to be a three person race between Natalie Portman, Emma Stone and Isabelle Huppert.  If I had to pick today, I would give this one to Emma Stone. La La Land will win big, but I don't think that Ryan Gosling wins Best Actor since Casey Affleck looks to be a lock in that category.

Here are the nominees:

BEST ACTRESS:

Isabelle Huppert, Elle
Ruth Negga, Loving
Natalie Portman, Jackie
Emma Stone, La La Land
Meryl Streep, Florence Foster Jenkins

Will Win:  Emma Stone.  She's a Hollywood darling in the most nominated movie of the year.  I think she pulls it off.

Should Win:  Ruth Negga.  I know she isn't a favorite, but I'd like to see The Academy think outside the box this year and her reward her.  Alas, she probably won't win it

Dark Horse:  Portman.  Will The Academy make the former Princess Amidala a two time Best Actress winner? I'm not so sure, but her performance in Jackie is strong enough to warrant it.

Adam: I agree about this being a banner year for women's roles -- especially after the last few years where the male categories have been very competitive, the women's races tend to bog down to a single front-runner with perhaps one potential spoiler. I can't remember a real surprise Best Actress win since maybe Marion Coltiard back in 2007. All too often it's the glamorous ingenue who is getting pit up against the wily veteran and the whole thing reeks of sexism. At the very least, the industry seems to have turned away from the trend of honoring women for 'getting ugly' for roles, and instead have opted for less gimmicky and more unique work.

As you mentioned, one of my favorite performances in one of my favorite movies of the past year -- Annette Bening in 20th Century Women -- was overlooked here. Which is a huge disappointment to me. God knows, Meryl Streep is a national treasure, but must we nominate every performance she gives at this point? Bening gave one of the best, if not the best, performance of her career in this film. She has never won an Oscar despite many close, worthy calls. I haven't seen Florence Foster Jenkins, but my understanding is that its not Streep's most groundbreaking work. I get it, actors aren't always recognized for their best performance, it can often be about timing and who's due -- for instance, no one thinks Scent of a Woman, as charming as it is, is peak Pacino.

Natalie Portman in Jackie

But that too should be argument enough for Bening being included. I would also like to give a shout out to Rebecca Hall's work in Christine, a tense, little seen drama which creates the real life story about a mentally deteriorating television newswoman in the 70s. It's a bleak, dark film, which will probably never find a wide audience, but Hall was phenomenal in it and really showed me something I've never seen before from her. And yes, I was surprised not to see Amy Adams, one of the best young actresses in Hollywood and the total anchor of Arrival, get overlooked when the film itself and director did get nods.

Lead categories can break your hearts some years. I am still smarting over snubs for Robert Redford (All Is Lost), Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) and Denzel Washington (American Gangster) from years past.

But enough griping, let me talk about the nominees. I think you may be right. I think that because La La Land is such a mammoth hit (and growing) and it provides Emma Stone with arguably the most tailor-made role of her career, she is probably the front-runner by a nose. Had Natalie Portman not already won an Oscar for Black Swan she might be a bigger threat, but Jackie, although it's terrific, has not caught on with audiences like Black Swan did, even if I think her performance here might actually be more technically impressive. The real intriguing figure here is Isabelle Huppert, a very respected French actress who's been fantastic for decades and is finally getting the acknowledgment she deserves for a performance I hear is fantastic.

Will win:  Emma Stone, La La Land. Streep is too lightweight. Negga is too unknown, although she gives a lovely, quiet performance in Loving. I think Portman's previous win, which was relatively recently, will turn people away for picking her this time. Huppert is the wild card.

Should win: Natalie Portman. This was a tough one for me. I can't really find fault in Stone's performance. She was luminous, funny, and lovable in La La Land. And just like in Birdman, she showed just enough flashes of edge to avoid being grating. But there was something very Julia Roberts-y about her in this movie. It felt like a great movie star performance, more than a transformative acting experience. I have nothing but respect for her singing and dancing, and her apparently earnest appreciation for the Hollywood icons who inspired her. But for me, Portman gave the most emotionally rich and affecting performance in this bunch although I must confess I still need to/want to see Elle, and that may change my feelings about this. But to me Portman has the harder role. Playing someone as iconic as Jackie Kennedy could have been a disaster but she ended up disappearing into the role in a way she never has before.

Dark Horse: Isabelle Huppert. Sometimes the Oscars like to reward a veteran and even though its not always an accurate indicator, her win at the Golden Globes was eye opening. This could wind up being like the 2003 Best Actor race, when everyone thought it was either going to be Jack Nicholson (for About Schmidt) or Daniel Day-Lewis (for Gangs of New York) and then wacky Adrien Brody came out of nowhere and won for The Pianist and then creeped out a generation of Oscar viewers by assaulting Halle Berry on stage. In other words, I expect Emma Stone to win, but I wouldn't be shocked it Huppert does.

Oscar pick-a-palooza: Who should win Best Supporting Actor?

Mahershala Ali in Moonlight

This is part two of an ongoing series of posts (featuring myself and TooFat4SkinnyJeans' Brian Wezowicz) about the 2017 Academy Awards, honoring the best of Hollywood from last year. 

Check out our previous post on the Best Supporting Actress race here. And stay tuned for our takes on all the other major categories.

Awww, man. I love Braveheart, but more so on a nostalgia level at this point.  I first saw it in the theater at a time when I was just getting in to "real" movies and away from my strict diet of popcorn flicks (the fact that it had blockbuster elements to it probably helped).  I remember staying up for the first time to see if it would win Best Picture.  It'll always hold a special place in my heart (even if it hasn't aged as well as I remember it).  Additionally, I've seen The Passion of the Christ and can tell you that you're better off skipping it.

It looks like we're both in agreement in supporting actress, with Viola Davis being a lock.  I, too, was peeved that she fell into this category, but I've also stopped trying to figure out the lead/supporting dynamic in recent years.  I've always thought that if someone was the female or male lead in a film they would fall into that category (whether or not its technically their character's movie).  I guess that Fences is technically Denzel's character's story with Viola Davis providing support. Who knows?

Let's move on to the next category before my head hurts, shall we? Best Supporting Actor.  I'm ashamed to say that I have only seen one of these performances.  This might be my least knowledgeable category of the night.  It's good to see some great actors getting rewarded for their work, particularly Mahershala Ali for his excellent work in Moonlight.  It's great to see Jeff Bridges nominated again, but while I really enjoyed Hell or High Water, I feel like I've seen that performance before from Bridges.  Michael Shannon's nomination is interesting given that his co-star Aaron Taylor-Johnson pulled off the upset at the Golden Globes (and wasn't even nominated this time).

And the nominees are:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges, Manchester by the Sea
Dev Patel, Lion
Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals

Will Win:  Mahershala Ali. With Casey Affleck being the heavy front-runner for Best Actor, will the Academy award Ali in the supporting category? My guess is, yes they will.

Should Win:  Ali.  Again, a great performance from the best reviewed movie of the year.

Dark Horse:  Michael Shannon or Dev Patel.  I think this might be one of the more open categories of the night, without a surefire front-runner. Had Ali picked up the Golden Globe, I'd be a little more certain in my pick.  I can smell an upset in this category.

Who ya got?

Patrick Stewart in Green Room

Yeah I didn't see Braveheart until long after its first run -- and well, I had problems with it. But I digress. I think in Supporting we have a solid five although I am mystified that great, scary turns from Patrick Stewart in Green Room and John Goodman in 10 Cloverfield Lane were never even remotely in contention.I get that both films came out much earlier in the year, so perhaps the studios didn't think their performances would remain fresh in voters' minds -- but the politics of this stuff is always lost on me.

I have seen three of the performances that made the cut in this category: Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water (which I loved and thought was a real standout in a terrific ensemble), Lucas Hedges (who provided some of the much-needed comic relief and pathos in Manchester By the Sea) and Mahershala Ali, who gave one of my favorite performances of the year in my favorite movie of the year -- Moonlight.

I guess I need to see Lion, I know very little about it or its reputation, but clearly its showing at the Oscars suggest its formidable. Reportedly Dev Patel may be another beneficiary of category fraud, since he is nominally the lead of Lion, although he shares his much of screen-time with an actor who plays a younger version of his character. Michael Shannon is one of my favorite character actors working right now and I've heard he was the highlight of Nocturnal Animals, a movie I've heard is very divisive. Shannon is almost always excellent (see 99 Homes in particular) and I imagine he will win won of these trophies eventually, clearly he is an actor's actor.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges, Manchester By the Sea
Dev Patel, Lion
Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals

Will win: Mahershala Ali. I hope to God he gets it. Not only because he is the most deserving, but I fear it may be the only major award this beautiful masterpiece gets, especially since La La Land has become such a juggernaut and appears poised to swamp it in most of the other major categories (but more on that later). Although he's only (SPOILER ALERT) in about a third of this movie, his presence, his heart come across and his is the performance that sticks with you the longest from this haunting movie. He'd taken most of the precursor honors until the Globes decided to get all bonkers and award Aaron Taylor Johnson (who isn't even nominated here) but I suspect the Oscars will get this one right.

Should Win: Mahershala Ali. With Moonlight and Hidden Figures too, Ali is on a roll. He's also terrific as the villain on Netflix's Luke Cage. Hollywood has long been on a hunt for "the new Denzel" (essentially they have also been seeking a "new Tom Hanks" for years too, remember when that was going to be Shia LeBeouf?) -- now there are several contenders, Michael B. Jordan, Idris Elba, Chadwick Boseman and yes, Mahershala Ali. Even though his name may be a mouthful, I suspect it will become a household name soon enough.

Dark Horse: Lucas Hedges. Manchester By the Sea had a lot of very ardent, passionate fans (I appreciated the film a lot, but there were movies that moved me more this year) and I could see if there is enough of backlash to La La Land and Moonlight is too out there for some Oscar voters, I could see Manchester By the Sea becoming a fashionable choice to sweep the major awards, and Hedges, who is very good and naturalistic in this movie, could be the beneficiary of that.

Why Michael Keaton belonged in this year's Best Actor race

Michael Keaton can't catch a break. He should have won the Best Actor Oscar in 2015 for his career-capping performance in the very meta Birdman. And he wasn't even nominated last year for his terrific work in the ensemble journalism drama Spotlight.

Both movies went on to win Best Picture, but for Keaton fans like me, the victory was bittersweet because the lead of both films would wind up being snubbed. This year, the Weinstein Company, which produced his new film The Founder, put all their awards season chips on Lion, and so Keaton's buzzed about lead performance as Ray Kroc, the man who took McDonald's national, has already become something of a forgotten also-ran.

I think this is a huge shame. Although The Founder isn't as cinematically ambitious as Birdman or Spotlight, it yet again is a confirmation that Keaton is on remarkable late career comeback. After years of toiling in material that was beneath him, Hollywood has rediscovered what a unique talent he is and I only hope he can sustain this run a la Robert Downey Jr., and not squander it, a la Mickey Rourke.

In The Founder, he gives a wonderful slow boil of a performance where his plucky salesman gradually reveals himself to be something of a monster, albeit one you can't help but admire on some level. The Kroc story is truly a remarkable one -- one that I was not at all familiar with, and director John Lee Hancock handles the internal machinations of the business deftly.

But this film is truly elevated by Keaton's work. In his youth he was known for his live wire, herky-jerky performances, and although he has aged a bit he still is an actor who bursts with energy and ideas whenever he is on screen. He looks enlivened and reinvigorated in this film, and his acting here really reminded me of some of Jack Lemmon's late career work, where he allowed a kind of desperate vulnerability to overwhelm him.

Keaton is also such an inherently likable actor, that when the Kroc character descends into darker territory it's both shocking and a little bit delightful. Whenever this film threatened to become a cliched biopic, Keaton would bring a freshness and intelligence to the material that made me sit up and take notice.

Now I haven't had a chance to see all the Best Actor nominees' work this year. I can attest to the fact that Casey Affleck, Ryan Gosling and Denzel Washington deserve all the accolades they're getting and I'll have to reserve judgement on Andrew Garfield and Viggo Mortensen. But I truly believe Keaton should have made the cut.

Earlier in the year, he was considered a sure bet to earn a nomination for this role, and besides the pushed back release date I am not entirely sure why he and this movie were marginalized. I know he has a villainous turn in the upcoming umpteenth reboot of Spider-Man and rumor has it his long-awaited return to the role of Beetlejuice is still in the works. So if nothing else, he has a couple surefire hits on his docket.

I just hope he continues to get opportunities to headline movies of this caliber. I think he is still evolving and finally making choices that show his range and comic timing.

In the meantime, check out The Founder, it's a much better movie than it's so-so reviews suggest, and you'll get the chance to see Keaton at the peak of his talents, knocking it out of the park yet again.

Oscar-Pick-a-Palooza: Who will win Best Supporting Actress?

Viola Davis in Fences

Back by popular demand (mostly my mother and our spouses), it's time for our 4th(!) annual Oscar picks.  Thanks for joining me once again.  I really look forward to it each year.  I am glad you're back in full swing with your blog after taking December off.  I am also really glad that we got to get together in person this year.  My son still misses you!

Brian: With the Academy Award nominations hot off the presses, it's time to jump right in.

2016 was a great year for us personally (the birth of my daughter/you getting married), but a trying year for just about everything else.  I don't mean to rehash the events of November (and the countless celebrity death), but I feel like the world needs the movies like never before.  It's always been my happy place, and I assume for you as well.

2016 was a great year for prestige films and a terrible year for blockbusters.  Audiences seem to have finally wised up the sequel/remake/reboot curse.  I can't remember a summer with so many flops before.  The DC Universe looks to be on rocky ground both critically and possibly commercially.  Can the DC Universe survive if Wonder Woman is a steaming pile of dog shit like Suicide Squad (I actually kinda enjoyed Batman v. Superman, but recognize its many flaws). To me, there were only a handful of good blockbusters put out this year with the rest being relegated to the scrap heap of history.  At least we can confirm that the Star Wars universe is in good hands!

On the other hand, prestige films had a great year.  From the masterpiece that was Moonlight, to the commercial and critical darlings La La Land and Arrival, it seemed like good, original ideas can thrive again.

This years Oscars looks to be a two-horse race between the aforementioned Moonlight and La La Land with the later garnering an historic 14 nominations. Sadly, I have not seen either film yet.  I hope to before the broadcast, but I have a question for you?  Is La La Land really that good?  Or is this an instance of Hollywood stroking its own ego again?  I can't imagine it's 14 nominations good...

The other major bit of news is that #OscarsSoWhite looks to be a thing of the past, as this year's nominees appear to to at least be #OscarsNotSoWhite.  Hopefully as the Academy expands its membership, these conversations (and hashtags) will be a thing of the past. 

I also didn't see a lot of glaring snubs in this year's list of nominees.  With only 5 per category, there are always bound to be some snubs.  I just didn't see any glaring examples like Ben Affleck missing a director nomination for Argo.  Mel Gibson getting a directing nod was surely a surprise, but not a total shock given the comeback narrative surrounding the film.  Also, did anyone really believe that Deadpool was going to get a Best Picture nomination?

I'm still playing catch up with seeing a lot of these movies, but I hope to tackle more before the awards are handed out.

With that being said, it's time to move on to our first category... Best Supporting Actress.  Here are the nominees:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

Will Win:  Viola Davis.  It's her year.  I absolutely adored her performance as a principled woman married to a flawed man in Fences.  It was heart-breakingly (is that a word?) raw and beautiful.

Should Win:  Davis.  She should and will win.  I don't think it's even a close contest.

Dark Horse:  Michelle Williams.  Casey Affleck looks like a lock for Manchester, but will The Academy make it 2/2 with a surprise Best Actress win for Williams?  I doubt it.

What are your thoughts?

Naomi Harris in Moonlight

Adam: Aww that's sweet -- and hey, I'll take any readers I can get. You're spot on about 2016 -- wonderful for me personally -- but in general kind of a letdown, but I actually thought this was a very strong year for the movies, definitely my favorite year since 2012 -- which was the last time I had such a hard time pairing down my favorites to just 10 films. I suppose you have a point about the blockbusters -- although we both did love the biggest hit of last year, Rogue One, but that really was more of an anomaly.

I wasn't even bowled over by some of big hits that audiences and critics liked -- here's looking at you Deadpool. I have sort of begun to resign myself to the fact that by-and-large I have outgrown Summer movie season -- those films aren't intended for me anymore -- even though once and a while, a behemoth like Captain America: Civil War revives the kid in me.

I think what excites me most about this year is the surge of up-and-coming filmmakers doing great work. People like Ava DuVernay, Denis Villeneuve, Damien Chazelle, Barry Jenkins, and Jeremy Saulnier, did stellar work, and if they're not already household names they soon will be. Obviously I am a total fanboy of the Scorsese-Spielberg era filmmakers, but at some point the torch must be passed and this may be one of those years we look back on and say it happened, albeit without a ton of fanfare.

Films like Moonlight, Green Room and La La Land (which is great, but probably over-nominated)  were unmistakably the vision of real filmmakers with distinct voices and perspectives -- even when steeped in a genre, they were oddly personal films. And that has me feeling very encouraged about the future of movies.

Also, unlike the last few years, I am mostly pleased with this year's nominees. Considering the slate of films under consideration it would have been an utter travesty to see #OscarsSoWhite for the third year in a row -- Hollywood insiders aren't dumb enough to let that happen -- and while one my personal favorites was -- I think -- unjustly shut out (20th Century Women), I can't quibble with most of the choices (although as per usual there are few films I've yet to see). There is no glaring Selma-type omission this year. And that's a relief.

To your point there were a couple of mild surprises -- but none of them disheartening. The Best Picture race doesn't have a Blind Side style embarrassment in it, and if anything they skew more art house than blockbuster. I too, raised an eyebrow at Mel Gibson's return to glory, although I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, I have never been sold on his being this brilliant director. Braveheart has never done it for me, although I appreciated the craftsmanship of Apocalypto. I have never seen The Passion of the Christ, and I am pretty sure I never will.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Viola Davis, Fences
Naomie Harris, Moonlight
Nicole Kidman, Lion
Octavia Spencer, Hidden Figures
Michelle Williams, Manchester by the Sea

Will Win:  Viola Davis.  I will say I consider this category fraud. I remember when the credits rolled on Fences -- I said best female performance of the year hands down, give this woman the Oscar. Having seen 20th Century Women -- although it's a very different, less emotionally demanding role -- I thought Annette Bening warranted a shot at the trophy too. But I thought Davis gave if not the best performance of the year than one of the top two or three.

Clearly the decision to run her in Supporting is a calculated one, and while that irks me -- because I don't think it does justice to the significance of her work here -- I think it will have proven to be the smart move.

Should Win: Viola Davis. The most emotionally raw and powerful performance in a film full of them, in a year full of them. I feel bad for Naomie Harris, before Viola Davis was moved to this category I feel like this was her award to lose. But now I think this is probably the safest acting race to predict this year. Viola Davis is one of those actors where it feels like a travesty that they don't have an Oscar. Like that dude from The Artist has an Oscar, but not Viola Davis? That's no bueno.

I also want to add that while I loved Octavia Spencer in Hidden Figures, I thought the real breakout star and scene stealing supporting turn came from Janelle Monae. I would not have been upset if she got that slot over Spencer, especially since she already has an Oscar and it'd be cool to see someone new get in the mix. I also thought Greta Gerwig was a revelation in 20th Century Women, but I digress. I have yet to see Lion, so I can't speak to Nicole Kidman's work.

Dark Horse:  Michelle Williams or Naomi Harris. I could go either way with this. If there is a huge surge for Moonlight, I could see it benefiting Harris, who gives one of the film's most complex and memorable performances. And Michelle WIlliams has just been so great for so long -- and is heartbreaking in her few short scenes in Manchester by the Sea -- if there is a huge groundswell for that movie (it is nominated in a lot of categories) I could see her pulling off an upset too.

Watching 'Suicide Squad' feels like a fitting start to Trump era

It was perhaps fitting that I finally saw the superhero film Suicide Squad right at the dawn of the Trump era. Here is film that was widely reviled by critics and audiences, yet somehow managed to triumph at the box office, and almost certainly will spawn a sequel. In other words, not unlike the new president, this movie 'won' in spite of itself.

I had been excited to see Suicide Squad when I saw the initial trailers, it seemed fun, and it also appeared to be a refreshing break from superhero genre orthodoxy. Some of the casting looked inspired -- Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn in particular -- and I was prepared to assume that the unpopular (but also wildly successful) Batman vs. Superman was more of an anomaly than a trendsetter for DC Comics films.

When the reviews came out and Suicide Squad was mostly panned, I steered clear. It's hard for me to see anything anymore when people I respect come out so hard against it. And now that I've seen it I can safely say it's even worse than Batman vs. Superman, which I almost didn't think was possible.

Here's the thing, at least that movie had some ideas in it -- the execution is another story altogether -- but it had some solid action moments and at least some thought was put into its premise. Suicide Squad is a far more cynical endeavor, and what infuriates me most of all is that it had the potential to be good had the filmmakers simply been more interested in telling a story than bombarding our senses with special effects and mindless violence.

The movie's only saving grace is the always remarkable Viola Davis, who never loses her dignity and power as the badass Nick Fury-style assembler of the tag team of 'villains' who make up the title, Amanda Waller.

Her character is genuinely cool, fascinating and compelling and I truly wish they had hung more of the narrative on her shoulders since she is the only person in the film that feels fully fleshed out. The rest if a complete waste of time and money.

The casting - I feel for Will Smith. Once the biggest movie star on the planet, he has spent the last few years vacillating between poor attempts at Oscar bait and vehicles like this that try to reignite his standing as an A-lister. But he is not for a second scary or intimidating or even a little bit villainous. Margot Robbie may look her part, but her vocal tics and one liners are grating throughout.

Meanwhile, Jared Leto brings nothing new to the iconic role of The Joker. I suppose he tries to infuse the character (which has far less screen time than advertised) with more sex appeal than his predecessors, but he fell flat for me. It felt like someone doing a so-so impression of Heath Ledger. And then the rest of the so-called Suicide Squad had no dimension or appeal.

I thought this would have been/could have been an Ocean's Eleven-style caper movie, where each character has room to delineate themselves but this was character development for the hashtag generation -- just a list of attributes substituting for actual humanity. Almost from top to bottom, there are missed opportunities here.

The story - I couldn't tell you what this film is about if I tried. It takes quite a long while setting up the individual members of the squad, but I never fully understood why it was necessary for them to be brought together in the first place, or what their ultimate goal was. This was especially frustrating because this kind of film has been done so many times, and done well before (see The Dirty Dozen), but instead of making anything clear and concise, the film is over-edited within an inch of its life and murky when it should be simple.

The look - Which leads me to the cinematography. Director David Ayer borrows a page from the book of his producer (Batman vs. Superman director Zack Snyder) by making an ugly, dirty looking movie where the action is so awash in CGI business and literal darkness that it's impossible to follow and ultimately numbing. Even Batman vs. Superman had a few nifty action scenes, this film doesn't really have one, and the special effects are distractedly bad at times.

The Flash doesn't belong here

I feel like ever since Tim Burton's classic Batman, the makers of superhero movies often think literal darkness is the same thing as thematic darkness. Christopher Nolan's Batman films were brooding, intense and, at times, disturbing -- but I never was confused about what was going on and why.

The screenplay - But of course, this movie isn't really about anything, it's not even -- like most Marvel movies -- about having a good time at the theater with a little old fashioned escapism. It's about setting up future movies that will bilk mostly male, teenage audiences, who will see virtually anything based on one of their beloved comic books.

Hence the brief presence of The Flash in this film. As someone relatively schooled in comic books I instantly recognized this character and as someone who is all-too-familiar with the trope of placing Easter eggs in these films to set up future installments,

 I was annoyed by his presence, but then I felt a pang of sympathy for anyone who saw this film who wasn't read in. They must have wondered -- who is that? And, is that going to be explained of justified? This isn't an art film. It's a piece of commerce -- and a lazy one at that.

The future - And whether we like it or not DC is off to the races with its own expanded cinematic universe. Clearly they are hoping to replicate the success of Marvel, which has successfully rolled out close to a dozen (maybe more) films featuring their characters. But unlike those films, their first two forays have been lacking in humor and intelligence. And I have very low expectations for the upcoming Wonder Woman, not because I don't love the character -- I do, but that film is the brainchild of the same people behind this monstrosity, so I how can I be hopeful about it?

That's why it's fitting that I saw this film amid the disintegration of an era of hope. These films represent the worst of what is happening to mainstream American cinema. And I fear the trend may be irreversible.

The five 2017 movies I'm most excited about (as of right now)

Harrison Ford in Blade Runner 2049

2017 is just beginning and this time of year usually the doldrums when it comes to new releases. This is the time when film buffs like me typically catch up on the awards-caliber film we couldn't quite squeeze in earlier -- and I still have work to do. So stay tuned for my takes on Elle and Silence, for instance.

But in the meantime a few articles hyping this year's slate of films have cropped up, and although this year -- like any other -- is stuffed with tired sequels and reboots, there are at least five films that I am extremely enthusiastic and optimistic about.

They are -- in no particular order:

Blade Runner 2049 - Although, in my opinion, Ridley Scott bungled his last attempt at rebooting a classic, long moribund franchise (with Prometheus), I have a lot more confidence in his return to the world of replicants. First of all, he's a producer on this one, and he's turned over the directing reins to one of the most exciting filmmakers working today -- Denis Villeneuve, he's got a leading man on a hot streak (Ryan Gosling) and the trailer looks fantastic. My only concern is how this film is going to handle/explain Harrison Ford's presence (although I am always happy to see him in fighting form), especially since the original Blade Runner strongly hinted his character should have not lived to be an old man. But I'm intrigued.

Star Wars Episode VIII - This still untitled follow-up to The Force Awakens has even more potential than its predecessor from a story perspective. Although it'll be missing Han Solo, we'll finally get to see Mark Hamill fully reprise his iconic role as Luke Skywalker, we might finally get the return of Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian and on a more bittersweet note, we will be treated to the final big screen performance from the late great Carrie Fisher. Also I'm psyched for the return of Finn, Rey and Poe, plus curious about what roles Bencio Del Toro and Laura Dern will be playing.

I Am Not Your Negro - This highly acclaimed documentary, which was screened originally last year, is supposed to be one of the great recent cinematic statements on race in America. It's centered on one of my favorite writers and figures of the civil rights era -- James Baldwin -- and even the trailer gave me goosebumps. I expect this to be an emotional and thought-provoking work and we need it now more than ever. This one if opening wide in February, just in time for Black History Month.

War of the Planet of the Apes - Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a pleasant surprise, and then along came Dawn of the Planet of the Apes -- which was a bonafide masterpiece to my mind. This series of films has quietly been killing it with critics and audiences, while boasting some of the most seamless and gorgeous CGI effects I've ever seen. Dawn ended on something of a cliffhanger, so I am very fascinated to see where the series will go next and pleased by how dramatically its broken from the (I think) overrated films that inspired them in the first place.

Get Out - As a huge fan of Key & Peele I was fascinated to find out that one half of that comedy duo -- Jordan Peele -- has written and directed what appears to be a black comedy mixed with elements of horror. The premise, based on trailer, seems to be about a shady cabal of white people which seek to cleanse black people of their cultural identity. It's a high risk concept to say the least, but if the film is smart and original, I think it could be a real conversation starter and perhaps one of the first cinematic statements on the Donald Trump era.

Guest blog: What a year for women's films!

This is a guest blog written by my wife, Elizabeth Rosado. 

Oh boy, 2016 was truly a rollercoaster of a year – the highs include Adam Howard and I getting married at the Museum of the Moving Image and welcoming a new niece into our family. As for the lows, well, we all know what happened on November 9^th.

Even though that highest glass ceiling remains unbroken, women are still making progress, and one silver-lining to 2016 can be found by looking to Hollywood.  2016 had quite a crop of woman-centric films that were both critical and commercial successes.  Below is a list of my favorites – if you haven’t seen these, do yourself a favor and check them out.

SIDEBAR: It’s pretty obvious that Adam and I watch A LOT of movies, but there’s always something that slips by. So I’ll caveat the list below by noting that I haven’t seen Elle (Isabelle Huppert just won a Golden Globe for her lead performance), Nocturnal Creatures (starring Amy Adams, who I think has a unique talent for making characters subtly complicated), or Moana (whose heroine has been described as “Disney’s most unapologetically feminist princess yet”).  Without further ado, here are my top 10 lady movies of 2016!

1. The Fits. Odds are you haven’t heard of this movie, which is a shame because it is a beautiful and touching film. It’s a “coming of age” story that centers on a young tomboy, Toni, finding her place in a tight-knit dance troupe. While most male-focused “coming of age” movies are about finding a path to independence, Toni’s journey is about finding her place in a community. The film also captures the ways in which women “learn” to be women – how we absorb the trappings of femininity (the ways we dress, the ways we move our bodies) by observing and replicating. The Fits is also visually compelling  - a dance movie with a documentary feel – and I’m excited to see what director, Anna Rose Holmer, does next!

      2. Zootopia. Yes, Zootopia is a “kids movie”, but it carries a message that grown-ups need now more than ever – to “[embrace] diversity, even when there are people in the world who want to divide us by using fear”. Its lead character, Judy, is a rookie bunny cop who won’t let anything stand in her way, not her size and certainly not her gender. But what I found particularly refreshing is that Judy is not a perfect character – for all of her ambition and pluck, she also makes mistakes, and learns from them. A great role model for young girls and boys.

      
     3.  The Neon Demon. I might get some heat for including this one on the list – some feminist did not care for the film – but the deceptively simple story (young woman movies to LA to become a model and gets chewed up by the industry – literally) is just the first of many layers.  It’s a morality tale, both about our culture’s obsession with beauty (and the very narrow definition of beauty that women are expected to conform to) and about the ways in which women are often pitted against each other. Elle Fanning delivers a note-perfect performance as the lead character – she begins as an innocent, but when she eventually buys into the beauty-industry bullshit, it leads to her corruption and demise. This movie has lots of style, but lots of substance too.

      4.  The Handmaiden. Ummmmm, this movie is sexy AF. Some might think the girl-on-girl action is salacious and gratuitous, but I liked that the two main characters (one a young con-woman and the other a seemingly naïve heiress) relished in their sexuality and sensuality, taking ownership over their bodies as they also take control of their lives. This movie took twists and turns that I didn’t see coming, and also had a healthy dose of humor. It’s long (almost 2.5 hours) and has subtitles, but I hope that doesn’t keep you from giving this movie a shot. Just don’t watch it with your parents – those sex scenes are no joke.
         
      5. Rogue One. How did Princess Leia get the plans to the Death Star? Turns out it was a rag-tag team of heroes, who rally around Jyn Erso as she leads them on a mission of certain-death. I was moved to tears to see a heroine that was depicted as a leader, one who could command loyalty and devotion from her (male) followers. My nieces are big Star Wars fans, so I’m glad that Jyn gives them an example of a woman as a leader. Because if you can’t see it, you can’t become it.

6. Arrival. Amy Adams is quickly becoming one of my favorite actresses. Her choices are interesting and diverse – I can’t think of a single Adam’s performance that was bad or boring. In Arrival, a surprisingly philosophical “alien invasion” movie, Adams’ character saves the day, not by rushing in with guns blazing, but by finding common ground and understanding.  It’s a hopeful movie, one that presents humanity as it could be – tolerant and open-minded. I hope we keep holding ourselves up to those ideals.

      7. 20^th Century Women.  Annette Bening is a revelation in this movie. Her performance - as a single mom who creates a makeshift family of quirky characters – is natural, unselfconscious and “lived-in” and she deserves all of the nominations this awards season. All of them. Greta Gerwig and Elle Fanning also get meaty roles as fully-fleshed, complicated women. These women are not “shrinking violets” or “damsels in distress” or any other trope that women actors are so often confined to.  They have struggles and behave “badly” but also exude warmth and charisma. These are the kinds of women we all see in our own lives – real women.
       
         8. Hidden Figures. I’m so excited that a film led by three women of color is a box office success. Since Hollywood follows the money, I hope this means we’ll see more movies like this in the future. The truly inspiring story of a team of African-American women who played vital roles at NASA, the movie is funny and touching, without ever crossing the line into hokiness or sentimentality. It doesn’t shy away from the sexism and racial barriers that these women overcame, and really highlights how passivity in the face of discrimination can be just as bad as the discrimination itself. But it never stops being entertaining either - a very hard feat to pull-off.

      9. Jackie. I have to admit that I’ve never fully bought in to the “Jackie O cult”, but this movie went a long way to helping me understand it. While I can’t vouch for the factual accuracy of movie, the film portrays Jackie as a woman with an astute (and shrewd) understanding of how to build a legacy. She knew that image was everything  - not just the Chanel suits or the perfect hair, but the image of the presidency as royalty, our very own Camelot. The film focuses on the days after JFKs assassination, as Jackie plans the details of the funeral and lays the groundwork for enshrining her husband’s legacy.  It captures a woman who endured a great tragedy and trauma with grace and grit. And Natalie Portman is Jackie – she nails the looks, the voice, the mannerisms. A truly transformative performance.
 
     10. Ghostbusters. Okay, okay – this wasn’t exactly a critical or commercial blockbuster. And many ask why a remake of the beloved Ghostbusters was necessary. But this movie was a noble endeavor – why can't the Ghostbusters be an all-lady team? The movie was so-so, but I was delighted to see young girls dressed up as Ghostbusters. It may not have been the greatest of barriers, but it was nice to see this one knocked down. 

I hope 2017 continues this trend of female-led movies that dare to present multi-faceted, complicated and fascinating women. Our stories deserve to be told.

Words can't express how much I love '20th Century Women'

In what has been a truly standout 12 months for Hollywood, there have been a handful of films that I took an instant liking to, where as the credits rolled I just knew I'd watched a master class of acting, writing and direction. This happened for me with Moonlight, with Fences, with Green Room and now, the gloriously funny and moving 20th Century Women.

I found myself wanting to tell everyone I knew about the movie, I want it to be a hit. I want it to be a movie that becomes a part of the American lexicon. It spoke to me that much.

There are traces of peak Woody Allen and Robert Altman in this movie, and maybe a little Wes Anderson too, but for the most part director Mike Mills has discovered a rhythm and playful style all his own as a filmmaker and he's found a flawless cast that can execute this subtle material (set in the uniquely distinct summer of 1979) with grace, warmth and gravitas.

In what has been a remarkable year for women's roles, this film presents three of my favorite: Annette Bening, Elle Fanning and Greta Gerwig all get to play complex, flawed, charismatic and ultimately triumphant women, at very different stages of their life, all at interesting moments of self discovery.

Bening plays the kind of mom I think we wish we all had and perhaps some of us do. She is inquisitive and open-hearted, she is a little old fashioned (she adores Casablanca) but also eager to understand the world as it is today (she tries, valiantly, to understand punk). Bening has always been terrific but this may be my favorite performance she's ever given. She comes across so real, so naturally, and her character is someone I wanted to hang out with, to sit up late talking to.

I appreciate the way she thinks, the way she carries herself. If Bening is not nominated for Best Actress later this month it'd be a travesty.

Gerwig, whose ticks and mannerisms have occasionally irked me in the past, is a revelation here. Perhaps, liberated from her normal look, she breathes real life into a character who could have been a caricature, making her utterly sympathetic, awkward and somehow devastatingly cool at the same time.

And Elle Fanning, with this and The Neon Demon, has demonstrated that despite her cherubic appearance she has incredible range and depth as an actress. I have been so impressed by her choices so far -- this is someone who is willing to really bare her soul on screen and take risks. She too creates a powerful piece of this ensemble, which also includes terrific supporting work from the men on the periphery but it is first and foremost about women -- and to some extent how they try to relate to and understand men, but also how they make sense of themselves.

The somewhat episodic film has a simple, strong thread about Bening trying to reach out to her teenage son (played by Lucas Jade Zumann, in a marvelously unaffected performance). She has already formed this ragtag pseudo family with the tenants in her boarding house (including Gerwig, Fanning and a charming Billy Crudup as a handyman with delusions of being a deep thinker). A single mom, Bening earnestly seeks this quirky coterie's help in raising her son, and the results are both heartbreaking and hilarious.

I had no idea until after the fact that the film is semi-autobiographical, drawing from elements of director Mills' own childhood. But now that I know, it makes perfect sense. There is a specificity to this movie that I really appreciated (including the time period details, which are never overstated) and a depth of feeling that seems to come from a very personal place.

I like movies about people who could actually exist, whose stories illuminate aspects of my own life and the lives of the people I care about. 20th Century Women is one of those movies. It's a celebration of life -- in all its messiness, and it's an ode to the women who make life so interesting, cause let's face it, they are the most compelling sex.

I will never stop singing this movie's praises. It really hit me in a personal way that I don't think I can even appropriately put into words. All I can say is that I loved it and that I hope you see it.

Why the backlash to Meryl Streep's speech is way off the mark

Before I weigh in on the substance of what Meryl Streep said at the Golden Globes last night I want to take a look at how President-elect Donald Trump and his top advisor Kellyanne Conway reacted. Keep in mind, the future Commander-in-Chief initially claimed not to have even watched her speech, in which she disputed the notion that Hollywood performers are somehow un-American and criticized Trump's infamous imitation of a disabled reporter earlier last year.

Trump first pointed out that Streep was a Clinton supporter and then went on to highlight that fact that many of the prominent figures in attendance at the Globes are "liberal movie people." In other words, because they have fundamental political differences with him, their opinions have no value.

Later, our future president went on Twitter to attack Streep even more personally, and label a woman widely recognized as the greatest actress of her generation as "over-rated."

Conway's reaction, was even more explicit:

Well my initial reaction is I’m glad that Meryl Streep has such a passion for the disabled, because I didn’t hear her weigh in and I didn’t hear her even use her platform last night to give a shout out to the mentally challenged boy, who last week was tortured live on Facebook for half an hour by four young African-American adults, who were screaming racial and anti-Trump expletives and forcing him to put his head in toilet water. So I’d like to hear from her today if she wants to come and continue her platform on behalf of the disabled and Donald Trump is absolutely right he has debunked this so many times ... she sounds like 2014. The election is over. She lost and he’s absolutely right about something else too, which is everybody in that audience—with very few exceptions—was of a single myopic mind as to how they wanted the election to go and how they expected the election to go.

Not only is this answer a rather inartful bit of race-baiting -- but it is also troubling on a number of fronts. Conway seems to suggest that since Streep did not speak to any and all acts of disrespect for the disabled that her remarks are somehow less credible. She also doubles down on an assertion, wildly popular with some Trump supporters, that because the election is "over" and Streep's side "lost," that she has no business expressing her political views, and certainly not in a public forum.

Had Trump narrowly lost instead of narrowly won (contrary to his claims of a blowout, his victory was assured by roughly 80,000 voters in just three states), it's hard to believe that he and his supporters would have immediately acquiesced to the results and remained silent.

But regardless, as Republican Sen. John Cornyn said today, Streep, like any other American citizen, is entitled to express herself, and not be attacked for it.

The reason Streep's speech was so powerful was the it made plain a reality that some Americans simply don't want to accept -- that Hollywood and liberals are part of this country, too. And the reason the 'imitation' of the disabled reporter still resonates, is that it was such a blatant example of how cruel we are capable of being if we eschew empathy -- a quality that great art often aspires to evoke.

You don't have to like Streep or even what she said, but as an American you ought to support her right to say it. And if you think you don't like what she said, it's worth exploring exactly what she said that was particularly galling to you.

She simply elevated the very human and complicated histories of people in that room, and dared to suggest that even though they may enjoy elite status now they may not all have had auspicious beginnings and now have dedicated themselves to our entertainment and enrichment.

Are there people who contribute more to society? Obviously. And of course, there are those who will understandably see any speech at any awards show delivered by any celebrity as inherently self serving and obnoxious.

But the backlash Streep is already receiving in some circles is a sad testament to how warped people's perceptions have become of free speech and how easily even our most talented and intelligent professionals can be vilified, simply for being true to themselves.