Most of film Twitter, and the critics, there is Paul Thomas Anderson, and there is everyone else. You’d have to be an idiot not to see it. That’s because the film reflects the going ideology of today’s “resistance-left.” It isn’t just about that. It’s also love for PTA in general. But I think that comes secondary to the driving theme of the film which reflects what I think is a mass delusion that America is under the occupation of “fascist.” The ICE agents are the “gestapo” and white men are hunting down Black and Brown people and everyone has to fight for their survival.
This is how you see the country if you consume the media of the Left, which most do. But know this. In a fascist country Jimmy Kimmel would be shot or thrown in jail. As it happens, Charlie Kirk was shot and they tried to throw Trump in jail. Fear does strange things to people. I don’t think they started out way back in 2016 with the intention to drive half of this country mad. It was just the humilation of defeat, to Donald Trump no less, that has produced this ongoing mass hysteria. But they believe it’s real and that One Battle After Another reflects that delusion.
Meanwhile, Ryan Coogler has quietly made a masterpiece. It reflects something real, what happened to Black Americans in the Jim Crow South, but especially those who had extraordinary talent to play the blues, jazz and later, rock n’ roll. It was said that Robert Johnson was a terrible guitar player. No one could listen to him and he was often booed off stage. He went away for a year or so and came back as one of the greatest guitar players anyone had ever heard. They couldn’t explain it except to say he must have gone to the Crossroads and sold his soul to the Devil.
But what Coogler is saying with Sinners is that no, it wasn’t the Devil. And even if it was the Holy Spirit, even that wasn’t enough to protect them from evil back then. Only music protected them or, at the very least, helped them find a way out. That’s why the themes that run through Sinners weave back and forth between human relationships, immigration, religion and the history of music.
Why Ryan Coogler stands out is that he isn’t trying to reflect today’s America but is instead telling an important story in American history: the story of music, one that has influenced and inspired all of us for decades. While One Battle might be Ms. Right Now, Sinners is most definitely Ms. Right, at least to me. I don’t think any movie will stand the test of time better. Both movies definitely have a current running through them that says: this is what the film industry was thinking about. But only one feels like art and the other feels like, at least to me, a lecture.
I know people won’t agree with this, but when I saw Scott Kernen’s predictions from yesterday and he had Ryan Coogler missing in Best Director, I thought — NO WAY is that happening. Surely the Directors Branch has to be aware of what Sinners actually is and how it is a pure creative expression of Ryan Coogler’s thumbprint? We don’t know what One Battle will do at the box office. It will likely do fine, and it will generate as much excitement online, I figure, as Sinners did.
Coogler calls Sinners a love letter to movies, the kinds of movies he used to like to go see in movie theaters. Those movies are referenced throughout – like Near Dark, like The Thing. What a gift for a weary public.
I could go into it from a different perspective, too. I could say that Hollywood’s blatant attempts to right the wrongs of the past have led to awkward, rigid and terrified filmmaking by people who are worried about making one wrong step. It’s gun-to-the-head art. Maybe that is why Sinners felt so different. He wasn’t being careful as a storyteller. He wasn’t trying to keep people from losing their shit and forming an angry mob. Then again, he effortlessly gives the “woketopians” what they desire in exactly the way that they desire. Because of that, many might feel that Sinners is just another “woke” movie for Hollywood to feel good about itself.
The thing is, because of the rigid mandates, the inclusivity paranoia, it’s hard to know anymore who deserves what. Half the time we’re supposed to praise a female director just for doing the bare minimum. When we award based on identity, we rob those who did the work of their acheivement. As long as they exist only to make those in power look better, well, how can they ever be judged on merit?
It’s just that Ryan Coogler should be judged on merit and they should throw Oscars at him not because he wants them or needs them. He doesn’t. But ask yourselves, how much longer will the Oscars wait? Making this argument is easy. The “white guilt” argument. That’s an insult to Coogler’s talent. It is, however, easy to make. 98 years? Really? And no Black director has ever won? 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight won Best Picture but someone else won Best Director.
I think it’s not been great for the Academy to re-order itself to meet the needs of the fundamentalists, so they can imagine all is right with the world as long as there is proper representation. In my view, they’ve gutted their businesses and all for what? To have arrived 98 years later and miss out on the rare opportunity to award Ryan Coogler?
Meanwhile, speaking of directors, we seem to have three slots filled already:
Ryan Coogler, Sinners (should be the frontrunner)
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another (probably is the frontrunner)
Chloé Zhao, Hamnet (could also make history with a second win)
Those three are locked, in my mind. Then we only have two slots left. We have the DGA-Five and we have the Oscar-Five and usually one will miss. Scott Kernen, I know, imagines Coogler is the one who gets in with DGA but misses with Oscar. I see the logic but I don’t think so.
We still have to wait for Jim Cameron’s Avatar: Fire and Ash and Jon M. Chu’s Wicked For Good, but I could see all five of these names getting in for DGA. Cameron or Chu could miss when it comes to the Oscars. Is there anyone else now who crowds out the five?
Joachim Trier for Sentimental Value is likely to land somewhere. More likely with the Oscar-Five than the DGA-Five. I also think the Venice winner Bennie Safdie for The Smashing Machine could maybe figure in, but we have to wait and see how that one plays. I’ve also got Guillermo Del Toro on my radar for Frankenstein, which is catching last minute buzz — and Netflix has announced they will be showing it in theaters — good move, Netflix.
Yorgos Lanthimos is a potential dark horse here for Oscar-Five, along with It Was Just An Accident’s Jafar Panahi. We should also mention Zach Creggor for DGA-Five. I think he’s potentially in there. It will require publicity from the studio with two WB movies already in play and it would be unheard of to get a third in there, but not impossible.
Right now, I’m thinking for DGA-Five
Ryan Coogler, Sinners
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Chloé Zhao, Hamnet
Jon M. Chu, Wicked for Good
Zach Creggor, Weapons
Guillermo Del Toro, Frankenstein
Alt. Jim Cameron, Avatar: Fire and Ash alt.
For Oscar-Five
Ryan Coogler, Sinners
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Chloé Zhao, Hamnet
Guillermo Del Toro, Frankenstein
Joachim Trier, Sentimental Value
Alt. Zach Creggor, Weapons
I know it’s crazy for there to be three WB movies in play. But Weapons is popular — as popular as Sinners and One Battle After Another. It deserves to be considered for Best Picture and Best Director. I know it is not the common wisdom. For instance, right now on Awards Expert App, the following five are listed:
Paul Thomas Anderson, One Battle After Another
Ryan Coogler, Sinners
Chloé Zhao, Hamnet
Joachim Trier, Sentimental Value
Jafar Panahi, It Was Just An Accident
It might turn out that way. Who knows. But I think people are underestimating Weapons, personally. It’s early yet. Stay tuned.
