 Tonight is the 92nd annual Academy Awards and for the 12th year in a row I’ve completed Operation Oscar -- watching all the films nominated in the major categories. Here is my yearly recap of the movies along with my predictions.
Best Picture Unlike the rest of the categories where Academy members vote for one winner, the Best Picture category is determined by a preferential ballot where each choice is ranked. Here is my personal ranking of each of the nominees with a brief review. 1. Parasite I really loved the tone shifts in this movie. It managed to be humorous, sad, and suspenseful at different times, and sometimes all at once. It was original and wasn’t predictable. I hate that the actors were overlooked in the acting categories, but I’m glad the film has done so well this award season. 2. Jojo Rabbit This movie surprised me -- I didn’t think I was going to like it when I started it. It was definitely weird, but it had a good message and was a well made film. Scarlett Johannson did a wonderful job and I think Roman Griffin Davis absolutely should have received an acting nomination. 3. Little Women This is the movie I’m most likely to watch multiple times. Greta Gerwig did a wonderful job writing a fresh script for a story that has been told so many times. The star-studded cast all did a fantastic job with their roles. 4. 1917 At my best estimation, there have been 15+ war movies in the 12 years I’ve been doing Operation Oscar. So, did we need another one? It wasn’t particularly good or bad to me, but it was a beautifully shot film. I thought George MacKay did a wonderful job, and Sam Mendes makes great movies. 5. Ford v Ferrari I would’ve liked this movie more if it hadn’t totally glossed over a major plot point near the ending. There was a lot of hype and then a bit of a flat ending. Christian Bale is a great actor and gives a stellar performance. 6. Marriage Story The writing was a bit overwrought and came across as pretentious at times. Laura Dern absolutely makes this movie. 7. The Irishman Jimmy Hoffa and his disappearance are fascinating subjects -- so I’m not sure how Martin Scorsese managed to make a mostly boring film. It was way too long and needed more action. 8. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood I’m not a Tarantino fan, but this movie wasn’t terrible. The story was a bit weird, but the acting was good. 9. Joker I didn’t expect to like this movie, but I didn’t like it for different reasons than I imagined. I mostly just didn’t get the point and thought it wasn’t a well made movie. There are good things about it -- good acting, good cinematography -- but for me overall it just wasn’t Best Picture worthy. Prediction: 1917 I’m pretty confident in my pick, but I wouldn’t be stunned if Parasite or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood pull off an upset. Best Director Prediction: Sam Mendes, 1917 My pick: Bong Joon-ho, Parasite Greta Gerwig should’ve been nominated for Little Women. Best Actor Prediction: Joaquin Phoenix, Joker My pick: Jonathan Pryce, The Two Popes Pryce was transformative as Pope Francis and I enjoyed that film much more than I was expecting. Best Actress Prediction: Renée Zellweger, Judy My pick: Charlize Theron, Bombshell Best Supporting Actor Prediction: Brad Pitt, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood My pick: Al Pacino, The Irishman Pacino is one of the best actors of our time and he was by far the best part of The Irishman to me. Best Supporting Actress Prediction: Laura Dern, Marriage Story My pick: Margot Robbie, Bombshell I will be thrilled when Dern wins her first Oscar tonight and she was my favorite part of Marriage Story. She did a great job in the role, but for me I give Robbie a slight edge. I liked the depth and range she brought to her performance in Bombshell. This category is the toughest for me this year because all of these performances were good. Best Adapted Screenplay Prediction: Taika Waititi, Jojo Rabbit My pick: Taika Waititi, Jojo Rabbit Best Original Screenplay Prediction: Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won, Parasite My pick: Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won, Parasite It’s possible 1917 or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood walk away with this award, but I’m banking on Parasite. I thought Knives Out was a good film and a well written screenplay, but there were a few parts in the movie where I didn’t like the way the story was told instead of shown. Check out my full picks: https://www.goldderby.com/my-predictions/jordan_pittman/oscars-2020/
0 Comments
  “Looks like we made it; look how far we’ve come my baby.” - Shania Twain
Here we are -- mere moments away from the Iowa caucuses. If it seems like this has been the longest presidential primary season ever, that’s because technically it has been. Congressman John Delaney, who represented Maryland’s 6th Congressional District from 2013-2019, announced he was running for president on July 28, 2017 -- 1,194 days before the general election (November 3, 2020). That is the earliest announcement on record in the modern day primary system. Almost two and a half years later, and almost two and a half dozen candidates later, 11 major candidates remain in the race. Delaney isn’t one of them. Two of them, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, are polling below one percent nationally and in all four of the early primary/caucus states. So, for the Iowa overview, I will only be profiling the top nine candidates. I’ll give a little overview of the Iowa caucuses, a little write up of the remaining major candidates, my prediction of what happens tonight, and my endorsement. The Iowa Caucuses: A Brief History The modern day primary system began with the 1976 election cycle. Jimmy Carter, who had served as governor of Georgia from 1971-1975, took advantage of the new system and campaigned in the early states, mainly Iowa, which led to him placing higher than any other candidate in the caucuses (second only to “uncommitted”). This surprised many pundits and led to an explosion of media coverage for Carter, who used the momentum to rack up wins in 30 states/territories. He easily won the Democratic Party’s nomination on the first ballot at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, with over 70 percent of the delegates, and then went on to win the presidency in the general election. The purpose of the modern day primary system is to allow for more participation -- a more democratic process. The proverbial smoke filled back rooms are how party nominees had typically been chosen before the system overhaul. However, there are still states, such as Iowa, that use undemocratic caucuses instead of primary elections. Caucuses generally have significantly lower turnout than primaries and tend to disenfranchise the disabled, elderly, and others due to their rigid scheduled structure. Washington state’s results in the 2016 cycle show just how undemocratic caucuses can be. Washington held a caucus on March 26, 2016. Roughly 230,000 people participated -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received 27 percent of the vote and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, received just under 73 percent of the vote. On May 24, 2016, Washington held a nonbinding primary (meaning all delegates to the Democratic National Convention were awarded based on results from the caucuses) -- there were over 800,000 voters. Clinton won 52-48. When one compares the number of participants from the caucuses to the primary in Washington, it’s apparent that Clinton won the race that had a much larger turnout, yet Sanders won the pledged delegate race 74 to 27 -- all because his supporters tended to be more affluent and privileged, therefore able to attend caucuses. Clinton’s supporters tended to be those who were unable to attend a caucus site due to disability, lack of childcare, work schedule, etc. Talk about a rigged system! The Remaining Democratic Candidates Eleven major candidates remain in the race to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2020. Here is a look at the top nine candidates. They are listed in order of most to least likely to be the nominee (based on current polling averages). Joe Biden: Vice-President (2009-2017), U.S. Senator from Delaware (1973-2009) / Candidate for President in 1988 and 2008 / Age 77 Bernie Sanders: U.S. Senator from Vermont (2007-Present), U.S. Representative from VT-AL (1991-1989), Mayor of Burlington, VT (1981-1989) / Candidate for President in 2016 / Age 78 Elizabeth Warren: U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (2013-Present) / Age 70 Pete Buttigieg: Mayor of South Bend, IN (2012-2020) / Age 38 Amy Klobuchar: U.S. Senator from Minnesota (2007-Present) / Age 59 Tom Steyer: No previous political service / Age 62 Michael Bloomberg: Mayor of New York City, NY (2002-2013) / Age 77 Andrew Yang: No previous political service / Age 45 Tulsi Gabbard: U.S. Representative from HI-02 (2013-Present) / Age 38 2020 Predictions Iowa caucuses begin tonight at 7:00 Central Standard Time. Because of their complicated nature, they are notoriously hard to predict. For example, the Iowa caucuses have a viability threshold -- it varies from precinct to precinct depending on the number of delegates the precinct has. At most sites, the threshold is 15 percent. This means that after caucus participants sort into groups for their candidate, once the initial tally is recorded, any person caucusing for a candidate with less than the threshold must either convince other participants to join them to make their candidate viable, choose another candidate, or choose not to participate. This next step is called realignment. This is why a person’s second choice can be crucial during the process. After realignment, each precinct records the official results. The link provided above offers a more detailed explanation of the proceedings. Tonight, most news outlets including The New York Times will be reporting four different results. This is complicated even for seasoned political junkies, so the average American may be quite confused. Most of this is taken directly from The New York Times: The state delegate equivalents, a measure reflecting a precinct’s vote at final alignment (after caucusgoers whose initial candidate didn’t meet a minimum reallocate themselves). The candidate with the most state delegate equivalents has traditionally been declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses, and in 2020 The New York Times, along with most news media organizations, will again characterize the candidate with the most state delegate equivalents as the winner. (My predictions are based off of this count.) The pledged delegate count is awarded based on the number of state delegate equivalents won by each candidate statewide and by congressional district. (This is what ultimately matters -- delegates -- to win the nomination at the convention, a candidate needs a majority of the delegates.) Historically, those two counts are all that were reported -- and even this year they are what count in terms of who wins and who is awarded delegates. But for the first time, the Iowa Democratic Party is making data available from other steps of the precinct caucuses. The first alignment reflects the first preference of caucusgoers when they arrive at their precinct. (This really won’t mean much, but whoever “wins” this will certainly try to spin it to their advantage.) The final alignment reflects the preference of caucusgoers after the supporters of nonviable candidates have an opportunity to realign with candidates who remain viable in their precinct. Usually, a candidate needs 15 percent in a precinct to be viable. So, what’s going to happen? Here’s my best guess: 1st = Bernie Sanders / 28% 2nd = Joe Biden / 24% 3rd = Elizabeth Warren / 20% 4th = Pete Buttigieg / 18% 5th = Amy Klobuchar / 7% All others one percent or less I base this on polling, ground game, and gut instinct. Honestly, I hope I’m wrong. More on that… My Endorsement This primary season has been rough for a lot of us. I think there are a number of reasons. First, 2016 was so momentous -- not only did Hillary Clinton make history by being the first woman ever nominated for president by a major party, she was also uniquely qualified and had such overwhelming experience for the job. She was (and still is) beloved by her supporters, and after the way the general election played out -- Russian interference, voter suppression, etc. -- the fact that she got 3 million more votes and still was denied the presidency was brutal. It’s even worse because of the vileness that occupies the White House. I know I speak for millions when I say we will never get over this loss and the thought of the great things we could have achieved. We should be working towards her re-election. The length of this primary and the number of contestants also made it exhausting. We continued to see more racism and sexism in the way candidates were treated and the media seemed not to learn any lessons from 2016. We watched as numerous well qualified progressives like Cory Booker, Julián Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris were forced out of the race while mediocre white men were amplified. To say it’s been disheartening is an understatement. There are still good candidates in the race, and I firmly believe it is imperative to defeat this current administration -- we have to support and unite behind the Democratic Party’s nominee to ensure victory. It is totally fine to have our preferences, and I’m about to explain mine, but we cannot have the division and infighting that certain candidates tend to exacerbate. Since Harris dropped out of the race in early December, I’ve been unsure of who I would vote for in Alabama’s primary on March 3. I have finally made my decision, and I plan to vote for Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren for President I want a president who is smart, progressive, and willing to fight for what’s right and what’s important. I want a president who is a policy wonk and is passionate about the details. Elizabeth Warren fits that description. My biggest struggle with Warren is that I think she would make a much better president than a Democratic nominee. This isn’t necessarily because of policy -- I agree with her on most major policy points. She was too quick to try to jump on the Bernie Sanders bandwagon, a mistake too many in the Democratic Party have made. His most ardent supporters cannot be appeased and their goal is dismantling the Democratic Party rather than defeating Republicans. In the leadup to the 2016 general election, I thought she made a major mistake by supporting the thoroughly preposterous conspiracy theory that the Democratic primary process was “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton. I’m happy to see she now agrees with the evidence and facts -- that the primary process was fair. Warren’s Medicare for All healthcare plan initially lacked specifics, though she was held to a much higher standard on this issue than her male counterparts. I think her calls for a moratorium on donors getting ambassadorships and her eschewing of certain fundraising practices are misguided and weaken her campaign and potentially a Warren administration. She seemed to come to social justice issues late, but has put forth comprehensive policy proposals to improve the lives of those who need it the most, and she seems sincerely passionate about these causes now. The things that impress me most about Warren are her commitment to listening and engaging with voters, her detailed platform, and her knowledge of economic policy. I think she understands the plight of middle class and working class families, and advocates for policies that would vastly improve our lives. Her student loan debt plan is a specific highlight that I think would provide immense relief for millions of people while also invigorating the economy. She has also adopted Kirsten Gillibrand’s paid family leave plan which would also be life changing particularly for caretakers and parents. Amy Klobuchar has a solid infrastructure platform and seems to take Russian interference and election security most seriously. She has a proven track record of getting legislation passed throughout her years in the U.S. Senate. Her healthcare and student loan policies are not as progressive as Warren’s and I don’t like some of the rhetoric she uses, but I do understand her pragmatism and not wanting to over promise anything. I also have concerns about her behavior and treatment of staff, though I can’t help but wonder if media coverage regarding the incidents were magnified due to her gender. Joe Biden certainly has a breadth of experience and knowledge. He has a tendency to be gaffe prone, speaking off the cuff, but I don’t think he would be rash in his actual decision making in office. I can also see a case being made to coalesce behind Biden due to his polling in head to head matchups for the general election, and he may be the best candidate to stop Sanders. Michael Bloomberg was a decent mayor and is strong on a number of issues such as climate change, gun safety, and healthcare. His record when it comes to people of color and women are concerning. Tom Steyer is basically a more progressive version of Bloomberg without the political experience. I don’t like the idea of billionaires being able to buy their way into the presidency. I am thrilled to see an openly gay, married man running for president, and I think Pete Buttigieg deserves some credit for putting himself out there. His record as mayor troubles me along with his lack of support among people of color -- which seems to be warranted based on his record. I also don’t think being the mayor of a city with 100,000 people is necessarily enough experience to run the entire country. Any of those candidates would be immensely better than what we have now and I will work as hard as I can to ensure one of them wins the presidency. I consider both Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang fringe candidates, and it saddens me that they made it this far in the primary process. They both lack the experience necessary and their policy platforms as a whole are not that progressive and show their lack of experience and knowledge. It is my hope that tonight, Bernie Sanders will do much worse than expected. I think now is the time to stop his candidacy. He has spent the last five decades denouncing the Democratic Party. He employs and surrounds himself with highly problematic people with appalling records and rhetoric when it comes to LGBTQ+ people, people of color, women, etc. He doesn’t have the track record of working with others in Congress to get things done, and I believe he would be a drag on the ticket in down ballot races. His hypocrisy and self-appointed savior role is cult-like to me, and I think it’s dangerous for the country and the party. Those are the reasons I plan to vote for Elizabeth Warren on March 3, 2020, and hope to do so again on November 3, 2020. |
No inhibitions
Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed