Amid numerous controversies that led to the Academy Awards ceremony proceeding without a host for the second time in history, eight films were nominated for “Best Picture” in January of 2019: Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Favourite, Green Book, Roma, A Star Is Born, and Vice. Taking them at face value, the choices were odd. Many of them had polarized critical receptions with Bohemian Rhapsody and Vice scoring well below 70% on Rotten Tomatoes. While I do acknowledge that Rotten Tomatoes is a flawed metric, it’s very unusual when you consider how in 2017, the lowest-rated nominees, Darkest Hour and The Post, still managed to achieve a score above 80%.
Part of me suspects these strange choices are a result of the Academy’s ill-fated “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film” category. The category was proposed in August of 2018 in an attempt to give films that resonated with fans rather than just critics a chance to shine. The idea was met with a universally negative reception from journalists and Academy members alike. Many of them felt it to be an attempt to pander to mainstream audiences and bolster ratings, for 2018 marked the lowest viewership for the award ceremony in the twenty-first century at the time with a mere 26.5 million people tuning in. Though it sounds like it fared well, it should be noted that 32.9 people watched 2017’s ceremony. In between years, an entire 6.4 million people turned up their noses and forewent watching the ceremony in 2018.
I myself wasn’t a fan of the idea, as it seemed to tangentially push the journalists’ narrative of how their taste is far superior to that of the unwashed masses. They can talk all they want about how the average filmgoer doesn’t appreciate their masterpieces, but selling a large audience on an innovative idea is as important as coming up with it in the first place. Despite the Academy’s proposed category being thoroughly rejected, I suspect that certain choices, Bohemian Rhapsody
and Green Book
in particular, were made in an attempt to win back those 6.4 million people. In other words, they implemented their original idea; they just used it within their traditional “Best Picture” category instead.
It’s not terribly surprising that many of these choices were derided by causal fans and cinephiles alike. There weren’t enough mainstream releases nominated for causal fans to have an invested stake in the ceremony. Meanwhile, many critical darlings were left to fall by the wayside as a direct result of these choices. In their attempts to please everyone, they pleased no one. I can imagine A24 fans in particular were incensed that neither Hereditary nor Eighth Grade received a nomination of any kind – especially given the divine worship the company receives from critics.
Not too much of an exaggeration, by the way.
In fact, this is the first time since 2014 that not a single film distributed by A24 received a “Best Picture” nomination. Personally, I’m perfectly fine with that; Hereditary crashed and burned in the final act whereas Eighth Grade, much like Lady Bird, was massively overhyped and had a distinct lack of charismatic performances to carry it.
I do, however, have to say that if you wanted to showcase what an incongruous year 2018 was for the medium, these choices are perfect. It was a year in which every other critical darling, from the aforementioned A24 releases to Leigh Whannell’s Upgrade, were disappointments while many of the works journalists barely acknowledged such as Paul Feig’s A Simple Favor ended up being pleasant surprises. This polarization was only worsened by the distributors, whose increasingly cynical, lackadaisical attitudes prevented good films such as Panos Cosmatos’s Mandy and Debra Granik’s Leave No Trace from reaching a mass audience. That they had no qualms giving Death of a Nation, Peppermint, and Fifty Shades Freed a wide release only adds insult to injury. Veteran director Paul Schrader claimed in an interview that the seventies, a decade highly revered by cinephiles, didn’t have better filmmakers as much as they had better audiences. Speaking realistically, his blame is ultimately misplaced. After all, how is the audience supposed to improve themselves when distributors refuse to screen quality films?
“How dare you people, who have practically no control over executive decisions, ruin the medium! Out, I say! But see my serious film first, okay?” [Source]
All in all, this was quite a stark contrast from 2017 – another year in which the medium had extreme highs and lows. Although I stand by what I said, 2018 was far worse in that regard. There was enough of a distinction between the best and worst 2017 had to offer that anyone who paid even the slightest bit of attention could avoid watching a failure and appreciate the highlights. Meanwhile, in 2018, I found I couldn’t rely on critics half of the time whether it was because they took to a more sensationalist writing style, raved about underwhelming works, or otherwise decided to throw their audience under the bus at the first given opportunity.
Some critics, such as Owen Gleiberman, managed to do all three at once in the span of a single article. Ironically, despite his impassioned defense, he didn’t even put Hereditary on his top ten list. [Source]
With that introduction out of the way, I am now going to ready to move on to the main topic. Because I have now seen and reviewed every single one of the nominated films, I am now going to do something I’ve never attempted before. I will rank them from worst to best. Now, keep in mind that this is not intended to be a prediction as to which film will win. This list is merely intended to outline what I feel is the best film of the ones nominated. So, without further ado, let’s get started.