1. Your Name
Your Name has now the distinction to be the highest grossing anime film in history, suppressing the old record set by Spirited Away (2001). Makoto Shinkai has crafted something unique, emotional and memorable. The story of two teenagers swapping bodies randomly at night has everything which any anime could desire to have: a moving long-distance romance, background of cataclysmic event of cosmic significance, and breath-taking visuals, among other things. But, no, the Academy simply chose to ignore this masterpiece and pretend that it does not exist.
2. Rebecca Hall for Christine
Rebecca Hall’s performance in Christine was staggering. She gave the performance of her career as a nervous and depressed worker for a TV station in the US, portraying a real-life character too, but was ignored for a nomination. One may say that the Best Actress category is always competitive, but the Academy also has this penchant for favouring films which feature in the Best Picture category in all other categories, and La La Land is no exception.
3. Martin Scorsese for Silence
Silence had been Martin Scorsese’s “passion project” for years, even decades; the road to bringing this story by Shūsaku Endō to screen had also been steep; and it is only too clear that Scorsese completed work of tremendous effort. That film was also not nominated in the category of Best Picture, but at least the Academy could have nominated Scorsese in the category of Best Director. As a movie, Silence may be too long and unfocused (though the latter is debatable), but Scorsese’s work on the project is most admirable and deserving of a nomination.
This British film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, and its story has captivated both critics and audiences alike. Telling about the bureaucracy of governmental aid in Britain, the film can resonate with many people, but apparently not with the elite presiding over awards in Hollywood. I, Daniel Blake was ignored in the category of the Best Picture, and the film was also nowhere to be seen in other categories, such as “Best Original Screenplay” and “Best Director”. The most amazing and sobering realisation of the Academy’s short-sightedness.
5. Amy Adams for Arrival
Amy Adams’s omission from the nominees list for Best Actress has been cited by some as some of the Academy’s most unbelievable injustices. It seems everyone expected to see her name among the nominees, and, given her completely believable and at times heart-breaking performance, it is really a marvel that she was not there. It is even more surprising given the fact that Arrival was among the nominees for Best Picture, and Amy Adams played a big part in what ultimately made the film so good. Besides, the fact that Adams was mistakenly announced on the Academy’s web page as one of the nominees just rubbed salt into the wound.
6. Annette Bening for 20th Century Women
20th Century Women may not have been the absolute masterpiece we all expected, but Annette Bening’s performance was nuanced, sublimely beautiful. If she did not deserve her nomination for acting, then I am not sure who else deserved it. Was it not Bening’s best work to date? At least, the Golden Globes committee was of a different opinion.
7. Michael Keaton for The Founder
Michael Keaton character’s enthusiasm in The Founder deserves an Oscar in its own right. Keaton is the man who elevates the film to the high standard it ultimately has, portraying a real-life character of Ray Kroc with the fire and zeal which could only come from Michael Keaton (if you also remember Beetlejuice (1988). He was not nominated by the Academy for this performance, but probably he should have been. This is the kind of performance which sticks with you after the credits rolled, and this is not something which could be said for many performances out there. The director of the film later said that probably the reason why The Founder received no major nominations was due to a bad strategy leading to “no one hearing about [the film]”.
8. Hugh Grant for Florence Foster Jenkins
Hugh Grant was a bit of a wild card when it came to the Oscars 2017, but his performance in Florence Foster Jenkins was nothing short of remarkable. In fact, it is not possible to think of this film, and even of Streep’s performance there, without also recalling the character played so ingeniously and enthusiastically by Hugh Grant. It looked like the role was written just for him, and, therefore, it is even more of a pity not to see any recognition of his performance by the Academy.
9. Abel Korzeniowski for Nocturnal Animals
The score from Passengers was beautiful, but was it really better than Korzeniowski score for Nocturnal Animals, with the result being that the score from Passengers was nominated and the score from Nocturnal Animals not? Whoever had the chance to listen to the heart-stopping melody from Nocturnal Animals could instantly recognise the master-strokes, that subtle ingenuity contained within each notes’ combination. However, resolutely stuck with the idea of ignoring Nocturnal Animals at all costs (well, except for the surprising Michael Shannon nomination), it came to no surprise that the Academy bypassed the score composed by Abel Korzeniowski.
10. Mira Nair for Queen of Katwe
Bringing the story of Phiona Mutesi, an Ugandan chess champion, to the screen or merging an African slum tale with a Disney film was not an easy feat, but Mira Nair had achieved just that and against considerable odds. Nair also shot her film in difficult slum conditions, and, probably, deserved all the recognition for her work as a director. Strangely, especially given the critical acclaim generated by the film and despite all the initial Oscar rumours, Queen of Katwe had been lost on everyone’s radar way too soon.
Also, both Aquarius and The Handmaiden were not submitted by their respective countries (Brazil and South Korea) for the consideration, and it is a real shame, because these two films would have had a big chance to smash their competition.
Spotlight on Film 
I quite agree with Michael Keaton and I can also go along with Rebecca Hall for Christine.
LikeLike
Thanks for agreeing! These two were remarkable performances. At least Hall had some recognition for her work in a way of some wins in various critics’ circles and small festivals, but poor Keaton did not have even that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As much as I like the Oscars, sometimes there are decisions that are simply put, very strange. Your name definitely being one of them. I still haven;t seen it (but it’s FINALLY coming out on dvd next month), but from everything I have seen and read for it, this one had the name Oscar written all over it 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for agreeing with me on “Your Name”. The greatest realisation here is that “Your Name” could not even be just described as “Oscar-Nomination-Worthy”, but it has the word “Oscar Winner” painted all over it. It is not like the Academy never previously nominated any Japanese anime in that category – films of Miyazaki were nominated and won, so I do not understand what was the problem there.
I hope you will like “Your Name”, and I hope to hear or to read your feedback on the film when you do see it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Will definitely write a review for it this year, that’s for sure 😊
It sometimes is very weird how some movies just get completely passed on by the Academy. At times it really doesn’t make any sense whatsoever 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I, Daniel Blake” would never get a nod in Hollywood because the subject matter is too localised in another country’s culture for them to appreciate or understand it. Unless it has something they can recognise as Americans they won’t touch it but this is far too British thus it is of no interest to them.
This is why you have foreign language category and not have the world’s best films all competing together which would make for a much more interesting and, in my opinion, legit award as far as best film goes.
LikeLike
Well, “I, Daniel Blake” had zero chance to compete in the foreign language category, had it not? because it has an English dialogue track (as per rule 13 of the Academy?), but I thought it would be recognised in many other categories.
You are probably right, but if the Academy really thought like this – in terms of subjects being localised and did not understand it than it is a completely random and biased selection. Far too Russian “Leviathan” was not apparently “too localised” for the Academy’s taste some years back, and their mother country’s film which portrays similar culture to theirs was?
I firmly believe that no part of the British culture that can be too “localised” for Americans – to think otherwise is ridiculous. For one thing, they should have looked at “I, Daniel Blake” and the bureaucratic state system there and compared it to their own welfare system. The parallels could have been drawn.
LikeLike
“I, Daniel Blake” had a very limited release in the US outside of festivals so I doubt anyone in the Academy saw it, let alone the public. 😉
However, I didn’t mean it should have been classed as “foreign” film, rather I was lamenting how non-Americans films are tucked away in a subcategory (BAFTA are guilty of this too) when they are all films and should be judged together in my opinion. No-one says “I saw a foreign language film last night, they simply watched a film. 🙂
But, it is an American institution so naturally they will reward their own as a priority, but it would be nice if they did drop the barriers and widened the field a bit, so their list looks more like our own end of year lists! 😛
LikeLike
Yeah, I completely agree with you – that would have been nice. If the Academy did not have any regard for foreign language films it would have been another matter, but if they do have that regard sometimes – than that regard is very selective, and that is even worse than them not having such a category at all.
Besides, Australian, British and other English-language films (non-American) may have to suffer the most since they end up in no man’s land, belonging to neither the American stock nor to the foreign-language category. Come to think of it, now it explains why such films as Lady Macbeth and Love & Friendship were nowhere to be seen this and last year respectively.
LikeLike
All worthy non-nominees. But these things are always subjective.
LikeLike
Well, that is exactly the point – award-giving should be as objective as possible 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Oscars can be really good sometimes. But in others it really baffles. I agree about Amy Adams, she was the heart and soul of Arrival.
LikeLike
Exactly. Btw, somehow I don’t see your comments appearing in my notifications, so sorry if I sometimes miss your comments!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing with comments has happened to me quite a bit recently.
LikeLike
I, Daniel Blake was my #1 film of 2016 and agree deserved a Best Picture nomination! A film I often think about still. At least won the Palme d’Or.
I really liked Rebecca Hall’s performance too, though at times I felt the screenplay of “Christine” was too spelled-out in terms of Christine’s issues. I would have preferred it to go for a subtler approach in the writing.
LikeLike
I think I know what you mean re Christine. It was too overtly presented for my taste too. In my review of the film I said that I felt some film bits were even exploitative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not a fan of the Oscars, but even I think Your Name should’ve been nominated and won something. It does tick me off about how The Academy is so selective on these matters. I’m tired of seeing Disney or Pixar winning everything in the Best Animated Feature department.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. I mean silly and crude “The Boss Baby” (2017) is apparently deserving of an Oscar nomination, and “Your Name” isn’t. That is the world we are living in…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ouch! I’ve seen The Boss Baby and I still wonder how that can get a nomination and not Your Name. I may not think Your Name was the greatest anime movie ever, but it was still more deserving than a lot of animated films that year or decade.
LikeLiked by 1 person