It’s Oscars Day.  If you’re fanatical about movies, this is the night when most of what you thought about what you saw gets tossed out and replaced by either the stuff you saw and said “eh” or the stuff you never thought twice about seeing at all …. even once it was streaming.

But this year seems different.  In my opinion, the difference is in the selection of nominees. It’s probably the best job the academy ever did.  They sorted out a lot of great performers and underrated movies and got the nominees right.  I submit the evidence of Anatomy of a Fall getting five nominations.  Not many people have seen it, but everyone that has applauds it.  A seemingly inconsequential accident turns into a thrilling courtroom drama with fantastic performances has a lot more risk than any other nominee for Best Picture. Now of course it’s not in the limelight for that, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see Sandra Hüller walk to the podium for Best Actress.  

The two that have dominated the pre-show have been Emily Stone and Lily Gladstone.  There’s also Carey Mulligan and Annette Bening in the mix.  It’s a great lineup of nominees with a huge range of acting.  Truly any one of the five could win.  All I hope is that the momentum doesn’t swing to Lily Gladstone solely based on honoring an indigenous woman rather than great acting. Technically, her screen time is very tight and her performance lacks the range others demonstrate with ease (especially Sandra Hüller).  Emily Stone.  What an achievement to make such a complexity seem real.  Carey Mulligan can break your heart toward the end of Maestro. Annette Bening and her fifth nomination (tugging at Glenn Close’s skirt) is so moving and real. The message?  A woman defying the stigma of age.'Anatomy of a Fall' ending explained: Who is responsible for Samuel's ...

So grabs the prize?  

Should Win:  Sandra Hüller.

Will Win:  Emily Stone.

Should have been nominated:  Margot Robbie (come on, without a doubt)

The Best Actress prize is always the most talked about race.  Not sure why.  Oh, maybe I do. The roles for women are far more diverse and unique.  There hasn’t been an unworthy nominee in several years.  It’s a no contest for Supporting Actress, and it was evident while sitting in a theater and watching Da’Vine Joy Randolph create a woman that seems so normal while being so devastatingly complex.  

On the men’s side, I’ve lost interest.  I think Mark Ruffalo should win but won’t.  Paul Giamatti is a slam dunk but won’t win.  He’s created a character we’ll remember for years.  I can’t say the same about Robert Downey or Cillian Murphy.  They’ll walk to the podium but it’ll seem a bit contrived (at least for me).  They portrayed people and did so well.  The other two created characters from scratch, much as Sandra Hüller did.  Do we honor industry names over quality in the craft?  It seems like putting one ball severely in motion (Oppenheimer) caused an avalanche.  It’s a great movie.  Let it be recognized for that alone.  You don’t have to reward the actors that did or did not make the movie such a success. (Emily Blunt fittingly being the best of the three nominated.)

These other roles defined the movie and were created by the actor.  That’s a lot. That’s called a craft.  Portraying two contained and almost mechanical men?  Not really all that inspiring.  But thankfully the five women, any one of which could take to the stairs … that’s much more interesting.  Whoever grabs that prize can do so without a hint of humility. Each of them has raised the bar, and that takes effort and risk.