Awesome! Thank you! I like the blockbuster summer hits from the old days too: "Logan's Run," "Alien" "Xanadu" (guilty pleasure); "The Shining," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and all the great movies from the summer of '82: "The Thing," "Blade Runner" and "ET."
This is such a "win-win-win-win-win" year. I could be happy calling any of these Best Picture. Obviously, I think Barry Lyndon should have won but One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest has something so "everyman" about it. We do not award films, these days, which so many people are able to connect to. (See: One Battle's win, which surely alientated half its viewership). Great article, Jim!
Right on all accounts, Jim. I would just have to disagree that “One Flew Over … “ was a masterpiece (then again, I know you’re writing on a public forum and keeping the harmony is definitely important). It’s not just the fact that it veers away from much of Kesey’s text … and truthfully, the point of the book … but it tries too hard to be a fun-loving Hollywood film (which, fairly, you stated). The voters wanted something to feel good about (of course, it’s a bit unsettling that THIS was the “feel-good” entry of the group). As you made the point, Forman’s treatment of mental illness was really lacking. I just remember McMurphy (Nicholson) passing out booze. Believe he even injected it into a patient’s IV. Completely safe decision there.
This is an interesting piece. I have seen all of these films multiple times with the exception of Cuckoo's Nest. I only saw it once but I read the book long before I saw the film and loved the book. In my mind the book and the film are radically different because of the POV shift. The book is told from the Chief's POV and for me it was incredibly moving. They took that out and turned it into the Jack Nicholson Show. I disliked the film at the time because of that. This film is the reason I rarely see a film that I loved the book it is based on. (A notable exception obviously is To Kill A Mocking Bird, both versions are fantastic!) So I am sure I judged it unfairly at the time. I also have no interest in going back and viewing it again. The other 4 films are all fantastic in their own way and any of them could have won. The Oscars are a big popularity contest, which is fine as I no longer take film awards seriously on any level, especially because the best films of any year are rarely nominated in my mind. I guess it's my independent mind frame and having worked in the business for so many years that has lead me to that conclusion. I still love films although I rarely see the big Hollywood films anymore, especially the blockbusters. I really appreciate the research you did on this piece and did find it wonderful to read. Of the group I would probably go with Nashville as it blew me away when it came out. And it was so different and still holds up today. Keep writing my friend I enjoy reading your take on films. Take care.
Thanks for reading! I can no longer take awards shows seriously now either. When I was young, I thought the Oscars were the final judgement on the quality of movies; now I just laugh at how naive I was back then.
When an Oscar or other acting award nominee wins and accepts the prize at the podium, he/she typically thanks the various other participants in the relevant film’s creation. For me what’s always conspicuously lacking in the brief speech is any mention of the infants or toddlers used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even a childhood post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).
Long before reading Sigmund Freud’s or other academics’ theories/thoughts on early-life trauma, I, while cringing, was (still am) astonished at how the producers and directors of negatively hyper-emotional big-/small-screen ‘entertainment’ could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler ‘actors’ as they screamed in bewilderment.
Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence? More so, how could the parents of those undoubtedly extremely upset infants/toddlers allow it?!
Admittedly, I’d initially presumed there had to be a reliable educated consensus within the entertainment industry and psychology academia that there's little or no such risk, otherwise the practice would logically and compassionately have ceased. But then I became increasingly doubtful of the factual accuracy of any such potential consensus.
Contemporary research reveals that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).
Also known is that the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, does the most harm. When the stressor “is completely predictable, even if it is more traumatic — such as giving a [laboratory] rat a regularly scheduled foot shock accompanied by a sharp, loud sound — the stress does not create these exact same [negative] brain changes” (pg. 42).
If allowed to continue for a sufficient amount of time, the absorption of such traumatic experiences will cause the brain to improperly develop. It can readily be the starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and adulthood in which the brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammatory stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.
The entertainment industry’s misuse of animals during filming rightfully isn’t tolerated as a general rule; and, likewise, it should not use infants and toddlers in adversely hyper-emotional drama — especially if substitutes, such as mannequin infants and/or computer-generated imagery (CGI), can be used more often.
"For me, seeing Nashville for the first time was almost a life-changing experience because I had never seen anything like it before."
I don't think there is any other movie that has elicited that strong a response or reaction from the audience. I have met more than one person who echoed your same sentiment. Take a cursory glance at the greatest movies of the past 60 years (2001, Goodfellas, Apocalypse Now e.g.) and, as great as they are, none of them have delivered an effect either as immediate or long - lasting on the viewer as Nashville. It is the only movie where I knew people in different periods of my life who told me that after seeing it for the first time, they absolutely had to remain in the theater for the next showing.
Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts about "Nashville." I think that Altman is seriously under-rated as a director today, and it's sad how many people I talk to who have never seen "Nashville" or any of his other movies.
"Barry Lyndon" is the only one of these films that I've never seen. Now I must! I remember some of the negative reactions to it at the time but since I was only 12 it wasn't a film that interested me. I don't know why I've not watched it since then. Maybe it's the length? That said, I've always thought "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was a great film. It doesn't feel dated to me so much as a reflection of how mental illness was treated at a particular period in our history. "Jaws" is a classic for sure though. Perhaps it's the film I'd vote for today. Thanks for a great read!
Excellent write up. For me, DDA was the only other film that I had close to an equal emotional response as I did with Cuckoos Nest. BL and Nashville are excellent films. Technically, I wouldn’t argue against BL being the best production. I think voters ultimately vote with their heart. Cuckoos Nest had so much heart.
Thanks for reading my article and for your kind words. I think you're right about "Cuckoo's Nest" winning best pic. It really does have a lot of heart. I remember being devastated emotionally when I first saw it in high school.
Lovely story about your teacher and your parents, classic!
I tried Nashville too young in high school and I'm ooen to trying again.
I'm not sold on trying Barry Lyndon again, however. I gave it a shot in middle school, high school, college, and as a young adult. I hesitate to turn 12 hours given to a movie I couldn't get into - even while earning a film studies degree - into 15.
Cuckoo still holds up but it's been a long while since I've seen it.
Dog is amazing, though I find it a tough watch. I have a love-hate relationship with films filled with desperation. I love Sonny and Sal, and it's hard to watch them blunder through the robbery. Similarly, Marty Supreme was a compelling story, but I did not enjoy the character. And while I enjoy a downward spiral like Sideways, I have no interest in Uncut Gems.
Jaws is what I return to the most. At least once a year. It's some of the most fun I could have at the movies.
Thanks for reading! I think "Jaws" could definitely have won Best Picture that year because it's just so well-made and exciting. I watch it at least one a year too. But "Barry Lyndon" is Kubrick, and like many Kubrick movies, it's unique until itself. I also think this is a film that needs to be seen in a great movie theater the first time, especially since it's so visual. Like "2001," it's not the same watching it at home. If you decide to give the film another chance, you might break it up into two parts since the movie has an intermission. You could watch the second half a day later. And yes, please give "Nashville" another chance. I don't think there's any other film like it and in many ways it's more relevant now than it was back in '75.
Thank you, Jim, for bringing out the guilt in me! I have never seen Jaws or Nashville, and I slept through most of Barry Lyndon. I was mesmerized by Dog Day Afternoon, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has the longest reaching affect, with people still referring to Nurse Ratched characters today (I experienced one last year following my surgery!) Another great read!!!
Thanks for reading! "Jaws" really should be seen in a theater for the first time you watch it. I think a lot of theaters show it for one night during the summer now, so maybe you can catch it a few months from now. If not, it definitely worth watching at home too. "Nashville" is also worth watching too. As I've said before, I think it's more relevant now than when it was first released over 50 years ago.
Though I don't place Dog Day Afternoon in the same class as the eternal Kubrick classic, Dog Day gives me frissons of terror when I compare the horror of Sal's murder in the getaway car with the terrifyingly common abuse meted under color of law today.
Man, 1975 was a phenomenal year for American film.
It's nice to meet a fellow "Barry Lyndon fan! And yes, I do think it's the best film of 1975. Also, "Dog Day Afternoon" is emotionally draining every time I watch it, which I think is a tribute to effective the film is today, largely thanks to Pacino's performance (and the rest of the cast) and Lumet's fine directing. And yes, I don't think we'll ever see another year with so many great films like 1975, but we can hope it could happen again.
I am more delighted than you can imagine to meet a fellow film freak, Jim!! Barry Lyndon is gorgeous, stately and moves so sedately, like a fine classic novel. And yet, on a granular level Kubrick was so attentive to not masking the grittiness of 18th century warfare, disease, corruption and decay. The man was a master of filmmaking. He is my favorite of the great film artists.
I agree! I think I became an English major in college because of “Barry Lyndon.” After I saw the movie, I read the original novel and then began reading other British authors too. Kubrick (and Coppola) are my favorite film directors. When I first saw “2001” in 70mm for the first time in high school, it was a life-changing experience. It’s my all-time favorite movie.
My favorite Coppola film is Bram Stoker’s Dracula. It has its shortcomings. Principally, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, who sort of sleepwalked through the movie. But oh my stars, those costumes and that set direction! Unlike Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, which is lush and layered and fairly demands that one look at every detail, even down to the buttons on the redcoats’ jackets, Dracula saturated my senses. Those costumes! And the way Gary Oldman reveled in the part. Well, I still enjoy watching it, even 33 years after its release.
I don’t know if you have seen Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (1957), but you might want to see if you can catch it. It is one of the very first feature-length films he created, and though he tried to have every copy destroyed, he neglected one copy, which was secreted someplace in a library in South America. It is truly worth your time, if only to see baby Kubrick the film school student, well before he became widely known.
Yes, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a visual feast and a lot of fun. To me, the film builds on the techniques and style Coppola used in "One From The Heart," (which I mostly like, especially in its original version). Also, I think the Kubrick movie you meant to ask me about is "Fear and Desire." I have the Kino blu-ray and find it fascinating because you see the Kubrick approach to filmmaking and his sense of style in its infancy.
You are correct, Jim. I tried to rely on my mushy old memory instead of checking my watched list. Even for an early film, it definitely conveyed the talent of a budding master.
I have never seen Coppola's "One From the Heart." I will have to scout around for it. When it was released in 1982 I was a brand new active duty Navy Ensign trying to find a cheap apartment in DC, so I missed its release.
Thanks for reading! Yes, all five films really are masterpieces. I wonder if people back then realized what a phenomenal year for movies '75 turned out to be.
Thanks for reading! There's no other film like "Nashville," and only Altman could take 24 characters and tell all of their stories in such a unique way, inventing his own genre in the process too.
Thanks for reading! I don't think "Anora" should've won the Oscar for best pic last year either. Sean Baker is a talented filmmaker but "Anora" isn't his best work. I would've given the Oscar to "The Brutalist" instead.
I've never seen Nashville. I shall correct this error promptly.
I will say Dog Day Afternoon is superior to Cuckoo's Nest. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
Hi Anne,
Thanks for reading! "Nashville" is an amazing movie, and like I said in my article, it isn't like other films. I hope you'll enjoy watching it!
Thank you so much for giving me something to read that supports my love for the Oscars!!!
Hi Jeri,
You're welcome! And thank you very much for reading it too.
You’ve got a new follower! BTW Jaws is one of my favorite movies, but I like the blockbuster summer hits from the old days
Awesome! Thank you! I like the blockbuster summer hits from the old days too: "Logan's Run," "Alien" "Xanadu" (guilty pleasure); "The Shining," "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and all the great movies from the summer of '82: "The Thing," "Blade Runner" and "ET."
This is such a "win-win-win-win-win" year. I could be happy calling any of these Best Picture. Obviously, I think Barry Lyndon should have won but One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest has something so "everyman" about it. We do not award films, these days, which so many people are able to connect to. (See: One Battle's win, which surely alientated half its viewership). Great article, Jim!
Thanks, Brock! I don't think we'll ever see another year of great films like 1975 ever again.
I feel the same way about 2007 Oscars. There Will Be Blood. Michael Clayton. No Country For Old Men.
Hi Brian,
Thanks for reading! That's a great comparison.
Right on all accounts, Jim. I would just have to disagree that “One Flew Over … “ was a masterpiece (then again, I know you’re writing on a public forum and keeping the harmony is definitely important). It’s not just the fact that it veers away from much of Kesey’s text … and truthfully, the point of the book … but it tries too hard to be a fun-loving Hollywood film (which, fairly, you stated). The voters wanted something to feel good about (of course, it’s a bit unsettling that THIS was the “feel-good” entry of the group). As you made the point, Forman’s treatment of mental illness was really lacking. I just remember McMurphy (Nicholson) passing out booze. Believe he even injected it into a patient’s IV. Completely safe decision there.
This is an interesting piece. I have seen all of these films multiple times with the exception of Cuckoo's Nest. I only saw it once but I read the book long before I saw the film and loved the book. In my mind the book and the film are radically different because of the POV shift. The book is told from the Chief's POV and for me it was incredibly moving. They took that out and turned it into the Jack Nicholson Show. I disliked the film at the time because of that. This film is the reason I rarely see a film that I loved the book it is based on. (A notable exception obviously is To Kill A Mocking Bird, both versions are fantastic!) So I am sure I judged it unfairly at the time. I also have no interest in going back and viewing it again. The other 4 films are all fantastic in their own way and any of them could have won. The Oscars are a big popularity contest, which is fine as I no longer take film awards seriously on any level, especially because the best films of any year are rarely nominated in my mind. I guess it's my independent mind frame and having worked in the business for so many years that has lead me to that conclusion. I still love films although I rarely see the big Hollywood films anymore, especially the blockbusters. I really appreciate the research you did on this piece and did find it wonderful to read. Of the group I would probably go with Nashville as it blew me away when it came out. And it was so different and still holds up today. Keep writing my friend I enjoy reading your take on films. Take care.
Hi Kelley,
Thanks for reading! I can no longer take awards shows seriously now either. When I was young, I thought the Oscars were the final judgement on the quality of movies; now I just laugh at how naive I was back then.
When an Oscar or other acting award nominee wins and accepts the prize at the podium, he/she typically thanks the various other participants in the relevant film’s creation. For me what’s always conspicuously lacking in the brief speech is any mention of the infants or toddlers used in filming negatively melodramatic scenes, let alone any potential resultant harm to their very malleable psyches, perhaps even a childhood post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD).
Long before reading Sigmund Freud’s or other academics’ theories/thoughts on early-life trauma, I, while cringing, was (still am) astonished at how the producers and directors of negatively hyper-emotional big-/small-screen ‘entertainment’ could comfortably conclude that no psychological harm would come to their infant/toddler ‘actors’ as they screamed in bewilderment.
Cannot one logically conclude by observing their turmoil-filled facial expressions that they’re perceiving, and likely cerebrally recording, the hyper-emotional scene activity around them at face value rather than as a fictitious occurrence? More so, how could the parents of those undoubtedly extremely upset infants/toddlers allow it?!
Admittedly, I’d initially presumed there had to be a reliable educated consensus within the entertainment industry and psychology academia that there's little or no such risk, otherwise the practice would logically and compassionately have ceased. But then I became increasingly doubtful of the factual accuracy of any such potential consensus.
Contemporary research reveals that, since it cannot fight or flight, a baby stuck in a crib on its back hearing parental discord in the next room can only “move into a third neurological state, known as a ‘freeze’ state … This freeze state is a trauma state” (Childhood Disrupted: How Your Biography Becomes Your Biology and How You Can Heal, pg.123).
Also known is that the unpredictability of a stressor, and not the intensity, does the most harm. When the stressor “is completely predictable, even if it is more traumatic — such as giving a [laboratory] rat a regularly scheduled foot shock accompanied by a sharp, loud sound — the stress does not create these exact same [negative] brain changes” (pg. 42).
If allowed to continue for a sufficient amount of time, the absorption of such traumatic experiences will cause the brain to improperly develop. It can readily be the starting point towards a childhood, adolescence and adulthood in which the brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammatory stress hormones and chemicals, even in non-stressful daily routines.
The entertainment industry’s misuse of animals during filming rightfully isn’t tolerated as a general rule; and, likewise, it should not use infants and toddlers in adversely hyper-emotional drama — especially if substitutes, such as mannequin infants and/or computer-generated imagery (CGI), can be used more often.
Hi Frank,
This is fascinating. Thanks for reading my article and for your insights!
Ditto, Jim.
"For me, seeing Nashville for the first time was almost a life-changing experience because I had never seen anything like it before."
I don't think there is any other movie that has elicited that strong a response or reaction from the audience. I have met more than one person who echoed your same sentiment. Take a cursory glance at the greatest movies of the past 60 years (2001, Goodfellas, Apocalypse Now e.g.) and, as great as they are, none of them have delivered an effect either as immediate or long - lasting on the viewer as Nashville. It is the only movie where I knew people in different periods of my life who told me that after seeing it for the first time, they absolutely had to remain in the theater for the next showing.
Hi Vince,
Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts about "Nashville." I think that Altman is seriously under-rated as a director today, and it's sad how many people I talk to who have never seen "Nashville" or any of his other movies.
"Barry Lyndon" is the only one of these films that I've never seen. Now I must! I remember some of the negative reactions to it at the time but since I was only 12 it wasn't a film that interested me. I don't know why I've not watched it since then. Maybe it's the length? That said, I've always thought "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was a great film. It doesn't feel dated to me so much as a reflection of how mental illness was treated at a particular period in our history. "Jaws" is a classic for sure though. Perhaps it's the film I'd vote for today. Thanks for a great read!
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reading! I hope you'll give "Barry Lyndon" a second chance sometime soon.
Excellent write up. For me, DDA was the only other film that I had close to an equal emotional response as I did with Cuckoos Nest. BL and Nashville are excellent films. Technically, I wouldn’t argue against BL being the best production. I think voters ultimately vote with their heart. Cuckoos Nest had so much heart.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for reading my article and for your kind words. I think you're right about "Cuckoo's Nest" winning best pic. It really does have a lot of heart. I remember being devastated emotionally when I first saw it in high school.
Lovely story about your teacher and your parents, classic!
I tried Nashville too young in high school and I'm ooen to trying again.
I'm not sold on trying Barry Lyndon again, however. I gave it a shot in middle school, high school, college, and as a young adult. I hesitate to turn 12 hours given to a movie I couldn't get into - even while earning a film studies degree - into 15.
Cuckoo still holds up but it's been a long while since I've seen it.
Dog is amazing, though I find it a tough watch. I have a love-hate relationship with films filled with desperation. I love Sonny and Sal, and it's hard to watch them blunder through the robbery. Similarly, Marty Supreme was a compelling story, but I did not enjoy the character. And while I enjoy a downward spiral like Sideways, I have no interest in Uncut Gems.
Jaws is what I return to the most. At least once a year. It's some of the most fun I could have at the movies.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for reading! I think "Jaws" could definitely have won Best Picture that year because it's just so well-made and exciting. I watch it at least one a year too. But "Barry Lyndon" is Kubrick, and like many Kubrick movies, it's unique until itself. I also think this is a film that needs to be seen in a great movie theater the first time, especially since it's so visual. Like "2001," it's not the same watching it at home. If you decide to give the film another chance, you might break it up into two parts since the movie has an intermission. You could watch the second half a day later. And yes, please give "Nashville" another chance. I don't think there's any other film like it and in many ways it's more relevant now than it was back in '75.
Thank you, Jim, for bringing out the guilt in me! I have never seen Jaws or Nashville, and I slept through most of Barry Lyndon. I was mesmerized by Dog Day Afternoon, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has the longest reaching affect, with people still referring to Nurse Ratched characters today (I experienced one last year following my surgery!) Another great read!!!
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for reading! "Jaws" really should be seen in a theater for the first time you watch it. I think a lot of theaters show it for one night during the summer now, so maybe you can catch it a few months from now. If not, it definitely worth watching at home too. "Nashville" is also worth watching too. As I've said before, I think it's more relevant now than when it was first released over 50 years ago.
No contest: Barry Lyndon.
Though I don't place Dog Day Afternoon in the same class as the eternal Kubrick classic, Dog Day gives me frissons of terror when I compare the horror of Sal's murder in the getaway car with the terrifyingly common abuse meted under color of law today.
Man, 1975 was a phenomenal year for American film.
Hi Six More Characters,
It's nice to meet a fellow "Barry Lyndon fan! And yes, I do think it's the best film of 1975. Also, "Dog Day Afternoon" is emotionally draining every time I watch it, which I think is a tribute to effective the film is today, largely thanks to Pacino's performance (and the rest of the cast) and Lumet's fine directing. And yes, I don't think we'll ever see another year with so many great films like 1975, but we can hope it could happen again.
I am more delighted than you can imagine to meet a fellow film freak, Jim!! Barry Lyndon is gorgeous, stately and moves so sedately, like a fine classic novel. And yet, on a granular level Kubrick was so attentive to not masking the grittiness of 18th century warfare, disease, corruption and decay. The man was a master of filmmaking. He is my favorite of the great film artists.
I agree! I think I became an English major in college because of “Barry Lyndon.” After I saw the movie, I read the original novel and then began reading other British authors too. Kubrick (and Coppola) are my favorite film directors. When I first saw “2001” in 70mm for the first time in high school, it was a life-changing experience. It’s my all-time favorite movie.
My favorite Coppola film is Bram Stoker’s Dracula. It has its shortcomings. Principally, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, who sort of sleepwalked through the movie. But oh my stars, those costumes and that set direction! Unlike Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, which is lush and layered and fairly demands that one look at every detail, even down to the buttons on the redcoats’ jackets, Dracula saturated my senses. Those costumes! And the way Gary Oldman reveled in the part. Well, I still enjoy watching it, even 33 years after its release.
I don’t know if you have seen Kubrick’s Paths of Glory (1957), but you might want to see if you can catch it. It is one of the very first feature-length films he created, and though he tried to have every copy destroyed, he neglected one copy, which was secreted someplace in a library in South America. It is truly worth your time, if only to see baby Kubrick the film school student, well before he became widely known.
Hi Sixmorecharacters,
Yes, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a visual feast and a lot of fun. To me, the film builds on the techniques and style Coppola used in "One From The Heart," (which I mostly like, especially in its original version). Also, I think the Kubrick movie you meant to ask me about is "Fear and Desire." I have the Kino blu-ray and find it fascinating because you see the Kubrick approach to filmmaking and his sense of style in its infancy.
You are correct, Jim. I tried to rely on my mushy old memory instead of checking my watched list. Even for an early film, it definitely conveyed the talent of a budding master.
I have never seen Coppola's "One From the Heart." I will have to scout around for it. When it was released in 1982 I was a brand new active duty Navy Ensign trying to find a cheap apartment in DC, so I missed its release.
Tough choice. There is argument for all five. All are incredible films
Hi Hebkid,
Thanks for reading! Yes, all five films really are masterpieces. I wonder if people back then realized what a phenomenal year for movies '75 turned out to be.
Yeah. That has got to be one of the strongest best picture fields ever
Yeah. That has got to be one of the strongest best picture fields ever
Every time I rewatch Nashville I think it just might be the best movie ever made
Hi Tom,
Thanks for reading! There's no other film like "Nashville," and only Altman could take 24 characters and tell all of their stories in such a unique way, inventing his own genre in the process too.
If there ever was a year where the Academy Was, Wrong, it was last year with Anora. I think one flew over the cuckoos nest deserved its wins.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for reading! I don't think "Anora" should've won the Oscar for best pic last year either. Sean Baker is a talented filmmaker but "Anora" isn't his best work. I would've given the Oscar to "The Brutalist" instead.
Haven't seen the Brutalist.