Which live-action short will take home the Academy Award?
Five brief reviews to help you win the Oscars pool
At the Oscars, the shorts categories are the hardest to predict. Guessing which short wins is often like betting on a horse at the track: Sometimes you get lucky simply by picking the horse with the catchiest name, or choosing the one with the most famous jockey.
Last week, I guided you through the animated shorts up for this year’s best animated short Oscar. This week, I’m discussing the live-action short Oscar nominees to help you win that Oscar pool. The Animated and Live-Action shorts continue their run at the Coolidge Corner Theatre.
“The Wonderful World of Henry Sugar”
Wes Anderson returns to the work of Roald Dahl, author of “The Fantastic Mr. Fox.” This one isn’t animated, however. Instead, it’s an exhausting audiobook disguised as a movie, complete with big-name actors spouting off exposition so rapidly it sounds like one of those disclaimers that run before a used car ad on the radio.
Ralph Fiennes stars as Dahl. He’s telling us the story of Henry Sugar (Benedict Cumberbatch), a rather unlikable rich man who loves gambling. Sugar discovers a diary written by a doctor (Dev Patel) who met a man named Khan (Ben Kingsley) who could “see without using his eyes.”
As Sugar reads the diary, the doctor appears and starts telling his story in person. Then Khan appears to tell us what he told the doctor. Then we return to the doctor’s story to finish up the book Sugar’s reading.
And then we return to Dahl telling the main story. In it, Sugar devotes his life to learning the seeing technique Khan explained. He will use it to see the cards at casinos all over the world.
Though Dahl’s tale is intriguing, Anderson’s method of telling it is an ungodly bore. Not only are we subject to 40 minutes of actors reading a story as monotonously (and as quickly) as possible, the scenery changes as if we’re watching a stage play. All four actors also play multiple parts, which adds to the twee, cutesy nature that is Anderson’s most wretched trademark.
Picking this to win the Oscar would be a wise choice, as this category loves to award famous people (actors Riz Ahmed, Christine Lahti, Peter “Doctor Who” Capaldi, and director Taylor Hackford are past winners). It’s the odds-on favorite, too. But I’m not picking it because it’s up against the one thing the Academy loves most of all: a back-patting message movie. (★½)
“Red, White and Blue”
Writer-director Nazrin Choudhury’s short is about how hard it is to obtain an abortion in a red state. This is a very timely topic, especially in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Brittany Snow plays Rachel, an Arkansas single mother with two kids who is barely scraping by financially. She needs to pay for an abortion as quickly as possible. We see her reaching into her savings (hidden in a book on her bookshelf ), counting her waitressing tips, and even breaking into the piggy bank of her eldest kid, Maddy (Juliet Donenfeld) to procure funds.
A good Samaritan (Mo Collins) senses Rachel is pregnant and asks her how much she needs before leaving a tip big enough to finance the trip. Leaving her younger son with friends, Rachel takes Maddy on what she describes is a “girls road trip” to Illinois, a state far more friendly to those who seek abortions.
Snow and Donenfeld are both excellent. And without any embellishments, this story would have been effective. But Choudhury throws in a twist that’s meant to be shocking but instead feels dishonest. I assume this new development was supposed to make the film’s pro-choice argument airtight, but it just comes off as a last-minute attempt to stun viewers into compliance.
Had the twist been presented as the plot itself from the beginning,”Red, White and Blue” would have been a far more powerful feature. I hate panning movies that support my politics, but this was a major missed opportunity. The Academy has no such restriction on honoring movies that preach to its choir, however, so Choudhury’s movie will win. (★★)
The rest of the also-rans:
“The After”
David Oyelowo (“Selma”) stars as Dayo, a rideshare driver whose traumatic past comes back to haunt him when he picks up a bickering couple and their young daughter. Director Misan Harriman aims for a tension-filled meditation on grief, but makes the mistake of showing us the violent event that caused Dayo’s pain. It is presented so haphazardly that it confuses the viewer.
Since Oyelowo is so good at conveying his pain, it would have been better to imply the tragedy that befell him instead. (★★½)
“Knight of Fortune”
Another film about grieving a loved one, this time from Denmark. Karl (Leif Andrée) enters a funeral home to view the body of his late wife, Karen. But he can’t bear to open her casket. Seeking refuge in the men’s room, he meets Torben (Jens Jørn Spottag), a man in a similar predicament. The two men discover something else in common: Their wives loved a song called “Knight of Fortune.”
Torben asks Karl to accompany him to his wife’s viewing. He will do the same for Karl. Things do not go as planned.
Director Lasse Lyskjaer Noer’s film is being billed as a comedy, and I suppose it is one in a dark, morbid sense. The humor comes from repetition — we keep hearing about the possibility of a corpse having yellow skin and its mouth open — and from the sly notion that, in their shared grief, these two men forge a gentle new friendship.
When I first watched “Knight of Fortune,” it didn’t register much. But I couldn’t stop thinking about all of its little touches, from the dank lighting of the funeral home to how moved I was by Torben’s sad story. It became my favorite of the five. (★★★)
“Invincible”
Léokim Beaumier-Lépine gives a riveting performance as Marc, a 14-year old boy in Canada who has been sentenced to juvie hall. Tired of the rules, and missing his family, he escapes. This film follows him on the last 48 hours of his life. Director Vincent René-Lortie begins with Marc’s death, so this is no spoiler. Based on a true story, and worth seeing for Beaumier-Lépine. (★★★)