More Oscar Volleys are upon us. Today, ERIC BLUME and BEN MILLER discuss the Oscar race for Best Production Design...
ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER's Florencia Martin and Anthony Carlino are just happy to be nominated. They have non chance of winning.
ERIC: Hi Ben, let's take a look at our five nominated films for the Best Production Design Oscar: Frankenstein, Hamnet, Marty Supreme, One Battle After Another, and Sinners. Maybe just for funsies, we can go backwards. What are the two films that you think stand the smallest chance of winning this award?
BEN: Frankly, there aren't many categories where One Battle After Another stands very little chance, but I think we have finally arrived at one...
Of the crafts the film excels at, this is the one with the least flashy work. The Oscars, and especially the Production Design branch, love maximalism. That's not to say the work isn't awesome, it's just not what they usually care about. The same goes for Hamnet. That playhouse, as well as the Shakespeare household, are wonders to behold, but it's too understated. There aren't preposterous door knockers or expertly set up juke joints. If you look back at the Production Design Oscar history, the smallest winner was La La Land, and even that was pretty large-scale. I would also put Marty Supreme in the same boat as OBAA and Hamnet. Too understated, despite it being my personal winner.
I'm feeling feisty, and I'll be honest with you: I can't stand Frankenstein's Production Design. It's a bigger problem I have with the movie as a whole. There is so much about it that indulges in faux atmosphere and setting without focusing on anything the text should actually be focusing on. It's big, and impressive, and has zero subtlety. Tell me I'm wrong, and do you like what they are doing?
ERIC: Agreed that OBAA is a true surprise nominee, and it's cool that they acknowledged the care and detail of both the French 75 sequences set in the past and the DiCaprio home interiors, dojo setups, and whatnot in the present. I wish we saw more contemporary and "non-stylized" work like this recognized year after year after year.
Fiona Crombie and Alice Felton reconstructed The Globe for HAMNET.
And agreed that Hamnet is probably in fourth place, despite really superb work to place you in the year 1600(ish), allowing Chloé Zhao to do her Carl Theodor Dreyer stately framing. That recreation of the theater is truly splendid, and all the decisions towards sparseness throughout are so thoughtful and unflashy that I think it may be the best work in the category.
And Ben, the sets of La La Land are IMMENSE! That final musical sequence is so stunningly realized! (I will welcome any opportunity to extoll the virtues of the masterpiece that is La La Land.)
The production design in Marty Supreme was my favorite element of a film I really hated. Jack Fisk has been doing this for over 50 years, and it's insane that he doesn't have an Oscar for it yet. That bowling alley alone was beyond perfect. He's such a master of detail, and he does everything so lovingly. I would adore seeing him win, despite my extreme distaste for the picture itself. But voters do not give career awards in this category.
So, I guess our focus is on Sinners versus Frankenstein, though I don't think it's much of a battle for the victory, which is going to Frankenstein for sure. So let's get into it. I love the production design of Frankenstein exactly because there is no subtlety. It's a monster movie! I don't want subtle in my monster movies (and I'd argue Jacob Elordi brings the subtlety).
As designed by Tamara Deverell and Shane Vieau, FRANKENSTEIN's lab screams at the horror of his creations.
To cite a specific example, let's start with the doctor's laboratory. So you're the del Toro team, you're remaking Frankenstein for the umpteenth time, and viewers know the story, have seen this laboratory constructed many times, so there are both expectations you must deliver on as well as traps you must avoid. I thought the design team found the right idea there: that sequence has to feel enormous, right? It's *the* moment of the movie, and that set piece needs to be colossal. To me, they constructed a world that feels both in-period and out-of-period at the same time, which is kind of the movie's overall visual sensibility. I know a lot of people feel very strongly about hating the visual elements, but I think the decision to go "huge and Gothic" was thrillingly executed.
Give me some specific examples of elements or sets or moments in the film that drive your dissatisfaction.
BEN: I guess it's just an aspect of maximalism without fully committing to the bit. You have these ridiculously huge energy orbs in the lab, with all the crazy-faced wall adornments, only for Victor himself to be a big dullard. This is not a problem with the Production Design itself, but a larger issue I have with the film. I don't get how you can take such specific care with the visual aspects of this story without giving equal care to the rest of it. But, as I said, this is not a knock on the Production Design or Tamara Deverell. I need to separate the film as a whole from the filmmaker’s individual achievement. She did exactly what del Toro wanted her to do, and she delivered in spades.
I guess I am more annoyed at how this category shakes out. Is it the MOST, or is it the BEST? That's the case in many categories, not just this one, of course. I think Sinners would be an incredible winner, mostly because it isn't about those massive gothic figures and chances to shine. Instead, you have to craft the structure of a juke joint, which serves the great majority of the plot. I think that's a lot harder than just making things look creepy.
In SINNERS, Hannah Beachler and Monique Champagne brought the Mississippi Delta of 1932 back to life. This church was built from scratch on the grounds of a Louisiana plantation.
Here's my question to you: what do you want out of this category?
ERIC: Well, sadly, I think many Oscar categories equivocate to MOST rather than BEST. That's traditionally true of this category, the costume race, and sadly, sometimes, the acting ones! To your point, while I'm well on record here stating that Sinners is an absurdly overrated movie, I think if the Oscars were being handed out to location scouts, it would be a worthy winner. The movie makes the most of these expertly found and smartly chosen locations, which lend to the sweaty, soupy, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink style of it. But within those locations, I don't see anything in the production design that is particularly artful. It's certainly adequately managed by that art team, but not in any way that any superb art team would render it. It's professionally and smartly designed, but in my opinion, not anywhere near an Oscar nomination or win.
I feel this list of five is one of the weakest slates of nominees we've had in this category in many years. The craftspeople like to nominate films that are either very "big" in their world-building (elaborate sets that really bring the director's vision to life), or attention-to-detail work (like the nomination for The Father, which was largely one-set, but the team really packed it with specifics). And this year's overall crop of films didn't have an enormous amount of either of those... so instead we kind of got "default" nominees, which are just the films people liked best this year. The list overall just feels curiously uninspired. Would have been nice to see surprise nominations for something "big" like Kiss of the Spider Woman (which superbly constructs "real" and "fantasy movie" worlds shockingly and effectively separate from one another), or something "attention-to-detail" like the smart work the team in After the Hunt does, capturing the lives of the academic characters with very specific indoor spaces.
So the category is a bit of a dud for me this year, Ben. I do think it comes down to Sinners vs. Frankenstein. My vote between the two is definitely Frankenstein, but as mentioned, I thought it did the most out of these five in terms of world-building. But I know there are people who just hate the look and design of that film. I was in the exact same position with last year's winner, Wicked, which I found one of the ugliest and junkiest and most-designed-to-be-recreated-for-a-theme-park movies I'd ever seen.
So what's your final personal vote and projected winner... and any final thoughts?
Working on limited resources, Jack Fisk and Adam Willis improvised this perfectly period car lot for the last day of shooting in MARTY SUPREME.
BEN: My personal vote would go to Marty Supreme, for all the aforementioned reasons. As you said, that bowling alley scene alone is worthy, but if you add the apartments, the ping pong bar, the dingy hotel, the old house in the country, and the final outdoor exhibition, they are all exemplary work. That would be the coolest win in a long time, but we all know better.
As far as predicting the winner, we all can see Frankenstein walking away with this. It's a lot of substance, and it makes the most of the maximalism on display. Ultimately, it's the kind of winner you expect from this category. And if there is anything Frankenstein probably deserves, it's this win. All in all, it's a pretty underwhelming category in terms of competitiveness. If Sinners actually ends up winning, maybe the Best Picture gas can be amped up a bit. But, I don't see that happening.
ERIC: While I don’t like the idea of Marty Supreme winning anything, it also might be my personal choice, too, mostly because I’d love to see Jack Fisk as an Oscar winner after 50 years of superb work. But second choice for me would be Frankenstein, and I agree that it losing would be a shock.
Thanks for the fun convo, as always! Eager to see viewers’ thoughts in the comments.
If FRANKENSTEIN wins, will it be a case of "most" winning over "best"?
Previous Oscar Volleys: