Aliss at the Fire - Jon Fosse (Transl. Damion Searls) (2004; 2010; 2022)

This book is 74 pages long and I received it as a gift on New Year's Eve and it took me 71 days to read. 

I should have finished it sooner. I took it with me to Spain, and I spent most of that time reading The Shards, not this. I feel guilty about this, and so the only thing I can do is explain myself. I try to pride myself on having wide-ranging tastes, and being open-minded towards more experimental literature, but in reality, my imagination is rather limited. I tend to be self-obsessed and look for personal connections in art to elevate (or justify) my own experience as a human being in this world. I would like to try to understand others better so that I can be more compassionate towards their sensitivities and struggles, but I also have my own, and they are not often considered "worthy" of transmogrification in art. Here, that struggle may be "grief," or perhaps death itself, which is something that all of us share, and so this should mean something to us all--but the method of communication has to fit the message. Unless there really isn't one.  

This is a really strange little book. It bears something of a resemblance to the final section of Ulysses. It has no punctuation, save for question marks (and more limited exclamation points--but see below). New sentences are denoted by capitalization, but these are generally lines of dialogue, and beyond that, only proper nouns are capitalized. So there are no sentences, really. Someone compares it Waiting for Godot in a praise blurb on the back (technically, "The Beckett of the twenty-first century" - Le Monde) and that is a fair estimation of its plot. Except instead of Godot, Signe (?) is waiting for Asle to return.

I thought it was Aliss that was waiting for Asle to return but looking back at the first page it does appear the protagonist of this novella is Signe, the woman, who is looking out the window of her home on some Thursday in 2002, thinking back to a date in 1979 when her husband went out to the fjord near their home in a flimsy rowboat. He never returned (I think) and so she continues to wait, 23 years later. 

The book might have been a little more interesting if she had taken edibles or acid or mushrooms or something, because it does become "trippy." It essentially consists of an extended hallucination where the woman (I will call her that because the book mostly just says "she") looks through the window and see various things, generally closer to the shore, that appear to be distant events from the past. (If you don't mind, I'm going to read the wikipedia page now, because sometimes we need cliffs notes to confirm uncertain understanding.)

Before that, though, the translator's note does offer some clues, and may "sell" the book better than this review: 

"The Norweigan title of this novel is Det er Ales, which means 'That's Ales' or 'It's Ales'; the woman's name in the original is Ales, not Aliss. Unfortunately, this Norweigan name coincides with the English word for a type of beer, and would certainly be interpreted that way in a title without other context: It's Ales would come across as a very different book than the one Fosse wrote. Since publishing this book in 2004, Fosse has written a Trilogy and Septology with multiple characters named Asle and Ales, so the decision might have been different now, but a dozen years ago I decided I needed to change Ales's name and the book's title. This second edition follows the first English translation, published in 2010, but readers should know that Aliss is another one of Fosse's characters named Ales." ([77])

Not much more helpful, though the 2nd paragraph of the note may be more illuminating:

"Back then I emailed Fosse to ask what the name Ales meant to him and what he wanted the title to convey. I had noticed that the book's first burst of short sentences, after forty or so pages flowing by without a full stop, included the sentence 'Det er Ales,' so the title should refer to that moment in the book, but what else? Fosse told me that Ales was a very old-fashioned name, 'maybe your grandmother might have known an old woman names Ales'. He himself had a great-great-grandmother named Ales who was known as a 'wise woman', a healer. She really did heal people, and the sick came to see her from far and wide; at one point she was called in to see a local priest, to talk about her 'practice', but there was no punishment. About the title, Fosse said: 'It means Ales is spreading out over the whole universe.'" ([77])

So it appears there are actual sentences. Let me try to find them:

I'm super proud of myself now:

".....and she takes the stick over to the fire and she puts the stick with the sheep head on it into the flames and while the boy dangles in her arm she moves the sheep head back and forth in the flames, and then its wool catches fire and blazes up and then a burnt smell goes up, burning, and then she dips the sheep head in the water of the fjord before she puts it back into the flames, and again that burnt smell, and then she moves the sheep head back and forth, back and forth in the flames. That's Aliss, he thinks, and he sees it, he knows it. That's Aliss at the fire. That is Aliss, he thinks, his great-great-grandmother, he is sure of it. It's Aliss, he was named after her, or rather after her grandson Asle, the one who died when he was seven, the one who drowned, he drowned in the bay, his Grandpa Olaf's brother, his namesake. But that is Aliss, in her early twenties, he thinks. And the boy, about two years old, that's Kristoffer, his great-grandfather, the one who would later be Grandpa Olaf's father and also the father of the Asle he was named after, his namesake, the one who drowned when he was just seven years old, he thinks and he sees Kristoffer start to cry dangling there in Aliss's arm and she puts down the stick with the sheep head on it and then she sets Kristoffer down  on the shore and he stands up and stands there unsteady on his little legs, and then Kristoffer takes one careful step, and he stands, and then he takes another step, and then he falls on his side and shrieks and Aliss says no, why do you have to try to stand up, can't you just sit quiet, Aliss says, and she puts down the stick and she picks up Kristoffer and holds him tight to her chest
  You good little boy, you're a good little boy, Aliss says
  Don't cry now, don't cry anymore, that's a good boy, she says
  and Kristoffer stops crying, gives a little sob, and then he's happy again and Aliss puts him down on the same stone as before and she picks up the stick with the sheep head again and starts to burn it, moves it back and forth in the flames. And again Kristoffer stands up. And again he takes a careful step forward. And then another. And Aliss stands there, moving the stick with the sheep head on it back and forth in the flames. That is Aliss." (33-34)

Actually, the sentences continue onto page 35, but end there. I excerpt something so long to provide a flavor of the text and perhaps you can see why it was difficult for me to summon the will to ensconce myself within it.

The wikipedia page is not much help because it does not exist, but there is one for Jon Fosse, which notes that he suffered a serious accident at age 7 that brought him close to death and significantly influenced his later writing. 

And so perhaps Aliss at the Fire is a puzzle one has to solve: it must be semi-autobiographical in some form or shade, Asle (the great-grand-uncle) died at age 7, I think, and Aliss is portrayed as something of a healer, in the vision that Signe/Asle has.

Yes, the book shifts perspectives between Signe and Asle at a certain point, and then there is later Brita (who I think is ancestor-Asle's mother, or current-Asle's great-great-grand-aunt), who gives a boat to Asle for his 7th birthday (Kristoffer, Asle's older brother, is apparently there too).

To say this book is enormously difficult and confusing is an understatement. It is extremely boring, to a ridiculous degree.

I said some of these things to my friend that gave it to me as a gift, and he told me that Fosse's masterpiece is 700 pages long and very similar in style and tone to this, and opens up with an image of a person watching paint dry, presumably drawn out over several hundred pages. So this all feels intentional but something of a cruel joke on readers. 

Yet this is High Art, and does tend to lend credence to a fractural and mystical reality. Asle may have drowned too, like his great-grand-uncle, but he has also lived in the same house that his ancestors lived in, and so this may be considered a ghost story. It also bears a certain resemblance to a short story that I wrote a five paragraph essay on in high school called "Yellow Wallpaper." I got a C- on that paper. That story is about the frayed mental health of a subjugated woman; this story is not necessarily about madness, but a vision, seeing things that aren't there, or might be there, and the reality of things we experience when we are alone, in a house, we hear certain noises and see certain flashes of things and our experience is the only reality of them, as no other person is there to witness them or confirm that reality--it may just be in our minds.

So perhaps Aliss at the Fire is a success, because it made me think all of these things, and I do think its "message" (if it has one) may be profound. Yet on the metric of 'le plaisir du texte,' it did not provide an enjoyable experience. Perhaps neither does grief, or dying, but still, this is not a cogent meditation, this is an experiment in language and form, and the translation lends it a further air of mystery. Yet perhaps it is all too real, if one lives alone in a house in Norway, looking out at a fjord, waiting for a missing person while the hope of their return is all but lost.

2023 Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture

Certain people that fashion themselves cinephiles to one degree or another sometimes make an effort to see all of the films nominated for Best Picture in any given year. This is a difficult thing to do. I am sure I have done it at several points before, most likely when the Academy limited the nominees to 5 films. I cannot recall the last time that I saw them all. To demonstrate this, I am going to check all the old Best Picture nominees going back to the year when I last saw them all (before they announced the winner).

I think it's probably 2008. Semi-ironically, that is the one year that I lived in Hollywood. So it makes sense (easier to get advance screeners there), and in any case, it was much easier to see them all up until 2010. Now it is something of a bigger project. 

I've never undertaken it before, and there are not many days left (it's currently March 6 and I have 4 left to see), but I'm going to see what I can do. I've shifted my efforts from films and movies (there is a difference) to books, because long-form reviews of books are more acceptable (and generally safer on the "spoiler" issue). It's much easier to see a movie than read a book and Roger Ebert used to bang out film reviews in 90 minutes and I'm not going to write full-scale "Ebert reviews" for each film but I'm going to do what I can this week, because sometimes there are moments where it feels appropriate to dust off the film cricket hat. The movies and films will be addressed in the order they were seen, and this post will be updated either up until they are all seen, or March 12, which is when the winner will be announced. If I can complete this project on time, I will rank them all as if I were a voting member of the Academy, filling out a preferential ballot. No grades or stars or numbered ratings--you should be able to tell how I feel about each. 

Everything Everywhere All at Once 

Released April 8, 2022, EEAO quickly developed redoubtable buzz and became a box office sleeper hit. It made $500,000 in its opening weekend and went on to gross $73 MM in the US and $104 MM worldwide. Now, those are not Avengers numbers, but they aren't bad for a $25 MM budget. It is the third highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees, and the only one that isn't "record-breaking" in some way. It's not a Blair Witch level of success vs. budget, but it feels every bit as successful as Avatar or Top Gun, and probably more successful than Elvis even though that made more than twice as much and didn't have that much bigger of a budget.

Everybody loves this movie and I am no different. I watched it twice, and it was better on the second viewing. I am looking forward to the third. Michelle Yeoh is less likely to win than Ke Huy Quan, but they, along with every single other member of the cast turn this into a completely unpredictable multi-layered extravaganza (terrible word for a review, I know, but in this case it is accurate) that makes little-to-no sense, thumbs its nose at the "Multiverse" and one-ups it, even as that franchise has done everything in its power to make people think their movies are films and not theme park attraction blueprints. 

Pretty much everything is good about EEAO, except viewers may experience whiplash and confusion upon first viewing. There is a ton of subtext to it, but mostly, it's Michelle Yeoh. This is a career-defining statement in a similar way that Birdman was for Michael Keaton, with each film "advancing" from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Batman. CTHD was groundbreaking at the time, and so too, is this: it could be the weirdest movie ever nominated for Best Picture. It seems to reflect on the entire history of cinema, with more recent "modern classics" like Kill Bill, CTHD, Ratatouille, The Matrix, Marvel movies, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (as this is Quan's long-due comeback from his iconic turn there) all referenced, and it's better than all of them. There has been an "Asian renaissance" in cinema over the last several years, and while I cannot say this is better than Drive My Car, it is certainly a lot more entertaining and engaging, and it is probably better than Parasite.  

The Banshees of Inisheran 

2022 was a wonderful year for me, professionally. Personally, it was far from the best, as I spent a good bit of it estranged from a dear friend. Without getting into too much personal drama, let us just say that seeing this film provided an emotional balm that few cinematic experiences are able to offer. I had a similar experience with Drive My Car, and earlier, Toni Erdmann. This isn't a three-hour foreign drama, however, and the light-hearted tone keeps it from becoming gruesome or depressing. This is a follow-up to the excellent In Bruges in the same way that The Interview was a follow-up to the excellent Pineapple Express. Except this is better than In Bruges and hits a deeper emotional core. You already know that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play off each other well, but this film pushes them back about 80 years into the past and from Belgium to Ireland. It feels like a play. And plays, unlike films, are more laser-focused on providing such catharsis to the audience, to stir something in them and make them uncomfortably-moved as they watch the actors live out on stage something they've felt deeply in themselves. In this way, the film delivers, and few of the other nominees have accomplished the same. 

Elvis

On March 2, 2023, I watched Elvis. I liked it better than I thought I would. Not that I don't like Elvis. While I am not a superfan, I have always found him amusing and feel that his ghost haunts Memphis, TN in a truly remarkable way. There are not quite as many impersonators these days, it seems, and so it was time to bring him into Generation Z. And so what you have here is a relatively true-to-life biopic of a music icon...with a Doja Cat song on the soundtrack, twenty minutes deep. This is a Baz Luhrmann film, and for me personally, this was better than Moulin Rouge and not quite as good as Romeo + Juliet. Much has been made of Austin Butler, and while I am not yet sure if I am going to pick him for Best Actor, it is quite likely I will. It's a great performance, and probably better than that of Ana de Armas, doing another icon from the same era (excellent in its own right). Rami Malek won for Bohemian Rhapsody and I thought Taron Egerton won for Rocketman but I was mistaken and Joaquin Phoenix once won for Walk the Line and so I think it is a strong possibility that Butler also wins. The movie itself is about as good as one might expect. Baz Luhrmann always has a comedic sensibility in his films (i.e. flashiness, interpolating the new into the old), but Elvis could have used some broader comic relief. The funniest line to me was Elvis mispronouncing the name of the group the Byrds. His relationship with his mother, which is one of the most interesting things about the movie, is depicted in abbreviated form, rather than as a throughline and theme, as it should have been. But if you make it to the final scene, I do not believe you will remain unmoved.

Top Gun: Maverick

On March 3, I watched Top Gun: Maverick. I never saw the original despite my family owning a VHS copy of it and being rated PG. Maybe this is because I didn't care about being in the military, for better or worse, even though my Dad was in the Navy. Apparently, the "Top Gun" program is part of the Naval Air Force Academy, not the Air Force itself. This is one thing I learned in watching the sequel, which is an odd movie I would never consider Best Picture material until a few years ago. 

Now then, the main thing about this movie is that it was a huge box office hit (along with Avatar). Big box office is not a problem for the Oscars. Yet in this case, there is a certain narrative that involves Tom Cruise saying "no" to streaming ahead of the regular schedule, and it being a gamble that pays off big time. Much has been made of Steven Spielberg congratulating Tom Cruise for bringing people back into theaters.  Apart from the business aspect, the movie isn't bad, and it's worth noting that Cruise is doing some of the best work of his career in his late 50's. 

No, this is not Magnolia and he is not nominated for Best Actor, and he shouldn't be for this, and frankly, whatever next Mission Impossible movie comes out will probably be just as good. But there have already been like six of those movies and this is just the 2nd Top Gun and will probably be the last (we hope, though it seems increasingly unlikely that any successful film with any kind of franchise potential will not get a sequel for the sake of not ruining a good thing). The scene with Val Kilmer is probably the reason this is nominated for Best Picture and while it is too brief for him to get Best Supporting Actor nomination, expect Kilmer to get one of the biggest ovations on Oscar night, for his accomplishments and contributions to cinema shouldn't be discounted. 

Tàr

On March 4, I watched Tàr. I had been wanting to see this film for nearly five months, since it had come out in theaters. It did not jump to streaming until fairly recently, and I watched it on Peacock. I knew it was divisive, and I expected to come out on the "love" side, and for the most part, I do. This is an Art Film, and the first thirty minutes will test anyone's intellectual capacity. It should do for music conservatories what Black Swan did for ballet. It should be required viewing, for them and for any art students generally.

The intellectual philosophizing in the film is nearly unprecedented, and Mahler aficionados should love it to death. It is "about" a lot of things, and there is not much of a plot until you realize there's no plot to any of our lives, just events, and experiences we go through leading up to events. Blanchett is good in everything and has probably surpassed Meryl Streep in terms of cultural renown. The question is whether this is the best performance of her career. This is her 8th nomination, and she has won twice. She should win for this, because few actors in history have ever undertaken the degree of preparation that she did here. I would be curious to know who could compare. The only problem is the movie is something of a downer, as Art Films tend to be, and isn't especially emotionally satisfying to the viewer. Its ending is not the ending to Elvis, basically, but it's also quite beautiful in its own way. 

All Quiet on the Western Front

On March 5, I watched All Quiet on the Western Front. It is nominated for Best Picture because apparently there always needs to be a war movie nominated for Best Picture. It is also nominated for Best International Feature and it seems obvious it will win that one. The opening sequence illustrates that the filmmakers were looking to do for WWI what Steven Spielberg did for WWII at the opening of Saving Private Ryan. But it's only about five minutes long; I don't think it lasts ten. And it feels weirdly juxtaposed, almost as if the filmmakers are saying, "give us an Oscar for this." It's an adaptation of a widely-read novel--one I haven't read, unfortunately--and from what I can tell, has been adapted twice already, in 1930 and 1979. The 1930 version is probably quite fascinating and I'd be interested to see it after having seen this, as the source material has not changed. I have not seen anyone talk about the 1979 version favorably, so it's probably fair to remake it, and there may be some timing to it, as we constantly try to say that xx foreign policy situation will develop into WWIII, China/Russia, etc. But fighting will never be like that again, anyways. Of course, there is horrifying and gruesome violence, of course, there are a few heartbreaking moments (the plot of the film, from what I can tell, is really about which friends in their group will survive), and of course, it's a good movie, but 1917 pretended to be "one continuous take" and Dunkirk at least had a shorter runtime, so I slightly prefer them. Actually, this was probably about as "engaging" as 1917 and similarly impressive in its technical aspects. This isn't something, however, like The Thin Red Line or Apocalypse Now or Platoon or Full Metal Jacket or Born on the Fourth of July or The Deer Hunter - all of which offer something "extra" to the usual cinematic tropes of war movies. Even lacking such, it's perfectly fine, but I'm a bit surprised by the nomination here on top of the International one, and query whether Netflix really just needed to have one of their originals in the category. 

Triangle of Sadness

On March 6, I watched Triangle of Sadness with a friend. Somehow, incredibly, I lost the review I just wrote of this, and it's horribly depressing because it was pretty good. Of course we all agree that editing makes writing much better, but when you lose the original, rewriting a new one from memory is stressful. That said, I mentioned that this is the English-language debut of an acclaimed Swedish director, that I saw Force Majeure and liked this better, found it more engaging and entertaining, and questioned whether it is appropriate to nominate for Best Picture merely because it is in English, rather than Best International Feature (I cannot recall any English-language films in the Best International Category). 

Also mentioned that, like AQWF, this is a good film, but demonstrates that the Best Picture category is now available to "merely good" films rather than the "great" ones--it is good to acknowledge and include more filmmakers, but it has resulted in a bloated ballot. The category worked fine when there were only 5 nominations, and it's odd that most other categories (if not all) each have five nominees.  I mentioned that this same friend and I watched Another Round together a couple years ago and probably would both agree that it is superior to this; perhaps today, that would be nominated for Best Picture. 

Finally, declared that this was basically The White Lotus: the Movie, except that it goes even further and devolves into an allegory on class and privilege. It is absurdist, and while it is amusing and sometimes thought-provoking, it is over the top (i.e. Woody Harrelson's Marxist "Captain" reading his written reflection on workers' rights through a P.A. system as their boat is bombed by pirates). I'm still not sure what happens at the end, and I think it's meant to be open-ended, and perhaps that air of mystery is why it landed in this category. But I really think it's just because people love White Lotus and this had a very similar vibe. 

Avatar: The Way of Water

On March 7, I watched Avatar, because I'd never seen it before, from beginning to end, and felt if I was going to do this project the right way, I needed to properly prepare and get up to speed for the sequel. Right now I am expecting to make the only actual theater trip for this project in about three hours, and while Avatar is a fairly decent movie, this does not make me any more excited for the coming hours. In short, background research is complete. 

On March 8, I watched Avatar: The Way of Water in 3D at a Regal Cinema. It is nearly 30 minutes longer than Avatar. It may be the longest movie I have ever seen in a theater. Regardless, it might have felt shorter than the first one--except there was a family with several young kids that never got the memo that you're not supposed to talk during movies. This half-ruined the experience for me as I ruminated on how annoyed it made me, and how I should have been more compassionate--but they literally talked the entire way through the movie. 

In any case, this was definitely a movie to see in the theater (even though at $22, it will also be the biggest investment of this project). The visuals were, in fact, very impressive. I have seen a few other movies in 3D in recent years but this made the best use of the technology (4D might have been even more fun for it). But this is exactly the issue: Avatar literally is a theme park ride, and one hopes that Disney will now make a 2nd ride, a water ride. Only three movies in history have made more money than Avatar: The Way of Water, and two of them are also directed by James Cameron. The Academy does not need to tell more people to see this movie, but it should tell them to see it in 3D by lavishing technical awards on it. (Putting aside the notion that it looks like pure CGI, and that Kate Winslet and Sigourney Weaver are more or less unrecognizable, despite apparently modeling for computer animation.) 

The story is basically the same as Avatar, but slightly more compelling. Instead of mining the planet Pandora for precious materials that are worth $20 million per kilo on Earth, the "sky people" (i.e. human beings from Earth, the year being roughly 2170) are hunting whale-like creatures that contain a precious fluid that stops aging and goes for $80 million per vial. The two main characters from Avatar now have a family with four kids and so that is another theme here. They have run away from the forest, as they have been tracked there by humans, and escaped to the ocean. One of their sons bonds with one of the "whales" that saves his life and that relationship is probably the best part about the movie (in the same way that Sigourney Weaver was probably the best thing about the first one). In short, I liked it better than expected, but mostly for the visuals. I might go to see Avatar 3 or Avatar 4 in 4D. 

The Fabelmans

On March 9, I watched The Fabelmans. A friend asked what it was about and I said, "Spielberg family basically. His growing up/To say more would spoil it." And yet I check the Vanity Fair article from where the above still is lifted, and it totally spoils the film. I generally encourage most people to avoid spoilers, because for me at least, even seeing a movie once takes something away a second time--they get burned into my brain in a way that keys in memorization, and they don't feel as new to me. Spoilers jumpstart this process ahead of time, leading me to anticipate some kind of turn, and when it happens it's not as powerful. 

Luckily I did not spoil this for myself and I would not spoil it for you except to say I knew enough about Spielberg's family from watching one doc on HBO (which is something of a career retrospective, and quite candid) that I had a sense of what this film might be like. And yes, much as it pains me to praise something by someone who definitely does not need anymore accolades, this is very good and worth seeing, on most every level. It has its share of light moments but ultimately it felt heavier to me than the other nominees (yes, even AQWF, which as noted above, also owes a debt to Spielberg). 

This also underscores the strength of the Best Actress category: Cate and the two Michelle's all deserve to win (Ana de Armas is remarkable in her own right in Blonde and let's not get into Andrea Riseborough here, it's not fair because I haven't seen To Leslie, though obviously I will, eventually). Of course, Michelle Williams gets a special boost for her excellent turns in Venom and Venom: Let There be Carnage (both criminally underrated), more so than Cate Blanchett gets a boost for being in Thor: Ragnarok. It's really hard for me to say which is my favorite but I have to go with Cate Blanchett because I felt like I could identify the most with her Tàr (ignore what that says about me). 

Joyce Carol Oates slammed this movie and said it was "remarkably mediocre," comparing it to made-for-TV movies with inane dialogue and exaggerated acting, though even she had to acknowledge David Lynch's cameo as a good scene. Yes, JCO wants to be hipper than thou and this is not a super-hip film, but it's better than that. Lynch is great in his small role (arguably as good as Judd Hirsch, with far fewer lines--and Hirsch's role skirts the edge of "minimal presence required for Oscar nom") but Michelle Williams is the real standout here. The film will have to win at least one award; it probably resonated for me emotionally more than any of the others (yes it brought me closest to tears). 

Women Talking

On March 10th, I watched Women Talking with a friend--late, around midnight.  This is undoubtedly the "smallest" of the nominees and the most difficult to review. It basically is a play. Much has been made of its color palette, and given the setting, the costumes, the makeup (or lack thereof) and the subject matter, a drab sepia tone befits the proceedings. That is, the women are being attacked--more specifically, drugged and raped in their sleep--and so they congregate to vote and decide on one of three options: do nothing, stay and fight, or leave.

It is not necessarily a spoiler to say they are part of an ultra-conservative Mennonite colony, but certain facets of this cultural identity account for the some of the more surprising and powerful moments of the film. The performances by all of the women are stellar, and the script beautifully juxtaposes their personal story with a larger meditation on society as a whole. The screenplay is written by director Sarah Polley, and adapted from a novel by Miriam Toews, which was based on a true story. The events in question took place in Bolivia, and though the setting is likely transplanted to North America (the precise location of the colony is never revealed), it could happen wherever such communities with backwards rules persist (even in Brooklyn).

Few people saw this movie, and though it is likely to draw a bigger audience, being nominated for Best Picture, it will only ever be seen by a small fraction of the number of people that saw Avatar: The Way of Water or Top Gun: Maverick. It is the only other Art Film besides Tàr. It's probably the most gut-wrenching in terms of subject matter, but due to its monotone aspects, also the most likely to put a viewer to sleep. There are moments of humor in it too, and though it is nothing of the spectacle of some of the bigger-budget nominees, I could see it being a special experience in a theater. Unfortunately, that time may have passed (it would have been the 2nd of the films to see in the theater on the list, but it was added temporarily to Amazon Prime this weekend and so I opted for that format), and yet it may have not, because this is a film that is tailor-made for the stage as well, and so the experience of being in the same room as these women as they are talking may yet become a reality. It's the first selection I've made on my ballot. It may not be the most entertaining or amusing of the nominees, but it may be the greatest demonstration of a perfectly realized (and streamlined) vision.

Rankings:

My personal favorite preferential ballot:

(1) Tàr
(2) Banshees of Inisheran
(3) Everything Everywhere All at Once
(4) The Fabelmans
(5)  Women Talking
(6) Top Gun: Maverick
(7) Avatar: The Way of Water
(8) Elvis
(9) Triangle of Sadness
(10) All Quiet on the Western Front

My predicted preferential ballot for Academy voters*

(1) Everything Everywhere All at Once
(2) The Fabelmans
(3) Banshees of Inisheran 
(4) Top Gun: Maverick
(5) Women Talking
(6) Triangle of Sadness
(7) All Quiet on the Western Front
(8) Avatar: The Way of Water
(9) Tàr
(10) Elvis

*I really have no idea how accurate this is according to current buzz and reserve the right to modify after completing my own ballot. 

This was a worthwhile endeavor, I'm glad I did it because I wouldn't have seen at least half of these, and not nearly as quickly. None of these movies and films are bad, and there truly is at least one here for everyone. It made me reassess the state of cinema. Despite the increasing tendency towards the blockbuster sequel, original and imaginative films continue to be made.