The biggest news out of today’s Venice Film Festival screenings was loud and clear: Kathryn Bigelow’s first film in eight years (her last being the under-seen Detroit in 2017) was unanimously adored by critics, earning an impressive 88 on Metacritic and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes. Joseph and I predicted this outcome on our last podcast, and honestly, it wasn’t too hard to see coming: the timely subject matter, the film’s rare inclusion in the New York Film Festival main lineup, Bigelow’s track record with critics (even the much-overlooked Detroit was acclaimed), the exceptional cast, Noah Oppenheim (Jackie) on the script, and the powerhouse crew behind the camera—all of it pointed to a Netflix win. Meanwhile, the streamer’s other two titles (Frankenstein and Jay Kelly) earned respectable, if not rapturous, reviews, so they must be relieved that at least one of their three titles in completion hit—and hit hard.
Bigelow’s new thriller has the technical precision and dramatic weight to go deep in the awards race, and after today’s reception, it’s all but guaranteed a Best Picture nomination at the next Academy Awards. It will mark Bigelow’s first return since Zero Dark Thirty (which won an Oscar for Sound Editing—in a tie, no less—and was nominated for Best Picture but ultimately underperformed), and we can expect this new film to also factor heavily in Editing, Cinematography, Sound, Score, and Screenplay. A potential screenplay nomination excites me most: Oppenheim’s Jackie (2016) was one of that year’s true highlights, yet it was severely under appreciated and under-awarded.
One challenge the film may face this season is the current wave of anti-American sentiment, both politically and culturally, which could influence international voters. Some of the immediate Letterboxd reactions already reflect this, with a handful of viewers dismissing the film as “thinly veiled propaganda.” That makes me wonder: will it actually take home any of the top prizes at Venice later this week? Then again, Bigelow has always resisted planting her flag on one side of the political spectrum, choosing instead to let the thematic material stand on its own. That ambiguity has irked some viewers before—and I can’t help but think it played a role in why Zero Dark Thirty, despite strong box office and critical acclaim, didn’t go further in its awards run.
On that note, will Bigelow factor into the Best Director race? She’ll certainly be in contention. I’m just not sure, this early, if she makes it all the way to the finish line. My hesitation comes from the Director’s branch itself—arguably the most volatile group among the above-the-line categories—which doesn’t have the best track record of granting female directors a second nomination anytime soon after their first. Jane Campion, for example, had to wait 28 years between her first and second nod. That’s been the pattern.
Complicating matters further, Chloé Zhao will also be in the hunt with her much-loved Hamnet, and voters may feel pressure to choose which female director they want to elevate for a second time. Of course, nothing would thrill me more than to see both women make the lineup, which would mark the first time two female directors were nominated in the same year—a historic step forward. But will the Director’s branch, in all its volatility, actually make that leap? I’m not so sure.
And what about the actors? The general consensus is that the entire ensemble is strong, with each performer bringing humanity to their limited screen time. But there aren’t really any “starry” roles here, and reading through reviews, it’s clear no single name consistently stood out—critics tended to praise the group as a whole.
Joseph and I had pegged Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson, and Tracy Letts as the ones to watch pre-premiere, and indeed, all three received acclaim. Letts was singled out for his memorable lines, Ferguson for her steely resolve, and Elba for his gravitas as POTUS. Still, the question remains: do they stand out enough to factor into the acting races? Right now, the vibe is… not really.
That said, if the film is strong enough and the acting categories weak enough, could one of them sneak in? Possibly. All three are respected actors, and it’s easy to imagine voters feeling overdue to recognize someone like Elba for his years of consistently fine work—not to mention the fact that he’s playing the President. But with the film’s structure—three chapters, a sprawling ensemble, limited screen time, and internal competition—it may prove difficult for any one actor to leave the kind of lasting impression required to crack the lineup.
I’ve seen a few social media reviews noting that the film’s Rashomon-like structure—while effective—slows the forward momentum. Because all three chapters reexamine the same event through different roles in the U.S. political infrastructure, the film’s overall thematic takeaway is established early—and doesn’t evolve much in the later chapters. Could that affect how general audiences respond once the film drops? Hard to say. What seems clear, though, is that it won’t hurt the film’s critical reception. And I suspect this tense, stress-inducing, and very timely thriller will play extremely well for Netflix audiences—something that can only help word of mouth and, by extension, its awards reach.
Elsewhere at the festival, Sofia Coppola’s intimate portrait of Marc Jacobs was warmly received by critics—and as one of our biggest heroes here at Frames and Flicker, we can’t wait to see her latest endeavor Marc by Sofia. Another of our favorite filmmakers, Gus Van Sant, premiered Dead Man’s Wire, which earned a respectable, if not exceptional, response. Still, we’re eager to check it out.
With the premiere of A House of Dynamite, the major Oscar contenders at Venice have now all taken the stage. That means we finally have a clearer picture of the awards landscape for the months ahead, and our predictions can be sharper, more informed, and hopefully more accurate. At Frames and Flicker, that’s always the goal: get it right, and figure out the puzzle fast.