2024 Oscar-Nominated Live-Action Shorts

James Rosario: Every year when I watch the Oscar-nominated live action shorts, I can't help but wonder if this is truly the best the industry has to offer. My reactions to this year's nominees ranged from "I rather like that one" to "You have got to be kidding me," with nothing completely blowing me away and on at least one occasion wondering what the hell the filmmakers were thinking. 

With that said, I think the 2024 nominees are marginally better than the overall entrants from the last handful of years, but that isn't saying much. I think we'll both agree on which film is our favorite, but I can't help but worry the Academy will drop the ball. 

Let's make it official: Which film will win the Oscar for live action short, and why is it “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”?

Edwin Arnaudin: As we discussed in our Oscar nomination reaction piece, it would be wild if, 22 years and 8 nominations into his Academy Awards history — including two nods for Animated Feature and three for Original Screenplay — Wes Anderson finally wins for a short film.

And he certainly deserves it: “Henry Sugar” is operating on a significantly higher level than the rest of these finalists. It's got star power, an ambitious layered storytelling approach, hits a range of emotional beats, and also just looks like pretty much the best damn thing ever. And even more so than the Hesses potentially winning in the Animation category, an Anderson victory could very well convince more established directors that not everything they make needs to be feature-length. After all, most of the greatest writers didn't/don’t just pen novels.

I'm fully prepared for my guy to go 0-for-8, though. In which case I wouldn't mind “Knight of Fortune” winning. Lasse Lyskjær Noer's and Christian Norlyk's dark Swedish comedy of manners in which two recent widowers cross paths at a morgue features an amusing twist that I didn't see coming, but probably should have based on early evidence. What's your backup plan for our inevitable Roald Dahl heartbreak?

James: If not “Henry Sugar,” the award easily needs to go to “Knight of Fortune.” It's not only the second best film of the bunch, but the only other one I gave much a damn about at all. Oscar shorts are always trying to explore feelings of loss and grief, and more often than not, they come off as disingenuous and ham-fisted. “Knight of Fortune,” on the other hand, approaches the delicate subject matter with humor and compassion, which disarms grief while honestly addressing it at the same time. It's a nice trick — one I wish the terribly manipulative “The After” would have considered. 

Is it presumptious of me to assume that “The After” is at the bottom of your list as well? And if not, what could possibly be worse than this emotionally exploitative short?

Edwin: You're spot on. Early on in this stinker, I wrote in my notes "are you fucking kidding me?" The initial actions make little sense, even on a senseless violence level, and one character's choice in particular that doubles the tragedy is wholly ridiculous. The same goes for the climactic moment. It's a well-made film but I get the sense that star David Oyelowo is friends with a relative of one or both directors (Misan Harriman and Nicky Bentham) and just wanted to help them out. They certainly didn't repay the favor with much in the way of quality!

I also found the fact-based Canadian drama “Invincible” a bit heavy-handed and obvious. But there are glimmers of hope in this tale of a Quebecois juvenile delinquent and his struggles at a youth facility, and I wouldn't mind seeing more from the confident eyes of directors Vincent René-Lortie and Samuel Caron.

James: “Invincible” certainly had some potential, but ultimately failed to woo me. There's talent floating around in there without a doubt, and the story is one worth exploring, but I couldn't get on board with the approach. Strangely, “Invincible” might be one of those rare cases where I'd like to see more of the story — a short that should have been a feature, if you will. I can easily picture it as a decent little indie film, but as it is, we're not given enough to fully invest in the story. 

Which brings us to “Red, White, and Blue.” I don't hate the twist at the end of this film, but I also didn't care for the journey we were forced to endure to get there. Of all the films, this one has the clearest "message" (and it's an important one, don't get me wrong), but its mildly clever reveal isn't enough to overcome its lackluster build. I wish this same story could have been told with a bit more subtlety and with a lot less "gotcha." 

What do you think? Does the importance of the message outweigh the delivery?

Edwin: It does feel a bit like an Afterschool Special — or something that today's tweens and teens would be forced to watch during Health class. There's little of note about its opening 2/3 — a fairly straightforward abortion drama that rightfully criticizes our modern screwed-up situation where many people have to cross state lines to have the procedure done. But it needs that late-breaking turn to earn a spot here. Overall, I'm not mad that it's a finalist, but I agree that the storytelling could be a good deal less sensational.

“Red, White, and Blue” is about as message-y as things get for these nominees and I'm relieved there isn't an overarching theme to this year's batch: no multiple child abduction tales or other manipulative, depressing fare. "It could be a lot worse" is the phrase I keep coming back to, landing this collection firmly in B territory.

James: It certainly could be a lot worse, and sadly, it often is. Maybe someday we'll get a truly great batch of live-action shorts, but this year a B-minus will have to do.

Grade: B. Not rated, but with adult themes and language. Now playing at Grail Moviehouse.