The more I think about Nomadland, and the more I think about the Oscars it won, the more annoyed I get. I& #39;m hard pressed for time otherwise I& #39;d have written an essay on the kind of calculated indifference such films perpetrate and what our blanket praise for it says about us.

I& #39;ll be the first one to admit that it& #39;s directed & #39;beautifully& #39; - no doubt about that. But we need to interrogate ourselves (and the film) more: What does that beauty, that & #39;pathos& #39;, even mean? Whom is it directed towards and who does it benefit? And the more you think on those..

... lines, the more you& #39;ll come to the conclusion that it is, at its very core, a pretty repulsive self-absorbed film - fixated on a certain kind of & #39;luminosity& #39; - without understanding where that light (or the lack of it) comes from. The film& #39;s warm reception also reminds me...

... of my long-held belief: the & #39;tyranny of aesthetics& #39;. In today& #39;s world of easy anger and obvious silos, a & #39;well-intentioned& #39; and a & #39;well-made& #39; film can mask the very uncomfortable genesis of its story. And especially in a piece like Nomadland, context is everything.

This blatant ignoring of context - and prioritising art over life - is quite unforgivable here, especially when that context is at least 5 decades old. (And no, my main problem with the film is not just wrt its depiction of gig economy or Amazon warehouses).

(Writing a piece rn, but I& #39;ll revisit this thread to add more points.)

Before I go, the quote that got my goat was this: "If you look deeply, the issue of elder care as a casualty of capitalism is in every frame. It’s just, yes, there’s the beautiful sunset behind it.”