The more I think about Nomadland, and the more I think about the Oscars it won, the more annoyed I get. I'm hard pressed for time otherwise I'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'll be the first one to admit that it's directed 'beautifully' - no doubt about that. But we need to interrogate ourselves (and the film) more: What does that beauty, that 'pathos', even mean? Whom is it directed towards and who does it benefit? And the more you think on those..

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

... of my long-held belief: the 'tyranny of aesthetics'. In today's world of easy anger and obvious silos, a 'well-intentioned' and a 'well-made' 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'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.”