Edwin Arnaudin: At the end of our delightful Zoom-facilitated screening of this year’s Oscar-nominated live-action short films from our respective living rooms, you sagely noted that this category wasn’t always home to primarily “message” movies. Indeed, in the not-too-distant past, nearly all of the finalists felt like the screen equivalents of short stories, and yet this year, they’re almost exclusively works with big, important, contemporary themes to convey. Are you happy with this trend or would you prefer more variety?

Bruce: I'd love more of a mix. It seems Academy voters are now so determined to vote for shorts that address hot topics that the purely entertaining shorts have been pushed aside. I'm sure aspiring filmmakers from every culture are still making sweet coming-of-age tales and clever comic episodes that show off their talents. Are none of them good enough anymore? It's a question we can't answer just by looking at this year's nominees — all of which are worthy in their own way. They're all topical, but there's some excellent filmmaking as well.

Edwin: For me, the most blisteringly contemporary nominee and the one showcasing the most impressive craft is “Two Distant Strangers.” With the recent rise in innocent Black people’s deaths at the hands of police officers, around the same point that time-loop films (e.g. Palm Springs; the Happy Death Day movies) have become more popular, I can picture writer Travon Free and his co-director Martin Desmond Roe having an epiphany. Their story of an NYC illustrator (Joey Bada$$) starts off lighthearted, then gets real serious, real quick when a cop (Andrew Howard, Perry Mason) chokes him to death, which then restarts the day and prompts numerous permutations of the tragic end. It’s a perfect metaphor for the modern Black experience.

Bruce: It is, and it adds some new twists to the Groundhog Day premise that sharpened that metaphor even further. It's quite entertaining, in a dark way, and it's easily the frontrunner for the Oscar (despite its terrible title). In years past, I might have given the edge to "Feeling Through," the only film among the bunch that I'd call heartwarming. Writer/director Doug Roland sets his story in the wee hours on the streets of Manhattan, where a young man named Tareek (Steven Prescod) is looking for a place to spend the night when he encounters Artie (Robert Tarango), a blind and deaf man who needs help to find his bus stop. Roland based the story on something that happened to him and cast a blind-deaf actor, all of which gives the film considerable sincerity and heart. Were you won over?

Edwin: For sure! With it and “Two Distant Strangers” leading off our viewing, I thought all five films might be set in The Big Apple and feature Millennial Black men. Like last year’s winner, "The Neighbors' Window” — also set in NYC — “Feeling Through” is more in line with the old-school, daily-drama approach that we pine for, complete with characters gradually shedding preconceptions and growing as people. The same is mostly also true for “The Letter Room,” starring Oscar Isaac as a prison guard who’s promoted to a position that involved reading incoming mail. Did his star power help or hinder the film for you?

Bruce: Since you put it that way, I might have liked the film better with a less well known actor. Isaac seemed out of place in this light drama. It gains some weight toward the end, and it's modestly engaging throughout, but it seemed to be reaching for a significance it couldn't quite grasp. How did it strike you?

Edwin: As your husband Christopher put it, there’s a lot of buildup for minimal payoff. It often feels a little unfair when big names help propel shorts to Oscar nominations, though there are exceptions — namely 2015 winner “The Phone Call,” where you almost can’t imagine anyone but Sally Hawkins and an unseen Jim Broadbent in their roles. Isaac is borderline too famous for this part, and speaking to your criticism, it feels like writer/director Elvira Lind never quite gets her tone and central themes to gel. There are traces of humor (primarily from Eileen Galindo's awkwardly funny warden) and some suspense once Isaac becomes overly involved in a pair of death row inmates’ lives, but I never felt like I knew these characters or their predicaments beyond a basic level.

Bruce: It would play well at festivals, but it seems out of place among Oscar nominees. "White Eye," on the other hand, checks all the boxes: Smart writing, bravura filmmaking — it's nearly 20 minutes filmed as a single mobile shot — and knotty social issues. It's a seemingly simple premise: A young Israeli man stumbles upon his stolen bicycle, locked up on a street corner, and wants to reclaim it. But when it is claimed by an Eritrean immigrant, things get complicated.

Edwin: It’s another strong one, especially once it dawns on you that it’s probably going to be one uninterrupted take. “White Eye” is also one of four nominees that feature police or guards in prominent roles and double down on real-world sentiment that law enforcement figures are not to be trusted. “Two Distant Strangers” remains the most persuasive in that area, but “The Present” isn’t far behind. Farah Nabulsi’s searing drama about a Palestinian man forced to endure the indignities of Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint he must pass through each day adds to the rich tradition of documentaries (Mayor; 5 Broken Cameras) and narrative films (The Other Son; Omar) from the past decade that shed light on this particular Mideast conflict. However, it’s also so blunt in its messaging that, unlike the time-loop frontrunner, it leaves little to the imagination.

Bruce: Well, I'd say you watch "The Present" with a great deal of imagination — imagining everything that might go horribly wrong. One of the things I liked about it was its balance between disastrous possibility and mundane indignities. It's also the only nominee with a prominent child character — the excellent elementary-age Mariam Kanj — and she becomes the linchpin of the narrative. It's compact and powerful. All together, these five shorts make for a strong program, well worth the time, so I'll give it an overall grade of A-minus.

Edwin: It’s a frequently wrenching collection, but compared to previous years where a sense of hopelessness prevailed (largely due to stories about children in peril), the 2021 batch features a more “productive" brand of trauma — in that the issues it raises feel especially relevant and could inspire viewer action and real, lasting change. Still, some of the drama seems fairly one-dimensional, but the highs are so high and there’s no flat-out stinker, so it gets a cumulative B-plus from me.

Grade: A-minus. Not rated, but with adult themes and language. Available to rent via fineartstheatre.com and grailmoviehouse.com. Also screening at Grail Moviehouse, April 9-11.