Edwin Arnaudin: While this year's Animated Shorts adhere to most people's definition of "Short," its brethren on the Documentary side have long twisted one's understanding of the term, pushing to the limits of the 40-minute maximum allotment before pulling back and claiming brevity only by current Academy rules.

This year's batch is no different with two such offenders, “The Last Repair Shop,” about musical instrument technicians who work for the Los Angeles public school system, and “The Barber of Little Rock,” which chronicles Arlo Washington's attempts to shrink the racial wealth gap in the Arkansas capital. Both spotlight worthy topics and individuals, but do either really need over 30 minutes to do so?

James Rosario: No, they definitely don't. Both tell worthy stories, but at that length, they become a bit self-indulgent and self-congratulatory. If I'm not mistaken, “The Last Repair Shop” is literally 39 minutes and 58 seconds long. It technically falls within the parameters of the category, but it also kind of betrays the spirit of it as well. It will probably win, too. 

For my money, it's all about “Nǎi Nai & Wài Pó,” which chronicles how director Sean Wang's endlessly entertaining Taiwanese grandmothers cope with loneliness and boredom during the pandemic. For all the hillarious lightheartedness on display, there's an underlying current of sadness that's hard to define but easy to absorb. This is a home run short for me, which means it probably doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. 

Were you as enthralled by these amazing women as I was?

Edwin: Not to the same extent, but I'll co-sign on the film's charms. Despite the women saying that they behave sillier when their grandson is around, certain parts feel overly staged and make this one more of a fun diversion and change of pace from the more depressing nominees. But it was a detour I was happy to take.

For me, “The ABC’s of Book Banning” is the real deal. Due to some sketchy production value early on, I wasn't convinced about it at first, but directors Sheila Nevins and Trish Adlesic quickly loop in appealing animation and interviews with some famous folks at the frontlines of the fight for access to "dangerous" texts. Focusing on the very children whom parents claim to be protecting and letting these youth freely explain why these banned, challenged, and restricted books have value is a wise move — and certainly more impactful than merely having angry bigots yelling at the camera.

As a fellow recovering librarian, were you similarly moved by this nominee?

James: I was, but I wanted more. I loved the woman at the school board meeting who compared those who would ban books to Nazis (duh), and letting the kids have their say was especially fun and revealing, but I think the filmmakers could have gone even further with their provocation. I understand the urge to keep things relatively civil, but boy did I want some more cleverly barbed insults to be hurled around. All told, though, “The ABC’s of Book Banning” is a great example of how to make a "message" movie work to your advantage. 

Where “The Last Repair Shop” and “The Barber of Little Rock” lost me in their runtimes, “Island in Between” split the difference and offered up an interesting, if scattered, history lesson on the Taiwanese island of Kinmen and the important role it's played in past conflicts with mainland China. While I wasn't exactly emotionally moved by it, I was moved enough to look into the history a bit more — something I suppose is akin to a positive endorsement. 

Did “Island in Between” shed any light on the volotile subject of Taiwan-China relations for you, or did it fall by the wayside?

Edwin: It's a fascinating portrait of a place I'd never heard of, so there's plenty of value in its educational elements. It's also the nominee that inspired the most double-takes and widened eyes from me, so give it a few bonus points for that, too.

But I found the messaging somewhat confusing throughout. I'm not quite sure what directors S. Leo Chiang and Jean Tsien want viewers to take away from their film, but the current situation in Taiwan and China may simply truly be that ambiguous. I doubt it stands a chance at winning but it put a lot of topics on my radar, including Chiang, who I'll continue to follow.

All told, I'm again relieved that there isn't a dreadfully dull and/or bubonic depressing nominee in the bunch, but for Zardoz's sake, people: please think about chopping your damn nonfiction films down to 20-25 minutes! The bloated runtimes and unfocused storytelling makes this my least favorite of the three shorts programs, but it gets a B-minus so I'm still just barely recommending it.

James: I can't help but wonder how I'd feel about this program with shorter runtimes. I might very well have had a more positive response, but I can only critique what's been given, and the runtimes are a factor in whether filmmakers want to acknowledge them or not. For that, a B-minus sounds right to me. Here's to naively hoping next year's crop will be better.

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