camera

The nominated Oscar shorts come in three categories — and a lot of subjects, styles and temperaments. It’s further proof that an award dictated by length needn’t be bound by anything else.

In the live-action category, a mixed bag of approaches — some inspired by classic literature — are burnished by inspired performances. Lee Knight’s “A Friend of Dorothy” may be a tad on the nose about the cultural and emotional impact of a lonely London widow on a closeted teenaged boy. But leads Miriam Margolyes and Alistair Nwachukwu practically shimmer with humor and warmth. “Jane Austen’s Period Drama,” a loving tweak of the writer’s oeuvre from Steve Pinder and Julia Aks (who also stars), is essentially a one-joke calling card to make feature comedies and it should do the job. Its cast is exactly the sprightly ensemble needed to land its what-if laughs.

Two others just miss the mark in terms of bringing their tensions to powerful resolutions yet benefit from who the camera adores. Meyer Levinson-Blount’s “Butcher’s Stain,” centered on a flimsy accusation against a friendly Palestinian butcher in an Israeli market, undercuts its gripping story with lackadaisical filmmaking and an unnecessary subplot, but lead Omar Sameer is commanding. The black-and-white future shock “Two People Exchanging Saliva,” directed by Natalie Musteata and Alexandre Singh, is an uneven Euro-art bath of unrealized intimacy and casual violence — kissing is punishable by death, slapping is currency — but is given exquisite tautness by the elegant, unrequited swooniness of stars Zar Amir and Luana Bajrami.

A scene from “Jane Austen’s Period Drama,” nominated in the live-action short category.

(Roadside Attractions)

Then there’s my favorite, Sam A. Davis’ likely winner “The Singers,” from Ivan Turgenev’s short story, which pays off handsomely in bites of soulful warbling that briefly turn a barroom’s den of anesthesia into a temple of feeling.

Most of this year’s documentary nominees deal with the grimmest of tragedies, as in “All the Empty Rooms” and “Children No More: Were and Are Gone,” which address the remembrance of children brutally killed. The former film, from Joshua Seftel, follows CBS correspondent Steve Hartman and photographer Lou Bopp on an essay project into the bedrooms of kids gunned down in school shootings, their private worlds heartbreakingly preserved by their families. The latter short, directed by Hilla Medalia, witnesses Tel Aviv’s silent vigils for Gaza’s children, protests marked by posters with beaming faces, and sometimes met with open scorn. These are dutiful, sobering acts of mourning — Seftel’s is the probable awardee. You may wish they were more than that, however, considering the issues (guns, war, political intransigence) that created the devastation.

Combat is what drove award-winning photojournalist Brent Renaud, killed in Ukraine in 2022. But his brother Craig’s memorializing of him, “Armed Only With a Camera,” is oddly uninvolving, more an excerpted flipbook of Brent’s far-flung assignments than a meaningful portrait of excelling at a dangerous job. A more affecting real-world dispatch (and my pick, if I could vote) is “The Devil Is Busy,” directed by Christalyn Hampton and dual nominee Geeta Gandbhir, also up for the feature “The Perfect Neighbor.” It observes a day in the operation of a carefully guarded, female-run Georgia abortion clinic as if it were a newly medieval world’s last chance healthcare outpost, getting by on grit, compassion and prayer. You certainly won’t forget security head Tracii, the clinic’s heavyhearted knight and guide.

A scene from “Perfectly a Strangeness,” nominated in the documentary short category.

(Roadside Attractions)

Your chaser is Alison McAlpine’s appealing, aptly titled “Perfectly a Strangeness,” sans humans, but starring three donkeys in an unnamed desert happening upon a cluster of hilltop observatories. The whir of science meets the wonder of nature and this charming, gorgeously shot ode to discovery (both on Earth and out there) makes one hope the motion picture academy sees fit to recognize more imaginative nonfiction works going forward.

Animation, of course, thrives on the thrill of conjured worlds, like the one in Konstantin Bronzit’s wordless (but not soundless) desert island farce “The Three Sisters.” It owes nothing to Chekhov — though there are seagulls — but much to a classically Russian sense of humor and a Chaplinesque ingenuity. Elsewhere, you can watch the overly cute Christian homily “Forevergreen,” from Nathan Engelhardt and Jeremy Spears, about a nurturing tree, a restless bear and the dangerous allure of potato chips. The message gets muddled but this eco-conscious journey is charming.

It’s tough to predict a winner when the entrants are this strong, but John Kelly’s “Retirement Plan” feasts on wry relatability, as Domhnall Gleeson narrates a paunchy middle-aged man’s ambitious post-career goals, while the cascade of deadpan funny, thickly-lined and mundanely hued images stress a more poignant, finite reality. In its all-too-human view of life, this is, entertainingly, whatever the opposite of a cloying graduation speech is.

A scene from “Retirement Plan,” nominated in the animated short category.

(Roadside Attractions)

The spindly aged-doll puppetry in the stop-motion gem “The Girl Who Cried Pearls” marks a sly fable of need, greed and destiny, centered on a wealthy grandfather’s Dickensian fashioning of his poverty-stricken childhood in early 19th century Montreal. Filmmakers Chris Lavis and Maciek Szczerbowski find an enchanting balance between storybook allure and adult trickery. Maybe this one steals it?

Whichever the case, the animation that moved me the most is “Butterfly,” from Florence Miailhe, imagining the last, memory-laden swim of Jewish French-Algerian athlete Alfred Nakache, who competed in the Olympics before and after the Holocaust. In the cocooning fluidity of an ocean-borne day, rendered with thick-brushed painterliness and splashes of sound, we travel across flashes of community, injustice, achievement, love and despair. The visual, thematic constant, though, is water as a haven and a poetic life force that feeds renewal.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are threatening to block funding for the Homeland Security Department when it expires in two weeks unless there are “dramatic changes” and “real accountability” for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies carrying out President Trump’s campaign of federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota and across the country.

Congress is discussing potential new rules for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection after officers shot and killed two people in Minneapolis in January. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries reiterated their party’s demands on Wednesday, with Schumer telling reporters that Congress must “rein in ICE in very serious ways, and end the violence.”

Democrats are “drawing a line in the sand” as Republicans need their votes to continue the funding, Jeffries said.

The negotiations come amid some bipartisan sentiment that Congress should step in to de-escalate tensions over the enforcement operations that have rocked Minnesota and other states. But finding real agreement in such a short time will be difficult, if not “an impossibility,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday.

Trump last week agreed to a Democratic request that funding for Homeland Security be separated from a larger spending bill and extended at current levels for two weeks while the two parties discuss possible requirements for the federal agents. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this weekend that he was at the White House when Trump spoke with Schumer and that they were “on the path to get agreement.”

But it’s unclear whether the president or enough congressional Republicans will agree to any of the Democrats’ larger demands that the officers unmask and identify themselves, obtain judicial warrants in certain cases and work with local authorities, among other asks. Republicans have already pushed back.

And House GOP lawmakers are demanding that some of their own priorities be added to the Homeland Security spending bill, including legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other Republican senators are pushing for restrictions on sanctuary cities that they say don’t do enough to crack down on illegal immigration. There’s no clear definition of sanctuary jurisdictions, but the term is generally applied to state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

It’s also uncertain whether Democrats who are furious over the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement operations would be willing to compromise.

“Republicans need to get serious,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, adding that they will propose “tough, strong legislation” in the next day.

A look at Democrats’ demands and what Republicans are saying about them:

Agreement on body cameras

Republicans say they are open to officer-worn body cameras, a change that was already in the underlying Homeland Security spending bill. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem backed that up on Monday when she ordered body-worn cameras to be issued to every DHS officer on the ground in Minneapolis, including those from ICE. She said the policy would expand nationwide as funding becomes available.

The bill already directed $20 million to outfit immigration enforcement agents with body-worn cameras.

Gil Kerlikowske, who served as commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2017, said that most agents are “very supportive” of cameras because they could help exonerate officers. But he added that complex questions remain, including when footage should be released and when cameras must be activated.

“When do you turn it on? And if you got into a problem and didn’t have it on, are you going to be disciplined? It’s really pretty complex,” he said.

Schumer said Tuesday that the body cameras “need to stay on.”

Disagreement on masking

As videos and photos of aggressive immigration tactics and high-profile shootings circulate nationwide, agents covering their faces with masks has become a flash point. Democrats argue that removing the masks would increase accountability. Republicans warn it could expose agents to harassment and threats.

“State law enforcement, local folks don’t do it,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Committee for Homeland Security. “I mean, what’s so special about an ICE law enforcement agency that they have to wear a mask?”

But Republicans appear unlikely to agree.

“Unlike your local law enforcement in your hometown, ICE agents are being doxed and targeted. We have evidence of that,” Johnson said on Tuesday. He added that if you “unmask them and you put all their identifying information on their uniform, they will obviously be targeted.”

Immigration officers are already required to identify themselves “as soon as it is practical and safe to do so,” according to federal regulations. ICE officials insist those rules are being followed.

Critics, however, question how closely officers adhere to the regulations.

“We just see routinely that that’s not happening,” said Nithya Nathan Pineau, a policy attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Judicial vs. administrative warrants

Democrats have also demanded stricter use of judicial warrants and an end to roving patrols of agents who are targeting people in the streets and in their homes. Schumer said Tuesday that they want “arrest warrants and an end to racial profiling.”

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific person but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent. Traditionally, only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

But an internal ICE memo obtained by the Associated Press last month authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with 4th Amendment protections.

Democrats have not made clear how broadly they want judicial warrants used. Jeffries of New York said that Democrats want to see “an end to the targeting of sensitive locations like houses of worship, schools and hospitals.”

Johnson said Tuesday that Democrats are trying to “add an entirely new layer” by seeking warrants signed by a judge rather than the administrative warrants that are signed by the department. “We can’t do that,” he said.

The speaker has said that an end to roving patrols is a potential area of agreement, but he did not give details.

Code of conduct and more accountability

Democrats have also called for a uniform code of conduct for all ICE and federal agents similar to that for state and local law enforcement officers.

Federal officials blocked state investigators from accessing evidence after Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent on Jan. 7. Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, demanded that the state be allowed to take part, saying that it would be “very difficult for Minnesotans” to accept that an investigation excluding the state could be fair.

Hoping for a miracle

Any deal Democrats strike on the Department of Homeland Security is unlikely to satisfy everyone in the party. Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said she would never support an agreement that didn’t require unmasking.

“I ran for Congress in 2018 on abolish ICE,” Pressley said. “My position has not changed.”

Thune, of South Dakota, has repeatedly said it’s an “impossibility” to negotiate and pass something so complicated in two weeks. He said any talks should be between Democrats and Trump.

“I don’t think it’s very realistic,” Thune said Tuesday about finding quick agreement. “But there’s always miracles, right?”

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.