How do you mend a broken heart?

My talented colleague Todd Martens spent much of the past year living — and reporting — this story on the science of heartbreak, how it affects our brains and can alter our bodies.

His question: Could writing this story help mend his own broken heart?

I can’t think of any story that’s more needed right now after this week’s events. I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope’s Friday newsletter. Thanks for reading and, hopefully, subscribing.

What surprised you about the Oscar nominations?

Oscar nominations arrived Tuesday, an early morning wake-up call that was greeted, in some quarters, with all manner of jumping, mostly for joy, possibly some of the furious kind. For others, the break of day was like the atomic bomb test sequence in “Oppenheimer” — an irrevocable countdown leading to oblivion. You think it’s hard just being Ken? Try being just a Golden Globe nominee. That, my friends, is an existential crisis.

In a perfect world, of course, it’d be cherries jubilee for everyone. But these are the Oscars, not the “Critics” Choice Awards, a show where categories and nominations are as abundant as the hot dogs in “May December.” The Oscars cap their nominees at five per category (with the exception of best picture), leading, invariably, to some surprises and omissions — some egregious, some understandable.

For the sake of alliteration and search engine optimization, we’ll call these oversights “snubs,” though voters likely meant no ill will, unless they were the person at my “Saltburn” screening that started shrieking in agony when Barry Keoghan slurped the cloudy bathtub water down to the last drop. That’s personal. They’ll carry that grudge to the grave.

But let’s not dwell on that. On nominations morning, I reviewed the “snubs” and surprises for the 96th Academy Awards, which will be presented on March 10.

Oscar-nominated lead actor Paul Giamatti, star of “The Holdovers.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Ranking the best picture nominees, worst to first

Once the dust cleared on nominations morning, my pal, Times film critic Justin Chang, surveyed the landscape, ranking the best picture nominees in reverse order (the only way rankings should be done). Since Justin and I wrote about our own film critics group bestowing best picture on “The Zone of Interest,” it might not surprise you which film he placed first. And if you read Justin, you probably know the movie he put last. Bah-humbug, indeed.

Christian Friedel in the best picture nominated “The Zone of Interest.”

(A24)

Do the ‘Barbie’ omissions prove the movie’s point?

Like a lot of you, Times columnist Mary McNamara was not particularly happy that Oscar voters failed to nominate “Barbie” director Greta Gerwig or the woman who played the title character, Margot Robbie.

“How did voters justify giving ‘Barbie,’ with its very clear message that women have to dance backward in heels to get half the validation their male peers get, a best picture nom while ignoring the two women who made that picture possible?” Mary wondered in a column. Whatever your feelings about the film, it’s worth a read.

Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, the center of much angst on Oscar nominations morning.

(Hanna Lassen / Getty Images)