Oscars 2012: Best Director – the Newbie Faces the Master Class
Art and entertainment hover conspicuously like twins at a barn dance: which one do you pick? Can you even tell the difference between them? Do you pick the prettier of the two, or the one that’s more interesting to talk to? As films become more and more about the target demo and less about art the way adults view art, so too must we adjust our definition of it. Sometimes I think we can’t tell the difference anymore. No matter what kind of movies are released now it seems there is an audience for them. Someone with a blog somewhere is going to write a favorable review.
You could take a look at this year’s Oscar race and you could conclude that the awards machine is broken. Recently, Daniel Radcliffe lamented Hugo’s success, saying that the Academy had a bias for Scorsese. But that isn’t really true. Most of the films in the Best Picture race belong to members of the boys club. But inclusion didn’t have to mean Harry Potter’s exclusion. When you have a Best Picture race determined mostly and only by number one votes, favoritism — friendships and alliances — begins to choke the whole point of a majority/industry vote.
It is clear by the way the Best Picture nominations turned out that these voters weren’t really voting on the best films of the year. Can you imagine how many voters would actually name –without singling out any films — some of these as their number one movie of the year? You really have to wonder about them. Who are they? Why would they, in a million years, vote that way? Either they really are a couple of french fries shy of a happy meal, have absolutely terrible taste, or are voting strategically, because someone asked them to. However it happened, finding a winner among them is probably easier than it should be.
The best you can hope for is that good decision making comes out of the Academy by consensus – members of the branches who are more willing to take a gamble with their vote on films that aren’t “traditional Oscar movies.” No members were going to get it together by team and pick Harry Potter as their number one film. But it might have made it if they were choosing ten instead of their herding cats method they employed this year. Why do we keep getting back to Harry Potter? Why do I keep mentioning Dragon Tattoo? Because those films were art and entertainment. They made money and they made their mark on 2011 like many of the Best Picture nominees failed to do.
And so we hunt once again for Best Director. Most likely we’re still looking at The Artist and Hazanavicius for the win. But I’m also wondering whether or not the Academy might split the house the way they’ve done in the past when a lighter film was going to win Best Picture, while Best Director might go to something much more challenging. To that end, I suspect that if there is a split, it would go either Martin Scorsese’s way, or Terrence Malick’s.
What do I know, and nobody knows anything, but if it were me, I might vote that way if I loved The Artist but wasn’t too keen on rewarding a young director at the beginning of his career, versus other directors who have been at the game longer, paid their dues longer, proved themselves with one great film after another. In fact, Woody Allen and Alexander Payne are two such directors, both deserving of a win.
But those of us in the Oscar game know that Director and Picture are married. If last year’s clusterfuck couldn’t produce a split between The King’s Speech and The Social Network, if Avatar and The Hurt Locker couldn’t produce a split, how then can there be one this year, especially since Hazanavicius has already won the Directors Guild?
Hugo is an effects-driven film, true, but it is also unlike anything ever put on screen before. So much so that, like almost all of Scorsese’s other films, there isn’t a category for it. When it first played at the New York Film Fest the bloggers pouring out of the theater didn’t quite know what to make of it. Hugo on first pass seems like a story for kids. It seems maybe like a beautiful, magical fable but nothing deeper than that.
There are a handful of directors making movies today whose fingerprints you can readily identify. Martin Scorsese, with the unexpected timing of the edits, the circular storytelling, and the beautiful mess of it all defines this director’s mark. Scorsese’s films evolve and strengthen over time because there is too much to take in all at once. A film that is carefully considered, shot by shot, by an obsessive, will leave enough layers so that you aren’t looking at the same film every time you watch it, and these films can’t help but stand out from the unbearable sameness of much of what comes out of Hollywood today.
This, because he laid it out already – by design, by intuition, or by happy accident, the layers are there. Who Travis Bickle was to me in my early 20s is a lot different from who he is today. I know that I would have no need or desire to revisit Gangs of New York if I’d gone by how that film was chewed up and spit out by the Oscar race. We have a Greek chorus impulse in us as we coalesce around an opinion about something. But very little of that is rooted in any kind of truth, I don’t think. It’s not individual truth, anyway, it’s the truth of a mob – and that isn’t quite so reliable.
As William Goldman would say, though, nobody knows anything. You can have the most admirable of intentions, or the most cynical, and you’ll always be faced with this idea that something is happening here: it’s shit, or it’s magic and much of the time that is utterly out of the filmmakers’ control.
Clearly the Academy loves Scorsese – this much seems clear. They don’t hate him. I mean, he’s no David Fincher. But they just don’t seem to quite get him. Hugo isn’t the tight little number that the Artist is. It cost a lot more. The thought of awarding it, considering its costs only, probably horrifies many old school studio execs who must think, if you must win Oscars at least keep the costs under the $30 million.
Still, if you’re going to split up Picture and Director, Scorsese might be your man.
Scorsese’s Academy record–
Nominations:
Raging Bull – Lost to Robert Redford, Ordinary People
The Last Temptation of Christ, lost to Barry Levinson for Rain Man
Goodfellas – Lost to Kevin Costner, Dances with Wolves
Gangs of New York – Lost to Roman Polanski, The Pianist (Chicago took Best Picture)
The Aviator – Lost to Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
The Departed – WON
Hugo
Not nominated for:
Taxi Driver
Terrence Malick is a bit different. He is someone who sits outside the mainstream, is apparently greatly admired within the Academy, and surprisingly, Tree of Life becomes the weirdest film ever to be nominated for Best Picture. In fact, it can be counted as the only film with virtually no plot to be nominated. It is also the only film to earn as low as a C rating over at Yahoo Movies, where the rest of the Best Picture nominees are all working with a B+ or an A-. The general public did not like Tree of Life, though select members of the industry did. It was also beloved enough to earn the Palme d’Or in Cannes.
Tree of Life is an impressionist’s view of a life, an American life, a white, baby boomer life where dad was mean and mom was nurturing and a little erotic. In some ways, Tree of Life is a linear tale – the beginning of life, life, and the end of life. In other ways it is all sorts of other stuff in between. For those who connected with it, they really really connected with it. By the end it had become the critics darling, try as they did to separate themselves from the Academy this year, they ended up mostly agreeing anyway. In truth, the demographics of the critics aren’t all that different from the demographics of the Academy – you’re still looking at mostly white, mostly male voters.
But, as Anne Thompson pointed out again and again, Tree of Life is exactly the kind of movie that benefits most from the number vote thing – so much so that it could get in, like War Horse, without a DGA or a WGA nomination. It clearly did not have broad guild support but it did have was people who either loved it or hated it and that is what you see in our Best Picture lineup this year. If there were five, Tree of Life, I’m guessing, would have missed.
If voters are looking to split, Malick, who’s never won, might be their guy.
Nominated for:
The Thin Red Line – lost to Steven Spielberg for Saving Private Ryan (Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture)
Not Nominated for:
Badlands
Days of Heaven
The New World
Alexander Payne
Why does it seem like Alexander Payne is so overdue for a win? The only time Payne came close to winning Best Picture/Director was for Sideways, and no one was taking that award away from Clint Eastwood. It’s funny that we have Payne and Scorsese again in the same race and both look to be losing to a different movie. So close and yet so far. The Descendants is more sentimental, less edgy than Sideways. Sideways seemed to define an era, as did Election and About Schmidt. Payne speaks in broad strokes about our American culture but he never abandons it. He is the quintessential homegrown product – an uncompromising auteur who works with adaptations but manages to make them his own. Payne’s real gift is with actors, of course. His characters leap unforgettably off the screen. Miles and Jack in Sideways, Tracy and Jim in Election and Matt King in the Descendants are vivid creations, deluded in their successes, resigned to their failures. Payne’s films always feel to me like a comfortable bed I like getting back into again and again because you are in such good hands — he is never going to let you down with bad dialogue or awkward set-ups. Payne made the film he wanted to make, was faithful to the source material and cast the film so carefully there simply wasn’t room for any slip-ups. The Descendants is one of the best films of the year and well deserving of the top prize — that means it’s possible Payne could also upset if they were inclined to split.
Nominated for:
Sideways – lost to Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby
Not nominated for:
Election
About Schmidt
Woody Allen
If you think it’s been a long time since Meryl Streep won an Oscar, try Woody Allen on for size. Once a newbie, now a veteran, Woody’s whole career as a director to be reckoned with started with his win for Annie Hall way back when. Since then, though, he has stretched himself as an artist, always trying out new things, but sticking to that paradigm of one or two films a year. Allen, like Scorsese, may have saved the best for last. And like Scorsese this might be his last at bat. But like Malick, everyone knows he won’t show up to the ceremony so where is the incentive to give him an award? Everyone wants to see someone get on stage and accept the award — the gratitude payoff is always huge.
Has there ever been a more prolific American filmmaker than Woody Allen? Has there ever been someone who’s evolved inside and out like he has, before our eyes, over the past three decades? And to take such a light and wise movie like Midnight in Paris and hit it clear over the wall – at his age – at this stage in his career is nothing short of breathtaking. How do you split the Best Directing Oscar five ways? How indeed.
Annie Hall – WON (FIRST AND LAST OSCAR WON in 1977)
Interiors – lost to Michael Cimino for The Deer Hunter
Broadway Danny Rose – lost to Milos Forman for Amadeus
Hannah and Her Sisters – lost to Oliver Stone for Platoon
Crimes and Misdemeanors – lost to Oliver Stone for Born on the 4th of July
Bullets over Broadway – lost to Bob Zemeckis for Forrest Gump
Not nominated for:
Stardust Memories
Manhattan
Another Woman (my own personal face)
Zelig
Purple Rose of Cairo
Radio Days
Sleeper
Husbands and Wives
Match Point
Either which way, the director is the star, or used to be, of the Best Picture race. The King’s Speech last year and The Artist this year are pulling from different countries while ignoring what we’ve cultivated and produced right here. It’s funny and tragic all at once. If the Oscars don’t honor our own what good are they? Then again, does it really matter now? Probably not. But at least with Hazanavicius, as opposed to last year’s winner, you are talking about an auteur here, in the best sense of the word. This year he’s lucky to be included in the company of four of the best, the master class.
140 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- Lady Luck Productions » Oscars 2012: Best Director – the Newbie Faces the Master Class - [...] rest is here: Oscars 2012: Best Director – the Newbie Faces the Master Class Share [...]
- Oscar Index: Ladies First - Movieline - [...] the BAFTAs nudged Hazanavicius ever closer to Oscar glory and Sasha Stone contemplated the beneficiaries of a potential split ...
- Oscar Index: Ladies First | Movies and News - [...] the BAFTAs nudged Hazanavicius ever closer to Oscar glory and Sasha Stone contemplated the beneficiaries of a potential split ...
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
The directing category (and the ones who were snubbed) pretty much shows the differences between the 2012 Oscars and the 2011 Oscars.
Last year, we had most of the best directors of the “new generation“: the Coens (although not that young…), Fincher, Aronofsky, O. Russell, Boyle and Nolan. If Payne had The Descendants done this year and Paul Thomas Anderson had one too… virtually all the best ones in the same year.
This year, we have Woody Allen, Spielberg, Scorsese and Malick. Nostalgia is in the air.
This is the only contest I really care about. In almost every other category, the film I wanted to win was not even nominated.
This whole year would be beautiful if Terrence Malick won Best Director. Obviously I would love for The Tree Of Life to win Best Picture, but I doubt that will happen. Malick though has a chance of pulling off a surprising upset like Soderbergh for Traffic or Polanski for The Pianist.
I Michel H wins, hope they pronounce the name right. Im rooting for Scorsese, though I havent seen Hugo yet, I love his movies. Payne should be a good one to win, but think he wont.
I liked the movie years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010. Did not much care for movies of 2009, and it seems movies of 2011 is another repeat.
I LOVE that the Academy embraced Terrence Malick’s brilliant directing achievement…I just wish that at the very least, they would have nominated David Fincher, too…I’m not even starting on David Yates, Kelly Reichardt, Bennett Miller, Jeff Nichols, Tomas Alfredson, Steve McQueen, David Cronenberg, Nicolas Winding-Refn, Lynne Ramsay, Cary Fukunaga, Joe Wright, J.J. Abrams, mainly because I know there are only 5 slots, and for the record, I’m happy with most of the Academy’s choices this year…but I feel Yates, and ESPECIALLY Fincher should have definitely gotten closer to that top5 in the end.
“Malick though has a chance of pulling off a surprising upset like Soderbergh for Traffic or Polanski for The Pianist.”
The main difference is that both Soderbergh and Polanski were recognized by the DGA for those films, where Malick wasn’t. The Tree of Life is my favorite of all the movies nominated in each of its 3 categories, but its chances of winning are pretty much zilch.
It was interesting to see David Denby, A.O. Scott and Dana Stevens on Charlie Rose a couple of weeks ago all talking about The Tree of Life. When asked who they would personally vote for in the directing category, all three of them said Malick. They also seemed to agree that The Tree of Life is the one movie from 2011 that they’ll probably be discussing for a long time. Hard to argue with that.
I am rooting for an upset. The Artist was a good/great directing achievement, but IMO in that department it doesn’t even come close to ‘The Tree of Life’ and although I still haven’t seen it, I can’t imagine that Scorsese’s love letter to cinema is a less impressive one than Hazanavicius’s.
Raging Bull – Lost to Robert Redford, Ordinary People
The Last Temptation of Christ, lost to Barry Levinson for Rain Man
Goodfellas – Lost to Kevin Costner, Dances with Wolves
The Aviator – Lost to Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
That is sad, sad, so sad. Let’s face it, he lost to inferior works, but hey! that’s how the Academy Awards works!
Anyway, I hope he does win for Hugo, even if at this point, is next to impossible to beat The Artist. If Hazanaboobalicius wins, Directing will be his only reward, as I can’t see the Academy giving the guy 3 Oscars in one night.
“Malick though has a chance of pulling off a surprising upset like Soderbergh for Traffic or Polanski for The Pianist.”
I doubt this, though. Traffic and The Pianist were overall much more popular films with AMPAS. Traffic won every award it was nominated for other than BP (director, screenplay, supporting actor, editing). The Pianist had seven nominations and won three big ones (director, screenplay, actor). Clearly both these movies came close to toppling the BP behemoths (Gladiator and Chicago) for the BP win, which is probably one reason they were able to squeak out a surprise director win. The Tree of Life, I think, is much too divisive a film to even come close to winning BP, and too thinly nominated (no screenplay, editing, acting nods) to be a large threat in either director or BP.
I’d love for Malick to win. He’d get my vote. I just don’t see how it can happen.
Scorsese wasn’t nominated for best director for The Age of Innocence- only screenplay.
Looking at this, I can’t believe Woody lost to Oliver freakin’ Stone TWICE, and with his two greatest films (IMO) being the nominated ones.
@Sasha: Scorsese wasn’t nominated for Age of Innocence. He was just nominated for the DGA.
Scorsese was not nominated for age of innocence.
After having to read all the outrage over Tom Hooper winning the DGA over Fincher and then the Oscar, I’m annoyed to no end that there isn’t more outrage that Hazanavicius is winning director awards over better directors like Scorsese and Malick and Payne. I’m getting more and more annoyed that Hazanavicius may win a BAFTA and then an Oscar for direction.
I’ll say it once, the insult against Tom Hooper is uncalled for. He’s not an auteur but Hazanvicius is? Give me a break!
@Jp, i agree with you on nostalgia – but which way will that nostalgia lean? It feels to me, that The Artist still benefits from that sentiment and looking back, even with its director starting out. I recall last year when the hope for a split was explored in a thread, as it was the previous year, and Sasha conveyed some info that has resonated with me since.
For their to be a Picture/Director split – there has to be something other than not wanting to over-gift one film. If The Hurt Locker was to be the best of that year, why would the Academy not honour its director? The thought being that the juggernaut Avatar would trample all over the little indie flick – but The Hurt Locker was indeed embraced down the line – except Lead Actor. So too with The SOcial Network and The King’s Speech – the analysis was that if the latter was so beloved, why would you not vote for its director. And it came to pass….
If it is about the lighter weight best film and some doubt as to whether it is the clear strongest achievement in film making – then a split would occur – Chicago – technically proficient, and evidently wowed voters, but in the end, the deeply moving and harrowing The Pianist wowed them more in the direcing stakes, but not as an overall achievement – or another interpetation – it was very close numbers wise – either Polanski beating Marshall by a whisker, or Chicago and The Pianist were close. Does a split year imply that there is no runaway winner? As opposed to years like The last Emperor or Amadeus or SLumdog?
With Crash and Brokeback – that has been thrashed to death and the reasons quite plausible, although despicable for that split. In all the examples in the last 30 years of pict/director split – 6 of them, the more meaty and ‘serious’ film won the director prize – Reds, Born on the 4th July, Saving private Ryan, Traffic, The Pianist and Brokeback. The pictures that prevailed were subjectively lighter fare – Chariots of fire, Driving Miss Daisy, Shakespeare in love, Gladiator (not light but not with the gravitas that Traffic had in my view), Chicago and Crash (weighty issues but evidently more of a ‘pleaser’ than Brokeback).
If 2011 were to split due to the artsy/levity of the Artist – to whom would it go – director wise – Mallick – maybe- but too polarizing? Too ethereal to topple the others? Woody Allen? A sense of frivol is still present with Midnight in Paris, as have been with his best comedies; Payne – yep the Descendants is certainly weightier – but have contemporary domestic dramas been Oscar winners in recent years? Hugo may not have the grittiness of other Scorsese films, but my sense, as others havepointed out, Scorsese is more beloved today than i think he has ever been – honours left right and centre, and 1 Academy award for the man that is so regarded as the greatest living American film director – is not enough. I would predict Hugo for the split.
But i return to Sasha’s point in the recent past – if they really love your movie, they will reward it fully – and unless there is a strong strong case for why – as in two parallel competing pictures or narratives – which there doesn’t seem to be right now – The Artist will probably win both, as did thelast few years of Academy Awards big winners.
Avatar and The hurt Locker were David and Goliath, The Social Network and The King’s Speech were the Critics -v- Guilds – this year? It feels like just one through line – The Artist (pga, dga). The Help and The Descendants have the other precursors, but the heat seems to be with the other film only. The Help’s failure to score director or screenplay has to impair it. The Descendants, maybe (personally i think it is the least successfully executed films of Payne’s career) The Artists is charming the pants off the industry – or at least the guilds thus far.
I wish it weren’t so – especially in a year with such veteran filmmakers in competition. It would have made for fascinating predictions if Spielberg had taken The Artist’s directing spot – Spielberg – Allen – Scorsese – Mallick – Payne. Try sorting that lot out!
Scorsese was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Age of Innocence.
“Recently, Daniel Radcliffe lamented Hugo’s success, saying that the Academy had a bias for Scorsese.”
I think Radcliffe is absolutely right. If Hugo was made by some other director, I dodubt AMPAS would have received the movie in the same light. The last two Potter movies were miles ahead of Hugo, miles ahead. Also, I would hardly call Hugo a “success” based on its box office revenue. Just saying.
I’m annoyed to no end that there isn’t more outrage that Hazanavicius is winning director awards over better directors like Scorsese and Malick and Payne. I’m getting more and more annoyed that Hazanavicius may win a BAFTA and then an Oscar for direction.
^
[raises hand]
Daveylow,
that’s how I see it too.
But I found out last year how much outrage helps.
Deena Jones’ wig, where is Radcliffe’s outrage over Potter being overshadowed by Hugo at the BAFTAs?
Deena Jones’ wig, where is Radcliffe’s outrage over Potter being overshadowed by Hugo at the BAFTAs?
troothy,
excellent question!
why isn’t Radcliffe’s issuing a statement about Hugo whipping Deathly Hallows at the VES awards last night? Why hasn’t he spoken out against the Golden Globes or the NBR for awarding Scorsese Best Director this year?
Deena Jones’ wig, since you’re putting box office revenue as the ultimate sign of artistic success for Potter, you’re putting it in a select class of movie greats such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Shrek 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Is that how you view Potter?
“I’m annoyed to no end that there isn’t more outrage that Hazanavicius is winning director awards over better directors like Scorsese and Malick and Payne.”
They may be better directors (except Payne… meh) but none of their movies this year had the kind of magic The Artist has… which has taken off with audiences in a special way. All the hate against artist that this site has, surprised me after I actually saw it.
AMPAS’ attitude towards the Potter franchise is reflective of the industry’s attitude towards “kids” movies. AMPAS is the most prominent award organisation so it makes sense for him for go after them. If there is going to be any change in attitude towards “kids” movies, AMPAS has to blaze the trail. Look! I’m not a Potter fanboy. I could care less for the first two and fourth movie. I enjoyed Azkaban, I thought DH Part 1 was excellent cinema but was enormously let down by the anti-climatic DH Part 2. However, it makes no sense that a movie like Hugo gets more award season love than the Potter franchise. I mean in the genre of “kids” adventure movies, Potter has not missed a beat. If such a genre is going to get recognised, then the Potter franchise should be at the top of the list.
As I said, if Hugo was directed by some other director no one would give it the time of day. In fact, it would not even be in contention for anything, probably besides best animated feature.
Great piece as usual, Sasha. Comparing art and entertainment to twins at a barn dance makes for a pretty awesome metaphor, so nice work on that one.
I suppose Woody Allen’s more critically praised, fairly or not, as a writer, and I’m not surprised that it took a very stylish semi-period piece to bring his directing back to the Oscar forefront. Payne’s kind of the same way, though less prolific, while Scorsese has worked with multiple writers, sometimes co-writes, sometimes doesn’t…
Maybe the way to say it is that Marty has a vision and Woody has a story. Scorsese paints a universe and brings us in while Woody manipulates language and character in ways probably matched only by Shakespeare. Basically, they’re both the shit, if you’re into the whole brevity thing.
All the hate against artist that this site has, surprised me after I actually saw it.
The site is not responsible for whatever hate you find in the comments.
I can’t state that strongly enough.
Sasha and Awards Daily can’t control the legitimate reasonably-worded feelings anyone expresses in the comments. (and even if we try to reign in the abusive comments we catch nine kinds of hell for it.)
Sasha likes The Artist a lot. She raved it from Cannes nearly a year ago, and has never had anything less than admiration for it.
Do some of us like other movies better? Yes. Do some readers not care for The Artist at all? Yes.
But Sasha enjoyed The Artist. So don’t say “the hate this site has” — that’s just plain wrong.
Even I feel The Artist is a better Best Picture candidate than last year’s winner.
This “newbie” IS master class. And his win will be well deserved.
Malick would get my vote too. Tree of Life is the best film from 2011 (really really connected is bang on), which ended up being a pretty strong year in quality films I find. I was overjoyed when I heard that Tree of Life got nominated for BP and Directing. And if Malick manages to pull off this upset (it would surely be the biggest of the night) that would make Oscar night a success for me. But the chances are so slim that I dare not hope.
The Artist is in my personal top ten of the year, it’s fantastic in the true sense of the word and the most entertaining film of the year. The balls Hazanevecious (I can’t do it..) had for making a black and white, silent film in this day and age brought him to the Kodak theater and rightly so. The fact that he did it with such style, paying homage to a beloved era, may as well bring him to the podium. I wouldn’t mind it a bit, still happy that they at least recognized Malick but understanding that his type of movies are nowhere near an official “AMPAS” seal of approval.
And for Marty .. he used to be my favorite but he started to drift off. I’ll have to see Hugo again because in all honesty, reading Sasha’s piece on him gave my tummy the butterfly effect and I remembered how much I love Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Age of Innocence and so forth…I feel like i almost owe it to him to watch Hugo again but my initial reaction? Overrated. Simplistic story, a kiddie adventure, all prettiness and flash with a heart as artificial as the mechanical puppet. I’m of the mind that The Artist did more with less, but I have copious amounts of respect for the effort Scorsese put in. I must see it again.
The Descendants is flawed with that Sid character and a core relationship unexplored fully. The dialogue and the performances from everyone (apart from the kid who played Sid) are pitch perfect so I think it should rightly win Screenplay, and possibly Best Actor, but that’s it. Though again Sasha I feel like complementing you on your choice of words to describe Payne’s films, it’s exactly how I feel, except the bed had a few loose springs with The Descendants in my opinion.
Woody Allen was never a favorite of mine but I loved Midnight in Paris as much as I can’t stand Owen Wilson’s line delivery and I really can’t stand it. One of the best premises for a film in 2011 and a truly fitting conclusion, it could very well be the most romantic film from 2011 and that IS a wonderful accomplishment for Allen at this stage of his career. But much like the Descendants I just feel like it didn’t reach the heights that The Artist or Tree of Life did, with the script being the best thing about it by far. After pondering over the other four, thinking about Midnight in Paris is akin to swimming in a shallow pool with a gorgeous view of the ocean. So refreshing but leaves one wanting.
So id rank them now as
Malick
Hazanavecius
Scorsese
Payne
Allen
but I feel like I have enough respect and admiration for all 5 that I wouldn’t mind any of them winning to be honest, with the special exception of Malick which would just be .. a wonderful thing.
There is not going to be a split. It is The Artist all the way, I am sorry to say.
I wish I could share your enthusiasm that, if there is a split, it will go to Malick, Sasha. Much as I would like to see him get it, I doubt now that there will be a split. For awhile it felt like Scorsese could do it, but The Artist is looking might strong and splits occur, I’m guessing, in a very close race where some voters will choose a director other than who directed their best pic.
I don’t share the outrage over Hazanavicius, though. Best Director has always favored the newbie over the veteran, so it’s no surprise. Look at how many actors won (or were nominated) for directing their first films: Newman, Redford, Costner, Gibson. Newman lost to a veteran, Carol Reed, but two of the others all won at the expense of Scorsese and Gibson won in an odd year for directors.
Last year the newbie won against the young(ish) turks of the new realm; this year, we have a newbie winning against the cinema sages of the last generation. It doesn’t change anybody’s standings in the industry or here. Haz made a neat and easy to digest bonbon that everyone seems happy with – now let’s see what he does next. I just hope to god he doesn’t follow in his predecessor’s footsteps and choose a Broadway musical, although he could probably handle it better than what’sisname.
If there is a split, and it IS Malick – and I don’t have a coronary – I’ll send you dinner. How do you like your fries, again?
I mean in the genre of “kids” adventure movies,
Hugo is not that.
This is why Harvey Weinstein is evil. He gives amateur directors who definitely don’t deserve the Oscar yet an Oscar for Best Director. I’m so sick of it. If he does it again next year as well, I swear to God I will never follow the Oscars again until there’s a year Harvey and his newbie bitches are not in the race.
“Harvey and his newbie bitches”
Like Tarantino?
Poor King’s Speech. I really liked it…
I’d probably put The Fighter, Another Year, Shutter Island, Black Swan, & The Social Network ahead, but it was an A-, charming, WELL DIRECTED film that didn’t seem to have any missteps. It was more in the inspirational feel-good vein than my faves but, still, I’m sorry that its wins at the Oscars have turned it into a symbol for everything wrong with AMPAS. It deserves better than that.
@Jesse – of all the things i admired about The King’s Speech – Hooper’s direction was the least. Yep he recreated a bygone era, and ellicited great performances from Firth, Rush – but i seem to be in a circle of one about his casting and directing of Guy Pearce (an actor I cannot glean much skill out of) and Jennifer Ehle as Logue’s wife. Her Aussie accent was APPALLING! As an Aussie myself, i cannot for the life of me work out why you would cast a British actress to play the Aussie wife, and not direct a better accent/performance out of her. That, and Guy Pearce is playing the older brother – it was quite clear that Colin Firth is older than Guy Pearce, and the latter’s foppish performance paled along side luminaries like Michael Gambon and Derek Jacobi and Claire Bloom. I know i could be accused of having the cultural cringe, but for me getting those castings so wrong, and not reining in (pardon the bad pun) the performances, meant a less than stellar achievement – and next to the slick and stylish brilliance of The Social Network – it looked B grade.
I enjoyed the King’s Speech immensely, but could not rave about it as so many others did, considering those reservations. I can see what a crowd pleaser it was, but on Oscar night, i truly thought that Fincher would win directing and The King’s Speech would be the best picture. It is a beautifully written and performed drama.
“Oscars have turned it into a symbol for everything wrong with AMPAS.”
I wouldn’t go that far, Jesse. It does indicate that this year, like last, the crowd pleaser takes the prize – nothing new, nothing special. I must say that this member of the crowd was more pleased with The Artist than TKS, however, as far as easy enjoyment goes (usually to the bottom of the popcorn bucket).
LOL, I love that ol’ Deena thinks Hugo is an animated feature.
Can I just say, I don’t have a problem with “newbie” directors, per se. First-time directors have given us many monumental movies in the history of world cinema.
The danger in giving a newbie director the industry’s most illustrious award is that nobody knows what they might do next — if anything.
For every Orson Welles, there’s a John G. Avildsen.
Not that Rocky was horrible (though, ok, for me, yes, it’s horrible)
But when Hollywood wets its panties over the Flavor of the Day, and overlooks the radiant work of proven masters…
…then we end up with an Oscar Legacy in which John G. Avildsen has a Best Director Oscar and Sidney Lumet died without one.
Sidney Lumet, who lost to Avildsen in ’77. Rocky over Network.
Ingmar Bergman died without an Oscar. Lost to John G. Avildsen.
I’m sure that felt cute and trendy at the time. It doesn’t look so pretty in retrospect.
Deena Jones’ wig, how does the Potter franchise try to transcend the “genre of kids adventure movies” in ways that Hugo does not? How does 24 hours of Potter honor the world’s great art, music, literature, and film more than a mere two hours of Hugo?
The last two Potter movies were miles ahead of Hugo, miles ahead.
So what you’re saying is, you have copies of all 3 films. You took the two Potter films and placed them on the ground and then placed Hugo more than 11000 feet “behind” them. Is that right? Because otherwise, that don’t make no sense. *snatches DJ’s wig*
@Ryan – so true.
So too, with Hal Ashby, Alfred Hitchcock, Robert Altman, Norman Jewison and Stanley Kubrick.
and of the living: Alan Parker, Mike Leigh, Jane Campion, Peter Weir, David Fincher, David Lynch… many more
It’s easier if you think of all this as narcissism.
The Artist is about actors. Same thing last year – TKS was ostensibly about the king and the queen and the therapist, but it was really about those characters as actors – and, like The Artist, very hammy acting. Both of these films are shamelessly flattering to a pathologically narcissistic Academy. .
I have to disagree with the comments that if another director had directed Hugo no one would notice it. The film is masterful from the first frame till the last. There is so much going on in this film…the comment that it takes a few viewings to take it all in is correct. Just look at what he does with the air: it is constantly filled with smoke, steam, dust, snow…and that’s just atmosphere. The composition of each scene is like a painting, the storytelling exuberant, the editing precise, the cinematography catching every big and small moment. It ios subtle (when Hugo thinks of his father there’s a light shuddering and sound a la a film projector) and grand (the opening sequence to name one). Scorsese deserves the Best Director Oscar, but alas, won’t win it thanks to a gimmick, a great conceit by the way, of a silent black and white.
It’s the same as last year: The King’s Speech was a terrific film, but The Social Network was the better film. The Artist is a terrific film, but Hugo is the better film. Ten years from now we’ll remember The Artist just as we remember Shakespeare in Love, Crash and Driving Miss Daisy. Hugo will be revered just like Saving Private Ryan, Brokeback Mountain and (choose one) Field of Dreams/Born on the Fourth of July/Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I’m rooting for you Marty, but am preparing myself for the worst.
@daveinprogress
migod – you’ve killed off Norman Jewison!
“Not that Rocky was horrible (though, ok, for me, yes, it’s horrible)”
Hang on to your hat – I said the same thing here two years ago and was pilloried.
Ooops Sorry Mr Jewison – with respect (thanks Steve)
Can i hastily shuffle him to the living legend group (he says red faced and stuttering)
@daveinprogress
Not to worry – we English Canadians haven’t got much (we love to rely on Quebec for our film achievements) so Jewison is an icon up here. We disowned James Cameron years ago.
Another Woman is your personal face?
And Barry Levinson won for directing Rain Man – not Zemeckis.
Otherwise a good profile of the directors!
“How does 24 hours of Potter honor the world’s great art, music, literature, and film more than a mere two hours of Hugo?”
troothy, so honouring the world’s great art, music, literature and film automatically makes a movie superior huh? Oh ok! You learn new things everyday.
Beth
The animated feature bit was a subtle diss.
Wouldn’t it be a great year if Scorsese, Moneyball, Pitt, Mara, Von Sydow and McTeer turned this game inside out?
@daveinprogress: Yikes. I’ll trust you on the accents issue (I’m from LA). As for Pearce, I like him as an actor, though you’re right about his clearly being younger than Firth. But I wonder how much of the casting was Hooper’s responsibility and how much was a producer’s or studio’s?
@steve50: It just seems to me that commenters on this site and Sasha on Oscar Poker generally only speak of The King’s Speech in terms of the better films it beat (I’m plenty guilty of doing the same thing). And again, we’re not WRONG in this assessment, it’s just a shame that The Artist and The King’s Speech, objectively good movies, will be remembered in film circles as usurpers.
And on that note: DAMN YOU ROCKY! DAMN YOU TO HELLLL! (I’m a big Taxi Driver fan)
‘Another Woman’ is a great Woody Allen drama with the great and luminous Gena Rowlands. He is an astonishingly prolific film maker. Not all hits, a few definite misses but with a CV that has Radio Days (nostalgically funny), Purple Rose (a classic concept) Zelig (such clever writing snd directing), Alice (bizarre) Another Woman (moodily fascinating), Interiors (love the bleakness of this, especially after Annie Hall. Geraldine Page haunted me after seeing this film!).
Not only has he created wonderful constructs within the films, his dialogue is exemplary. So varied – and these are just the ones that come
to mind!
Deena Jones’ wig, so I just got you to admit that 24 hours of Potter films does absolutely NOTHING to exalt the world’s great art, music, literature, and film. For your edification, doing those things makes an ordinary kids film into a transcendent kids film.
@Jesse – I am making assumptions that as director Tom Hooper, even if he didn’t cast them, which i think he probably agreed to, he still has the responsibility of getting the best out of them, and those 2 performances were ironically off their marks (Pearce, an Aussie played a British monarch) and Ehle, a Brit, played an Aussie woman – badly! But everyone’s a critic, and i seem to be alone with those quibbles. It is an enjoyable film nonetheless!
Re Taxi Driver and Network – two of the best films of the entire 1970′s and they went head to head with Sly Stallone, and lost! Yikes x 2!
@daveinprogress: Those quibbles are totally legitimate if they took you out of the film.
I’d have rewarded Lumet for Dog Day Afternoon, those Milos certainly did a hell of a job on Cuckoo’s Nest. I guess the real victory lies in how we’re still arguing for Sidney even after he’s dead.
We all agree that Marty is a great director . He should have won for Goodfellas .He won for the Departed a well directed film but I thought Clint should have one. I like Hugo very much but I don’t understand why so many people on this site think it’s better than The Artist. Marty may pull a upset and win BD I hope not Michel deserves the Oscar .
Deena Jones’s Wig wrote: “As I said, if Hugo was directed by some other director no one would give it the time of day. In fact, it would not even be in contention for anything, probably besides best animated feature.”
You don’t know what you’re talking about. And Hugo is not an animated film.
“If the Oscars don’t honor our own what good are they?”
So the Oscars should be only for American/Hollywood made films? Talk about a kind of double-speak and elitism…
And if there is a split, it will not go to Malick. Let’s get real everyone. You’ve been following the Oscars for years. Malick is not going to be the director to cause a split this year.
Thanks Jesse, i like your insight – if something in a film takes you out of it, it does in fact reduce my respect/enjoyment/regard for the film overall, even a little! I recall sitting in training to learn continuity – around the world it is known as ‘script supervisor’ – and they would show us examples of feature films where for some reason (probably better performance), there were continuity errors and how they would either consciously or sometimes unconsciously distract or jar the viewer from the action. When i became a director, i did exactly what i hated the director doing when i did script supervision – use a take where the continuity was no good, but the performance was better! All smoke and mirrors – except for the obsessives who notice when something doesn’t look, feel or sound right! If a movie has me totally submerged – i don’t care about whether an object is missing from one scene to another, or an accent is a bit off. For me, that’s how i assess performance and direction – it’s hard once i’ve been in the ‘chair’ – (only small screen stuff – comedy and satire) to ignore it. But i am forever grateful for the opportunities i had when i directed and was trained in single and multi camera continuity.
As I said, if Hugo was directed by some other director no one would give it the time of day.
Thought experiment:
Would be interesting to see Hugo directed by Hazanavicius or Hooper… Or would it?
This is such a dumbass hypothetical.
Let’s imagine The Iron Lady starring Sandra Bullock and see who gives it the time of day.
Probably if Vertigo was directed by some other director no one would give it the time of day.
But it was, Blanche, it was directed by Hitchcock.
I find the notion that Woody has evolved quite funny. He’s been making the variations of the same movies his whole career. Sure MiP is a different genre, but it’s also inferior to Vicki Cristina, and especially Match Point. So odd that this is the movie they choose to get Woody back in their graces.
troothy
It is awfully pretentious to believe that a movie can only transcend its genre only when it tackles film, literature and art. You didn’t get me to admit anything but nice try.
“This is such a dumbass hypothetical”
As DUMB as the Scorsese fanboys who believe that Hugo is anything but a passable children’s movie with heavy-handed metaphors and drab symbols. DUMB indeed.
I feel like if Deena Jones’ wig thinks someone’s dumb for liking Hugo, he/she should post under their real name.
As DUMB as the Scorsese fanboys who believe that Hugo is anything but a passable children’s movie with heavy-handed metaphors and drab symbols. DUMB indeed.
People are supposed to take you seriously after writing that or what.
This “newbie” IS master class. And his win will be well deserved.
I’d agree with that! But let him get a few more movies under his belt before declaring it.
@daveinprogress: Interesting what you said. I mean, even the greatest movies are loaded with errors and goofs, as iMDB can show us because i do think directors are more concerned with performance. I’m not one to notice the length of a lit cigarette but yeah, bad accents from places I’m familiar with throw me.
I saw Hugo in theaters 3 times. I don’t remember seeing a single child in the audience. The audience were college age and older.
here’s what’s dumb about the “by any other director” silliness.
If Moby Dick had been written by Jackie Collins nobody would give it the time of day.
Because without Melville and Scorsese, Moby Dick and Hugo wouldn’t be what they are.
If you don’t get that, then you’re hopeless.
I feel like Deena Jones’ wig is one hell of a drain and troll around here.
All the hate against artist that this site has, surprised me after I actually saw it.
Yeah, not right. All I’ve ever said is that I WISH I could hate the Artist. I can’t. I’ve done nothing but praise the film. The only thing I’ve ever said negative about it is that I wish an American film was winning for the second year in a row. Just my own desire to see our own movie industry thrive, especially when the studios and its directors are turning out such great movies. I have never talked bad about The Artist…never. I actually love the movie.
Deena Jones’ wig, I’d rather be pretentious than provincial when talking about the genre of family film, which is the matter at hand. You think box office revenue makes a family film the superior work of art, while I think it’s more important to attempt to ennoble the potential audience than talk down to it.
Is this piece of stale regurgitation really the “best scene” from part 8?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2h57NUWsBU
That would explain everything.
Great piece as usual, Sasha. Comparing art and entertainment to twins at a barn dance makes for a pretty awesome metaphor, so nice work on that one.
Thanks, Jesse. I really appreciate your comment and kind support. It means a lot to me that you would compliment my writing. Am appreciative.
Scorsese was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Age of Innocence.
Ah, thanks….my mistake.
Ryan
I do get what you are saying but you willingly refuse to get what I am saying. Hugo is a good movie. There, I said it. However, it doesn’t do anything so EXTRAORDINARILY different with this genre to merit such widespread acclaim. The Potter franchise, in my opinion, transcended the genre better than Hugo. Wall-E, in my opinion, transcended its genre a million times better than Hugo. The treatment Wall-E received from AMPAS proves my point. Wall-E, in my opinion again, is a much better movie than Hugo. It strikes the right emotional notes, embraces youthful playfulness, conveys a profound message and manages to thread along with a solid, adult aesthetic. Because of genre bias, AMPAS shut Wall-E out of major categories. I am willing to bet a million Euros on this: If Wall-E was released in 2011 under the direction of Scorcese and marketed as a “love letter to Cinema” ( Wall-E in its own right is a love letter to cinema especially when you consider the opening scene and the cinematic elements aka the allegory of Dorothy in Oz etc), it would have racked up a billion nominations including best picture and best director. That’s the simple truth. You know it, I know it, we know it.
“People are supposed to take you seriously after writing that or what.”
- Sasha
Sasha,
I do love your site and I think you are a remarkable writer and film journalist. However, after your handling of this whole best actress fiasco, I too cannot take you seriously. The feelings are mutual I guess. Cheers!
However, it doesn’t do anything so EXTRAORDINARILY different with this genre to merit such widespread acclaim.
According to you. (and some other people I don’t hang around with.)
According to all the Guilds, all the critics, BAFTA, the NBR, the Academy — yes, we (they, I, and dozens of people I respect) DO believe it merits acclaim.
It’s fine if you want to keep repeating that you don’t think Hugo is worthy.
But that’s not going to change the fact that hardly anyone with reputable authority agrees with you.
Malick’s work is on another level entirely compared to the other directors. He should be walking away with the Oscar. “The Artist” and “Hugo” were both average films to me. “The Descendants” was good but more of a showcase for Clooney. “Midnight in Paris” I didn’t see, but I doubt Allen is dealing w/ anything deeper or more notable than his best films. But “Tree of Life” is truly something special, something to be studied and debated over for years to come, where intriguing and stunning image after image hold thematic and dramatic weight. The family scenes are handled w/ poetry, economy, and clarity, while the shaping of the universe sequence and sean penn segments (of which there should’ve been more) contextualize them and give them substance and meaning. If the academy truly wants to show their singularity and love for cinema, they will reward Malick’s landmark achievement. Because in the end, “Tree of Life” is the type of filmmaking that is rarely even attempted, let alone pulled off. And while I don’t find the film perfect, great works of art seldom are. But no matter, I know Malick won’t win, just as long as Lubezski does.”TOL’s” cinematography is a god among insects. The other nominees don’t even belong
“According to all the Guilds, all the critics, BAFTA, the NBR, the Academy — yes, we (they, I, and dozens of people I respect) DO believe it merits acclaim.”
The same organisations showering acclaim on The Artist, yet YOU think The Artist is a forgettable movie. You say To-ma-to, I say To-may-to.
@Ryan – I am planning to see Hugo for a third time in the theatre this
weekend! I NEVER see the same film again in the theatre (mainly because there are so many to see, and not enough cash flow), but “Hugo” has rekindled and reconnected me to the magic of cinema – and while the 3D is a big attraction, it is the mastery of a great film maker, that is the majesty to behold in the cinema. Too often, i judge a film’s merits in the wrong medium (the biggest sin is to listen to what people say about a film before seeing it). As the children comment in the movie about the moviegoing experience: “It is a gift”.
I had a big smile on my face for the entire first reel, just gobsmacked at how Scorsese uses the medium so fully; i had a sense in the last reel that i understood a little more about the man who is such an iconic artist in the American landscape; and finally, I felt a real sense of
hope and healing in the final moments of the film revelling in the fact that the film had won me over in every way possible. In lesser hands the film wouldn’t have known when to start and stop. I never once felt manipulated or any indulging on the part of the filmmaker – rare! It is near enough to a perfect film for me – and that is not an assessment that gushes out. It is neither a kids movie nor a filmmaker’s personal catharsis. It is a masterful piece of storytelling – my 10 year old nice loved it, my 7 year old nephew liked it, their 47 yr old uncle was completely mesmeriesed by it. For the record, i am no Scorsese fanboy – i’ve seen maybe a third of his films.
“I wish I could share your enthusiasm that, if there is a split, it will go to Malick, Sasha.”
If there was a split, it would more than likely be Scoresese. Malicks doesn’t stand a chance? Why? Because Tree of life only got two nominations, no screenplay, no acting. I think you are letting your personal opinion get in the way.
Re: Ryan Adams’ comment about the Academy awarding the “flavours of the day,” like John G. Avildsen in particular.
I could much rather AMPAS votes for what they think is the best of the year rather than get into game of honouring veterans over ‘newbies’ since the latter method seems fraught with much more danger of undeserving winners. The Oscars already have lifetime achievement awards — no need to do the same in the competitive categories.
You mentioned Avildsen and yes, his award looks rather silly in hindsight given that he beat the likes of Bergman and Lumet (and kept Scorsese out of the race altogether). But it would’ve been unfair for voters to say, “Oh, let’s make him ‘prove it’ before we vote him to win an Oscar” since Avildsen already proved it by making a damn good movie. It’s like in sports, when a middling player surprises everyone with a great year and wins an MVP award; it’s unfair to penalize the ‘newbie’ simply because they don’t have the track record.
To use an example from just a couple of years after Avildsen’s win, Michael Cimino never went on to make anything of note after Deer Hunter and had barely made anything of consequences before it. Does that mean Cimino wasn’t the Best Director of 1978? Heck no.
If you truly believe that the Oscars should award the best performances/direction/etc. of a given year, then you should expect more than a few random winners to pop up in the history books.
“Who are they? Why would they, in a million years, vote that way? Either they really are a couple of french fries shy of a happy meal, have absolutely terrible taste”
I’m sorry, I’m a big fan of this site but I had to stop reading here. I, frankly, see no bad films on this years list of nominees (haven’t seen Extremely Loud, but i remember you even being kind to that script at the very least). Would my top ten look entirely different? Of course, but this kind of hyperbole get’s depressing to be honest.
Surely there has to be a better way to have this conversation without questioning the intelligence of people who would consider some of these movies as favorites (this includes the conversation going on about Hugo).
“As I said, if Hugo was directed by some other director no one would give it the time of day. In fact, it would not even be in contention for anything, probably besides best animated feature.”
Your opinion is totally out of touch with reality. How do you know if someone else directed HUGO, it would not have been given the time of the day? It is your speculation based on your bias against HUGO, apparently.
Very few people here agree with you, I think you remind me of one of the members from the flat earth caucus. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
“If Wall-E was released in 2011 under the direction of Scorcese and marketed as a “love letter to Cinema” ( Wall-E in its own right is a love letter to cinema especially when you consider the opening scene and the cinematic elements aka the allegory of Dorothy in Oz etc), it would have racked up a billion nominations including best picture and best director. That’s the simple truth. You know it, I know it, we know it.”
You are totally out of your mind. No, I don’t know it, Ryan doesn’t know it, nobody knows it here except you. How can a hypothesis be the truth?? Speak for yourself and stop putting words in people’s mouths!!
Okay so back to the topic.
Martin Scorsese is the only possible threat to win his second Best Director Oscar for “Hugo”. How is this such a far-fetched idea? His film is the most nominated, he won the Golden Globe award, some critics, and he’s Martin Scorsese after all. How is he such a low possibility to win? I barely see any of you predicting him, despite his very much frontrunner status. The helmsman of “The Artist” could win, but sorry he hasn’t been taking anything so far. My money is that Scorsese wins. This should have been a sure thing from the beginning.
Sasha is right that Scorsese is the only legitimate chance for an upset. A split is more realistic this year than in the last couple of years…
2009: Hurt Locker was just a hands-down better movie than Avatar, first and foremost. Factor in the narrative factors (Bigelow being the first female BD, she and Cameron being exes, Cameron not being the most popular person in Hollywood) and Bigelow was a virtual lock.
2010: It was the year of the King’s Speech all the way, so Hooper losing would’ve been an anomaly. Fincher also gets way more love from the online fans and critics than he ever has from the Academy, which is odd since his only previous nomination came for the terrible Benjamin Button, probably Fincher’s worst film and one of the worst BP nominees in recent memory.
This year, however, you have a Hooper-esque unknown in Hazanavicius, but his main rival isn’t Fincher, it’s arguably the greatest American filmmaker of all time. AMPAS voters will be much more tempted to vote Marty (who “just” has the one Oscar) than the foreign unknown with the funny name, as wrongly or rightly as you may see it.
“Why? Because Tree of life only got two nominations”
Three, actually. You forgot to mention Best Cinematography
@Sasha: No problem. Your writing’s easy to compliment.
Hugo’s biggest strength was, I think, its direction. Scorsese let me into the train station and I could feel the steam on my skin, smell the baked goods, hear the endless chatter and steps and hollers…He creates an atmosphere in Hugo that wholly envelops the viewer and keeps those sights, sounds, and smells within us long after the movie ends.
For the most gifted and prolific directors, film making itself becomes a kind of parenthood, a love, a drug. As the finale of Hugo proves, Martin Scorsese remains entrenched in the history and creation of film, promoting preservation while simultaneously telling the sort of story that ensures his own legacy.
If Wall-E was released in 2011 under the direction of Scorcese and marketed as a “love letter to Cinema”
If Wall-E was directed by Scorsese, it would be an entirely different movie.
This is the same crazy argument we heard about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
Why do another version? The Swedish one is just fine!
Well, now millions of people can see: If the same story is directed by Fincher, then it becomes A DIFFERENT MOVIE. It’s elevated to something more outstanding than it was when it was directed by Niels Arden Oplev.
If Hugo had been directed by Jason Reitman, you’re right: it would suck several species of ass.
It’s great because of Scorsese. Why can’t you grasp that people genuinely feel that, because that’s what we see.
=======
Citizen Kane is what it is because of Orson Welles. Nobody else could have directed it and achieved the same effect.
This idea you’re hung up on — here’s what you’re implying: If nobody knew Hitchcock directed Psycho, then it wouldn’t have made any impression. That’s just ridiculous.
I can prove it. I saw Citizen Kane on a tiny b&w TV in my bedroom in 7th grade — before I had ever heard of Orson Welles. (I even missed the first 15 minutes of it, so I was pretty disoriented) I swear to god to you this is true. I was 13 years old. I was blown away. I sought out everything I could find about Citizen Kane. In pre-internet days, this meant ordering books from a giant catalogue of ISBN numbers from a dinky local bookstore, and going to local college libraries to rummage the stacks, locate the bound volume of actual hard-copy TIME magazine from 1941.
For me, Citizen Kane did not require ANY knowledge of Orson Welles in order to make a life-changing impression. I found out about Welles AFTER I saw the movie — I researched Welles BECAUSE of the movie.
I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see the value in a movie unless they know in advance who directed it. So please stop acting like people like me need the validation of a Famous Name before we know how to react to a great film.
Maybe you’re like that. I promise you, I am not.
“The helmsman of “The Artist” could win, but sorry he hasn’t been taking anything so far.”
?? Winning the DGA is “not taking anything so far”?
@Ryan Adams: Hell, I had the same experience with GoodFellas when I was about that age, 12 or 13. I saw 10 minutes of it at my friend’s house and said ‘Good God, I have to see the rest.’ I knew nothing about Scorsese, DeNiro, the mafia, the bands who performed the music, or even what supposedly makes for a great movie, I just knew that after I saw GoodFellas, an extraordinary momentum passed through my soul for hours afterward. I saw The Godfather I and II back to back a few months later and I’ve been hooked on film ever since.
Jesse,
We once opened a topic asking readers to share the moment they realized movies were more than a way to kill 2 hours. I forget how we phrased it. I think it was something about “when did you stop referring to movies by who starred in them (an Eddie Murphy movie) and started being aware that movies were authored (a Roman Polanski film).”
We got such great answers. Maybe we’ll do that again soon. Valentine’s Day would be a good date to ask ourselves to open up about the first time we fell in love with movies, yeah?
Someone else may have already said this, but only Scorsese could’ve made Hugo. The movies plays right into his love of film and passion for film preservation. If Hugo had been made by someone else, it’d be a remarkably different movie. Scorsese always gets attention or “favoritism” from the Academy because he’s a great filmmaker.
Daveylow says:
February 8, 2012 at 9:35 pm
And if there is a split, it will not go to Malick. Let’s get real everyone. You’ve been following the Oscars for years. Malick is not going to be the director to cause a split this year.
—
I assume you were also in the same camp of people that said TOL and Malick had no shot at a nomination at all, because, well, how long have we been following the Oscars again..!?
My biggest problem with Hazanavicius winning would just be that he did nothing original. I did not see an original vision nor hear an original voice. The movie just felt like a replica to me, and not even a super good one at that.
I have now seen everything in this category and in my mind, the clear winner is Scorcese. That movie was as close to perfection as anything I have ever seen. Forget what it’s marketed as or what you thought it was going to be….it’s a pure delight in every way. I haven’t spoken with a single real person in the real world, who did not love it, and many for different reasons. Even a 10 year old, who certainly did not love it for the same reasons I did, though our Venn did reveal some common ground.
Same for me. I saw Fargo because Ebert recommended it, even though I don’t like violent films and I knew absolutely nothing about the Coens. It blew me away and opened my eyes to a whole new universe of strange, dark, absurdist filmmaking. I had been hooked on movies before, but not particularly aware of directors apart from the obvious: Hitchcock, Kubrick, Bergman. Joel and Ethan converted me instantly, and I’ve never looked back. The first great directors that I actually discovered for myself. The next year, when Lebowski came out, I couldn’t wait to see it despite a lukewarm critical reaction, and I loved every frame. There’s no way you can mistake the signature of a Coen Bros. film. And there’s no way you can mistake Scorsese’s unique signature – to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
“I’d agree with that! But let him get a few more movies under his belt before declaring it.”
I really don’t get that one, they are awarding the best of 2011, not careers. If a one-trick pony was the best of that year, then he should win, not some other dude who actually should have won in yet another year, but didn’t have enough good movies at that point.
I’m pretty sure that, if Hazanavicius manages to make a few other great movies, keeps getting nominated but doesn’t win because he still wasn’t “due”, everyone will complain about the lack of Hazanavicius-love and that once again, they’re not getting it right.
I would actually find it quite annoying if some of my favorite directors (Aronofsky, Fincher, Anderson) would win an oscar for something that could be considered “lesser” work, but that one film just happened to be the one that pushed them over the required threshold of quality that was built on their previous movies.
Then again, I’ve always thought that it would be better to hand out awards later, when people have had the chance to actually see most movies, when they have all sunk in. Like right now, we should be awarding 2010 or something, lose the hype of the moment.
The art and entertainment argument doesn’t really work for either HP or Dragon Tattoo because neither are the best example of those two things coming together – which is to say that they are not great films. If you want to see more art and entertainment in the race – which can be another way of saying ‘genre’ films – then Drive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or Super 8 would all be more deserving.
HP never once – in eight attempts – hit the heights of The Lord of the Rings or The Dark Knight. Fincher has made two considerably better serial killer movies than Dragon Tattoo that weren’t nominated.
The reason these films were overlooked is not becase they purport to be both art and entertainment but because neither are good enough to be in the Best Picture race.
On the issue of a split, I can only see Scorsese as the potential spoiler. I’d love to see Malick recognised – as I would The Tree of Life for Best Picture – but I don’t think they’re bold enough to go there (though I think referencing its Yahoo score is pretty irrelevant – I imagine Jack and Jill would score higher given the voting sample). As a Malick fan, I’m just gratified to see it in the race and the fact that it is gives me hope that more dramatic changes will come through in the future.
The movie just felt like a replica to me, and not even a super good one at that.
Mel,
If you want to see a much better replica — check out Hazanavicius’ two OSS117 spy spoofs. If you ran across one without knowing what it was, it would be many minutes before you realized it wasn’t actually made in the ’60s.
The film stock, the effects, the editing rhythm, the lighting — it’s all incredibly authentic. And they’re witty, funny, sexy, stylish. They’re not James Bond style, but more in the vein of In Like Flint or Peter Sellers’ Casino Royale — which is great, because it’s not a 21st century movie spoofing the 60s. It’s replica of a late ’60s spoof of early ’60s movies.
That’s the problem I have with people saying The Artist is an homage. Because the attitude is all wrong. There were no movies like The Artist in 1927. None.
But there WERE movies like the OSS177 films in the ’60s. Those vintage spy spoofs are still great fun, hugely entertaining. The OSS177 movies feel like lost and rediscovered classics.
Honestly, if Cairo, Nest of Spies were the BP frontrunner I wouldn’t be groaning so much. It’s a better movie than The Artist. It’s packed with imaginative fun.
But…. is that all Hazanavicius can do? Is he just a really clever mimic? There’s no evidence I’ve seen that he knows how to do anything else.
But…. is that all Hazanavicius can do? Is he just a really clever mimic? There’s no evidence I’ve seen that he knows how to do anything else.
Well, looking at your explanation of his only other films….I guess, NO. Which is alarming, not to have any vision of your own and nothing original to say, it reminds me of the movies I would try to make with my Dad’s VHS camcorder when I was a kid, and by make movies I mean, recreate scenes from movies I liked. I’m slowly just getting over it though.
I was hoping The Artist would wow me, I honestly was. But it didn’t. It even caused an awkwardness between me and my college best friend! What made us close then and now was that we loved movies and took every film theory class we could get into. We always loved the same things and he texted me breathless about The Artist. I understand the allure of it, I really do….but I guess it just wasn’t done well enough in my opinion to fire me up. It honestly felt like just a silly little movie. As opposed to when I left Hugo reminded of all the reasons I’d been obsessed with the movies ever since I could remember.
I was looking at people sharing their memory of when they first realized movies were more than just something you do for 2 hours….I honestly can’t remember a time they ever weren’t. I always felt them deeply and they always carried me away and captured my imagination and every thought and I bought every magazine I ever found (which in my case in super smalltown midwest wasn’t much). I had a subscription to Premiere as soon as they started making it when I was 14 and then later Movieline and EW. I do remember my first ever movie in a theater. It was The Fox and The Hound and we had to leave b/c I could not handle the sadness of Copper and Tod’s friendship ending and was crying so hard I was gasping for air. I was 6. The first ever project I worked on in school when learning how to offline edit with Avid, my soundtrack was “Best of Friends” from that movie
@Ryan Adams: That idea would make for a GREAT comment section.
@Mel: The Fox and the Hound sort of depressed me as well, although Dumbo was the kicker when it came to making me feel completely wrecked. The first movie I remember seeing in theatres was Jurassic Park, which came out when I was 3. Loved it.
Oh Jesse….you just made me feel old! I was in college for JP and it certainly was a huge event. I remember my friend leaning over to me and saying, “oh my god, did you just see the pupil dilate??” Man, how we forget that we used to delight in the small things before they became expected.
I think the first movie I can remember seeing in the cinema as The Black Stallion, however…
My grandma dropped my sister and I off to see Tootsie sometime in the early 80s. When we got to the ticket counter, Toostie had finished it’s season. The only movie playing at that time was The Wicked Lady.
We didn’t tell grandma what had happened because we both felt quite, umm…ashamed.
i’ve long abandoned the race for best picture an director, fuck all the nominees, worst pileup of movies and directors with minimal respect for artist, hugo, tree of life. it won’t matter to me if artist or hugo wins picture or director. i’m looking forward to the acting categories, they’re more juicy..
Amazing guy, that Hazanavicius. He’s has no vision of his own, copying others, but it also doesn’t count as an hommage, because it doesn’t resemble any of the things he’s apparently blatantly ripping off.
So he has his own voice when it’s conventient for bashing him and he doesn’t when you wanna pick on something else. This is getting really close to childish whining and now we’re apparently at the “he sucks so bad, he even sucks at sucking” level.
I didn’t realise Woody lost to Oliver Stone twice.
Most of Woody’s losses, however, seem at least mostly understandable.
Almost all of Scorsese’s losses, though, are painful. Enduring, influential classics losing to flash-in-the-pan sentimentality. The only digestible loss is to Roman Polanski (Polanski, too, was overdue & had the better film). The Eastwood loss is less painful than the rest, but Scorsese had the better directed film & Eastwood already had his Oscar.
Anyway, Sasha hits it on the head when she says the Academy clearly likes Scorsese, but doesn’t seem to *get* him.
Hazanvicius takes it. Sorry.
I can say without ANY hesitation, that the Best Director Oscar will go to a Weinstein-film next year, too…the only difference, that this time around it will be a respected vet with previous Oscar nominations (either Tarantino for ‘Django Unchained’ or Paul Thomas Anderson for ‘The Master), unlike Hazanavicius and Hooper…and I am already telling myself that it will be just fine, mainly because I can see one of those two actually deliver THE best film of 2012…my problem with all this Hazanavicius-love, that while I think ‘The Artist’ is a good/great film, I can’t see it as THE best of anything…it is certainly ONE of the best, and definitely has great parts, but so do a lot of other contenders.
“If you want to see a much better replica — check out Hazanavicius’ two OSS117 spy spoofs.”
I was going to ask if anyone has seen these and if they are worthwhile – Thanks, Ryan. I’m kind of “meh” on all but two Bond films, didn’t like the recent take-offs at all, but have a bit of a passion for Modesty Blaise because it’s funny and, as time goes by, is a perfect snapshot of the 60s I remember. Pretty much the same team in front and behind the camera as The Artist, too, I’m guessing.
I don”t see Django or Master as Best Picture or Tarantino and Anderson as Best Director where there is LINCOLN and Spielberg. Master will be simple drama and Django simple spaghetti western but there is not any great film about Abraham Lincoln and LINCOLN will be gratest A.Lincoln film.
Oh, I wouldn’t be too sure – Anderson and Tarantino are anything but “simple”, their respective styles could make Heidi interesting.
I’m more worried about Lincoln – we’ve seen Spielberg slip on the ice with serious, potential landmark projects before.
Anderson and Tarantino are not simple, their upcoming films are simple. If great westerns like The Good, Bad And Ugly or Once upon a time in the West never won Oscar, then Django also will not. And if There will be blood did not won for Anderson (in my opinion it is better than No country for old men) he will not win for Master/
Weinstein also has David O Russel’s next film (Silver Linings Playbook – Jennifer Lawrence, Jackie Weaver, DeNiro, Bradley Cooper) and John Hillcoat’s Wettest Country with Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain and Shia LaBeouf. With the Anderson and Tarantino projects, that’s 4 films with great potential. Maybe Harvey can push something more challenging in 2012 and lead that Ampas horse to water.
if this year The Artist wins, next year Harvey”s chance will be less. I really do not want the repeating of 1999 Oscar ceremony when Shakespeare beat Private Ryan.
Hazanavicius is only a newbie in Hollywood. He’s younger and more prolific than Payne and clearly a master, as was Scorcese, Malick, and Allen at his age.
“Poor King’s Speech. I really liked it…
I’d probably put The Fighter, Another Year, Shutter Island, Black Swan, & The Social Network ahead, but it was an A-, charming, WELL DIRECTED film that didn’t seem to have any missteps. It was more in the inspirational feel-good vein than my faves but, still, I’m sorry that its wins at the Oscars have turned it into a symbol for everything wrong with AMPAS. It deserves better than that”.
COULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, JESSE.
Sasha, help me understand. You diss the Academy members for their picks. And you call The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – the movie with a rape scene – “art” and “entertainment.” Girl, you need a happy meal.
but it also doesn’t count as an hommage
The anachronisms are illogical and distracting — for me — and the mash-up of styles makes the silent conceit rather pointless except as a stunt.
I could write an essay on why it’s a poor excuse for an ode to silent films, but what’s the point. Those who are in the can for The Artist love it for their own perfectly plain reasons and I concede that’s valid.
What’s childish, Corran, is how bristly some people get when I (and many others) fail to see what’s so special about a skittish pastiche. This movie would have made a neat little Live Action Short. As it stands, I find it pretty much a torture to sit through the horridly oppressive score propping up such a flat obvious plot.
But that’s just me.
Congratulations. You’re going to be very happy on Oscar night.
I think The Age of Innocence, Alice Doesn`t Live Here Anymore and The Color of Money should be listed in the not nominated. And A New World absolutely shouldn`t be listed in Malick`s list. As I already said here before, this film has poor reviews compared to the others he directed and if it was made by someone like Ridley Scott… people would say a lot of bad things about it. But as it`s Malick`s…
It is clear by the way the Best Picture nominations turned out that these voters weren’t really voting on my favorite films of the year.
Fixed that for you. No charge.
There are many people that believe The New World is a masterpiece and the film featured strongly on a lot of best-of-decade lists, despite it failing to find an audience upon initial release (something that can be attributed to the way New Line mishandled the marketing and dumped it in only select theatres in January 2006). Sasha is absolutely correct to include it in any discussion of Malick.
If you haven’t seen the longer cut that was released on DVD and Blu-ray, I sincerely encourage everyone to seek it out – it really is quite something.
I guess no matter the qualities/originality of a movie, it will have a legion of haters behind it if it’s the front runner for the Oscar. This seems to be the case every single year.
Whoever says The Artist is not original really boggles my mind. Artists borrow from each other all the time, the way you present it and WHEN you present it is what;s original. A black and white silent film in 2011 that’s ridiculously entertaining from start to finish? Fuck yes that’s original.
@Alec: The New World is definitely a masterpiece. Plummer can suck it, sick of these actors complaining about Malick and how they weren’t in his film longer then what they initially thought. Part of me wants Malick to win just so i can see Plummer’s face when he does.
This site is good in that it lets persons vent about how and where they see things and go on to point out what and why and who and how come things should be the way they would prefer to see and how it should be in their view but the truth for these folks, and I’m certain they’re aware of it, is that, starting from the results of NYFCC, then BFCAA and moving forward to now and then forward to BAFTA: I’m pretty certain everyone of them are aware they are all softly whistling as they walk past the cemetery…..
I’m tempted to say that Malick has no chance, but I gave the movie no shot at a Best Picture nomination. Perhaps it’s an overstatement that nobody knows anything, but I’m pretty sure that I know nothing.
Here’s a scenario for a Malick win … people who would vote for Scorsese or Allen on the merits think “yeah, but he already has an Oscar …” and go with Malick instead.
Most years, Payne has paid his dues is a compelling argument, but not in a year with three masters on the ballot, one of whom was shutout of a nomination for BADLANDS. As great as the Oscars were in the 70s, they still snubbed Marty for MEAN STREETS and Malick for BADLANDS, two incomprehensible omissions in hindsight.
So what the hell, I’m making an early no-guts-no-glory call for Malick in Best Picture. Just remember that I know nothing.
PS — I know so little that I cannot even name the category correctly: Malick in Best Director.
@steve50- The problem is that Weinstein never came close to a victory with more unconventional films like Pulp Fiction, Basterds, City of God, I’m Not There, etc. And if he wins this year, he won’t win next, 3 years in a row is too much even for him.
I don`t think Weinstein will win a 3rd-in-a-row Best Picture prize. I don`t doubt because this guy is brilliant but… And this is true: he never got one for an unconventional film. Don`t know if he is so used to campaigning conventional films that he doesn`t get the campaigns for unconventional films in a perfect way as he does with the conventional ones. Inglorious Basterds is the best example. It could have won. There was a big blockbuster and a big indie, and Basterds with a SAG in the middle of them. But the campaign had some problems. It was unclear if Melanie Laurent was campaigned lead or supporting and, in the end, she went lead (for me, Viola Davis in The Help has a pretty similar screen time and importance in The Help as Laurent in Basterds)… she was not a well-known actress… she should have gone supporting but he thought Diane Kruger, who was beginning to built a star career, should be there and they would vote for her… but she didn`t have the strong scenes Laurent had. In the end, he still got Penelope for Nine in but saw the Basterd girls and Julianne Moore (A Single Man) being overtaken by Maggie Gyllenhall. But this was not the biggest problem… the problem is that Basterds missed Art Direction and Costumes…. how could the only period big production that year nominated for BP miss those two. With the 2, it would have leaded the nominations total and the saturday before, it took the SAG… it could have built momentum to win.
But i disagree with Pulp Fiction and specially City of God. Pulp Fiction was up against a BIG HEAVY train that was Forrest Gump. It was unstoppable.
And City of God… if anyone here predicted it would get 4 Oscar nominations and one of those would be for Fernando Meirelles you could say he didn`t do well. But… this is the biggest miracle of the Oscar nominations I`ve ever seen. It came out of nowhere, really nowhere, a Brazilian violent film full of portuguese slang words get a Directing and Screenplay nominations beating Cold Mountain in directing and screenplay and Seabiscuit in Directing. Harvey did an amazing job with City of God.
When I wrote inconvenient, the correct is UNCONVENTIONAL.
[fixed - Ryan]
Hi,
I do think that Best Director, always one of my favourite categories, is one of the most interesting this year. I haven’t yet seen The Descendants, but I like all the other four nominated films and would be happy for any of the directors to win. On balance, I’d probably plump for Malick – but it’d be a close-run thing.
I’ve just got one query with the article, and it’s with the title. I’m just wondering what makes Hazanavicius a ‘newbie’ and Alexander Payne a member of the ‘master class’. Payne is only six years older than Hazanavicius, and has made five feature films to Hazanavicius’s four. So, it strikes me that their careers are of similar length. Granted, Payne’s body of work contains more films that have achieved a certain status in the US, but I don’t think Hazanavicius really counts as a newbie – not the way either a first-time director winner (Redford, Costner, Gibson, Mendes) or a younger director (Spike Jonze, M. Night Shyamalan) would count. And, for me, Payne, impressive though his work is, has not yet achieved the status of Allen, Malick and Scorsese – all of whom I would call legendary filmmakers.
May the best man/film win!
I’m just wondering what makes Hazanavicius a ‘newbie’ and Alexander Payne a member of the ‘master class’. Payne is only six years older than Hazanavicius, and has made five feature films to Hazanavicius’s four.
Edward L
in 1999, Alexander Payne was nominated for his first Oscar, for Election — a movie widely recognized as one of the top half dozen America comedies of the past 20 years
in 1999, Michel Hazanavicius made a movie called Mes Amis, a movie that was nominated for nothing at all (and it has a dismal rating of 5.3 on IMDb)
Can you see the see the difference already? Lots of directors made their first movies in 1999. They are not all created equal.
Since 1999, Payne has been nominated for 6 Oscars, and won 1. He’s listed with “Another 58 wins & 59 nominations” for 4 highly acclaimed films : Election, Sideways, About Schmidt, and The Descendants.
Michel Hazanavicius is listed with “19 wins & 29 nominations” — and all but 2 of those are for The Artist.
Bottom line, Alexander Payne has been esteemed and winning top honors for the past 12 years.
Michel Hazanavicius was never nominated for anything substantial until about 2 months ago.
Yes, I see the difference. As I said, Payne’s work has achieved a certain status in the US that Hazanavicius’s doesn’t match. I guess ‘newbie’ refers to Hazanavicus’s breakthrough this year. I just don’t see him as ‘a young director at the beginning of his career’.
Most think it`s Sideways, but for me Payne`s best is Election. And he lost the screenplay Oscar then to…. The Cider House Rules… (at least it`s John Irving). And it`s also Reese Witherspoon`s best role, for which she should have been nominated for the Oscar.
Minus the budgets
Harry Potter: $131 m. Total = $1.07 billion
The Help: $144 m. Total = $180 million
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: $1 million. Total = $100.4 million
Moneyball: $25 m. Total = $57 million
The Descendants: $46 million Total = $91 million
War Horse: $11 m. Total = $52 million
Hugo: -$87.7 million Total = -$53 million
Midnight in Paris: $39 million Total = $131 million
Tree of Life: -$18.6 million Total = $22 million
The Artist: $6.2 million Total = $35 million
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: -$12,667,420
NO OFFENSE
OCO, it is not about the box office. You put H8 on top of other Oscar nominees. I can replace H8 with MI4. It is over. H8 is not in the race. Concede already.
OCO, just stop it already. Nobody cares about H8. You’re getting annoying.
OCO, your attitudr sucks. Twilight made money too. So H8 made money, but it is not in Oscar race. Get over it already.
@robertlowercaseA you know OCO300 and alot of other people know it’s not good financially (like Avatar, Lord of the Rings, and Toy Story 3) but we all know it’s really good critically (even though it didn’t win any of those critic society awards). I mean why was it ranked #1 on critic chart? And why a bunch of movie/film critics gave it alot of good reviews?
Also is Harry Potter’s last film or Bridesmaids the reason why The Academy only chose 9 BP nominees instead of 10?
And maybe you should’ve put your last 2 comments in the first one?
MI4 is also critically acclaimed. AMPAS just simply not into H8, just because it made money, and got good ratings doesn’t mean they have to agree with them. It is over.
You just don’t get it. AMPAS doesn’t have to agree with critics. H8 is good for what it is, and it has never been film that appeals to Oscar voters. It is time to get over it and stop using box office and critics to try to blame Oscar voters for not recognizing it, get over it.
@robertlowercaseA “AMPAS just simply not into H8, just because it made money, and got good ratings doesn’t mean they have to agree with them”
what about Avatar, Titanic, Lord of the Rings, and Toy Story 3?
@ daveinprogress, very interesting comment, i’d go one step further if we suppose they love the film “the artist” so much they reward its director wouldnt it make sense for them to also reward jean dujardin who IS the artist in this film? i don’t believe its so farfetched
until dujardin won the SAG i like many his fellow countrymen felt that it was an honor enough for him to be allowed into the race this oscar season and that we’d be better off just been happy for a nom and near certainty film is going to win best pic, i mean who really thought he might win this instead of george clooney or brad pitt? and now its not a pipe dream it could happen!
if he wins best actor i’ll be jumping in my couch a la tom cruise
still if they only win best pic and/or best director all of france(movie industry anyway) will be beside themselves