Press Play’s Best Director: Best Director, Best Picture
From Press Play’s video series on what should win the Oscar — “But this year, Best Director should go to the Master…”
And they go for Tree of Life for Best Picture – I don’t really agree with this particular choice but I like the argument behind it and the out-of-the-box thinking of it:
27 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
Can’t see the video for Best Pic! (neither on indiewire, so I’m assuming there’s something off with the embedding). Kudos to them for picking The Tree of Life, it’s definitely the one that should win.
I always found it hardpressed to separate Best Picture from Best Director as they should almost always go hand in hand. They make a great case for Scorsese but they can’t say anything wrong about Malick and after all, the whole film is his vision. If it deserves Best Picture, then surely it deserves Best Director just as much. Scorsese proved that he can slapstick comedy so he has the edge? I can’t buy that. He made his most personal film but used a conventional premise to make it (children getting into an adventure). Malick made his most personal film but used the most unconventional methods and will have people musing over it for years and years. Even calling Scorsese “The Master” next to Malick and Allen seemed a little off to me, and I love Scorsese’s stuff.
In the perfect world, Malick’s saga deserves both. The Artist will likely get both though, but that’s still OK in my book, The Artist is a different kind of achievement all by itself and it deserves the attention and awards for what it is and the wonderful feeling of warmth and happiness you’re left with after watching it.
I actually think the opposite. The directing itself in Tree of Life is very beautiful and sensitive. The way he shows young Jack’s life is incredible.
But Hugo is the best picture. It`s flawless, beautiful and a declaration of love to cinema. It’s a perfect film. But it’s not the best in all categories. It has an amazing score, but not the best. The actors are great, but there are better ones this year. I couldn`t decide what cinematography is better – Hugo or Tree of Life – Hugo has the 3-dimensional pictures, but Tree of Life the 3-dimensional characters and that’s because of Mallick. That’s perhaps nothing what Scorsese wouldn’t be capable of, too, but it didn`t happen in Hugo.
I even wouldn’t wonder if there is a split between The Artist and Hugo, and I mean Hugo as best picture and Michel Havanadelicious as best director, because the director is so present in The Artist.
It’s sad that in all it’s success people lose track of extraordinarily deep mastery and understanding of the Artist. It’s an incredibly well thought out directorial achievement.
I could live with Scorsese for director or a double whammy for Malick and Tree of Life, although I would prefer others.
Hugo winning best picture would be a disappointment however. The Melies-flashbacks were wonderful, but the whole “adventure” of the two children left me rather cold and the whole Sascha Baron Cohen bit seemed like a failed attempt to emulate an Amelie-esque atmosphere.
But I guess that’s just me. I thought that Hugo was one of Scorsese’s more average movies. Actually, I felt the same about Woody – Midnight in Paris and Fincher – Dragon Tattoo.
Corran, you’re not alone about your thoughts on Hugo. That’s pretty much my exact take on it. Loved the Melies stuff, but the Sacha Baron Cohen stuff and both of the kids (including their acting) really left me with a big feeling of “meh”. And I can’t but not be disappointed about that seeing it is from Scorsese.
In a perfect world (according to me) this year would be about Malick vs. Scorsese, and Hugo vs. Tree, and with any combination of outcome I’d be content.
Corran, you are not alone as well! LOVED the Melies plot-line, but everything else fails. If only the whole movie is about Melies, then I think we have a best picture and director here. I know it’s adapted from a novel, but I thought Scorsese would have the guts to create a whole picture out of Melies’ story. I was definitely disappointed.
The Tree of Life is not a perfect film by any measures (Sean Penn’s scenes….shudder), but after watching it a few times, I am stunned by the creative vision of Malick. So if I have to pick someone who should win best director (who has 0 statue) and picture, it would be Malick and the Tree of Life.
I really don’t understand how anyone can call Hugo “Flawless”.
Leaving aside every other problem it has – how can anyone justify the pointless Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour characters who don’t have any kind of physical or emotional contact or connection with the character of Hugo at all? As Robert McKee says in Adaptation: “it’s sloppy, flaccid writing”.
Liked the Melies flashback though. I think the fans who are raving about it are retrospectively wishfully thinking the whole film is up to that sequence’s standard.
how can anyone justify the pointless Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour characters who don’t have any kind of physical or emotional contact or connection with the character of Hugo at all?
disagree. the very first time I saw Hugo, watching him watch the lives of denizens of the train station from afar, the first thing that sprung to mind was Jeff watching the residents of his courtyard. The presence of those characters who exist in their own private spheres serve a similar function in both films. They embody longings that occupy the thoughts of the main character.
Robert McKee is so much about formula he bores the living hell out of me, and so do most of the screenwriters who write like he tells them to.
Robert McKee’s formulas usually work to a tee though. But his insistance on specific rules and guidelines does get tedious.
Nothing can justify Cohen’s character in that film, who had one line at the end about being lonely without family that felt so forced and manipulative. It reminded me more of Spielberg than Scorsese. As much as I love that actor, none of his scenes meshed well with me and how that one chase scenes proves Scorsese does slapstick well, I don’t know. I’m not one much for slapstick, that type of humor never worked for me unless it came from the Marx brothers or Chaplin which was more endearing than funny anyway.
As I’ve stated before though, I need to give Hugo another shot.
I totally agree with Best Picture! The Oscar should definitely go to the truly masterpiece “The Tree of Life”!
For Best Director i wish a tie between Martin Scorsese for “Hugo” and Terrence Malick for “The Tree of Life”! These winners are my dream!
But the truth is that in both categories the oscar will go to “The Artist” and Michel Hazanavicus for “The Artist”. These winners are reality!
Hugo was weaker than The Terminal. I said it.
I’m not a supporter of McKee, I just love that quote and say it a lot in my day-to-day life
But I just couldn’t get over how messy some of Hugo’s writing was. The screenplay let it down big time, but that reflects poorly on Scorsese for me, unfortunately – how could this great auteur (I don’t mean that sarcastically, I love him) not have cared that the script wasn’t working?
Hugo watching these people’s lives from afar is fine, but by the end it all has to come together. That’s what makes the great screenplays, and the great films, great. I don’t mean “everything has to be in a neat little package”, but the disparate plot points have to come together in some way. They didn’t in Hugo.
I don’t understand all this love for Hugo. Then again, I didn’t understand the love for Slumdog, No Country, The Departed, or Crash.
Hugo was a wildly flawed film that stumbled through its first hour with uninteresting characters and broad, dull performances. I love Chloe Moretz and Sacha Baron Cohen, but both of them were so over-the-top that it turned me off completely. There was so much spectacle stuffed into Hugo that the story got thrown under the bus (or rather the train).
Then again, I didn’t understand the love for Slumdog, No Country, The Departed,
Tom, What were your favorite movies of 2006, 2007, 2008?
What are your top 5 this year?
I put Hugo in the same category as Gangs of New York. Both had script issues but the visuals were spectacular, like, all-time amazing. Everything positive that I’ve said about Hugo immersion in its train station setting can be said for Gangs of New York’s neighborhoods as well. Each made for a flawed but still mesmerizing experience.
someone* said a few days ago — “how is Hugo winning awards for production design when the only major set is the train station?”
One set. One set so vast, complex and exquisitely detailed it’s a universe unto itself, teeming with life and endless visual delights.
*(I know who, but I won’t embarrass them by naming names.)
I’ve seen Hugo twice and there’s nothing “messy” about the writing. The whole movie works beautifully on so many levels–acting, production, music, editing, visual effects, and costumes — all melded into one magical whole. And the movie doesn’t just pay tribute to Melies but to other filmmakers as well–Vigo, Truffaut, even Hitchcock. Plus there are tributes to writers as well. Christopher Lee’s character is there for a reason.
ToL’s strength is it’s insistence on the visual, fresh eyes. The silent The Artist’s reliance on cliche is anti-visual.
Chloe Morwtz is over the top in Hugo? That ‘s a first. I guess Blackie over acted too.
“ToL’s strength is it’s insistence on the visual, fresh eyes. The silent The Artist’s reliance on cliche is anti-visual.”
Tree of Life for me was just like watching B rolls of stock footage. Since I have to do this in my work life, it was very tiring. Is that second sentence translated from Tagalog?
A bit off topic here: The jingle Press Play uses here for their “SHOULD WIN” videos is from a score that escapes me at the moment. Anyone know what it is?
Rudi’s comments above really resonated with me. Perhaps I’m old fashioned in my method, but when i choose my favourite film of the year, it is a holistic choice – an overall sense of achievement across as many spheres of filmmaking. SOmetimes it is a quiet picture that has a singular vision and style – “Boys Don’t cry”, other times it is a technically dazzling and complete cinematic feast – like “Chicago”. As Rudi commented, you can choose a film becuase it meets as many of your personal criteria of greatness – and yes it doesn’t have to feature the best lead or support, or even the flashiest production values – cinematography, costumes etc – but as with Hugo (it will take a lot for another film to top this one for overall brilliance) – it is a filmmakers vision – his passion intertwined with a classic style story – a coming of age, boys own adventure, with a distinctive use of the technology and the best of the craftsmen and women to execute that vision. For me, that trumps a film that may have the best writing “Midnight in Paris” (but not the best acting), the strongest lead actor Clooney or Dujardin – but not the tightest/incisive writing or directing, and the most vibrant ensemble – The Help – where the performances are strong, but the subtelty is often missing, and the narrative just too flabby to be as powerful as it might have been.
A few years back my favourite film of the year was “In America”, Jim Sheridan’s personal but little picture, which focused on themes of family, of migration, of loss, of race, of terminal illness and of community. It may not have had the ‘best’ of anything in particular, but its heart, its singular vision and economic but affecting writing and directing, made it my gem of that year. Paddy Considine, Samantha Morton and Djimon Hounsou gave such richly textured performances too, and wonderful child actors complemented the cast.
The Tree of life has its moments of sheer an utter brilliance, but it also loses focus and power with overlong ethereal and visual montages. For me that upends its potential to achieve that holism, that i rate highly in my choice of the best.
Tree of Life featuring in the two major categories is probably one of the Academy’s boldest choices in ages- and one of the most correct ones. Sure they messed up real bad in some categories (although they do it every year, so one has to expect this sort of behavior), but this sort of recognition for a movie like TOL just makes me wonder why so many are bitching about this year’s nominations.
*(I know who, but I won’t embarrass them by naming names.)”
I doubt they would be embarrassed. Though they should be….
I am now officially a fan of IndieWire, because they listed all of my top picks for Picture/Director/Actor/Actress: Tree of Life, Scorsese, Pitt, Davis. EXCEPT I might actually vote Malick for director, but that’s a small quibble–I would be thrilled to see Scorsese win this one, would be richly deserved.