Ben Affleck, Argo
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Tom Hooper, Les Miserables
BEN AFFLECK
Argo
(Warner Bros. Pictures)
Mr. Affleck’s Directorial Team:
- Unit Production Manager: Amy Herman
- First Assistant Director: David Webb
- Second Assistant Director: Ian Calip
- Second Second Assistant Directors: Clark Credle, Gavin Kleintop
- First Assistant Director (Turkey Unit): Belkis Turan
This is Mr. Affleck’s first DGA Feature Film Award nomination.
KATHRYN BIGELOW
Zero Dark Thirty
(Columbia Pictures)
Ms. Bigelow’s Directorial Team:
- Unit Production Manager: Colin Wilson
- First Assistant Director: David A. Ticotin
- Second Assistant Directors: Ben Lanning, Sarah Hood
- First Assistant Director (Jordan Unit): Scott Robertson
- Second Assistant Directors (Jordan Unit): Jonas Spaccarotelli, Yanal Kassay
- Second Second Assistant Director (Jordan Unit): Tarek Afifi
- Unit Production Manager (India Unit): Rajeev Mehra
This is Ms. Bigelow’s second DGA Feature Film Award nomination. She won the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for The Hurt Locker in 2009.
TOM HOOPER
Les Misérables
(Universal Pictures)
Mr. Hooper’s Directorial Team:
- Unit Production Manager: Patrick Schweitzer
- First Assistant Director: Ben Howarth
- Second Assistant Director: Harriet Worth
- Second Second Assistant Director: Dan Channing Williams
This is Mr. Hooper’s second DGA Feature Film Award nomination. He won the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for The King’s Speech (2010) and was previously nominated for the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Movies for Television/Mini-Series for John Adams in 2008.
ANG LEE
Life of Pi
(Twentieth Century Fox)
Mr. Lee’s Directorial Team:
- Unit Production Manager: Michael J. Malone
- Unit Production Manager (Taiwan): Leo Chen
- First Assistant Directors: William M. Connor, Cliff Lanning
- Second Assistant Directors: Robert Burgess, Ben Lanning
- Unit Production Manager (India Unit): Sanjay Kumar
- First Assistant Director (India Unit): Nitya Mehra
- Second Assistant Director (India Unit): Ananya Rane
- Second Second Assistant Directors (India Unit): Namra Parikh, Freya Parekh
- Second Assistant Directors (Montreal Unit): Derek Wimble, Renato De Cotiis
This is Mr. Lee’s fourth DGA Feature Film Award nomination. He won the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and was nominated for Sense and Sensibility in 1995.
STEVEN SPIELBERG
Lincoln
(DreamWorks Pictures/Twentieth Century Fox)
Mr. Spielberg’s Directorial Team:
- Unit Production Manager: Susan McNamara
- First Assistant Director: Adam Somner
- Second Assistant Director: Ian Stone
- Second Second Assistant Directors: Eric Lasko, Trevor Tavares
This is Mr. Spielberg’s eleventh DGA Feature Film Award nomination. He won the DGA Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film three times for Saving Private Ryan (1998), Schindler’s List (1993) and The Color Purple (1985). He was also nominated in this category for Munich (2005), Amistad (1997), Empire of the Sun (1987), E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial (1982), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and Jaws (1975). Mr. Spielberg was honored with the DGA’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2000.
Here is a graph of how many people have predicted what so far:
8bXooN whoah this weblog is wonderful i really like studying your posts. Stay up the good work! You know, lots of people are hunting round for this information, you can aid them greatly.
Oh I get it. It’s the old ‘everyone is stupid’ and ‘I’m smart’ mentality when you don’t get your way.
Because mediocre (and outright bad) filmmakers need someone to look up to?
“I’m not a “hooper hater” but I am truly baffled why his mediocrity continues to be rewarded….”
Uhh, let’s try, maybe because thousands of directors disagree with you. Just maybe……what you see as “mediocity” many other professionals see as audaciousness. But heck, what would they know. If these people thought his work was mediocre as you propose why pray tell would they be voting for him?
Mel: “Did Hooper take risks or did he just do the only boring same old shit he knows how to do? In all honesty it even seems like live singing makes it easier later on the editing. I swear to christ have we seen so much fucking dutch angle since the batman tv show? Good God, Gert. I just don’t get it. I really, realllly don’t. It is so boring and standard tv-caliber stuff. When I am thinking of achievments in directing, I’m thinking of stuff that was unforgettable……I saw Les Mis not even two weeks ago and I can only think of how disappointing it was and how an opportunity was botched. I’m not a “hooper hater” but I am truly baffled why his mediocrity continues to be rewarded. I feel like any one of us could have done what he did with that movie, which was turn something that ought to be grand into a turd whirling in a toilet bowl….shot in a dutch angle and extremely close!”
This.
“Oh this thread made me laugh. I started out defending Brendon because I thought he was the victim. But he just became cruel and cocky.”
I gave you a full emotional experience. A true character arc. Watch Tom Hooper try to pull that off.
Ryan, I didn’t have a final title for it yet. ‘Shooting on RED’ sounds about right. Only if you knew 😀
JP, the website doesn’t lie. I stand by my theory. Your “explanations” as to why each film won may be correct, but still, my trend holds no matter how much you explain it away.
And now with Lincoln getting the BD snub from the British, well, maybe, hmm…
why argue with rufus about SPIELBERG, JP. He is Spielberg hater. Rip-off of Jeff Wells.
Who cares if Quentin or Paul Thomas Anderson never win an Oscar? They still have Boogie Nights and Magnolia and Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction on their resumes_ movies to love for eternity.
Robert Altman and Alfred Hitchcock are also-rans. And Paul Thomas Anderson is an Altman admirer if not downright imitator. Oscars are a popularity contest. Period. It’s not worth name calling or getting into a frenzy over. The game and it is a game is to figure out who is most popular.
Will Anne Hathaway showing her snatch to the world put her over the top? What on earth can Sally Field do to top that?
One last thing before I go to bed – if Hooper wins it sorta proves phantom right – he mentions upthread that a lot of the directors we like will be honored as screenwriters anyway. What he doesn’t say – but Sasha has said – is that the academy is kinda against directors that write their own scripts. Not always (woody Allen), but often enough you feel that they felt: “hey who the fuck is Wes Anderson or these Coens to invent a film out of the clear blue sky and then tell me to vote for them as best director and picture?” (the Coens won when they adapted – literally.) perhaps that sort of bias works this year against PTA, QT, Haneke. Whatever else you want to say about hooper, it’s not quite as…well…selfish to make Les Mis your first post-Oscar movie. Just a thought. Good night.
And it seems that whoever likes Tom Hooper is going to be bullied on this site. It is as if I am reading comments on a shallow pop culture forum. Everybody is entitled to an opinion so please respect it. There isn’t one good director, there are more than 10, so I don’t see the problem if I am a fan of Fincher, Nolan, Lee, Hooper etc. They are just different.
Thanks john, sam, guys.
Mel – not saying I think hooper took the right risks. Just that they may see it that way, especially to say thanks for bringing back the musical.
JP – hysterical and I love your recap of their thinking 2006-present. Probably close to right, and also the best argument against rufus’s critic-oriented approach.
Now, the better question is if ZDT is gonna win, what will be the one-sentence narrative?
One aspect that you also forget that was never in play for the past years: there was no case in which the most anticipated film of the year awards-saying (tied with Les Mis) was a period film that dealt with such nobles and important issues centered in one of the most important personalities in history. Then this film is directed by Hollywood-symbol director. Then the guy who happens to play the lead character is the one most think it’s the greatest actor alive. Then the screenwriter is a Pulitzer winning playwright. Then it has a cast full of stars. Then it gets outstanding reviews. Then it makes more than 150 million dollars in the US.
And I’m dealing with facts. I’m not putting my personal opinions about the film (which I loved). For example: expectations matter. Everyone think it would be a bore and it’s actually quite entertainment.
Why do i have to consider another film the frontrunner?
@ rufussondheim
Don’t agree with you on the use of those top 10 lists from 500 critics to evaluate what is the best reviewed. It’s an interesting research to discover consensus choices from the critics. And the Academy usually chooses consensus; average choices. That’s what approaches them to the Oscars system of choosing BP. I see your point there. But they don’t indicate the best reviewed one. Imagine how many “Armond Whites” are in making top 10s there!
Come on:
* you truly believe Avatar was better reviewed than Precious?
* Basterds number 2? And this is coming from someone who thought this film should have won Best Picture.
* GHOST WORLD NUMBER ONE OF 2001???? Over The Fellowship of The Ring and critics’ darling Mulholland Drive?
* The Aviator better reviewed than Million Dollar Baby?
* The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with 70 rotten reviews (I know RT is not always trustworthy… but 70) ranked number 6 in 2008?
* The Queen and United 93 behind The Departed?
* Inception number 2 of 2011? Over Toy Story 3 and (as far as i hate to admit) TKS? You truly believe TKS reviews were inferior to the ones of Inception? Or inferior to the ones from Black Swan?
* The Artist behind Drive? Again, I know RT has many problems… but it’s got 4 ROTTEN reviews… and at Metacritic… 14 perfect scores against 5 of Drive.
_________________________
I truly don’t believe they awarded any of this films because they looked at it and said: wooow! This has the best reviews of the year. In all the cases they thought about the reviews. ALL. But I really don’t believe that the Academy members are like us and spend time discussing/thinking which is the best reviewed. Their thinking is probably much more like this (not my opinion of how should they think when voting).
The Departed: Marty lost so many times… we’ll award him directing… it’s such a great achievement … why not awarding picture too?
No Country for Old Men: substitute Marty for the Coens.
Slumdog: I was so moved by the story. Great directing, great script, great performances great cinematography… great everything. It’s the movie of our times. Recession. Obama. A cheap independent film with unknown stars about hope.
(this is the biggest hurricane in the history of the awards season… never seen such a dominant film… not only they likely thought about everything I just said but… they really had no options… Benjamin Button is 2008’s Les Mis. So divisive. There was no way it could win. And a biopic about a gay ativist is not exactly the Academy’s cup of two. WALL-E is animated. Actors hate to vote for animated. TDK is a superhero film. Doesn’t need the Oscars. Slumdog won every single guild.)
The Hurt Locker: Who could imagine that a women would direct such a powerful war movie? And she’s Jim Cameron’s ex-wife. We have to award her. And the film deals with such an important issue in such an amazing way. That’s our BP.
The King’s Speech: I was so moved… TSN is amazing but so cold. BP is a film I need to feel. This is our champion.
The Artist: This is a truly amazing tribute to us. Never thought I would enjoy so fucking hard a mute black-and-white film. Hugo is also great. I like both. But Hugo is a bit of a children film.
Did Hooper take risks or did he just do the only boring same old shit he knows how to do? In all honesty it even seems like live singing makes it easier later on the editing. I swear to christ have we seen so much fucking dutch angle since the batman tv show? Good God, Gert. I just don’t get it. I really, realllly don’t. It is so boring and standard tv-caliber stuff. When I am thinking of achievments in directing, I’m thinking of stuff that was unforgettable……I saw Les Mis not even two weeks ago and I can only think of how disappointing it was and how an opportunity was botched. I’m not a “hooper hater” but I am truly baffled why his mediocrity continues to be rewarded. I feel like any one of us could have done what he did with that movie, which was turn something that ought to be grand into a turd whirling in a toilet bowl….shot in a dutch angle and extremely close!
Regardless of whether you think the critics top 10 lists is the most valuable way to measure the “best reviewed film” the point of my original post is the same, of the major contenders over the last six years, the one with the best ranking won five of those years. The one exception being the emotionally distant one.
Now we can argue whether Zero Dark Thirty is emotionally distant or not if you want, but if the trend continues Zero Dark Thirty will win.
Now, of course, other trends point to ZDT not winning (such as SAG Ensemble nomination) but I think those are more easily explained away then the one I describe above.
But, of course, trends are trends until they’re not.
—-
Steve, 2 points
1) I think the guy only uses number of lists for the ranking. If there is a tie, he gives it to the one with the most #1 mentions.
I would actually prefer to see a second list that goes by #1 mentions. If that were the case the top 10 would look like this…
1) Zero Dark Thirty – 65
2) The Master – 48
3) Holy Motors – 46
4) Argo – 35
5) Moonrise Kingdom – 32
6) Amour – 30
7) Lincoln – 24
8) Beasts of the Southern Wild – 22
9) This is Not a Film – 20
10) Django Unchained – 15
This way that garbade film Silver Linings Playbook doesn’t make the top 10 🙂
2) While early bets are on 12 Years a Slave, I certainly don’t want toappear to be a partisan come Awards time. This year some put me in the Les Miz camp early on because it topped my predictions and I argued passionately for it. But I was never in that camp.
So I run a danger of being in the 12 Years a Slave camp, and it’s going to be hard to maintain some neutrality here because McQueen is clearly a better filmmaker than Hooper.
But there are other films I think could be just as good or better
August Osage County (yeah, it’s John Wells who I think hasn’t done anythign great outside of TV, but the source material is blazingly good and Killer Joe showed that Letts’s words should translate well to the screen)
Foxcatcher by Bennet Miller – I rate Capote and Moneyball higher than the average person, and the true story it’s based on is one I know well as I followed it as it happened. I think it’s right up Miller’s alley and it should be impressive.
Then there’s the two Gosling efforts Place Beyond the Pines and Only God Forgives, and if Blue Valentine and Drive are any indication, they should both have aspects of greatness to them.
And then there’s a slew of other topnotch directors releasing stuff in 2013. It could be another banner year.
Wow, this comment section is heated.
There’s this one thing people should stop staying. If you want to be condescending to someone, at least don’t say stupid stuff like “What have you done? Go make your own movie”. Many of us probably would like to, but don’t get the chance. I promise you that if you gave me 10 million dollars for a film, I’d deliver one hell of a product. Having said that, my low budget full-length movie (shooting on RED) looks to be ready within two years.
Having said that, my low budget full-length movie (shooting on RED) looks to be ready within two years.
It’s your movie, Tero, so call it whatever you like. But Shooting On Red sounds a little like a porn title.
Chris—
I think it’s more that the voters thought LES MISERABLES was a worthy choice and that Hooper just happened to be the film’s director. I know that his bold choices alienated some (yourself included) but at least just as many are applauding the risks he took.
Hence those who love the film will argue Hooper was inspired, while most of those who hate it will blame Hooper.
Personally I liked the singing live, and a good deal of the close-ups.
Unlikely Hood—
Your argument is a good one for sure, well-reasoned and thorough. I’d only add that this year will be abit different than the year when Scorsese was nominated but not his film (LAST TEMPTATION) LES MISERABLES is 100% certainty for a Best Picture nomination, while Hooper stands at 50 to 50 (he was lower before today) for a Best Director nod.
I saw Les Miserables today and when I returned home I saw this list and couldn’t believe my eyes. DGA members really thought Hooper’s direction was that good? If anything I think it is the central problem with that film. I don’t think he will be nominated by the Academy, though.
I didn’t mean my for my previous comment to offend anyone. I think there’s more hubris as to who’s going to win this year, because a good majority of these directors are returning winners. People want to see their returning favorites to win or vice versa for their haters. Everyone has a strong statistic to put in their favor for their favorite to win. Now people have to invent more ludicrous reasons to support their favorites. After today, it’s not as clear cut as to who is going to actually win in previous years. Spielberg is probably still taking a slight lead. I’m not even a fan of Lincoln, tbh. Place is heating up!
I’m going to have to concur that RT seems a better judge of these things. Those lists just seem a little too inaccurate to be good indicators.
Liked yours, too, unlikely hood.
Antoinette, thank you for responding to my question(s). While I don’t completely agree regarding Hooper (but I definitely see what you’re saying about QT), I really enjoyed your thorough commentary and see where you are coming from on the topic. 🙂
Yeah, Brokeback is believable at #1, everyone seemed to love it, but I don’t recall hearing much about History of Violence at the time. Personally, I loved it, but it didn’t seem to get much attention from critics. King Kong didn’t seem to get much attention either.
Or how bout 2004, Million Dollar Baby down at #6. People wouldn’t shut up about that movie when it came out. Seemed to get all the critical attention.
Antoinette: awesome.
If Hooper is a BD nominee, that will say less about him and more about the rest of the field. I agree that PTA and QT are artists, but I also agree with the nagging feeling that these films aren’t really on the level of their best work. Russell is unpopular – I think actors who don’t know him are inclined to believe lily tomlin on that infamous YouTube clip. That wouldn’t matter if he’d made the hurt locker (as he once did, with 3 kings), but SLP is barely a notch above Along Came Polly. Nothing wrong with Haneke or Zeitlin or their films, but they’re slightly obscure and the academy may not be paying attention.
Les Mis was a huge risk, the live singing was a gamble, the close ups were wild, and the film is kinda paying off. If he gets it I see it like the year they nominated Scorsese for Last Temptation of Christ. It wasn’t because they loved the film (it didn’t get a BP nom). It was because they knew him, they liked that he took risks (have you seen the Christ film? It’s nutty!), and they wanted to pat him on the back for that.
Too well reasoned? Ok never mind – you’re all douchebags!!!! There that ought to be a popular post. 🙂
They are using two criteria, as I understand it: the number times a film appears on individual critics’ top ten lists plus the number of times it is designated as that critic’s number one film. Like a final verdict. All the prelim scores are long ago erased (which is the way most of us choose our favorites in the end).
Numbers work to get there, but at some point you have to go with how you feel about them all, and that’s what this list represents, imo.
I’m particularly surprised about 2005. A history of Violence at #2? King Kong at #5? Doesn’t seem particularly accurate.
That’s what I thought, Hawkeye. The placement of some of those movies seemed a little weird.
It seemed like you were talking about films’ placement on lists as opposed to how well they were reviewed individually. The method you’re speaking of is the Academy’s preferential voting system.
I’ve been looking at the top choices on that site for the past few years and they seem a bit off. Tree of Life as #1 for last year? The Artist was the clear critical darling.
2010: King Speech down at #7?
2009: I’d love to think Basterds was in 2nd (it was my favorite of the year), but even I had to admit it wasn’t loved THAT much.
I guess I just prefer the good old critical numbers when it comes to accuracy.
I have to agree with rufus on the whole numbers thing vs criticstop10. It presents a more realistic view of placement as opposed to scoring, which is more important in the long run.
Interesting, but not surprising, is that since 2000, only 3 times have the Oscars agreed with the critics: 2006 (The Departed), 2007 (No Country for Old men), and 2009 ( The Hurt Locker). If it happens again this year, the increased frequency would make a case that critics and AMPAS are getting closer.
btw, I’ll be glad when we’re on the same side next year – Mr McQueen et al.
Hmm, perhaps I was unclear. But when I say “best” I mean the film that got the best reviews. And to me that clearly goes to the critics top 10 lists (which I champion constantly as the best way to see what the critics really liked)
So you’re talking about the preferential voting system as opposed to how well they were reviewed, which is what I believe m1 was originally talking about.
Let me belabor the point and describe it another way. Rottentomatoes and Metacritic judge films against a “neutral” score. Each film is in a competition with an abstract “other” that’s not readily definable.
The critic’s top 10 lists, on the other hand, pit the films in competition against each other. And for that reason, it’s a better option for seeing what the most critically successful film is.
Billy, those numbers and metacritic as well should be discarded. (Why do I have to explain this all the time!) Those sites don’t measure the enthusiasm behind a certain film.
Oscar Voters don’t just check yes/no and the highest percentage wins. They list their favorites from #1 down to #5-10. So it matters what they put at #1, not if they like or dislike a film.
The best way to duplicate that is to look at critic’s top 10 lists, you check out how many top 10’s it got and how many #1’s it got to see the true measure of a film’s support by the critics.
Nominations for Achievement in Directing (Oscars)
Ben Affleck – Argo
Quentin Tarantino – Django Unchained
Tom Hooper – Les Misérables
Steven Spielberg – Lincoln
Kathryn Bigelow – Zero Dark Thirty
Scottish Jellyfish / January 8, 2013
“Wow. The comments that have transpired on this article from several users actually have me nostalgic for Ching or Chang or whatever the ardent Avatar supporter’s name was back in 2009/2010. That’s not a very comforting sign of future opining on this site.”
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Love it!!!!
Going by Rotten Tomatoes:
The Queen – 97%, 8.4/10
The Departed – 93%, 8.2/10
Letters from Iwo Jima – 91%, 8.2/10
Little Miss Sunshine – 91%, 7.7/10
Babel – 69%, 6.7/10
I guess it just depends on whose numbers you go by.