11 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

The Directors Guild of America -- which almost always agrees with the Oscars, on the winner at least -- has announced its nominees:

• Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris -- his 5th nomination, and his first since 1990
  
• David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- his 3rd nomination
  
• Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
  
• Alexander Payne, The Descendants -- his 2nd nomination
  
• Martin Scorsese, Hugo -- his 9th nomination

The winner will be announced January 28, or four days after the Oscar nominees are announced.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 24 January 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Lou Lumenick:

The two big surprises in today's Directors Guild of America nominations are the snubbing of Steven Spielberg for "War Horse'' and the nod received by David Fincher for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,'' which is far from his best work. . . . Less surprisingly snubbed were Terrence Malick ("The Tree of Life'') and Tate Taylor ("The Help").

[Peter T Chattaway]

Vote!

And note that, where the Directors Guild picked David Fincher, the Academy went with Terrence Malick instead.

[Timothy Zila]

I'm not sure why but, where I feel semi-confident that The Artist will win Best Picture, I'm not sure who will win Best Director. Which means I can hope for Malick!

[Overstreet]

I think Hollywood will go for Scorsese. The only time he's won Best Director was for The Departed. And they love him for so many reasons - direction, film-restoration work, film-education work. Havanavicius's previous films don't do much to make him seem like Best Director material, so I'd be surprised if Hollywood wanted to give him that much acclaim.

Malick, however, has never won Best Director... which boosts his chances here, I think, because his past films have certainly show him to be an Oscar-caliber director.

You could also argue, though, that Payne's string of films have earned him a lot of love in Hollywood.

It's really too bad that Hollywood's unlikely to ever notice Kiarostami, even though he is viewed by many on the international stage as one of the greatest living filmmakers, if not the greatest.

Edited by Overstreet, 25 January 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Anders]

Overstreet, on 25 January 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

It's really too bad that Hollywood's unlikely to ever notice Kiarostami, even though he is viewed by many on the international stage as one of the greatest living filmmakers, if not the greatest.

While this is definitely true, the AMPAS is a very American-centric voting-body unless Harvey Weinstein points them to something.

[vjmorton]

Anders, on 25 January 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Overstreet, on 25 January 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

It's really too bad that Hollywood's unlikely to ever notice Kiarostami, even though he is viewed by many on the international stage as one of the greatest living filmmakers, if not the greatest.

While this is definitely true, the AMPAS is a very American-centric voting-body unless Harvey Weinstein points them to something.

Actually, what's more relevant is that AMPAS is also a populist body that views movies as an entertainment-first medium. It is, and always has been, fine with honoring foreign directors (and other artists) who make (appear in) relatively populist works — Truffaut, Fellini, Almodovar, Lelouch, Kurosawa (Loren, Cotillard, Cruz, Deneuve, Mastroianni). Bergman would probably be the exception, but even he won the most garlands for FANNY AND ALEXANDER, the most "enjoyable" film in his canon.

However Kiarostami, especially of late, has more in common with Dreyer, Bresson, Godard, the recently departed Angelopoulos — artists who make films that, for better or worse, use some radically off-putting styles and resist conventional consumption. And they have never been embraced by AMPAS. (Nor have their American equivalents, by the by.)

Edited by vjmorton, 25 January 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Anders]

vjmorton, on 25 January 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Actually, what's more relevant is that AMPAS is also a populist body that views movies as an entertainment-first medium.

You make a good case for this having historically been the case, but I do wish it were so today. I feel sometimes that the AMPAS feels the need stress the "importance" of film, thus the tired (and often too true) joke that in a category you don't know anything about, pick the Holocaust film. Yes, when they picked TITANIC in March 1998 they were emphasizing movies as the greatest, most populist form of entertainment on the planet. However, some of their nominations and choices of late (e.g. CRASH, or this year, EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE) seem more bent on picking films for their relevance (e.g. race relations, 9/11), and thus both entertainment and art are ignored and few are happy, except those who work in the industry can rest assured that they do "important" work.

At least that's one compelling narrative. But I could be proved wrong. I told my brother that it's not the Academy that's getting worse, it's that your taste in films that's getting more sophisticated.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Anders wrote:
: . . . and thus both entertainment and art are ignored and few are happy . . .

This dovetails nicely, I think, with that I said in the main nominations thread:

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 January 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

It's bizarre, but it seems to me that, with a few exceptions here and there, the Academy is putting itself in this weird position of rejecting BOTH the popular box-office hits AND the critical darlings. What the consequences might be for our understanding of an "Oscar-calibre film", I'm not sure, but they're probably not that good.

: I told my brother that it's not the Academy that's getting worse, it's that your taste in films that's getting more sophisticated.

Or hey, it could be both!

[Anders]

Peter T Chattaway, on 26 January 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

This dovetails nicely, I think, with that I said in the main nominations thread:

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 January 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

It's bizarre, but it seems to me that, with a few exceptions here and there, the Academy is putting itself in this weird position of rejecting BOTH the popular box-office hits AND the critical darlings. What the consequences might be for our understanding of an "Oscar-calibre film", I'm not sure, but they're probably not that good.

Nicely put, Peter. (Obviously) I agree!

[M. Leary]

Anders, on 25 January 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

vjmorton, on 25 January 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Actually, what's more relevant is that AMPAS is also a populist body that views movies as an entertainment-first medium.

I feel sometimes that the AMPAS feels the need stress the "importance" of film...

To me, the Oscars is exactly like any of the annual conferences I go to. Toward the beginning of every professional conference is a plenary session in which someone is tasked with reiterating the importance of the profession itself. It always sounds the same because it serves a limited function.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Peter T Chattaway, on 09 January 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

The Directors Guild of America -- which almost always agrees with the Oscars, on the winner at least -- has announced its nominees:

• Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris -- his 5th nomination, and his first since 1990
  
• David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- his 3rd nomination
  
• Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
  
• Alexander Payne, The Descendants -- his 2nd nomination
  
• Martin Scorsese, Hugo -- his 9th nomination

The winner will be announced January 28, or four days after the Oscar nominees are announced.

And the winner is... Michel Hazanavicius, for The Artist.