Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Breaking News on your cellOscar Quotient: Best Picture and Director
9:48 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008 | Permalink |
E-mail News tips
 |
 |
 
|
|
July 2008
Recent Posts
'The Dark Knight' breaks opening weekend record 'The Dark Knight' raking it in Batman car rolls into Dallas on Friday Chris Vognar on KERA's 'Think' Categories
GuideLive.com
Entertainment Blogs |
Last week we broke down the best actor and actress categories, throwing our weight behind Daniel Day-Lewis and Julie Christie. And now it's on to the last two major categories: best director and picture. In the interest of saving our dessert for last, let's discuss the best director race first. Typically, the favorite in this category is whoever directed the best-picture favorite, leading me to believe that the Coen Bros. have the inside track. But I think there is a ligit wild card in this field: Julian Schnabel. The Diving Bell in the Butterfly is a film where you see the director's artistic fingerprints all over it. And I think the reason Schnabel scored the nomination over Joe Wright is Wright took a very heavy-handed approach to directing Atonement. The result is that the viewer feels as if Wright is constantly tapping him on the shoulder saying, "Hey, don't forget who put all of this together!" Schanbel took a lighter approach, and the result is a film that feels effortless. |
 | |
|
Spotlight
|
|
Comments
Posted by Tom Maurstad @ 10:23 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I think Schnabel is an interesting case because in a city and industry where everyone is always talking about their work as "art" and themselves as "artists," Julian Schnabel really is one. He made his bones in the art world of New York, which gives him a rarified stature. And I think you use exactly the right word when talking about his films, Stephen -- vision. Butterfly looks like no other film. I really liked Atonement. I thought the highly stylized flourishes of Joe Wright's direction deepened and enriched the experience. They didn't strike me as gratuitous or self-congratulatory. I think it's a joke that he isn't nominated in the best director category. I wouldn't have eliminated Schnabel's nomination to put him in. I would put Wright in place of Jason Reitman, whose nomination I also think is, not so much a joke, as just an overinflated reaction to the success of Juno. It's a good, smart, funny film, but you don't walk out of it talking about how great the direction was.
Posted by Chris Vognar @ 10:55 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
And on top of all that Schnabel used to work at The Grape before he became a crockery-smashing art gazillionaire. A true renaissance man. It's a tricky game figuring out how much a director had to do with the final results of a film. The temptation is to say "almost everything"; the auteur theory was built upon this very assumption. I was surprised to see Reitman get in there, but because I enjoyed Juno so much more than Atonement I didn't mind. And I always like to see the comedy guy get some love from such a stodgy, self-important outfit. Still, as a man who wasn't there, my credit for Juno's success goes 1. Page; 2. Cody; 3. Reitman.
Posted by stephen becker @ 11:02 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Not to get too off topic here, but I agree with Chris about the comedy folks never getting any respect. You always hear actors talk about comedy being the hardest thing to do, but it never is recognized as such. For that reason, I would have been 100 percent OK with Judd Apatow being nominated in this field for Knocked Up. Why shouldn't the funniest movie of the year be up for any awards?
Posted by Tom Maurstad @ 11:19 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
This is a perennial point of contention and one of the more brazen indications of the Oscars' chronic case of arrested development: We're about celebrating art and art is always serious and difficult. Now that's funny. We could make a long list of the comedies that should have been nominated and/or won. For 1978, Animal House -- a "perfect" film -- wasn't even nominated and Coming Home won. Watch them both today and tell which has better stood the test of time. Anyhoo, if I made my pick based on which director was responsible for my favorite scene in a movie this year, I'm going to go with Tony Gilroy and Michael Clayton's final scene in that taxi. It was a subtle and brave way to end what was marketed as a "thriller."
Posted by Chris Vognar @ 11:35 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Tootsie vs. Gandhi. 'Nuff said. The fact that Michael Clayton was Gilroy's first feature makes his achievement all the more impressive. Let's turn to the best picture contest, which looks tight in the strict horse race sense that trivializes the actual films. No Country is the favorite, but here come Juno and Michael Clayton around the bend, with Atonement picking up some prestige/arch-anti-comedy votes and (insert own horse race announcer voice here). Last year I was afraid that the light indie comedy choice (Little Miss Sunshine) would prevail, but this time I'd be fine with a Juno victory. It would certainly placate the "Why are the Oscar movies so darn depressing?' crowd.
Posted by stephen becker @ 11:41 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
The horse race metaphor is certainly applicable here, accept there doesn't seem to really be a long shot here like there normally is (There was no way The Queen was going to win last year, for example). I agree that No Country for Old Men is the favorite, but I still feel like Atonement is the most "Oscarly" film of the bunch.
Posted by Tom Maurstad @ 11:48 AM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I agree. When I recently sat and watched all five films, one after another, Atonement stood out as the "finest" film -- beautifully acted and written, full of evocative images and sounds. This is a weird year, though. I'd argue that the most solid film is Juno -- it's firing on all cylinders, I mean hooves. There is much to admire in both Blood and Clayton, but both also have, I think, significant shortcomings. So if I leave myself to choose between Atonement and Juno, I think Atonement will and should win.
Posted by Chris Vognar @ 12:09 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I've heard that more viewers tune in when there's a clear favorite ready to be rewarded, the most recent example being the third Lord of the Rings movie (I think it was called Hobbits Hug for Hours). This would indicate that the media (in which I include myself) is more interested in the horse race than is John Q. Public, who mostly cares about seeing the big hit get showered with gifts. Populist Oscar years, logically, have a way of validating public taste. This works out great for networks and advertsiers, and for those who think Oscar is out of touch. Sorry folks, this looks like one of those out-of-touch years.
Posted by stephen becker @ 12:19 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I still think it's No Country's to lose, but it just seems like a year in which I won't be blown away if any of these films win. I will say that if There Will be Blood wins, this year will be one of the most disconnected between award winner and general audience. There Will be Blood has made the least by far of any of the nominees, indicating that it just isn't that accessible a movie. I'm curious if it wins if it will even receive much of a post-Oscars bump at the box office.
Posted by Chris Vognar @ 1:05 PM Thu, Feb 21, 2008
I'm a big Blood fan, but I don't think it has much of a shot. If I had to pick one - such a mundane task - I'd roll with No Country, even though it didn't make my pulse pound like it was supposed to. But I'd be happy to hear either Michael Clayton or Juno called into the winner's circle.