Sizing Up The Directors: Part 1

When the Academy announced earlier this year that the Best Picture nominees would be give five additional nominees it changed many things about the race this year.  However no race has been affected by this as much as the Best Director race.  With only five nominees here a Best Director nominee could really boost a films chance to win the top prize at the Oscars.  Not only that, but with ten nominees directors will likely get their nominations more on spectacle and interesting camera movements, and intimate acting may not factor in the directors favor as much.  Right now there are 12 people that I can think of who have people talking "nomination" around them.  I'm going to look at these people and dissect which ones have the best shot at making the nominated five (in my opinion of course).

Name: Lee Daniels
Current Film: "Precious"
Nominated Before?: No
Won Before?: No

Going For Him/Her:  Lee Daniels is easily a front runner because he's made one of "the" movies of the year.  "Precious" is riding a wave of good press and public love that is rarely seen in independent films these days, and his unusual casting choices work wonderfully in this film despite sounding like complete misfires on paper.

Going Against Him/Her:  With ten nominees there's a chance the direction nominations willlean more towards spectacle rather then acting.  Voters might vote on acting quality by voting for the actors even though directors have a huge role in this process.

My Verdict:  I think Daniels has a great shot of getting a nomination.  He has little going for him, though I doubt his direction will actually win even if the movie is the big winner.

Name: Steven Soderberg
Current Film: The Informant
Nominated Before?: Twice.  For "Traffic" and "Erin Brockovich."
Won Before?: Yes, for "Traffic"

Going For Him/Her:  Soderberg is always experimenting with film.  He makes experimental films and Hollywood successes with ease.  "The Informant" feels experimental but is widely accessible to most audiences.

Going Against Him/Her:  Some people feel Matt Damon is the real reason this movie works.  Soderberg has won before.  There's not a whole lot of obvious "directorial touches" in the film.

My Verdict:  I think praise for "The Informant" has come and gone and only Damon is talked about now, so I think he's out.

Name:  Michael Mann
Current Film:  "Public Enemies"
Nominated Before?:  Yes, for "The Informant."
Won Before?:  No.

Going For Him/Her:  "Public Enemies" was a mild summer hit.  It was a summer film that was intelligent for once.  Interesting use of digital film making.

Going Against Him/Her:  The movie isn't talked about much.  Some felt the digital camera was used poorly.

My Verdict:  I think he's out.  If Johnny Depp is looking shaky then Mann is certainly in trouble.

Name:  James Cameron
Current Film:  "Avatar"
Nominated Before?:  Yes, for "Titanic."
Won Before?:  Yes, for "Titanic."

Going For Him/Her:  Cameron aims big.  His movies are visual wonders to behold.  Has a good track record of taking financial gambles and turning them into money making hits.  "Avatar" has too much pizazz to be ignored.

Going Against Him/Her:  Some feel Cameron is indulgent.  Science fiction is rarely nominated and has never won.  Has won this award for a movie many people feel was never good in the first place.

My Verdict:  I think if "Avatar" is even half as good as the hype claims it is he's in.  Cameron is one of the few mainstream film makers the Academy loves mainly BECAUSE he's mainstream!

Name:  Peter Doctor
Current Film:  Up
Nominated Before?:  No
Won Before?:  No

Going For Him/Her:  "Up" has a good possibility of being the first animated film since "Beauty & The Beast" to get a nomination for Best Picture.  Two of the most memorable scenes of the year are in this film.  He's directed the most memorable film of the year (thus far).

Going Against Him/Her:  The Academy feels that animation contains no real direction (or acting or production for that matter).

My Verdict:  Though it would make the race VERY interesting I don't think this is going to happen!  The chances are pretty slim.

Name:  Kathryn Bigelow
Current Film:  "The Hurt Locker"
Nominated Before?:  No
Won Before?:  No

Going For Him/Her:  "The Hurt Locker" has stuck around since it's spring release to be noticed as one of the years best.  The direction is so solid more people are talking about the direction over the movie itself.

Going Against Him/Her:  The movie came out in spring.  The picture itself is not favored to be nominated in the Best Picture category anymore.  A woman has never won this award.

My Verdict:  I think she's in.  Even if "The Hurt Locker" isn't nominated Bigelow's direction has been praised too much to ignore.

Stay tuned for part 2...

Soderbergh's Next Big Film Stars...A Porn Star?

Oscar winning director Steven Soderbergh is one tough guy to figure out. Bouncing between mainstream Hollywood fare ("Out of Sight" and the Ocean's Trilogy) to weird little indie films ("Bubble" and "The Good German"). He's so strange that while he's on my list for my "Great Directors" feature, I'm putting off writing about him because he's just so off the wall. Normally he makes multiple films a year, but this year he released one film. Though, considering that film is the four and a half hour Spanish epic "Che," I think we can forgive him for focusing on one film. Apparently during the final editing phrase of "Che" Soderbergh decided to make another indie film. It's entitled "The Girlfriend Experience" and it's...well, this clip from an LA Times article:

The film stars porn star Sasha Grey as an escort in New York City. With a website to sell herself, she approaches her work like a job, and she spends much of her time when she isn't working taking meetings with various people who claim they can boost her business in various ways. She has a live-in boyfriend who works as a personal trainer, and their domestic discord becomes the film's dramatic throughline.

Soderbergh seems interested in exploring, as one character puts it, the "transactional," the exchange that occurs between people at all levels of interaction -- in business, in love, in everyday life. Everybody wants something.

It also must be noted that there seems to be a continuing subtext to the film that can only be read as Soderbergh's dig at critics and journalists, perhaps in the wake of the mixed reception to his film "Che." (And considering how the room was full of an august selection of them, his timing was impeccable.) Film critic Glenn Kenny shows up as a sleazy porn blogger -- his first appearance onscreen elicited something of a gasp of recognition from the crowd, and he also grabbed the film's biggest laugh line -- and his "review" of the escort's services is petty and an outright lie. His sequence ends with the camera on two street singers as they declare "everyone's a critic."

While some may be put off by the film's icy surfaces and exacting framing -- Soderbergh mentioned Antonioni's "Red Desert" as an influence -- it is exciting to see a major filmmaker in the middle of a staggering run of work continue to push himself at the prolific pace Soderbergh does. Even if he is only doodling or sketching or working out some latent hostility issues, it is thrilling to see, and provides insight on his mind at work.

Okay...whatever. I have to admit that this caught me by surprise. Of course, Soderbergh is honestly one of the few directors to consistantly surprise me. I was shocked when I discovered he was making "Ocean's Thirteen" a few years ago. Who knows if this will be good, as Soderbergh's stuff can be very hit and miss. Either way though it will most likely be interesting.

A Few Thoughts On Gus Van Sant

Gus Van Sant is one weird director. It seems like only he would make an Oscar nominated film like "Good Will Hunting," and then use his new found fame to do a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" (shot by shot mind you). Since then he's made lots of films, mostly art house films that audiences just didn't connect to (his turn at directing "Gerry" alianated many people). When I heard of "Milk" earlier this year I felt it would have Oscar written all over it. I was right, though the film wasn't quite the masterpiece I was expecting. What surprised me most was how subdued it felt for a Van Sant film. With the exception of a few choice shots, most of the direction was very straight-forward and predictable. Anyone could have made this film, which is not something I usually get when watching a movie from him. I left it on the Oscar list though, simply for a lack of better films to list.

Well, all that's changed now. More movies have been released. "Milk" seems to be losing it's grip on the "lock" it had for an Oscar. Worst of all, Van Sant has been outdirected by Ron Howard, Mike Leigh, Steven Soderberg, Danny Boyle, etc, etc...you get the point. This basically means his shot at Best Director is looking more slim. So while I'm not going to remove "Milk" from the BP lineup yet, I'm going to remove Van Sant from Best Director. I think his direction is fairly weak, and the actors make most of the movie work anyway.

"Che" Get's Day and Date

In a shocking move, IFC Films, known for their day and date releases of many smaller films, have picked up Steven Soderberg's "Che." This means you will have the chance to see the movie either in a select number of theaters or on Video On Demand...on the exact same day. I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Releases like these for limited releases makes it harder for me to see in the theaters, and I don't want to miss an epic like this in the theater. Still no word on whether or not the film will be available as one or in split in two. Either way this is getting interesting (maybe too interesting, I can see Oscar voters passing this movie by due to release complications alone).

"Che" Will Be Twice As Much Fun/Money

According to Variety Magazine, Steven Soderberg's "Che" will be split into two films while the four hour long version will receive a "road show" release. For those who don't know what the term road show means it was basically a form of distribution for epic movies of the old days. See, back when three to four hour films like "Ben-Hur" and "Around the World In 80 Days" were being made, not all theaters had the surround sound and wide screens to make a mainstream release possible. Therefor these movies would open in select cities and then slowly move to other cities over the next couple of years. And since DVD didn't exist back then (heck, VHS wasn't even on the radar yet) this sort of run around could last a few years.

Now Oscar winner Soderberg, who is known for his experimental films, decided to make a four hour epic on the life of Latin Revolutionary Che Guevera, starring Oscar winner Benicio Del Toro as the the title character. It's a bold undertaking as the cinema hasn't seen a four hour epic released in theaters since Warner Bros. released "Gods and Generals" in 2003 (a major flop, though I blame that on the poor quality of the film and NOT the running time). While this would have been a hard sell to the public I think it could have been a success because people who are interested in this film expressed interest in sitting through a four hour film. By breaking it in two it feels like a cheap way to sell multiple tickets, and I'm not sure how many people are going to buy it.

This could also potentially effect the films Oscar chances (particularly Del Toro, who's an early favorite at a Best Actor nomination), because with two halfs of the film the votes this film receives could be split. Or maybe the Academy members won't vote for either. After all, how do you decide which half of the movie has better direction and/or acting then the other? In fact, chances are the road show release of the full movie is there to try and eliminate this confusion for the voters. Either way I'm less confident in the film now.