Alright, so, the safe bet wins the day. The nominees are:
James Cameron, “Avatar”
Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”
Quentin Tarantino, “Inglourious Basterds”
Lee Daniels, “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
Jason Reitman, “Up in the Air”
None of my little hunches panned out at the end of the day, and really, this is classic DGA. Best Picture frontrunners right…down…the…line. It’s amazing to me that a membership this vast can so consistently have its finger on the pulse of the season (while, of course, consistently ignoring a great many outside-the-box contenders).
Onward to the WGA, I suppose. The needle stays frozen in place, for now.
Comments
76 responses to “DGA nominees announced”
The DGA site says Jason Reitman, not JJ Abrams.
I have a feeling one of these will miss with the Academy. Lee Daniels, I guess.
There we go!
I was excited for a second there when I saw your original post. Not that I liked “Star Trek” that much, but at least it was different.
I agree with guy – Daniels is the weak link in the bunch.
Andrew: ?
Oh, I guess something got away from me then. Weird.
I am so thoroughly bored. Talk about sticking to the script. Jesus. What can I say if the directors themselves think that Precious or Avatar are 1 of the 5 best directed films of the year.
Thanks for nothin’, DGA.
And yeah, I don’t think Lee Daniels makes it to Oscar–I’m not the only person who thinks that his work is the worst part of Precious.
What a snooze, but at least most of them are deserving.
So now the question is, Daniels in or out at the Oscars? Last time DGA and Oscar matched 5/5 was 2006.
“It’s amazing to me that a membership this vast can so consistently have its finger on the pulse of the season ”
But that’s exactly it. A basic principles of statistics is that a larger sample size tends to more closely reflect the general concensus, with minimal obscurities. The fact that the DGA is such a wide body is a major reason that it is such a reliable indicater of Best Picture.
If this means that Bigelow is one step closer to the Oscar, I am happy.
@aspect ratio: Personally, I still think Blomkamp squeezes in for Oscar at Daniels’ expense.
But, on the historical side, I’m pretty sure Daniels is the first openly gay black man to be nominated for the award, so yay progress!
Cameron or Bigelow for Best Director at the Oscars??
@ Adam Smith – I think your reasoning for Daniels is the very reason why he will make it into the Oscar Nominations.
Sorry – when I went on, I saw your post and it said JJ Abrams instead of Reitman. Intrigued, I check the DGA site and see otherwise, and 30 seconds later come back here to see it changed. Must have been a glitch!
Now, I am almost certain that I want most precursors to be eliminated. If the guilds are that predictable then the Oscars are practically irrelevant to people like us (who watch the race so closely) and ironically, we are the ones who care most!
So I just had a look around and the only year in the last decade that they matched 5/5 with the Oscars was in 2006.. So there’s certainly precedent that the Oscar line-up won’t match these five.
But then again, who could replace Daniels (who we can agree is the weak link)? There aren’t very many that seem like realistic alternatives this year. Scherfig, maybe, if the film is better received than expected (like a Molina nom), Blomkamp if District 9 gets a BP nomination and has a strong showing elsewhere. Eastwood if they want to be stupid.
Some times I don’t even realize how bad things are. They are not only predictable, but they are predictable in that some less deserving items (performances, films etc) will take the place of not Oscar-friendly marvels!
Too bad I’m addicted. It’s too late for me.
@Nel: I don’t follow, unless that’s just supposed to be a dig at AMPAS. In which case, eh, B- for effort.
Tarantino-SHAZAAM! Mr. ONeil can rest easy another night.
I was actually a bit surprised by Daniels. Not only is he the weak sauce in the brew, but he has Ms. Mariah Carey fucking things up for him by embarassing him in public. Some bad press, right there.
Other than that, no surprises.
This is definitely sizing up to be a predictable Awards Season in terms of the main contenders. But as for the actual victor, it feels like a 3-sided deathmatch with Basterds waiting quietly outside the circle with a blunt object in its hand and a fesity temper.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Eastwood replace Daniels either, just ’cause of the whole biopic rule, but perhaps in that regard, the directors branch isn’t too influenced. Still, he snuck in for 2006, but he actually deserved it then–and it was a last-minute release.
The Academy perhaps will nominate Daniels regardless of his work, just to make amends for there only being one black director nominee to date. Spike Lee must be furious, haha. Perhaps S.Lee will actually be the first winner one day though, if he gets his mojo back.
Still gonna hope for a Scherfig surprise at the Oscars, just on the whole year of the women helmers thing, but not gonna hold out that much hope.
Jason Reitman’s reaction to being nominated (his first DGA nom), via his twitter:
“I can’t even begin to explain how proud I am to be nominated by my fellow directors.
I wanted to join the DGA ever since I saw the eagle clad membership card in my father’s wallet as a kid.
This morning’s honor will stay with me for a long time. Thank you to the ADs, UPMs, and directors that make me so proud to be a member.”
@ Adam – it is not supposed to be a dig at all but sometimes I do think that Socio-polictical considerations and zeitgeist do play a role in peoples choices. I actually felt that Daniels direction actually added to the presentation of Precious as a character and I liked the day dream sequences but I can also see why people would think his direction took away from the movie.
By the way, it’s 2005–can we please use the year of films in which the awards are recognizing, not the actual year of the awards? It’s much less misleading that way.
I agree that Daniels is the weak link, but he can easily make it, if not, I don’t think he would be replaced by Bonkamp.. I think his place at the Oscars would be taken by Eastwood (the Academy just loves him) or a foreign director, like Haneke or Audiard.
Ben: I guess my point is that it’s such a scattered organization, rather than having its head in the thick of the season here at ground zero. I dunno.
However, what with the age of the Internet, is it possible that even a set in stone precursor like DGA doesn’t have as much pull as it did?
2 or 3 weeks is a lifetime in Oscar politics, especially now that the buzz is 24/7.
“it is not supposed to be a dig at all but sometimes I do think that Socio-polictical considerations and zeitgeist do play a role in peoples choices. ”
And I’ll never understand why that is so oft the case.
For me, movies are a major form of escapism. I don’t need a film reminding me that my job sucks or that there’s war and terror in the world.
Jacques Audiard is not eligible, cca, as far as I know. A Prophet did not have a 1-week qualifying run in LA.
No, Audiard isn’t eligible. Haneke is.
This is really boring. Wish there would be a few more surprises in this award’s season.
Doesn’t matter because we already know now what “The Big Story of Oscar 2010” is gonna be… Cameron vs. his ex. (not that there is much drama to that story, because they aren’t enemies)
If memory serves me correctly, the Oscars with the most predictable nominees have the most unpredictable winners and vice versa. Hopefully that will be the case this year.
Yawn.
Seriously though – yeah, I want Bigelow to win in the end. She’s done the time. She’s earned it.
Chad, while I can’t say if that’s true, this year certainly feels like it’s very open-ended, especially in the major categories (excluding supporting actor/actress, that is). There’s absolutely 2-3 in each of the Picture, Director, Actor and Actress categories that (at the moment) seem like they have a very realistic shot at winning.
Though of course there’s still a way to go, it could get very clear by Oscar night, though I sure hope not.
Keep in mind that the DGA and the Academy have only matched up 5/5 twice in the last twenty years (’98 and ’05).
The majority of the time, the DGA nominee who doesn’t make it to the Oscars is the one who failed to be nominated for a Globe. Nolan (both times), Penn, Condon, Dayton & Faris, Ross, and Crowe are examples from this decade. Daniels is that person this year.
Blomkamp was in the top five on the BAFTA longlists. I still think he can slide in if he gets a nomination there.
Now, that’s a pretty interesting factoid, Dennis. Thanks for that.
So there’s still some smidgen of hope for a stunner on Feb. 2nd. Sweet.
Is anyone besides me still amazed that these are the five “safe bets?”
If you had told me this summer that we would be lamenting the DGA’s decision of sticking with “safe bets” like Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker and Avatar, I would’ve…I don’t know.
I think cca may be on to something with Haneke. Not only does Oscar usually replace at least one of the five DGA nominees, but they usually slip in at least one fairly daring choice Pedro Almodovar for Talk to Her, Fernando Meirelles for City of God, Paul Greengrass for United 93.
The Globe correlation Dennis brings up is really interesting. It’s always struck me, though, that its often the director of the most superficially conventional film who gets left off, or at least the film that feels least like a “director’s movie.” I think of Gary Ross getting left off to make room for Meirelles or Marc Forster getting left off in favor of Mike Leigh for “Vera Drake.” If it plays out according to that pattern, you just might see Jason Reitman miss the cut. His film’s apparent freefall out of frontrunner status at right around the time the ballots went out plays in to that possibility as well.
(And I type out the above with the personal feeling that Daniels is the one who should be excluded. His film has a lot of problems, most of which can be traced directly to him and his sizzling pan.)
You guys are thinking way too hard about it. These are likely the five for Oscar.
Yes, likely is the key word here. But it’s just as equaly likely that one of these guys won’t be nominated, and I, for one, won’t be surprised if it’s Tarantino.
Meh, no one can make a case against these five that holds any water at this point. The indicators are there. Point to the Globes if you want, but HFPA doesn’t vote for Oscars, folks. And there isn’t a director primed to slide in, as much as some might want it to be Blomkamp or Scherfig.
It’s not about making a case against anyone, Kristopher. It’s just considering the most likely “suprises” which may or may not happen, just to pass the time. Is that that what Oscar prediction (pointless as it is) is all about?
The five DGA are solid picks, no doubt about that. But even DGA made some unexpected moves before so why not even consider the possibility of an upset?
P.S. You know as well as anyone that when bored people look for indiciators and trends they don’t really care that they come from completely separate voting bodies like HFPA. The fact that they are independent is makes them interesting.
I thought the direction (and the writing) were the worst things about Precious.
Kudos to the other fours nominees. Well deserved.
mehhhhhhhhhhh
I’m so happy Eastwood wasn’t nominated! And I think Daniels will not be replaced by Blomkamp. It would be such a bold movie from the Academy, it just can’t happen (nor two women directors getting in).
Actually, I’m more concerned about District 9’s BP nom chances rather than Blomkamp’s director chances. I’d just like District 9 to be invited to the Ten.
I agree with HarryB. So what if any speculation about possible upsets are stretches? It’s all just groundless speculation until the nominations are announced. Anyone at this stage of the season who was positing that Bill Condon’s DGA nod for Dreamgirls wasn’t going to translate into an Oscar nomination was using theories that were plenty porous too. That’s the fun of this. You study the tea leaves and sometimes that smudge that looks like the future happens to match reasonably well with the actual future.
I do agree with you, Kristopher, that there’s no director who seems primed to swoop into that last spot, especially since this is already an interestingly balanced, quite idiosyncratic list.
So happy for Tarantino, I hope he wins.
I also hope that Scherfig, Haneke or Eastwood takes Daniels place.