This year’s Best Director category has stirred a media frenzy for featuring, along with Best Picture, a face-to-face duel frequently dubbed “the battle of the exes.” Unfortunately the desire to tout that headline has clouded the discussion of the films, their merits and the actual accomplishments of those at the helm. But who cares about that stuff?
Seriously, though, this could be a milestone occasion for two of the filmmakers in question, a return to glory for two other former awards season players and is already the second notch on an exciting young filmmaker’s belt as he continues to make his mark on the industry. Not a bad cross-section.
The nominees are:
“Avatar” (James Cameron)
“The Hurt Locker” (Kathryn Bigelow)
“Inglourious Basterds” (Quentin Tarantino)
“Precious” (Lee Daniels)
“Up in the Air” (Jason Reitman)
These are, of course, the five films that coagulated throughout the season as the agreed upon “five,” rendering the expanded Best Picture category a bit moot, in some ways.
The only real pretender to the frontrunner’s crown is James Cameron, who made a definitive statement with “Avatar.” A 12-year hiatus between industry-dominating productions yielded the most popular film of 2009, and one with an impressive critical approval rating as well. It’s probably safe to say that if Cameron hadn’t been the king of Oscar’s world the last at-bat, he’d probably have a better play at this statuette this year. That is, of course, unless the sentiment that paints him as a monster to work with didn’t take hold. But Cameron has been everywhere, perhaps even over-exposed a bit. Then again, this film has no real face, no star power to bask in the media spotlight, so Cameron is really his show’s star. Can that translate to a vote for Best Director? You can bet he’ll get plenty.
The only problem is, this is Kathryn Bigelow‘s year, it is “her time,” to paraphrase Mark Harris’s recent thorough examination of the season. Even the competition doesn’t want to take that from her, Cameron even going so far as to suggest voters give Bigelow Best Director for “The Hurt Locker” (as if that means they’re doing her a favor) and give his film Best Picture. Fellow nominee Jason Reitman, at a recent New Beverly guest-programming stint, said, “Two words: Kathryn Bigelow,” when briefly discussing the Oscar race. It’s a tangible given that would probably be a bit of a scandal if it went any other way. This begs mentioning that the Academy is notorious for retaliating against strong-arming, but we’re also talking about the Best Picture frontrunner. In the final analysis, this really should be your easiest call.
The Weinstein Company sure smelled opportunity during this season’s second phase of campaigning. Quentin Tarantino hit the trail with a vengeance, talking to any and everyone with an outlet, while the studio held party after party for his World War II romp “Inglourious Basterds.” The director enjoys a streak of popularity that can’t be denied, many respecting his passion for the medium and unwillingness to make anything other than the movie he set out to make. That goes a long way when you’re talking about the Oscars, the biggest popularity contest in the business. But is it enough to get voters to take the film seriously? And is it enough to give the edge to one of Hollywood’s favorite sons in a race that otherwise seems to be a foregone conclusion? Of course not.
While everyone was concerned with Kathryn Bigelow potentially making history as the first woman to win an Oscar, Lee Daniels was making actual history by being the first openly gay African-American director nominated for an Oscar. He was also the first African-American nominated for a DGA award. It’s all in keeping with the long, fortuitous journey of “Precious.” But while a win isn’t likely, it’s worth pointing out a few things. Two of Daniels’s actors were nominated for Oscars; only one other nominee directed more than one actor to a nomination. He made Gabourey Sidibe a star while drawing quality performances out of comedians (Mo’Nique) and musicians (Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz) who had minimal dramatic acting experience. The accomplishment should not be taken lightly.
Jason Reitman saw his second Best Director nomination this year for “Up in the Air,” a sure-thing from the film’s unveiling (a much different scenario than his surprise bid for “Juno” two years ago). While actor George Clooney was making a sincere effort to avoid hitting the publicity trail for the film, Reitman, much like Cameron, was left to be the face for his film. And, like Cameron, it left him a bit over-exposed at times, but whenever he had a mic in front of him, he seemed to say just the right things, whether it concerned the zeitgeist elements of his film or the fact that he is so appreciative of the trail his father blazed in the industry. In a perfect world, Reitman would win the award, but he is likely to be relegated to a screenplay consolation (which is nevertheless deserved).
Will win: “The Hurt Locker” (Kathryn Bigelow)
Could win: “Avatar” (James Cameron)
Should win: “Up in the Air” (Jason Reitman)
Should have been here: “A Serious Man” (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen)
What do you think deserves to win this year’s Oscar for Best Director? Have your say in the sidebar poll!
Comments
54 responses to “OSCAR GUIDE: Best Directing”
Gotta go with Cameron here, although Reitman is extremely well deserving as well. But Cameron helmed a behemoth of a production, and pulled it off with beauty, soaring emotion, and the magic only the cinema can deliver.
I honestly wouldn’t be upset with any of these people winning. Reitman’s film was one of my favorites of the year. Tarantino’s direction saves his film from his weak (at times) script. Cameron’s acheivement is stunning and hard to ignore, and really does deserve some form of recognition. And Daniels did wonders with his actors, as you’ve said, and also managed to make his film workable when it could have been dreadful.
My choice of the five is Bigelow, though. I thinks she really commanded her film quite well, bringing together all of the elements of it into a seamless final product. It’s staggeringly good work.
That said, I completely agree that the Coens should have been here. And they should have won the category as well, if they had been.
Wish QT would win, but think Bigelow will take it.
Kathryn Bigelow has emerged so spectacularly not only through her near-perfect realization of The Hurt Locker, but also in the publicity campaign as a class-act, brilliant filmmaker.
She’s going to win this, and deserves to win.
While it’s cheap fun to pit one’s favorite against all the others, I’ve gotta say this is an excitingly diverse set of directors this year, each of them bringing something entirely unique to the table.
My vote went not surprisingly to Tarantino, not only because I’ve had tremendous faith in the potential of this film from the start, but because I really, really love what he does.
And I also agree that the Coens should be here. I got my hands on “A Serious Man” pretty late in the game, but was nonetheless wowed. Very seldom do I find ANYTHING to complain about in their work. They have their shit together.
That aside, this is clearly going to Bigelow, although there is a little squeaking-room for a Cameron upset.
But I’ve pretty much withdrawn any real energy I had in this race last minute, because I’ve realized how truly set most of the categories are. Feeling a bit jaded, methinks.
I wish Jason Reitman would win. But Kathryn Bigelow is a deserved nominee. The Coen brothers were unfairly snubbed in this category…
Bigelow all that way. As much of a prick as he is Cameron did do a nice job on what has to be described as a director’s film. Reitman is still young and one has to expect he has a few more great movies in him. Tarantino is not a favorite of mine, but visually his framing of IB represented a good job. Daniels is the tricky one. How much of the aforementioned great performance were from his input or just talented performers? That’s tough to know and while I like Precious I think from a visual standpoint it’s the least well directed of the five.
“Should win: “Up in the Air” (Jason Reitman)”
Dude, you’ve become way too buddy-buddy with Reitman. Reitman over Cameron, Tarantino and Bigelow? That’s crazy talk. Heck, John Lee Hancock would deserve a Directing prize over Reitman, who’s good, but hardly great…
Cameronnnnnn!
Kevin: Read my first review of “Up in the Air,” way back in Telluride. Read my consistent coverage of “Inglourious Basterds,” a film I find frivolous, that began back when I saw the film in August. Note the fact that “The Hurt Locker,” which I quite liked, didn’t break my top 10 and is a film I think is a bit overrated. And note that “Up in the Air” sits at #2 on my top 10 list.
I’m not carrying anyone’s water here, and it’s a bit insulting that a reader would think otherwise. Your Hancock quip is where you spill over into hyperbole, by the way. I seem to recall “Up in the Air,” not “The Blind Side,” dominating the year end top 10 lists.
Not only did Kris hate Inglourious Basterds when he saw it, but he hated it way before that, in February of 2009. He has been consistent.
I would give it to Tarantino, but Bigelow is a pretty strong second. I just hope Tarantino is awarded one day. It isn’t often he makes films accessible enough to an institution like the Academy.
In a perfect world, Reitman wouldn’t even get close to a nomination and someone like Haneke or Claire Denis would get his place instead.
In anyway, this Oscar is Bigelow’s, no question there, and while THL is not my favorite of the nominees or even my favorite movie directed by a woman last year, it’s a deserved an award. Great to see that when a woman finally wins Best Director, it’s not a Halle Berry type of win.
I can’t remember the last time I truly enjoyed all five of the Best Picture nominees (and, let’s face it, these are the “true” Best Picture nominees), but for the first time since I can remember, all of them landed in my top 10 films of the year. Any of these directors would be a deserving win, in my opinion, for helming films that captivated me from beginning to end, for films that, I feel, will all be remembered years from now, so much more than recent Best Pic blunders like The Reader or Ben Button. To that, I say, bravo to all the Directing contenders.
And, while I don’t share your sentiments regarding “A Serious Man”, Kris, I will concede that the direction was well done and probably the strongest part of the movie (aside from the technical aspects; the film should have at the least received citations for Art Direction, Costume Design, and Original Score)
Oh, and Michael Stuhlbarg, of course.
Gotta agree with others…I’d put Reitman 5th in this race (actually kinda surprised he got nominated). I felt the directing was actually the weakest part of the film…turned an excellent screenplay into only a pretty good movie (imo).
I’d personally vote for Tarantino, not that that means much. Bigelow is going to win this pretty easily with vote-splitting (i.e. liking THL & another movie, and voting that other movie for BP/Bigelow for director).
Yeah, I wonder what it was specifically about Serious Man that just didn’t register as strongly as the others this awards season.
One thing I love about the Coens is that there’s sort of a smallness to their films; even films as grand as No Country have this sort of intimacy to them. And I felt that way with Serious Man.
I really wish this one carried more weight, because I feel so strongly about it and loved it far above both Avatar and Hurt Locker.
Unforunately, however, that smallness sails under the Academy’s radar.
As for the “frivolity” of Basterds, I challenge anyone here to watch any of his six films (or one’s he wrote but didn’t direct for that matter) and NOT find them notably frivolous in some way. I just think the heavy subject matter opens this one up to WAY more scrutiny.
“I’m not carrying anyone’s water here, and it’s a bit insulting that a reader would think otherwise. Your Hancock quip is where you spill over into hyperbole, by the way. I seem to recall “Up in the Air,” not “The Blind Side,” dominating the year end top 10 lists.”
Okay, so you truly love “Up in the Air”/Reitman, point taken. But I personally do think “The Blind Side”, while not one of the year’s 10 best, is at least a better film than “Up in the Air”. And as far as good-but-not-great directors go, I honestly don’t see much difference between Reitman and Hancock .
Of course, as The Dude suggests, we shouldn’t even be discussing these guys – not in a year when Haneke, Audiard, von Trier and other truly great auteurs released films.
Megan: Interesting you should mention that, as it was a running thread in my Tech Support interview with a number of the below-the-liners.
Kevin: You’re certainly welcome to your opinion.
Oh, and Megan, I’m not really arguing against that, re: Tarantino. But he’s been profound in fits and starts in the past, at the very least.
In defense of Tarantino, I do think that the very least he was trying to be profound with Inglourious Basterds. The problem is that his style, in general, just doesn’t easily lend itself to dealing with larger and deeper thematic issues. It’s very easy to see the film as flippant, but the concept of revenge fantasy holds a lot of weight. The thematic questions posed by Tarantino might not be terribly nuanced, but they’re there.
There’s an interesting piece by Eli Roth’s father on jewishjournal.com that puts the film in a context that gives it a bit more depth. I would say that it might be somewhat frivolously told, but the film itself isn’t frivolous.
It’s also interesting to note that Roth, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz and Lawrence Bender are all Jewish. I don’t know the extent to which Tarantino may have collaborated with Roth and Bender in the writing process, but it’s food for thought.
I think people are giving him way too much credit. He has said, explicitly, that he wanted to make a film that asked what if the Jews acted like Apache Indians. There is no depth here. There is no “how you respond to the violence is the point I’m making” insight. It’s a romp, an admittedly fun romp, but nothing profound.
Have to say, I’m with Kris on this one.
I knew that at its core, the film is only so earnest. It is Tarantino, and his style doesn’t always lend itself to depth; but that’s what he does, and it’s always deliberate.
WW2/The Holocaust are the environments in which the film takes place, but they in the end have very little to do with the film. This is NOT a film about the war or the Holocaust. So I didn’t even begin to analyze it.
BUT, the way in which he made the film is superb. To me, anyway. I came into it with minimal expectations (in fact, I half-expected NOT to like it), and I really enjoyed myself.
And I’m getting tired of calling people on this one…Christoph Waltz probably isn’t Jewish. His oldest son is training to be a rabbi. I think he was married to a New Yorker, so their kids are part Jewish.
Don’t know about Bender, but Laurent and Roth for sure are.
Correction: ..was married to a New Yorker, so that’s likely why his kids are part Jewish.
Sorry.
If we’re talking about people who directed great performances, Tarantino bests Reitman and Daniels for me, nominations or not. I still think Bigelow should win.
Kris, interested to hear why you think Reitman deserves it the most, if it’s anything other than that he directed your favorite of the five films.
Will win: Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”
Could win: James Cameron, “Avatar”
Should win: Quentin Tarantino, “Inglourious Basterds”
Should have been here: Spike Jonze, “Where the Wild Things Are”
Commentary: I’ll offer some up on Friday, which I assume will be when Kris’ entry involving the Best Picture nominees.
I’ll just have to laugh of this “should win” of yours. This is the one single category where the odds are exactly in the order they deserve to be. Bigelow > Tarantino > Cameron > Daniels > Reitman
@Kris, obviously.
If there is any justice and the academy truly wants to reward “best director” — it would and should go to Quentin Tarantino.
Craig: I think Up in the Air is one of the most tonally consistent films of the year, one that has a central, deceptively complex theme, and I give the credit for that, entirely, to Reitman. I’ve made no bones about the fact that it spoke to me personally on a major level (after all, I got engaged in December). But what Reitman does is so simple yet so profound, it really is the most difficult task for a filmmaker, in my opinion, and he proves adept at it each and every time out. Unfortunately, though, what he does is not obvious, like certain other filmmakers that were on the circuit this year.
It should be noted that, ahead of Reitman, my picks for the year’s best direction would go to the Coens and then Von Trier.
Movieman: Saturday, actually.
All All Unraveled: I’m glad you have such a hearty sense of humor. And by the way, welcome to our corner of the web.
Sorry for anything.
Just concluding:
Will win: Bigelow
Could win: Tarantino
Should win: Bigelow
Should have been here: Sincerely, Wes Anderson. But that would never happen, then I’d say Pete Docter.
Probably I’m joining too late to the conversation, but I wanted to add something.
I don’t undersand why the supposedly lack of “deepness” of IB can be used as a valid argument against its Oscar possibilities. If this is reason enough for a movie not receiving a nomination, then we should all stop complaining that The Dark Knight was snubbed last year, or that more comedies, action, and sci-fi films are consistently overlooked. I love IB, but I’m sure it is possible to find other arguments in its, script, direction, editing, etc. that make it less deserving of Oscar recognition.
And, in my opinion, if we want to look for the “least profound” of the nominees, that has to be Avatar. Despite the beautiful images, imaginative production design, that story has not even a trace of originality and its less than 1 inch deep.
PS: I have been coming to incontention for the last year 1/2, and this is the first time I comment, so just want to congratulate everyone involved with it for the way you discuss films, which is far more important and enlightning than discussing Oscars, even if I love the awards.
Will win: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow)
Could win: Avatar (James Cameron)
Should win: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow)
I’d like to see win: Precious (Lee Daniels)
Should have been here:
Bright Star (Jane Campion)
The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow)
Precious (Lee Daniels)
A Serious Man (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen)
Where the Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze)
“Great to see that when a woman finally wins Best Director, it’s not a Halle Berry type of win.”
Berry isn’t a great actress but she delivered a great performance. The only actress who deserved that Oscar over her wasn’t even nominated Naomi Watts.
Kris: Interesting point there. I love the film, but I hadn’t even really considered that.
Tarantino is my favorite of the group, but Reitman and Bigelow did better jobs this year. As long as James doesn’t win…
My order:
1. Bigelow
2. Tarantino
3. Reitman
4. Cameron
5. Daniels
Fernando: I checked out when you said The Dark Knight lacked depth. I assume you just dismiss it as a “superhero film,” and that’s fine, but it’s an incredibly complex narrative with thematic virtue, so it’s also a shame.
As for Basterds, it’s lack of depth is a problem because it and the campaign behind it pretends it DOES have depth, and many of its supporters see it as profound by way of apologizing for its frivolity (the “how you react is the point” thing), which, for me, doesn’t compute.
I got nothing to add except that I’m terrible amused at how many are presenting their personal opinions as if they are some kind of universal facts.
I loved “Up in the Air”… but Reitman is at the bottom of the five for me; great screenplay, great performances, good directing. And although I disliked “Avatar”, I gotta give Cameron props for his massive vision. Bigelow’s film is wonderful. Daniels managed to extract performances no one would ever have dreamed of, and discovered a true talent in Miss Sidibe. But my choice is Tarantino — “Basterds” is his crowning glory, the jewel in his already impressive resumé and a sign that he has reached maturity in his work.
My order:
Tarantino
Bigelow
Daniels
Cameron
Reitman
Should have been here: Tom Ford for “A Single Man”. A great debut.
What was so deep about The Dark Knight? I know it thought of itself as important, but what new thing did it really say? The film betrays the entire tone by having the citizens and prisoners on the boat become suddenly pious.
That does not mean I am saying Basterds is deep. I think it is more pure entertainment than it is statement.
Honestly, Reitman SHOULD win? I disagree; I’d go with nearly all of the other nominees before I chose Reitman. Not because he doesn’t deserve it, but because I honestly think that Bigelow, Cameron, and Daniels all did better work. Obviously, that’s just my opinion though. If Reitman deserved to win for anything, I’d have to go back to Thank You For Smoking, which is my favorite of his three films personally. Bigelow’s direction is stunning, Cameron’s is “revolutionary” so to speak (I’m not sure HOW much I agree, but he definitely “directed the hell” out of Avatar as somebody somewhere put it), and Daniels, as you pointed out very well, brought stunning performances out of unexpected places. While I’m not sure about how I feel about Precious as a whole entirely, I do know that I admired all the performances and Daniels’ direction of the film. But as an aspiring female film director myself, I feel an undeniable allegiance to Kathryn Bigelow to be the first, and it hardly hurts that she does deserve the award.
Wow, some really interesting discussion here.
Kris, as far as referring to Basterds as “frivolous,” I have no problem with you saying that, and this comes from someone who had Basterds as their #1 film of 2009.
Up in the Air is certainly the film with the most thematic ambition in my opinion, and Reitman is well-deserving of your praise, but if you’re looking for depth outside of the thematic arena, Basterds certainly has it. None of the directors listed above had to tell a story as complex as Tarantino did. Many people (including myself) have defended Cameron and Bigelow (and even Reitman, on a personal level) by questioning “Who else could have made those films?” but I would throw the same question right back at you for Basterds. Who else, besides QT, could have created a two and a half hour film about a group of hillbillies that kill Nazis, a hiding Jew turned cinema owner, and a German soldier that killed 300 people in two days? It is also worth noting that there are several more elements to the story.
Just to sum up, because some of my thoughts might have been tough to follow, I don’t question the fact that Basterds is “frivolous” on a thematic level, but in almost every other area of directorial control, Tarantino’s expertise far outweigh that of his fellow nominees. You admitted yourself that Basterds was a “fun romp”. There’s no other experience from 2009 that I would rush to see again over Basterds, and most of that has to do with Tarantino’s work.
If you would like to expand on a previous question that was brought up: How can you say that Tarantino’s previous films have had such profound thematic power?
I am getting really scared with all this last-minute Hurt Locker backlash.
If Cameron wins, I might slit my wrists. There’s no way that a movie with no writing nod and no nomination for any actor involved with the film should be credited with the Best Picture prize.
And I am sick and tired of people saying that he should win because of the size of the project. It’s Best Director, Not Most Ambitious Director.
@joey
“There’s no way that a movie with no writing nod and no nomination for any actor involved with the film should be credited with the Best Picture prize.”
Don’t forget that the S in AMPAS stands for sciences.
I agree with Danny back there. There’s more going on in Basterds than in any of the other films, a larger cast, and once again, in my opinion, the most good to great performances in any one film this year. There’s no deeper thematic meaning? Arguable, but I was under the impression that there wasn’t supposed to be. Why does that matter? Why is that worse than Avatar’s cheap, manipulative message? Or than what I felt was an equally manipulative message in Precious?
I still think Tarantino and Bigelow are the only ones that even deserve to be in the conversation. I know Cameron brought his big (boring) vision to life, and I know he broke new ground in technical areas, but I don’t think that means shit if you don’t actually direct a decent movie.
“Should win: Up in the Air”
Yep, never reading this site again.
Based on a single opinion of a single writer on this site?
I’d say you’ll be missed, but…
Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow “The Hurt Locker”
Could Win: James “Jackass” Cameron “Avatar
Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow “The Hurt Locker” OR Quentin Tarantino “Inglourious Basterds”
Should Have Been Here: Spike Jonze “Where the Wild Things Are”
Just read what KT and James D. wrote. Though my second or third favorite film of all time, I don’t think arguing over the depth of The Dark Knight makes it any better or worse.
As for Basterds, it really has no depth at all. It’s just sweet, badass masterpiece.