THR’s directors round table

Posted by · 6:57 am · December 21st, 2010

The Hollywood Reporter sure kicked up some controversy with that writers round table last month. This one featuring directors of the season has been making the rounds so I thought I’d post it up:




→ 27 Comments Tags: , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

27 responses so far

  • 1 12-21-2010 at 7:54 am

    Will said...

    That table’s not round.

  • 2 12-21-2010 at 9:07 am

    Alex said...

    Brilliant! And it is quite funny when you do notice that all but one of the films these particular directors are showcasing this year are in actuality independent productions. 2010 seems to have this amazing abundance of great indie films and I think that’s something to get excited about.

    Also I might add that whenever Lisa Chodolenko speaks I often closed my eyes and heard Annette Bening.

  • 3 12-21-2010 at 9:39 am

    Maxim said...

    It so refreshing to see so many intelligent people speak in one place. I really enjoyed this.

  • 4 12-21-2010 at 9:42 am

    Maxim said...

    I also have to say that while I really didn’t care about seeing “The King’s Speech” I really enjoyed hearing Tom Hooper. The Blue Valentine was also a nice revelation. Really, everyone was great.

  • 5 12-21-2010 at 10:29 am

    James said...

    I agree with Alex about Lisa/Annette.

  • 6 12-21-2010 at 10:33 am

    JJ1 said...

    My mom said tha same thing: is that Annette Bening? haha

  • 7 12-21-2010 at 1:01 pm

    Pete said...

    I love how these directors bitch and whine about not getting financing and how the big studios will not finance a film unless it’s a ‘genre picture’. Give me a fuckin’ break! The big studios don’t finance these films because they’re fuckin boring! Black Swan is one of the most boring films I’ve seen in recent memory. And I like how the Blue Valentine director says, “Why do people have trouble with sex? Sex is real. We are trying to be truthful and real.” Really? Does that mean we should waste minutes of screen time showing people taking craps, pissing, brushing teeth, waxing? Isn’t that what humans do? Just like sex! These idiots are so blinded by their pretentious behavior that they fail to realize movies are about entertaining. Yes, they can be art, but they have to entertain. Fitting that Chris Nolan and David Fincher are absent; the two directors that actually made entertaining art this year.

  • 8 12-21-2010 at 1:13 pm

    Maxim said...

    Pete, what you fail to understand is that “Blue Valentine” and likes are not about showing what people do but what they go through in their relationships. It’s not a waste of a screen time if it’s addressing what the movie is about. Your blanket dismisal of sx as just “something humas do” shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.

    And there are precedents of even the things you’ve brought up above being shown in movies when they happened to contribute anything to the plot / theme. But those are different films.

    And what does any of this have to do with the point the Blue Valentine director brough up with regards to MPAA anyway?

    “These idiots are so blinded by their pretentious behavior that they fail to realize movies are about entertaining. Yes, they can be art, but they have to entertain.”

    Sorry to turn harhs but these are strong words coming from someone so full of himself.

  • 9 12-21-2010 at 1:20 pm

    Sound Designer Dan said...

    Did the British guy asking questions have to ask about “the Clooney incident”?

  • 10 12-21-2010 at 2:40 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    Pete- I’m sorry your sex is boring.

  • 11 12-21-2010 at 2:55 pm

    what said...

    Pete, shouldn’t you be coloring?

  • 12 12-21-2010 at 4:13 pm

    Speaking English said...

    Yeah… so do we think Lisa Cholodenko modeled Bening’s character after herself?

  • 13 12-21-2010 at 4:18 pm

    Anthony said...

    Sound Designer Dan–that British guy is a putz. “I don’t want to embarrass you but….” Yes, he did, that was his full intention. Love the smarmy little smile he has when he asks.

  • 14 12-21-2010 at 5:48 pm

    Pete said...

    It’s refreshing to see films that can convey a relationship without nudity or sex. I guess these hacks can’t do that. No skill.

  • 15 12-21-2010 at 6:07 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    Pete- But why should they have to? Sex (or sexuality) is as important to relationships as competing is to an athlete. Would The Fighter be the same film if they had to avoid showing any boxing? There’s something to be said for finding new approaches to the same thing, and I’d be interested to see a film that explored the dynamics of a chaste couple, but expecting every movie to avoid the subject is ridiculous.

  • 16 12-21-2010 at 6:22 pm

    Liz said...

    Ew, sex! Dirty!

    Right, Pete?

  • 17 12-21-2010 at 7:49 pm

    Kyle said...

    Too bad only about two of these people are going to be nominated…THR shoulda waited a bit perhaps?

  • 18 12-21-2010 at 7:49 pm

    Kyle said...

    *probably be nominated I should have said, haven’t turned into Nostradamus yet.

  • 19 12-21-2010 at 8:54 pm

    Drizzt said...

    People are jumping on “Pete” but there is a happy medium when it comes to the whole “It’s my art and its needed,” argument.
    I thought the very explicit sex in the Kids Are All Right detracted from that movie rather then added. It was so well written and acted, did it really need lingering shots of both gay and straight sex. When I saw this movie in the theatre two separate couples got up and left during the early gay sex scene where the men were totally naked and one mans head was bobbing over the top of the others genitals. I totally understand how this was the lead in to the other scenes involving the main characters son and the big reveal about meeting the donor, but the simple reality is that it DIDN’T NEED TO BE THAT GRAPHIC. I really felt like it was a bit of bait and switch. We went to see this “slice of life” family drama touted by many reviewers including EW as the greatest thing since sliced bread, only to be blindsided. Sometimes sex scenes can be totally natural but often they are simply F-ing gratuitous. I love how Cholodenko makes the typical very earnest very moving heartfelt directors plea of how a long lingering shot of Mark Ruffalo’s ass is integral to her film. HA HA HA. (Oh wait let me guess, she was just portraying real life and I should get back to either my boring sex life or coloring because some of us poor uneducated plebeians dare yell out “The King Has No Clothes.”)

  • 20 12-21-2010 at 10:43 pm

    Frank Lee said...

    Having just seen “The King’s Speech,” I’m guessing that Tom Hooper is likely not to be nominated for Best Director (from among the five on Kris’s list, he seems to be the weak one). I wasn’t knocked out by the movie, what I did like about it had little to do with the directing, the tone was a little hacky at times (like when Geoffrey Rush auditions for “Richard III”), and the voting system the Academy uses values #1 votes. Who exactly would put him #1?

  • 21 12-22-2010 at 1:18 am

    Glenn said...

    *sigh*

    We have this exact same thing every year. Who put Ron Howard at #1 for “Frost/Nixon”? Who put Lasse Halstrom #1 for “The Cidar House Rules”? People kept saying “The Reader” couldn’t possibly show up. But they all did.

    Anyway, loved this interview. Much better than the actors won and even marginally more fascinating than the actress’ one. That female questioner was a bit random since she barely got the chance to ask a question. Kinda glad the obvious ones like Fincher and Nolan weren’t there since we read enough about them, but barely get a peep out of Cholodenko.

  • 22 12-22-2010 at 5:40 am

    Maxim said...

    That’s because the argument itself is flawed. Not every director who gets nominated needs a whole bunch of #1 votes (though they certainly help). Sometimes having a solid number of #2-#4s is enough.

    But every year is a bit different. This year, I wouldn’t count Hooper out. Just like I wouldn’t call Nolan an obvious (let’s settly on likely candidate) In fact I wouldn’t be too shocked to see Polanski’s name in the top 5. It’s still very much a race.

  • 23 12-22-2010 at 7:06 am

    Hero said...

    I love these roundtables. Anyone know why in the hell THR hasn’t bothered to provide a full video of the Producers? I’d watch it in a heartbeat.

  • 24 12-22-2010 at 9:11 am

    Kyle said...

    Glenn,

    Agree to disagree, I would be much more interested to see a roundtable of Nolan-Aronofsky-Fincher-Boyle etc, but those are my biases at work.

  • 25 12-22-2010 at 1:08 pm

    Frank Lee said...

    Let me rephrase that: I don’t see that many people putting Tom Hooper at #1 or, barring that, at #2, #3, #4, or #5 without one of the other six highest vote-getters placed higher. I don’t think many voters will place, say, Tim Burton at #1, then Sofia Coppola at #2, and then Tom Hooper. He doesn’t seem a likely beneficiary of the quirky vote. Anyway, my main point was that the strongest things about “The King’s Speech” do not include the direction. In a year with movies like “Black Swan,” “The Social Network,” “Another Year,” ‘127 Hours,” “Shutter Island,” “True Grit,” “Winter’s Bone,” “Somewhere,” and even “Inception,” which I didn’t much care for, it will be difficult for a poplular movie with no strong director’s imprint to register in the directors’ field, especially when the director, unlike Ron Howard or Lasse Halstroem, has no strong identify in Hollywood. It reminds me of “Driving Miss Daisy” but with a more obscure director.

  • 26 12-22-2010 at 1:15 pm

    Maxim said...

    I understand where you are coming from, Frank, and, to a certain extent find merit to what you are saying. I just think it’s possible that the directors branch might find more to respect in Hooper’s work then you think.
    Certainly, one could argue that we were in a similar territory with Attonement and that one didn’t get a BD nod. This might happen with King’s Speech. Or it might not, considering that Speech is a supposed “crowdpleaser” and a stronger BP contender than Attonement ever was. And a cinemotogrphy contender, too. That always helps.

    I wouldn’t place the guy near the top of my prediction list but I wouldn’t rule him out either.

    Completely on a side-note. And as for Sofia Coppola, you are probably right as unfortunate as it is. She is one of the best new directors around.

  • 27 12-22-2010 at 7:45 pm

    JTag said...

    “I love these roundtables. Anyone know why in the hell THR hasn’t bothered to provide a full video of the Producers? I’d watch it in a heartbeat.”

    I’m with you on that – the directors and producers ones always fascinate me the most because I’m not as informed about them as the actors. It’s fun to see the different personalities of the behind-the-scenes but above-the-line guys.

    Still upset the THR didn’t provide full video for last year’s roundtables. The transcripts showed a far funnier and different dynamic than the ones that appear in 2-3 minute segments.