Russell, Hooper make DGA slate

Posted by · 9:24 am · January 10th, 2011

And it is as it should have been expected.  The question now is, will it match Oscar’s five 100%?

It’s worth noting that “True Grit” is a late bloomer and the DGA have had ballots since late November.  If they went in early, and seeing as you can’t send screeners to the membership, it’s possible a number of voters didn’t see it before submitting.  But these are a strong five and I don’t know who would drop out.

The instinct for some is Tom Hooper, but there’s no reason to think that would happen, honestly.  It’s doing just fine.  David O. Russell is the one a lot of people didn’t expect to see here, so that might be a decent call.  But his nomination today should be enough to dispel the notion that a shaky industry rep would keep him out of the game this season.  Or is it?

Whatever the case, I simply have to stop underestimating “Black Swan.” It’s my favorite film in the hunt, yet I’ve been surprised by the willingness to embrace it at every turn.  Anyway, check out the DGA nominees at The Circuit.

[Photo: The Weinstein Company]




→ 63 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

63 responses so far

  • 1 1-10-2011 at 2:04 pm

    Supreme 8 said...

    ”It probably contributed to this effect but decisions like this are never based on just movie, especially one that was snubbed.”

    They had never received such a backlash like then.Nothing comes even close to it.

    TDK was snubbed in 2008,they changed the rules for the next ceremony.It’s not a coincidence at all.

  • 2 1-10-2011 at 2:14 pm

    Cordy said...

    Deeks, I would love to believe that Black Swan is as strong as the others, as I think it is the best of the year, but I don’t see that happening.

    I am just happy Aronofsky is getting noms everywhere because I was afraid this would be one of those years where the true star of a movie is ignored because the film can be deemed ‘genre’

  • 3 1-10-2011 at 2:46 pm

    Michael W. said...

    It’s quite funny that Aronofsky was supposed to direct The Fighter (he’s also credited as executive producer), and then when he left, Russell took over, Aronofsky made Black Swan, and now they’re both in contention for these big awards!

  • 4 1-10-2011 at 2:53 pm

    Maxim said...

    “They had never received such a backlash like then.Nothing comes even close to it.”

    Supreme8, you may feel strongly about this but it doesn’t make it fact. I assure, the history of Oscarts had known bigger upsets than that.

    I repeat that decisions of that nature never come down to just one snubbed film.

  • 5 1-10-2011 at 2:59 pm

    darklayers said...

    To those who contend the ten was primarily a result of TDK’s snub, consider this interview in 2008 (before TDK came out) from Bruce Davis:

    “http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/02/28/conversation-wi/
    Consider this exchange with Bruce Davis in early 2008:

    Everyone has theories about what caused the ratings drop. Some
    say it was the movies. Some say the lack of stars. Some say the
    writers’ strike hurt the award season. What do you think caused this?
    I don’t think the writers’ strike had much to do with it. I think Jon
    Stewart did a terrific job. The things we could control went pretty
    well. The length of the show was good. We had some really memorable
    acceptance moments. I do think, finally, that the trend of the studios
    making big action pictures and the specialty houses making small,
    prestige movies is sort of catching up to us.

    How so?
    Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience,
    frankly. And if we have moved into an era where there’s this dichotomy
    between big popular studio movies and smaller pictures for more
    specialized audiences, we may just have to get used to smaller
    audiences [for the Oscar telecast.] This could be a one-year blip but
    it doesn’t look like one. It looks like something that has been
    developing over the past few years. It’s as if the National Book Awards
    had to make a choice between giving awards to very serious fiction or
    to the most popular bestsellers. We’ve come to that point where there
    are two kinds of movies, and we’re focusing on the ones which, almost
    by definition, aren’t going to be blockbusters.”

    (I’ve mention this before).

    Moreover, ALL BUT ONE YEAR from 1955-the ROTK victory in 2004, one of the BP nods was among the top ten grossing movies of the year. This wasn’t the case when Million Dollar Baby, Crash, The Departed No Country for Old Men, and Slumdog Millionaire won. (If anyone cares, the year “Amadeus” won was the exception prior to MDB’s victory).

    One snub can’t account for trends of this volume and magnitude.

  • 6 1-10-2011 at 3:56 pm

    daveylow said...

    Why can’t people just accept that viewers really like The King’s Speech? And we’ve heard over and over that Academy members like the film. So I think Hooper will definitely get a nod. And it’s very likely it will be these five. If not, I think Russell will go for the Coens. And it’s still possible Boyle will replace someone else.

  • 7 1-10-2011 at 3:59 pm

    daveylow said...

    @Deeks–though Black Swan is getting nominated everywhere, I think there are some people that HATE the film so I don’t know if it’s in the top three.

  • 8 1-10-2011 at 5:13 pm

    JR said...

    I don’t see why Hooper would be overlooked, especially if TKS rakes in the nominations. Hooper’s work for HBO has given him an Emmy win (Elizabeth with Helen Mirren) and nominations (John Adams, Longford).

  • 9 1-10-2011 at 5:44 pm

    ninja said...

    Hooper won`t be overlooked and TKS isn`t the frontrunner or a runner up. Enough with that urban legend. It`s going to win Best Actor and that`s it. It`s a dying breed of an Oscar bait. used to win once but now nom is an award. TSN and Fincher are unstoppable. Nolan is going to be nominated and AMPAS may even throw him a bone with the Best Original Script or Best Editing win. Maybe. Likely not. But he is in because he and his movie are too big to ignore. Even Ernest Borgnines who don`t get Inception get that much. Granik, Cholodenko, insert female director du jour will sit this one out because last year`s “historic win” was a gimmick based on a good tabloid story of duelling exes and amusing fact that a woman made a tough guy movie (which would`ve been largely ignored had it been directed by a male director). Now since nobody, especially AMPAS members, are watching the last year`s winner, it`s time for business as usual which is very easy to do since one of the ladies made a really averige family diatribe called TKAA, so at least 5 guys deserve to get in over her.

  • 10 1-10-2011 at 9:45 pm

    Collin said...

    Ninja, I don’t completely agree with you, but I love the way you put things!

  • 11 1-11-2011 at 3:24 pm

    ninja said...

    Thank you, Collin!

  • 12 8-05-2014 at 4:42 pm

    Beni said...

    …It’s incredible to me that otsrweihe patriotic Americans can’t see that Saving Private Ryan is an anti-war movie. Most of the critics who reviewed it stated so and if I am not mistaken, Spielberg himself alluded to it being anti-war. I don’t like dishonest anti-war movies.”I would agree that it is an anti-war movie. Spielberg’s great triumph in making saving Private Ryan was in making one of the few – perhaps the only – anti-war movies that really works as an anti-war movie. As someone once said, I forget who (it might have been Stanley Kubrick), most anti-war movies don’t work because they end up being too exciting. “Apocalypse Now” was made as an anti-war movie, and a more thrilling advertisement for going to war is hard to imagine.Spielberg, by actually showing the carnage of war, was attempting to do something different. Yes, war is exciting, but it can also lead to you – not just somebody – but you getting your head popped open like a melon, or having your guts spilled out all over the ground, or simply being blasted into bits by 20 mm cannon shells. I think this film should be shown to every 16 year old boy who imagines that war is glorious. Spielberg should get a Nobel Peace Prize for making it.And I disagree with your belief that it is somehow subversive. the soldiers in WWII were not scripted caricatures from a propaganda movie. They were real men, who had thier own motivations, chief among them to get home alive. I saw nothing strange in the movie’s portrayal of the soldiers motivations.That being said, apart from the attempt at verisimilitude, it wasn’t that great a movie. The story was made up, and the script, in my opinion, weak. “Band of Brothers” (co-produced by Spielberg and Hangs) was a much better production. One should also note that neither SPR nor BoB presents the german soldiers as evil comic-book villains, but rather also as soldiers doing thier duty as they see it.My one point of contention with Spielberg and Hanks in having made these paens to the “Greatest Generation” is the implied patronizing insult that it casts at that generation – that they were only interesting because they fought and suffered and died – not for what they stood for. Both Spielberg and Hanks are doctrinaire Hollywood liberals. Most WWII vets are not cool with the sort of standard liberal views that Spielberg and Hanks espouse – gay marriage, or forced school integration, or the coddling of illegal aliens. Thinking that those vets were such great men, you’d think that Spielberg and Hanks might actually be concerened with what they thought about those matters – that they might have some respect for the traditional America to which those old guys swore thier loyalty.

  • 13 3-05-2015 at 4:57 pm

    Parejitas said...

    It’s incredible to me that owhirtese patriotic Americans can’t see that Saving Private Ryan is an anti-war movie. Most of the critics who reviewed it stated so and if I am not mistaken, Spielberg himself alluded to it being anti-war. I don’t like dishonest anti-war movies. If he wants to highlight the pointlessness of all wars, then let him focus on some Soviet adventure. All the positive stuff people imagine seeing in SPR is just their own assumptions and context which they bring to the movie. The movie itself is, again, is an episode of Saw. Nothing more. Well except it denigrates the warriors of WWII.The Hanks character explicitly states he could care less about any of the official motives for the war he just wants to save Private Ryan so he can go home. In other words, he has something close to a mercenary motive. Here in fact is his sole motivation that he reveals in a speech:”I don’t know anything about Ryan. I don’t care. Man means nothin’ to me. It’s just a name. But if — you know — if going to Ramel and finding him so he can go home, if that earns me the right to get back to my wife — well, then, then that’s my mission.You wanna leave? You wanna go off and fight the war? Alright. Alright, I won’t stop you. I’ll even put in the paperwork. I just know that every man I kill the farther away from home I feel.”Whoo hoo! He really loves America! How noble! He supports the war effort! C’mon guys. You are so starved from some movie that is vaguely noble about WWII that you make a purse out of a sow’s ear. This is as pro-American and honors veterans the way Bruce Springsteen’s song Born in the USA honors America not at all. In fact, just the opposite.