• Ben Affleck discusses “The Town” across the pond. [Daily Telegraph]
• The Best Picture race begins to take shape for Sasha Stone. [Awards Daily]
• Michael Cieply talks to Kevin Spacey about his work as “Casino Jack” and his involvement with “The Social Network.” [New York Times]
• Donna Freydkin talks “Brothers” and transitioning to an adult role with Natalie Portman. [USA Today]
• Laura M. Holson talks to Tom Ford and others about the former Gucci creative director’s feature film debut, “A Single Man.” [New York Times]
• Roger Ebert four-stars “Up in the Air.” [Chicago Sun-Times]
It’s a few days old, but I only just got to this excellent Guardian piece in which Danny Leigh wonders whether Hollywood studio executives are done a disservice by the widespread perception of them as ruthless corporate shills with little sense of artistic responsibility. (An image best typified in semi-fictional form, of course, by Kevin Spacey’s Scott Rudin-inspired honcho in “Swimming With Sharks.”)
Arguing that the media is complicit in the dominance of auteur theory, by championing only the directors of critical hits while vilifying the backers of cynical commercial drek in the “Transformers” vein, Leigh fears that a number of dedicated studio heads — several of whom put a lot of time and resources into nurturing new, offbeat filmmaking talent — are getting the short end of the stick.
By far the boldest, baldest expression of auteur identity I’ve seen in recent times came in the opening credits of Lars von Trier’s “Antichrist.” It’s a sequence that consists of precisely two emphatically scrawled title cards — “Lars von Trier” and “Antichrist” — in that order. No actors, no production credits, no “a film by,” nothing. Lars von Trier. Antichrist.
It’s an insistent, slightly tongue-in-cheek declaration of full creative ownership — the film that follows is entirely the product of his own imagination, and all other collaborators are merely at the service of his vision. It may strike some as an arrogant, even hostile, approach, but it drives home the point that he’s one of the few contemporary filmmakers who can legitimately claim the title “auteur” — the term coined by New Wave doyen Francois Truffaut to assert the rise of directorial control in a previously producer-centered artform.
How many directors in the current film lanscape can boast that kind of brand-name power? It’s a question raised by critic Kaleem Aftap in an interesting — and highly debatable — piece in today’s Independent, in which he argues that, in America at least, the notion of auteurism is on the way out:
Films directed by Truffaut himself, Jean-Luc Godard, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola (used to be) must-see events. At its height, the draw of the auteur was such that films by the Italian modernist Michelangelo Antonioni would regularly appear in the top 25 box-office hits of the year. The right director’s name on a poster was enough to sell tickets and what the directors would do next was something to be genuinely excited about. Now barely any film is sold on the director’s name alone.
My recent article on Clint Eastwood drew an excellent response from Nathaniel Rogers (a regular commenter) that led me to this article. In that piece, I make clear my admiration for Eastwood, his artistry and the fact I believe him to be among the three finest directors working in movies. I stand by that, because I do not feel every film a director makes needs to be a masterpiece, as long as they are growing and continually trying to reach for something new. Even the greatest of artists fail, and in fact they learn more from failure than they ever do success.
Before the knives are drawn and tossed my way I will remind all that this is my list, just an opinion. I have selected what I believe to be the finest 10 directors working in the English language (five today, five tomorrow). I am positive that there will be disagreement, but that’s what keeps the world turning. Bear in mind that one film does not a genius make, and that a body of work (at least four films) was essential for the list.
With that, the filmmakers…
• Dave Karger responds to the “Soloist” slide. [Oscar Watch]
• Seven favorite screen Presidents. In total agreement on #1. [Cinematical]
• A welcome respite from the vitriol you might have come across elsewhere, New York Magazine runs an intern’s review of the “Road” screening that happened in the Big Apple this week. Does that qualify as “AICN-style” as well? [Vulture]
• A brief history of the Bond villain. [The Independent]
• “Once”: a broadway musical. [Culture Monster]
• Spike Lee carries his loud and off-base message overseas. [The Guardian]
• Charting the true crime history of “Changeling”‘s Collins kidnapping. [Los Angeles Times]
• Setting out to define what “best” picture means. [Awards Daily]
• A sweet profile of Paul Thomas Anderson approximately 10 months after it would have really done him some good. [Esquire]
• David Hinckley recycles the same old “it’s too early” argument regarding “W.” [New York Daily News]
• But has Hollywood gone too easy on our Commander-in-Chief? [Slate]
• Joe Morgenstern conveys the joy of ensemble films. [Wall Street Journal]
• Why Eddie Marsan deserves an Oscar nomination. [The Playlist]
• Cast your revote for the Best Actress contenders of 1983 in the much bally-hooed Oscar Revote. [Pop Watch]
• One night only…ABC wants to bump the Oscars to March. [Variety]
• David Poland finally reviews some Toronto films. [The Hot Button]
• Breaking down a Wired cover story, starring Charlie Kaufman. [Wired]
• Aaron Eckhart is four-square against the idea of recasting the Joker in Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise. James Franco and Michael C. Hall can stop holding their breaths. [MTV]
• More parsing of the “Burn After Reading” numbers. Why isn’t it obvious? Brad Pitt + George Clooney = $$$. [Risky Biz Blog]
• Patrick Goldstein mines this month’s issue of Esquire for clues about Paul Thomas Anderson’s childhood. [The Big Picture]
• Ten movies to watch when feeling the financial crunch. [Spout Blog]
• From the rumor mill: Rome’s mayor wants to ban “W.” from showing at the city’s upcoming film festival? Forced denial and all. [The Guardian]
Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Stanley Kubrick, Preston Sturges, Ernest Lubitsch, Hal Ashby, Alan J. Pakula, Sidney Lumet, Spike Lee, Paul Thomas Anderson.
Collectively they represent some of the greatest directors in the history of the cinema, and together they share one rather unbelievable fact…not one of them is a Academy Award winner for Best Director.
Each has the distinction of nominee, of course. But to think that filmmakers such as James Cameron (The King of the World, remember?), Richard Attenborough, Ron Howard, Sir Carol Reed (for “Oliver,” man?), John G. Avilden, Michael Cimino, Robert Benton, Robert Redford, Robert Wise (for “The Sound of Music??”) and George Roy Hill, to name a few, have Oscars on their mantles and the giants above do not is simply insane to me.