Couldn't Be Happier, Really
The DGA noms cae in today and, for a change, I find myself emotionally moved by the nominations.
As always, it is likely that DGA will miss Oscar by 1 nominee. And this year, with so many tremendous directing efforts to consider, there is still a chance that there will be 2 to shift.
However, I am pretty damned happy with the five, with a tip of the hat to the boundaries of the awards season realities.
I have issues with Paul Thomas Anderson as a writer on There Will Be Blood, but there is no doubt that his work with Elswit behind that camera is spectacular. The Coens were the one gimme. Tony Gilroy had some chance of missing as a first-timer and a strong personality, but his work in – also with Elswit – is strong and assured in ways that are often underappreciated. Sean Penn’s loose camera style often makes people think what he did – with DP Eric Gautie, who is probably best known before here for the simialrly “loose” but amazing The Motorcycle Diaries and Kings & Queen – was easy. It isn’t. And Julian Schnabel, in visual partnership with Janusz Kaminski, did truly masterful work… even if it isn’t for everyone.
Missing from this group are the two shakiest BP assumptions, Atonement and Sweeney Todd. It’s not shocking that Joe Wright hasn’t been nominated for either of his two Oscar-chasing films. He is not a local and the films are not breathtakingly visual. Burton, on the other hand, always delivers an eyeful and he is a veteran, though also never DGA or Academy nominated.
The other two that were in heated contention were veterans Sidney Lumet and Ridley Scott.
Two years ago was the rare year when DGA matached both Academy Directors’ nods and Best Picture exactly. But last year and three years ago, the DGA nods matched Best Picture in 14 of 15 cases. And no one should be too shocked if that happens again this year.
Last year, the Little Miss Sunshine directors, nom’ed by DGA, were out at The Academy, though the picture was in… and the nomination was filled by a non-BP director (Paul Greengrass).
Three years ago, Finding Neverland director Mark Forster was pushed out at the Academy – though the film made it – by another non-BP director, MIke Leigh.
I would love to see Sidney Lumet in… but I can’t say I want to see any of the DGA nominees out.
The most vulnerable are probably Gilroy, Penn and Schnabel, none of who have been nom’ed before. And as I keep saying, it is a year of so many solid films that anything could happen.
(Last 3 years of DGA noms after the jump)
2007
The Departed – Martin Scorsese
Babel – Alejandro Gonz
Great list. Schnabel and Gilroy are certainly more deserving than Lumet. Just because you release a good film at age 85 or whatever doesn’t mean you should automatically receive laurels for it. The rest of these films had much more of an interesting visual element, even Gilroy’s effort.
I’m not a Tim Burton fan, but I wouldn’t have argued at his inclusion here, or Wright’s for that matter. But agreed, DP, a great lineup.
DP, I’m a little confused as to why you’re emphasizing cinematography and visuals so much regarding these awards. And surely Joe Wright’s work is more ‘breathtakingly visual’ than what Gilroy or Penn have done this year.
“last year and three years ago, the DGA nods matched Best Picture.”
Wait, what? Dreamgirls wasn’t nominated for picture last year. Am I reading this incorrectly?
Sorry ASD… got caught up in all the stats… 14 of 15 Best Pictures in the last 3 years matched the DGA nods for director.
Actually, J-Mc, can’t agree. Different, but not better.
That said, I think Wright did better with Atonement, though I think the editing was more significant than the directing in many cases.
But my point is that DGA tends to vote picture first, director second, unless there is an exceptional visual show.
Also, Confused-Mc, directors do not do a job that is easy to seperated from the crew. In the cases I note, the visual styles were strongly influenced by the collaboration between the directors and the DPs… and all of the directors acknowledge that. Penn did more hands-on operating and the like in his case, but that DP adapted to what Penn wanted, fast and hard, and it deserves mention.
Elswit and Deakins have had a remarkable place in this year’s awards season.
Well, these are both points worthy of discussion. Surely we all are on the ‘movies are visual’ page but it sounds like you’re priviliging the collaboration with the cinematographer at the expense of ignoring the collaborations with the producer/actors/editor etc. These are not American Beauty, where the movie’s visual structure was all but designed by the DP working for a visually inexperienced director, or Children of Men, where the director/DP relationship made the movie stand out strongly against several of the other films in a striking manner.
The other point re: Wright is pretty arguable. I see a lot more control and intentionality in Atonement than I do in the well-shot-but-still-by-a-first-timer Michael Clayton or the loose-and-rangey-and-inconsistent Into the Wild.
…which is not to say that I think Atonement is a better movie than MC or ItW, I think Gilroy and Penn, by virtue of what they did with actors and narrative, are slightly more worthy than Wright, but if we’re highlighting ‘visual command’ I think Wright has the advantage.
Pretty much the main thing Wright’s films have going for them are their visuals. I was never emotionally engaged with the romances in PRIDE & PREJUDICE and ATONEMENT, but I was mesmerized by the way Wright integrated light, sound and rhythm — some of which is a function of having a good DP, a good composer and a good editor, but most of which is due to the man making sure it all comes together.
That said, I was happy to see Penn included. I think his work on INTO THE WILD is stunning, in terms of its sensuality, its personal expression and its fluid storytelling. I’m not simpatico with Penn’s take on the story, but I still loved the film.
Pretty damn good list. Can’t wait to see There Will Be Blood this weekend.
Still have to see Diving Bell too.
Glad Penn got the recognition he deserves. ItW definitely sits with you longer than expected. A really well crafted story.
Also, I am glad that Lumet got shut out. Sorry, had to say it. The movie was good, but it wasn’t great. Kinda surprised Wright didn’t make it in, but that’s alright given the 5 that are there.
I’m with what Noel said. General dislike (on my end) of ATONEMENT stems from the poor acting which is partly the directors fault. And the visuals, although sometimes stunning, weren’t intergrated into the story seamlessly enough for me….they stood out like sore thumbs.
Great list though, me likey.
Would Penn winning the directing Oscar over the Coens be worse than Costner over Scorsese, or Redford over Scorsese?
Probably not, but it’s still gonna be painful if it happens.
The weak link here is Sean Penn, imo, hurts Atonement to miss here (and Joe Wright really deserved it, the film is a stunning achievement). On the otherhand Atonement pulled out an ASC nom, so it’s not dead yet. This may be a better indicator of BP (4 of 5 maybe?) than of Best director oscar nominations (3 of 5 I think)
and I guess the ‘couldn’t be happer’ refers to Dave’s unilateral support of Michael Clayton finally paying off?
yeah that’s probably not going to happen lazarus. But agreed, that would piss me off.
barring Julain Schnabel (cause I haven’t seen that movie), I absolutely agree with the other nominations. All amazing films.
I think this is the first year in a long time that the DGA hasn’t nominated a director for a film I detested or didn’t think was worthy. I think every one of those directors nominated did a swell job, all of them are artists in my opinion. I’m glad to see PTA and The Coens recognized especially and while I would have loved to have seen Fincher on there instead of perhaps Gilroy or Penn, I can live with it.
I think Joe Wright did great work, but I just don’t think the film is as good as the others. I have to disagree with you, Petaluma, about the acting which I thought was pretty top-drawer (except perhaps for the overrated Vanessa Redgrave scene) and I thought that tracking shot on the beach was pretty masterful. I didn’t think it was unnecessarily showy, just the best way to move the story forward. And that, I think, is what all the nominated directors have done. There is nothing especially flashy in the films, although they all contain bravura moments (the beginning of Diving Bell, the derrick fire in TWBB, etc.), but they all just push the story forward logically and in a satisfying way. That is, after all, what the director should be doing, directing everyone else to work to the best of their capabilities.
That “beach shot” on Atonement, or rather the reaction to it, pretty much crystalizes the problem with critics and movies and the “auteur theory” that we’ve all heard so much about.
My pov, it’s a bs theory, anyone who’s been on a film set of a significant budget would probably agree, but critics feed into that theory so much that the public goes a long.
Let’s speculate for a moment that a) Spielberg; b) Scorsese); c) Zemeckis had done that same shot in Atonement. the Critics would be gushing about it, going over the added prestige these name directors give to the film with amazing camera work..yadda yadda. But for Joe Wright it’s “Flashy”..?
set aside, I thought Atonement was brilliantly directed, but this is the Coen’s year. I’ll bet on it.
How does the long shot on the beach scene ‘move the story forward’ since it has nothing to do with the rest of the story?
Not really, Locke… I seem to recall writing what I meant… about all five films.
I am very happy for Tony Gilroy because I think he deserves it and people were getting off the bandwagon in recent weeks, distracted by all the new films. But I am also extremely happy for Sean Penn, whose soul is in every frame of that film… occasionally to distraction. I am thrilled for Schnabel, who has yet to make a film that isn
Well, it doesn’t surprise me that Wright and Atonement are getting pushed to the wayside when NCfOM, TWBB and ItW are so deeply about America, there’s just no room for an arch British old-fashioned “tale”. It’s such a small story comparatively. And that it’s British and filled with young beautiful people just handicaps it even more. Sad, but true if you ask me.
Somehow all these people are deciding that a story about an arrogant rich prick going walkabout in the forest is a more important and powerful story than lives torn apart by the power of fiction and the road we follow to reach inner peace. I’m not saying that they’re wrong, but I really do think that because Into the Wild is about America, it’s getting an easier time. Just like I am more inclined to like stories about Australia and British people are more inclined to like British stories – which explains why there has been no Atonement backlash over there.
Good for Gilroy, because I don’t think he’ll be getting that Oscar nod.
Petaluma, what performances in Atonement didn’t you like? For me only Romola Garai was weak. I loved Keira – I just love her diction and the way she speaks words like “come back to me” – James was very impressive and Siaorse Ronan and Vanessa Redgrave were excellent. The latter two had the right amount of brattiness and arrogance even at such opposite ends of the age spectrum.
I may be in minority here but I think that Sean Penn is a lot stronger candidate (at least for a nomination) than many here think.
We all know that AMPAS loves them actors turned directors. Especially, directors doing passionate, personal movies. In this case, we have someone who is clearly loved by the Academy and is doing objectively solid work. And I’m sorry but no Gustavo Santaolalla is also a plus in my book.
No, if I really had to pick one director who is a little shakier than the rest, that would be Gilroy. And I just don’t want to do it. I hope he’s just enjoying himself as he should.
Still, it’s hard not to stand back and just admire what DGA did here.
Kami-
I thought Kiera Knightly was dull and cold and…well…bland. And Joe McEvoy was the wrong choice to play that role. He wasn’t deep or gritty enough. Like….when he goes to war he’s suddenly transformed because he smokes cigs? Actually, I take that back sorta. I liked McAvoy in the first act…then he wasn’t deep enough.
jeff-
Couldn’t agree more about the tracking shot.
The tracking shot moves James McAvoy’s story forward. It shows us all the craziness and carnage that he has to witness as a result of the lie that is told about him. It wasn’t just him going to jail, it was what he had to endure and see for the rest of his life. That tracking shot encapsulates that aspect of the story, that the lie doesn’t just stop because he served his sentence. He continues to serve that sentence forever.
Sure, the tracking shot could have been broken up, but I didn’t think it was distracting at all. But the plot does not begin and end with just the lie, the atrocities he sees in the war is part of the plot and the tracking shot moves that aspect of the plot forward.
Interesting idea, but since the beach scene is what any soldier would see whether they had been brought into the Army out of prison or just volunteered to fight, which maybe he would have done anyway, it doesn’t seem very resonant. Maybe if the movie had tried to tie some kind of ‘betrayal’ theme as a common link between McAvoy and Keira on the one hand and Britain and WWII on the other hand it might have made sense, but that doesn’t hold up too well either.
It felt like a real tangent.
But the whole point is that he didn’t volunteer. As a result of that lie, he had all choices stripped from him. I suppose he had the choice to stay in prison, but that’s not really much of a choice. Sure, any soldier might have seen what he saw, but he was going to go to Oxford to be a doctor and probably would not have enlisted. Instead, he had to go and bear witness to the worst humanity had to offer rather than going to university and receiving the best of what humanity can offer (knowledge, hope, etc.). It might be a bit tangential, but I can see where it moves the plot forward.
I’m not a particularly huge fan of Atonement, by the way, but I just didn’t really have an issue with that scene. I suppose it all depends on how you view what the “plot” is; if you think Briony is the only important character, then it will definitely feel like a tangent.
Furthermore since you brought it up, Noah…what the hell was with the exclusion of the prison?? It’s just symptomatic of a shoddy flick with no coherence. I mean, it sets up this conceit that we’re going to be seeing things from different POV’s and then it totally abandons that after the first act. The film sets up this jaunty typewriter tempo and ditches that as well. If you go way, way out of your way to draw attention to this multiple POV, you damn well better have a reason for it! (And yes, I realize why it doesn’t continue and how it relates to POV…but it never should have started and that’s why it’s crappy).
I just saw McAvoy and Wright on my Tivo’s “Shootout” and Wright said he did the shot in a long take because he only had one day to shoot it because that was all they could afford. THAT’S why it feels forced and tacked on and show-offy…because it doesn’t belong.
I genuinely like McAvoy and Wright, they seem like talented, affable guys. I just think ATONEMENT isn’t very good and could have been much better. Maybe if they focused on quality and vision rather than churning something out in time for Oscar season they would have had something.
Noah, I see where you’re coming from, but the thing is, Dunkirk wasn’t exactly Auschwitz and Hitler was more to blame for him being there than Briony.
I have a hard time believing that ‘we only have one day to shoot this’ excuse. It sounds like poor producing/scheduling, because it had to have taken a week just to get all those guys there and the equipment and horses set up and then to suddenly realize “hey, we have to get this wrapped by sunset”? WTF?
Oh, Petaluma: I have a friend who works at Focus and he saw this movie when it was finished, last March, so they weren’t under some kind of ‘get this done for Awards season’ crunch.
Pet, that’s really condescending to the makers of Atonement and the people who actually geniunely like it.
Also, why is Atonement the season’s whipping boy? I can understand people not being as blown away by it as others, but the way people here are talking it’s as if this movie is one of the worst movies of the year.
Personally, I think Atonement is damn brilliant and I’ll have to see a goddamn masterpiece this year to top it. It’s been about a week since I saw it, and I can’t shake it out of my head.
And that tracking shot, much bandied in this thread as being showy or pointless, is one of the very best shots I can remember seeing for many years. Not for the sheer virtuosity (of which is has abundance) but for the emotional resonance (for me) and the richness of content. For me, just as Noah said, it encapsulates exactly how far ranging the consequences of that one lie were. With two films, Pride & Prejudice and Atonement, Wright has become a must-see for me.
I certainly don’t think it’s a ‘whipping boy’, beyond the fact that it was the dreaded ‘best picture frontrunner’ for a while and now it’s not. I think it’s a good movie and I mostly wanted to talk about what I see as its flaws because I just saw it a week ago.
I just had serious issues with it and I had high expectations to like it. I even saw it with Wright and McEvoy there for a Q&A and hearing people talk about a film can usually sway me or at least put me at ease if I have a malaise about a film. But as soon as the film ended I just felt blah about it and I stand by what I said above. I don’t think it’s a good film and I think we film fans have a sort of…predisposed Pavlovian reaction to “epics,” no matter how shoddy they are.
See, I think that’s the biggest hurdle the film has had to overcome right there; the presumption that it’s an “epic” simply because of time and place in which it is set. When it turns out to be little more than a simple character piece about three people, people are disappointed.
I don’t think the film is a masterpiece, but I think it’s solid. I enjoyed the time I spent watching it and didn’t feel burned by any aspect of it. I think Joe Wright is quite clearly, after his first two films, someone to watch. If it wins awards, I won’t be terribly moved in either direction. I’m glad the film exists, happy with the two hours I spent watching it and I have no need to ever view it again.
It’s not an “epic” in any sense of the word, nor did I walk into it thinking it was. Perhaps it was marketed differently in the US than here in Europe, I don’t know.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether it wins any awards at all. History, not awards, is what distinguishes the good ones from the mediocre ones as we all know. I’m just glad the film exists, happy with the two hours I spent watching and I have an incredible need to view it again and again once I get my hands on my own personal (hopefully HD) copy of it.
I guess, for me, it’s just that I really liked the idea of Atonement getting a big haul of Oscar nominations because, for once, I actually anticipated the big preordained “frontrunner” and ended up really likinb it and it seems like such an easy nomination. Yet a bunch of overtly masculine movies (there’s no denying that, right?) seem to have made it uncool to like this small intimate little drama from Britain.
Oh well. I’ll continue adoring the characters of Atonement while wishing Supertramp would’ve died at least an hour earlier.