MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


It’s been one of those crazed, computerless days.

I’m not shocked by the nominations. No, it’s not good for True Grit‘s Best Picture winning odds. You have to go back to 2001 and 1999 to find DGA Achievement In Motion Pictures winners whose films didn’t win Best Picture (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Saving Private Ryan)… and in both cases, the Best Picture winner was one of the other nominees.

I would say that Fincher is a stone lock to win this award.

Be Sociable, Share!

15 Responses to “DGA”

  1. IOv3 says:

    I would disagree 100 percent. It’s either Hooper or Nolan. I would go with Nolan just because the guy has gone out of his way with the DGA and that has to eventually lead to him getting their top award.

  2. actionman says:

    Fincher wins it for TSN and his entire body of work.

  3. IOv3 says:

    I would agree with you if it were not for the obvious impression that the DGA likes Fincher as much as they like co-director credits. Nolan goes out of his way for the DGA and Hooper had a standard story as well and directed it better. If Fincher wins, I would be shocked.

  4. JoshMorgan says:

    Hang on. Six days ago, when the PGA noms came out, DP looked ahead to the DGA and said this: “Fincher, Coens, Aronofsky, Nolan, Russell… Real surprise would be Affleck or Tom Hooper.”

    So now it’s Hooper, and he’s “not shocked.” But he must be, um, real surprised, right?

  5. Joe Leydon says:

    Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Right, David?

  6. IOv3 says:

    You would think Josh but David is a peculiar guy. What he has to be shocked about is what this does to True Grits chances because where the Directors go, usually the Academy follows as he stated, so yeah, he’s surprised. He’s got to be surprised.

  7. David Poland says:

    Hooper is a surprise, but a minor one.

  8. IOv3 says:

    David, get on board The King’s Speech train. COME ON RIDE THE TRAIN! AND RIDE IT! COME ON RIDE THE TRAIN! AND RIDE IT!

  9. yancyskancy says:

    As I said in the BYOB thread before seeing this one, most critics I respect seemed underwhelmed by Hooper’s direction, even if they liked THE KING’S SPEECH. I thought maybe he’d be the one left out. But I guess I’ll go ahead and guess that the Coens make the Oscar cut, with maybe Russell getting the snub.

  10. IOv3 says:

    Yancy, did those same critics love Fincher’s direction in TSN? Seriously, Hooper takes something that any other director would make very flat and standard Brit film way, and tweaks it in a way that’s just not seen in similar films.

    Now, sure, the Coens could get the nom over Russell, but they just got there’s recently. Am I really alone in thinking that will have some effect on their chances of winning anything this time around?

  11. The Pope says:

    I agree. You would think that winning so recently would not affect the Coens’ chances of winning again. I mean, after all the Guild is voting for Best of the Year… not “Best of the Year if you haven’t won in the last few years.”

    I think Hooper’s direction of TKS is very measured and because of that seems not to be heavily directed. Somewhat similar to Driving Miss Daisy or Little Miss Sunshine; films where the direction doesn’t come straight at you (i.e., all the light nuance of say, Darren Aronofksy!). But Hooper’s direction is nonetheless very good and is deserving of the nomination.

  12. IOv3 says:

    Ladies and gents, our blog has been hacked. HUZZAH!

  13. Kerry Frey says:

    I’ve commented on this site – and on Wells’ site as well that part of the Oscar season fun is watching David & Jeffrey duke it out (digitally – right up to Oscar night) for their favorite. The Coen’s loss here certainly takes some of the air out of that balloon – but the balloon hasn’t popped just yet. Oh it’s floating real low running out of helium – but it hasn’t popped.

  14. cadavra says:

    Y’know, “Directing” isn’t always about flashy camerawork and show-offy editing. Sometimes it’s just about conveying a story well and bringing the most of the actors. THE KING’S SPEECH certainly qualifies on that basis.

  15. Stoogey says:

    The examples cited (Crouching Tiger, Private Ryan) were from the era of only five BP nominees. Doesn’t the expansion to ten make the comparison kinda moot? Is the director’s branch of the Academy really big enough to sway the BP award?

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon