MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

DGA

What can one say?

Some choices seem a little odd. But again, from a very small pool. Zzzzz…

I am kind of amused that not a single Guru picked Fincher to get nominated. Just goes to show…

Be Sociable, Share!

34 Responses to “DGA”

  1. JS Partisan says:

    Okay, seriously, when the Artist tanks in the upcoming weeks. This has to go to Scorcese, right?

  2. Ivan says:

    Woody Allen, I think… Never say never!

  3. chris says:

    Sadly, it’s more likely Payne

  4. actionman says:

    A travesty that Malick was snubbed. Zero class amongst the entire DGA not to nominate him. But it just goes to show how jealous and petty everyone is in the industry. Scorsese makes a totally uneven kids movie and Fincher does a perfectly fine genre piece and they both get attention over Malick, who created one of the greatest, most personal, most gorgeous works of art of all time? Fucking puhleezeee….

  5. JS Partisan says:

    Woody getting it would be different. I just can sort of feel like Hugo getting some love because everything has tanked, so why not support something like Hugo which loves movies?

  6. Ivan says:

    Allen, Scorsese, Payne… whoever wins is fine with me. As long as we don’t have another Tom Hooper situation with Hazanavicius!

  7. alynch says:

    “Zero class amongst the entire DGA not to nominate him.”

    Unless nobody in the entire DGA voted for him, that’s a pretty silly statement to make.

  8. LexG says:

    No Spielberg, no Jeff Nichols, no Von Trier, no Refn, no McQueen?

    I guess the best movies of 2011 directed themselves.

  9. Triple Option says:

    Do you think commercial success/Woody Allen revival helped give him the nod? If Midnight grosses only like $15-$20M do you think he’d still be among the finalists?

  10. cadavra says:

    I can’t believe they snubbed the man who directed not one but two of the year’s most outstanding pictures.

    I’m speaking, of course, of Dennis Dugan, who gave us both JUST GO WITH IT and JACK AND JILL.

  11. berg says:

    you can laugh all you want but JACK & JILL is a comic masterpiece ….. what about that scene where Pacino is doing King Richard on stage and he answers his cell phone because he thinks it’s Jill calling, and then he starts doing lines from The Godfather ….. J&J power

  12. movieman says:

    whoever wins is fine with me. As long as we don’t have another Tom Hooper situation with Hazanavicius!

    That’s precisely what’s going to happen, Ivan

  13. J says:

    14,500 people is a small pool?

  14. Ivan says:

    @movieman: Yes, I know that’s going to happen, but we can still dream, right?

  15. David Poland says:

    Small pool of potential nominees. not voters.

  16. JS Partisan says:

    Movieman and Ivan, yeah it’s not going to happen. The Artist is DOA. If it’s not right now, when it goes wide and flops like everything else, this will hopefully guarantee something crazy happens. Also, don’t insult Tom Hooper. You shameful people.

  17. David Poland says:

    1. A bit unfait to Tom Hooper.
    2. The beef with Hooper winning is that he made a pretty straightforward film and it wasn’t a “director’s film.” This is, again, a bit unfair. But I get the beef.
    3. The Artist, whether you like it or not, is truly A Hazanavicius Film. He conceived it, wrote it, and directed it.

    If you think The Artist is the best film, MH deserves the Oscar. If you don’t, than someone else does.

    But the idea of comparing the two is unfair and not well considered.

  18. lazarus says:

    This is particularly directed at Actionman:

    While I think it’s a travesty that Malick wasn’t nominated here, keep in mind that the majority of the people who vote in the DGAs are marginally-talented hacks, most of whom work in television. They wouldn’t know (or understand) great cinema if it bit them in the ass.

    So I’m not really surprised here. The directing branch of the Academy is significantly more sophisticated (this is the group who nominated the little-known Kielslowski for Red) and it’s still possible this oversight can be corrected.

  19. cadavra says:

    Why would it be so horrible if Hazanavicus won? Do you have any clue how difficult it is to make a black-and-white silent movie in an age where over 90% of the audience has never seen one, much less do it so well that most of that audience immediately connects with it? Taking away actors’ voices deprives them of an important tool. The cast’s ability to make us feel for their characters with nothing more than their faces and body language is to me a far greater achievement than dropping a reel of JURASSIC PARK into a faux Douglas Sirk melodrama.

  20. JS Partisan says:

    Larry Blamire, if the movie dies in a couple of weeks, which it probably will seeing as people were excited to see it in freaking NOVEMBER, then giving it to Marty or Woody would make more sense. Now, you might not appreciate highly stylized cgi dinosaurs dealing with the troubles of 1950s America Larry, but some of us would find that incredibly difficult to pull off. HOW DARE YOU NOT FEEL THE SAME XD!

  21. Joey says:

    I find it incredible that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy didn’t catch on with critics and guilds. It’s a remarkable film. Certainly one of the best of the year.

    Alongside other “difficult” films like Melancholia, Martha Marcy Mae Marlene, The Skin I Live in, et al, it has been overshadowed for The Artist? Hugo? Descendants? … Weird.

    I guess it’s the year of lighter fare.

  22. chris says:

    I don’t love “The Artist” but I’d totally defend Hazanavicius against being “another Hooper.” Hooper — so far — may seen to be workmanlike and unproven but Hazanavicius has a track record and a point of view. His directorial stamp is all over “Artist” as well as the “O.S.S.” films.

  23. waterbucket says:

    Hooper should give back his Oscar because he casts Taylor Swift to be one of the leads in his new movie.

  24. MarkVH says:

    “Sadly, it’s more likely Payne”

    Whoa whoa whoa, let’s get one thing straight here: Payne would be a fantastic choice for Best Director. Regardless of whether you think The Descendants is his best film or far from it (I happen to think it’s his best), he’s LONG overdue for a statue and has built a body of work that’s more than earned it. He directed the shit out of The Descendants, and he’s my #1 choice, easily.

  25. Glamourboy says:

    Tom Hooper made a movie that worked on just about every level. The direction never took away from the action or the story of the film. Not like Speilberg who over-directed War Horse to within an inch of its life..where every frame you are watching a Speilberg movie, and not watching a story unfold.

  26. movielocke says:

    The Artist won’t flop because Weinstein won’t expand it much until the actual oscars. Until then it will keep chugging along at 5000-7000 psa on less than 150 screens in the major cities. the friday after it wins, The Artist will expand to 900-1200 theatres, play for 1-2 weeks to middling returns (1200-2000 psa, doubtful it’ll get more than that) and then trickle off in screens and returns to become a jeopardy question for the public at large. in about twenty years, critics will ‘re’discover the film and wonder at how on earth such a monumental and unique work of art was ever able to elbow into the middlebrow oscar race.

    The Artist will flop after it goes wide, not before. and it still will have made 20 million. which I think is more than Hurt Locker managed.

  27. yancyskancy says:

    JS: cadavra is not Larry Blamire.

  28. cadavra says:

    JS, I know you were teasing, but just to be on the safe side with others: I’m not Larry Blamire.

  29. Ivan says:

    @movielocke: I think Weinstein will expand weekend after the nominations are announced, cause even he is not sure if it will win best picture. So take the money and run… not quite! The per-screen-average for “The Artist” was $6,512 in 172 theaters, less than “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” ($6,772 in 809 theaters), so the future is not looking so bright. It looks like it is not catching up nicely, even with all the awards, nominations…
    @cadavra: Yes, it is impossible to make a silent movie in USA, but it is possible in Europe, as it happens. I had nice time watching “The Artist”, it made me laugh, but didn’t make me think about it very much after that. Don’t feel the need to watch it again. You said “Taking away actors’ voices deprives them of an important tool” and I immediately thought of Holly Hunter in “The Piano”. But they are uncomperable (I still feel the need to watch Jane Campion’s masterpiece from time to time… and enjoy it more and more each time).
    And just to add something considering Woody Allen. I am very pleased he is getting all this attention, maybe some teenager will see it accidently, probably won’t understand who are the characters in it, but like it and google who Gertrude Stein or Luis Bunuel was. And maybe he’ll feel the need to watch another Woody Allen movie and then discover the joy of watching “The Purple Rose of Cairo” or “Manhattan”. Wouldn’t it be nice?

  30. cadavra says:

    THE PIANO is not really a valid comparison. It’s a sound film in which one character is mute (and even then she narrates the story). Hunter is tremendous, no doubt, but she’s in a natural-audio environment with actors who do speak; it’s not quite as difficult as being in a movie with no sound at all.

  31. Ivan says:

    All I am trying to say is that it must have been much harder to make movies like “The Artist” ninety years ago… without the technology Hazanavicius had (imagine D. W. Griffith with digital equipment). Nothing new, just haven’t seen it for the last 80 years!

  32. leahnz says:

    film acting is in the eyes

  33. Joe Leydon says:

    Am I the only one who thought The Artist kinda-sorta stepped on its own punchline? I mean, it’s supposed to be a surprise when you find out in the final moments that the title character has avoided making talking pictures because he has a French accent — right? But this revelation comes off so hasty and off-handed — to me, at least — that I’ll bet the joke goes right over the heads of many people. Even people who like the film.

  34. yancyskancy says:

    Joe: I haven’t seen THE ARTIST yet, but I’ve seen several comments to the effect that there doesn’t seem to be a clear explanation of his unwillingness to make talkies. So maybe some people are indeed missing this revelation you speak of.

The Hot Blog

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