Amour, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Misérables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty
This is the intersection of that list with the Best Director nominees:
Amour,
Much has been made of the, ahem, snubs (DRINK!) in this category, but the Academy had the decency to put every Best Director nominee into the Best Picture discussion. Of course you don't step there with Best Picture, they add a few more flicks because . . . why the hell not? Like Wesley Morris, I don't think that snub is the right word. There is a size mismatch and that means some poor bastards, who made excellent movies, just won't make the cut. Let's ask ourselves why.
Tom Hooper lost out because, you know, Russell Crowe. Even if every other choice Hooper made was perfect (and it wasn't, thanks to his DP on amphetamines approach), Russell Crowe's casting torpedoed every shot at making this list. Horrible decision and that's all on one Tom Hooper, director.
It is clear to me that Kathryn Bigelow was not nominated for Zero Dark Thirty because she already won for this movie when it was called The Hurt Locker. A director gets the nod for their style and she did not change enough of her style to get a good streak going. No one has bucked this trend without seriously shifting gears. Eastwood's run comes to mind but, then again, he also made two completely different movies (Million Dollar Baby, still high in the running for worst movie title ever, and Mystic River). It's a shame because Zero Dark Thirty is better in a whole lot of ways, not the least dealing with weightier and much wider ranging subject matter.
Aside: if you are offended by the depictions of torture in this movie, then you have not seen Django Unchained and your opinion is worthless.
Of the four films whose directors did not get recognized, Django Unchained has the most going for it: a distinct voice, difficult issues, great performances, popular at the box office. The biggest problem is the violence and it kept Scorcese out forever as well. The bald fact is that the Academy is pretty mainstream and the extreme edges of cinema don't usually get recognized and that ain't changing. It's actually kind of a miracle that anyone is using "Quentin Tarantino" and "Oscar snub" in the same sentence. The Academy might not come all the way around until long after QT is done, but they have come mighty far in the last twenty years, I will give them that.
That brings us to Argo. I am reluctant to say this, so . . . if you love Argo, you should skip this paragraph and just keep on believing that Argo got jobbed and stupid Academy. I'll wait. I'll even give you a few sentences to make up your mind, because I value your opinion. Even if I don't agree with it. Because Argo is not a brilliant film. I compare it to the best suit you can buy at Macy's. It's a fine suit, cut looks good, good quality, name brand. There is nothing wrong with it as a suit . . . until you call it the best suit money can buy, which is flat out not true. Argo was wonderful to watch, I enjoyed the crap out of it. Affleck directed it well, it's well-crafted, and full of good decisions but . . . it's not a movie that is about anything other than the story of these hostages. I often found it predictable, well-executed, but . . . predictable. I think workman-like is a great comment and a huge compliment to Affleck and that no one should even be considering him for Best Director. I have zero problem with Affleck not being on this list given who else made this list. As much as I wish David O. Russell wasn't on it.
I loved Silver Linings Playbook. It's extremely hard to handle a story about mental illness that doesn't veer into pat, cheap, and easy solutions about mental illness and Silver Linings manages to hold off on pat, cheap, and easy until the very very end. Right up until then there are all kinds of crazy people and there is very little normal. And a ton of sports fandom, non-ridiculed, legit sports love. Unfortunately, this movie just doesn't have anything at stake other than the Solitano family and Tiffany (also the ending is such gratuitous wish-fulfillment - I wanted it for the characters, but sometimes when you make a great movie, you have to make choices for your characters that the viewer will not want - see Amour). Fun film, challenging material, well executed. But not on the same level as Taratino, who in addition to all the revenge and the killing and the repartee, made a film that was really about representations of race and America's perception of itself. And also lots of bullets and blood.
There are three movies that have serious depth, deal with all kinds of complicated issues and are brilliantly executed. Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour, and Lincoln. The most likely to win is Lincoln, thanks to that idea that the Best Picture was made by the Best Director and Lincoln is the big time favorite for Pic. Spielberg had a really difficult task in making routine political business seem interesting and consequential enough to deserve fiction film treatment and he dispatches it with flair. Every scene in Congress is riveting and loaded with subtext. Daniel Day Lewis inhabits the roles of Lincoln as if he could talk to the man himself (now that's Method). It's good, it's really good, and I wouldn't be mad if Spielberg won it, which is good because he probably will.
But I would much rather see Amour or Beasts of the Southern Wild win because they are on another level entirely. Michael Haneke made a pitiless and unsentimental movie about an age-old fear (see what I did there? Age-old fear about being old, get it? GET IT?!) and a contemporary societal theme (aging and the quality of life). Every single frame of this film matters. It is hewn out of stone, cold, cold stone. It's claustrophobic, unflinchingly realistic, unsparing, and absolutely relevant. It does not indulge in a single extravagant emotion. There is not one shot wasted. It's almost certainly not going to win because it is so completely foreign, so remote; I just don't think Academy voters will connect with it (the audience I saw it with were certainly unprepared for it) and I accept that. It will almost certainly take Best Foreign Film, which is consolation of sorts.
But my Best Director, and Best Picture, belong to Benh Zeitlin and Beasts of the Southern Wild. This movie is so vibrant, so pulsing with life. Benh Zeitlin took challenging source material and made it live on screen and he used completely amateur actors and he made them look brilliant. It's visually stunning, emotionally resonant, and it means more than what it shows. It tackles giant issues like modernity and romanticism versus utilitarianism. He looks fondly at life on the margins, not as a problem to be solved, but as a rich source of hope for humanity. It's so resolutely American, a dream of what could be, what can be done . . . these characters absorb profound assaults on their world, then they survive, and keep on surviving. I really love this movie and I really love what the director accomplished. Fact is, most people missed this in theaters, but it is now available for rent from your friendly neighborhood digital movie dispensary and you should just do yourself a favor and see it (at 93 minutes, it is by far the shortest of those nominated in this category). Just see it.
So yes, I understand the groundswell for #AffleckWasRobbed and I wish #Argo the best, and now they have a bunch of Golden Globes to console themselves. It has a shot, there is obvious affection for it and the serious movie vote might split several ways leaving Lincoln short, so keep it up. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Just don't be surprised when Lincoln trashes everyone and pulls a It Happened One Night on the major awards (minus Best Actress because politics is a sausage fest).
No comments:
Post a Comment