Oscar 2012 - Directing

Like I was saying, I don't have the time to spend on other categories (and actually not to fill the list of unseen movies to get an opinion about all the nominees), so I'll jump straight to the directing.

"Midnight in Paris" - Woody Allen - I'll be franc (no pun intended): zero chances. The movie is ok, we have some bits of originality as idea with the integrated time traveling, but that's more story & script. Script which has anyway still the dialogues and the types of characters specific to Woody Allen, and the directing closes any doubt on this. I think that considering the style is the most constant well-known director nowadays. If I wouldn't know who made the movie I don't think I would need more than 10 minutes to guess. And even if the result is not bad, actually watchable, for me starts to look from one movie to another more and more like a reheated soup.



"The Artist" - Michel Hazanavicius - is on the favorites list this year, and to give a more exact prevision I would risk saying that he has the biggest chances on directing (where the competition is more or less between three of the five nominees). From all my impression is that this guy was the most involved effectively in the production (and that without considering his nomination also for editing). But, if I should characterize as synthetically as possible an appreciation for directing, generally speaking, I would skip the activity itself and regard it from a different perspective: it's about how you finally get as spectator to feel what was transmitted to you - from how original the movie looked like in all its aspects up to how hard did it hit you as emotion (and to sum it up more: "the feeling you get"). If for the last part I would have other preference, I have to admit the overall merits (and as said in the beginning the consequent big chances).



"The Tree of Life" - Terrence Malick - is probably the main threat on directing for "The Artist". Malick is a guy who up 'til soon did something like a movie in I don't know how many years (5 since the '70s if I'm not messing up, now having apparently the intention to double his CV in the next period). Probably that's some reason for which he got to get an image (keeping the proportion) comparable to Kubrick in his last part of the life. And risking to sound mean, by this I mostly refer to the idea of something a bit snobbish - in the sense that the critics (and not only them) wait his movies as a rare delight with the praising lines prepared before seeing the first minute. Not to be extremely mean, this is however supported by the value of the production, which a bit overrated I would say, are not anyway to be thrown away. From what I've seen by him - "Badlands" which I barely remember, the beginning of "The Thin Red Line" (something like 3 times and I gave up), "The New World" (on which I was falling asleep) and "The Tree of Life" - I can say that the last deserves indeed its notes of appreciation. I'll postpone a more detailed discussion for the next time, but as directing - expect something a bit different (in regard to the rest and partially his older stuff). It's still a bit to chaotic - looks too much like an experiment/improvisation as way of doing it that transposes from the movie to make me believe that it can steal the Oscar from "The Artist". But the nominee is well deserved.



"The Descendants" - Alexander Payne - is the second near the bottom as probability to get the Oscar I would say, but I'd really really like to be wrong. When I wrote about "The Descendants" I made a comparison for Alexander Payne as something like "a better Woody Allen" without thinking that both of them will get a nomination here. I'm keeping my opinion. Maybe it's subjective, but what this guy succeeds as a comic-drama mix results in a very strong impression as feeling created at least for me (if I would make a top of comedies, "Sideways" has chances to get in the first 3, with "The Descendants" a bit lower). And as I remember I wrote already, and as he declares below, he's probably one of the few directors who exploits the location at maximum - you can "feel" the place (I don't know how close it is to the truth ... but after 15-20 minutes it becomes familiar, what I can't say about the Paris in the first entry). And this contributes a lot to what I consider to be the most important thing in a movie = to get you out for a couple of hours from "your daily life".



"Hugo" - Martin Scorsese - is somewhere in the middle this year, but I wouldn't be surprised to seii it win (not as much as seeing the one above :) which I wish). If I would make a personal top I would put "Hugo" at the bottom. For me it's one of the flawed movies Scorsese did (acting, script, and others) and in the same time also the most "Hollywoodish" (I wonder why I'm not surprised by the tons of appreciations received from James Cameron). Fortunately for the result the flaws are compensated on the technical side. If you remove for instance the production design & the set decoration (which I keep praising but this is the main stuff in there, I can't help it), think what you have left... So ...



Next time I'll wrap it up - best movie.