Oscar 2014 - Directing

I finally got to see the full list of movies nominated for directing. It's actually a relatively weak year on this side, at least compared to others, again with a nomination which leaves a bit behind the rest. But, let's cut the chit-chat and dig in ...

"American Hustle": Is by far the best directing by now from David O. Russell, at least between the three movies that earned some prizes (the other two being "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Fighter" .. and I could add also "Three Kings" to the list from the extra I've seen). To be concise, style-wise, it's a movie that's more Scorsese-like than Scorsese's nomination below. And probably that's why is the first which makes me think that this guy may have something to show after all. Because until now I didn't see any reason for the recent years' wave of appreciation.

"Gravity": Is again the nomination that sort of detaches from the rest, as the most probable winner here. Although I did like more how "Children of Men" was driven by the same Alfonso Cuaron, I have to admit that here the directing is, besides the technical part, what manages to give an edge to this movie. It's why despite a short weak story, despite minimal character development, despite a script which doesn't do much else than to throw at you the same metaphor of "no matter what, there is hope" each ten minutes (until you're not able to call it a metaphor anymore), somehow you still don't reach for your watch to see how much is left until it ends ( otherwise said, the construction manages to keep up also the illusion that "there is hope" for something more in the movie too ;) ).

"Nebraska": As opposite compared to the first nominee, this is the weakest movie directed by Alexander Payne among the three I've seen by now (the other two being "Sideways" and "The Descendants"). Not necessarily weak as directing, or bad, the movie is ok overall. But it shows that compared to the rest, the script is written by somebody else. Payne still does what he knows to do best = the place, the context, the medium - Nebraska, has a "role" which is comparable in intensity with the rest of the characters. And still, without subjectivity since I didn't get there :), Hawaii ("Descendants") or California Wine Valley ("Sideways"), "acted" a bit better than the one here.

"12 Years a Slave": It's the first movie directed by Steve McQueen I've seen, not that are too many besides shorts by now. And that explains probably my feeling that it's good, but there's room for better (and I'm convinced we'll see better). It's probably the only film this year which might produce a surprise here, although objectively put the level is on par with "American Hustle". Subjectively though, it might leave a better impression - it looks like a movie that's hard to drive from beginning to the end: 12 years from a slave's life don't seem to have much variation. And, as I've said it before, that's probably the reason why we have some lengths, although in a decent amount to keep you still with the eyes on the screen, but also feel a bit .. the 12 years.

"The Wolf of Wall Street": The story of the out-of-common life of a former broker (Jordan Belfort) is brought to screen by Martin Scorsese in a long movie. Maybe a bit too long ( I can start some ironic comparison with the 12 years above, but I'll hold from it ;) ). The story itself clearly deserved a movie, and it got a movie. But more about this, next time. Anyway, the directing is not among Scorsese's best unfortunately. It's a bit too unpolished. The second half is good, but the first is way, way too extended, and I guess a director's cut, which should be a effectively a "cut" could make it much better by removing at least half an hour. That might explain somehow, that among 8 directing nominations by now, this is just the 2nd (since '88 - "Last Temptation of Christ") when Thelma Schoonmaker, the usual Scorsese's editor, doesn't get a parallel nod for editing ( checked fact ;) )