Oscar 2017 - Directing

I was thinking to leave this entry for later, but at this time I still didn't see enough to write about smth else, so let's get this one done. Especially considering that the "Anatomy of a Scene" series saves me of commenting too much besides the actual nominees :).

Denis Villeneuve gets a first nod for "Arrival". I only can say that the guy deserves recognition as one of the best active directors, but ... for other movies like "Prisoners" or especially "Incendies". "Arrival".. not that much ...

Mel Gibson is back :) ... as I was saying in an entry not long ago. And I'll continue repeating myself since "Hacksaw Ridge" confirmed my opinion of setting him #1 in my own "top directors". Therefore, I would be subjective to comment more, so...

Damien Chazelle is I guess one of the youngest ever to be nominated here, and he gets it for "La La Land". Despite the obvious appreciation enjoyed by this movie, I'll stick to the opinion that the direction is not that good. Indeed, you can appreciate the way the contrast between the first and second part is built, probably the most obvious quality at a wider look. Which somehow results in the worse part - the first half being so positive that it gets horribly annoying...

Kenneth Lonergan comes here with a nice surprise in "Manchester by the Sea", a story of a guy who, against his will, is given parenthood for a nephew after his brother dies. What you can say about a movie that's supported by life issues and still manages to offer you what you expect froma a movie = getting your mind away from your life issues, it's just that is really well written and directed. Enough said.

Barry Jenkins is another new name getting a nod here for "Moonlight". I would say it's somewhere between the rest. The directing is good, the three parts of the movie having each some slightly different personality. Still it's not the best around.

Verdict: Damien Chazelle will probably get it for "La La Land", but my option would be Mel for "Hacksaw Ridge".

Oscar 2016 - Directing

I don't think I ever had such a bad sync between the work to do volume with the period of the Oscar Awards. So, with apologies, I'll just stick to some final lightning fast entries, based mostly on external material ( that's actually more likely to be interesting compared to my senseless babbling :) ). New York Times has a nice series on YouTube, called Anatomy of a Scene, that describes the way a scene in a movie was thought or executed directly from the director's perspective. For the first nominees of this year we have such a clip, which I think gives a pretty concise summary of how each of them works. For the last in the list I found another material that I hope it's at least a bit relevant for the movie directing. In any case, we talk about a category where I doubt there's any doubt on the winner: "The Revenant". However, I can't skip completely saying something about "Room", where the directing is the part that produces the maxed out impact, the movie being built in its first part to be so hard psychologically speaking that I think it competes in a weird way with a hard horror on the difficulty to watch criteria (although there's no other relation with that genre). But, let's see what the nominated ones have to say :) :

Adam McKay - "The Big Short"
George Miller - "Mad Max: Fury Road"
Alejandro G. Iñárritu - "The Revenant"
Lenny Abrahamson - "Room"
Tom McCarthy - "Spotlight"

Oscar 2015 - Directing

I'll start this year's directing nominees with the most probable winner: Richard Linklater for "Boyhood". Again, I have to say that this is not a good year at the Oscars. Well, I don't like Linklater ... it's the same thing over & over again in every life drama ... a sort of Woody Allen but without the comic part and much more melancholic. Well ... to take care of a 12 years project isn't probably that simple on the other hand ...
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu for "Birdman" might be the only surprise here. Actually, lately I keep seeing news that give him as the winner. I have my doubts on that, based on what I've noticed in the previous years as Academy preferences on this section + unlike Linklater above, Inarritu is far here from what I consider to be his best directing to this date = "Amores Perros". It's true that "Birdman" is not an easy movie and the directing is not bad, but even so ...
In "Foxcatcher" Bennett Miller delivers a sort of artistic documentary, a very ... dark one. I won't dig now into the story, which is quite tragical. But I can say that you can feel throughout the whole duration that something bad is going to happen. Even the calm scenes have something tensed in them. I guess achieving that is the main thing you can tell about how this is directed. About the rest, for me seems that the actors have the most important contribution. But about this, another time ...
If I would have to pick who gets the Oscar, I won't hesitate to name Wes Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel". Despite everything I heard, I can't say this is the best movie by Wes Anderson. I stick to "Moonrise Kingdom", which overall I consider better. I have to admit though this is the best directing by Wes Anderson. And probably the best example of his own specific style.
Morten Tyldum with "The Imitation Game" is the outsider here. It's not that the directing is bad, but there's nothing special to notice about it. Again, as I was saying when writing about editing, it seems too "old school" for me ...

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 ;) )

Oscar 2013 - Directing

Since I still have headaches + also a ear bothers me (just to know it's there ...) I'll make this entry short. Anyway, this year the Oscar nominations for directing were quite surprising leaving apart Kathryn Bigelow for "Zero Dark Thirty" and mostly Ben Affleck for "Argo". Which is actually fine for me considering what movie I support ;) ...

Michael Haneke is nominated for "Amour". The movie is partly hard to watch, but to be honest not as much as I was expecting. Anyway, for who has seen something else by Haneke, the directorial styles is easy to recognize. You have the same background tension maintained from beginning to the end. As directing value for me is the second from the nominees here, but as chances for Oscar I don't think it has more than "Best Foreign Language Film" (and even there we might have a surprise).

Ang Lee has a nomination for "Life of Pi". I think it's one class above the rest of the nominees. "Life of Pi" is a director's movie from beginning to the end. Maybe with the exception of "Amour" from above, I don't think there is another nomination in which the direction influence is that visible compared to other aspects (script, actors, etc). On top of that, I also think it's the first Ang Lee movie where the lengths are proper dosed to get the desired effect on the more dense parts (unlike "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" for instance where you end up suffering of chronic sleepiness up to the last 15 minutes). To conclude here, I think/hope that's the movie with the best chances to get an Oscar, especially with the absences above, although .. there would be also another candidate.

David O. Russell is nominated "Silver Linings Playbook". As in the case of the script, I have nothing to comment. The movie is ok, but it doesn't pass the level of a decent romantic comedy. Not even on directing ...

Steven Spielberg, with "Lincoln" is I think the only "problem" that might steal the Oscar here. At least that's what's said it might happen. If it happens though, I only can qualify it as lame. Not that the directing is bad. After all to make a catchy biopic is not that easy, and "Lincoln" is watchable. But I didn't see anything remarkable (unlike "Hitchcock" for instance, but I think there's mostly the fault of the script).

Benh Zeitlin for "Beasts of the Southern Wild" is the surprise on this category. What probably also makes it the last on the possible winners list. It's a debut movie, and for a debut movie - especially an indie - I can't say more than a "well done" and leave further comments for the director ...

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.

Oscar 2011 - Directing

I think that would be better to get directly to the first nomination than rambling the usual intro nonsense for the entry. Because it's an excellent example of what good directing means - Darren Aronofsky - "Black Swan". This movie can be resumed in three words - "symphony of madness" - and to complete the analogy the composer of the tune is the director. From my point of view is definitely the best of the directing nominations. Unfortunately it's not also the most appreciated, and probably will remain only with the nomination status. It doesn't make sense for me to write much more from my own opinions about it. The next clip is probably saying these better:

The second nomination here is David O. Russell for "The Fighter". Is one of the two from this year where I didn't know anything about the director. And it doesn't surprise me because when taking a look on IMDb I couldn't find more than other four feature films directed and those seem pretty obscure (I've seen only "Three Kings" from them, and this has actually the highest rating .. although is far from a masterpiece). The directing in "The Fighter" is ok, I've said it already when I wrote more about the movie. If it weren't for the directing you'll probably get bored considering how many times was this kind of subject used in a movie. Anyway, this doesn't separate too much the directing style you see here from the other stuff you can find in the genre. And I tend to think that the Oscar will be given to something more original.

The second director about who I haven't heard is Tom Hooper, nominated for "The King's Speech". As in the above case, I've seen enough british historical dramas and if you take this movie and place it along them, I don't know if you can make a difference for the directing part. It's ok ... as in "The Fighter" I can also say sufficiently ok for not letting you fall asleep considering the lack of action in the movie ... but it's too ... common (just check "The Young Victoria", "The Duchess", even "Atonement" which is set in the same time period). The movie level is raised by Colin Firth's performance and by the editing (video + audio) mostly, and less by the directing ...

David Fincher will probably take the Oscar for "The Social Network". Unfortunately for his filmography it will happen here ... unfortunately = because it's not his best movie, and to add more he didn't even got a nomination for his best movie at that time - this being "Fight Club". Actually I have an entire list of Fincher's movies that I like better than "The Social Network": "The Game", "Panic Room", even "Alien 3" (with all the things said about it I say it has its own "air" so to speak that separates it from the rest, and not in a bad sense). But .. all these are from different genres, and none is based on a real story, so probably comparing it's not the right thing to do. For a real story adaptation I can't say that the directing isn't good. I might even say that it is very good considering that the final result is less slow paced than Fincher's first Oscar nomination which was for "Benjamin Button" (movie that for me definitely had a sleeping pill effect). And I didn't expect that considering the real basis. However, I'll stick to "Black Swan" as personal preference and I'd like to see a surprise there...

The last nomination on the directors list has two names written on it: Joel & Ethan Coen, for "True Grit". Although I liked the movie quite a lot, I must admit that for directing is not their best title (well, it's definitely much better than "No Country for Old Men" and they got an Oscar for that one). This doesn't mean that the directing is not good, because the way all the story is carried until the end differentiates it from what you can usually see in a western. It has enough originality in it. But ... this is helped by lots of factors, and I admit that these can be influenced by the directing, but it seems that unlike "Black Swan" for instance, you have much more from the individual style of the cinematographer, from the production designer, from the actors, etc.

One more category left & I'm done with the (probably boring) Oscar entries. Guess which one :)