OVP: Best Director (2007)
The Nominees Were...
Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood
Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman, Juno
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Joel and Ethan Coen, No Country for Old Men
Tony Gilroy, Michael Clayton
Jason Reitman, Juno
Julian Schnabel, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
My Thoughts: All right, toward the end of these write-ups, I always feel like we've hit most of these movies repeatedly, to the point where I'm curious if I have anything new to say about the pictures themselves, but I can't really skip Best Picture/Director, now can I? At some point I might want to start with Picture and work our way backward-maybe the 10th in the series I'll give that a shot (I've already by the time you're reading this started our next installment of the series, which will be 2015). Either way, here we have five films, only one of which won't show up in next week's finale to our 2007 OVP, and so we're going to start with him.
Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is not my favorite movie. There are elements of the picture that I liked, but it constantly feels too gimmick-y, with a director that doesn't really understand that sympathy for a protagonist's condition doesn't always translate into likability. The film itself surely won this nomination for the bold view it takes of the world, regularly putting us in the at times jarring viewpoint of our main character, who is confined forever in locked-in syndrome after a stroke. It's a neat directorial choice, and works for a while, but the director uses the trick too often to underline the points of his film, and as a result sort of sells the script short. The film is a unique experience, but that doesn't translate here to being a great one.
One could argue that Tony Gilroy's Michael Clayton doesn't have the same level of specificity that Schnabel achieves, and admittedly Michael Clayton is hardly a director's film in my opinion-it's far more in the hands of its writers and actors. The movie itself moves quickly and assuredly to its final point, though, and that's on Gilroy. It's a testament to his ability to bring out the best in those actors, and in particular his editors, to keep this movie from going into regular pablum that you'd expect from a generic thriller. I liked the way he uses the camera to peer around a corner or above a lobby, as if we the audience are peaking in on these characters who are trying to avoid detection. Gilroy's filmography is still so thin it's hard to tell if this is a directorial tick or just something he brought to Michael Clayton, but it's very effective.
The Coen Brothers are obviously directors where we do know their favorite tricks, but it's still staggering to me how well No Country for Old Men stands out as a movie that completely exists on its own, and yet it's decidedly a Coen Brothers movie. Most directors would have gotten in the way of Cormac McCarthy's haunting story by trying to put their own flourishes on it (can you imagine, say, David Fincher or Wes Anderson doing a picture like this without making it very familiar?), but the Coens only add touches here and there (think Kathy Lamkin as the hotel manager or Beth Grant's entire role), largely sticking to the tick-tick-tick of Llewelyn Moss's fate. The way that our characters must keep moving to stay alive is how they handle the camera-steady, constant, and assured. It's a very tight picture, one with few frills and almost entirely centered upon three men's destinies, even when we get a scene that appears outside their purview. Brilliant work from the brothers, arguably their best (and that's saying something).
Paul Thomas Anderson, I also feel, does his strongest work with There Will Be Blood (another high compliment), though tightest the word I'd be use for Anderson's filmography. PTA's long, sprawling movies could hardly be called tight, though that doesn't mean that it's not fitting the picture in the case of There Will Be Blood. To tell such a story with such a gigantic performance, you need time to percolate, and you get the sense from Anderson that he is making this "The Short Stories of Daniel Plainview's Life," eventually showing what he would lead to in chapters rather than one continuous loop. This allows us to see Eli's descent into hell (I think it's apparent from the final scenes that Daniel has always been there, waiting for his soul), and we slowly realize that it was Eli who kept slipping from grace, not Daniel who was at the bottom already. I love the way that PTA mirrors both men's journeys, but keeps Daniel at the center so it isn't obvious that he's brought him down to his level. Taken with The Master, it shows his strongest capability as a director may be individual character pieces (or duets), rather than the sprawling cast stories he's so well-known for creating.
Finally there's Jason Reitman, whose work in Juno is good, if admittedly I feel like I'm more getting the vision of Diablo Cody and Ellen Page than I am the director himself. This is a result of Juno being the product of the screenwriters, so well-known for its instantly quotable dialogue, than really for any specific directorial flourishes. We'd learn as Reitman continued in his career that this quirky style wasn't unique to just his partnership with Cody, but I do think that while Juno is a good film (some of that credit goes to the director), this is about all that he has going for him here-there's nothing specifically compelling about the way he frames the film, and really it is more a testament to his editors that they smartly created the parent-daughter dynamic that hallmarks the film, or the way that Garner's face is lit compared to Bateman's, the shifting sympathy in that relationship. It's a good movie, but I don't know that I would have put it in Best Director as it feels pretty meh in that department.
Julian Schnabel's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is not my favorite movie. There are elements of the picture that I liked, but it constantly feels too gimmick-y, with a director that doesn't really understand that sympathy for a protagonist's condition doesn't always translate into likability. The film itself surely won this nomination for the bold view it takes of the world, regularly putting us in the at times jarring viewpoint of our main character, who is confined forever in locked-in syndrome after a stroke. It's a neat directorial choice, and works for a while, but the director uses the trick too often to underline the points of his film, and as a result sort of sells the script short. The film is a unique experience, but that doesn't translate here to being a great one.
One could argue that Tony Gilroy's Michael Clayton doesn't have the same level of specificity that Schnabel achieves, and admittedly Michael Clayton is hardly a director's film in my opinion-it's far more in the hands of its writers and actors. The movie itself moves quickly and assuredly to its final point, though, and that's on Gilroy. It's a testament to his ability to bring out the best in those actors, and in particular his editors, to keep this movie from going into regular pablum that you'd expect from a generic thriller. I liked the way he uses the camera to peer around a corner or above a lobby, as if we the audience are peaking in on these characters who are trying to avoid detection. Gilroy's filmography is still so thin it's hard to tell if this is a directorial tick or just something he brought to Michael Clayton, but it's very effective.
The Coen Brothers are obviously directors where we do know their favorite tricks, but it's still staggering to me how well No Country for Old Men stands out as a movie that completely exists on its own, and yet it's decidedly a Coen Brothers movie. Most directors would have gotten in the way of Cormac McCarthy's haunting story by trying to put their own flourishes on it (can you imagine, say, David Fincher or Wes Anderson doing a picture like this without making it very familiar?), but the Coens only add touches here and there (think Kathy Lamkin as the hotel manager or Beth Grant's entire role), largely sticking to the tick-tick-tick of Llewelyn Moss's fate. The way that our characters must keep moving to stay alive is how they handle the camera-steady, constant, and assured. It's a very tight picture, one with few frills and almost entirely centered upon three men's destinies, even when we get a scene that appears outside their purview. Brilliant work from the brothers, arguably their best (and that's saying something).
Paul Thomas Anderson, I also feel, does his strongest work with There Will Be Blood (another high compliment), though tightest the word I'd be use for Anderson's filmography. PTA's long, sprawling movies could hardly be called tight, though that doesn't mean that it's not fitting the picture in the case of There Will Be Blood. To tell such a story with such a gigantic performance, you need time to percolate, and you get the sense from Anderson that he is making this "The Short Stories of Daniel Plainview's Life," eventually showing what he would lead to in chapters rather than one continuous loop. This allows us to see Eli's descent into hell (I think it's apparent from the final scenes that Daniel has always been there, waiting for his soul), and we slowly realize that it was Eli who kept slipping from grace, not Daniel who was at the bottom already. I love the way that PTA mirrors both men's journeys, but keeps Daniel at the center so it isn't obvious that he's brought him down to his level. Taken with The Master, it shows his strongest capability as a director may be individual character pieces (or duets), rather than the sprawling cast stories he's so well-known for creating.
Finally there's Jason Reitman, whose work in Juno is good, if admittedly I feel like I'm more getting the vision of Diablo Cody and Ellen Page than I am the director himself. This is a result of Juno being the product of the screenwriters, so well-known for its instantly quotable dialogue, than really for any specific directorial flourishes. We'd learn as Reitman continued in his career that this quirky style wasn't unique to just his partnership with Cody, but I do think that while Juno is a good film (some of that credit goes to the director), this is about all that he has going for him here-there's nothing specifically compelling about the way he frames the film, and really it is more a testament to his editors that they smartly created the parent-daughter dynamic that hallmarks the film, or the way that Garner's face is lit compared to Bateman's, the shifting sympathy in that relationship. It's a good movie, but I don't know that I would have put it in Best Director as it feels pretty meh in that department.
Other Precursor Contenders: Best Director is one of those rare fields where the Globes, Guilds, and BAFTA awards all have the same number of nominees (aside from the supporting actor races, this is the only OVP category where this is the case). This doesn't always mean uniformity though, as we see at the DGA where Sean Penn takes out Jason Reitman for his work in Into the Wild (does anyone else find it odd that Penn isn't randomly doing some Brando-esque vanity project right now considering he's already taken the plunge into directing?), with the Coen Brothers the victors. The Globes strangely skipped the opportunity to honor Penn (they are the awards' body that is most likely to go with an actor-turned-director), but did include Tim Burton (Sweeney Todd), Joe Wright (Atonement), and Ridley Scott (American Gangster), leaving only the Coen Brothers and the winning Julian Schnabel from AMPAS's lineup. Finally the BAFTAs also took their own approach, keeping the Coen Brothers (their champions) and PTA, but finding room then for Wright, Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum), and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarckk (The Lives of Others, and yes, the guy who also directed The Tourist). The sixth place position points pretty solidly toward Wright, but am I crazy for thinking Greengrass may have been closer than expected? He'd been odd-man-out the year before for United 93, so he was well-known to the Academy, and the film was so popular when it came to actual trophies that it feels like a shock nomination that would have made sense in hindsight.
Directors I Would Have Nominated: I would have made room for Wright, as I think that Atonement is a direct product of his assured camerawork and combination of beauty and tragedy. I also would have made room for David Fincher. I think it's quite funny that he ended up finally breaking through with AMPAS over a movie like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which throws out almost all of his trademark styles & flavors, and isn't remotely as good as a picture as Zodiac, which at once is a tale about a murderer who escaped justice, but transforms into a tale about how men will go mad trying to chase a glory that they can never attain.
Oscar's Choice: It was the Coen Brothers turn after a decade of getting close, and Oscar knew it. In most other years something as big as There Will Be Blood probably would have been a serious contender, so I think Anderson was second place, and I do think that he will eventually get his hands on this trophy for a different picture.
Oscar's Choice: It was the Coen Brothers turn after a decade of getting close, and Oscar knew it. In most other years something as big as There Will Be Blood probably would have been a serious contender, so I think Anderson was second place, and I do think that he will eventually get his hands on this trophy for a different picture.
My Choice: No Country for Old Men is one of my favorite movies, and it's hard to argue with consensus here. I'd follow it relatively closely with Anderson, and then at a respectable distance Gilroy, Schnabel, and Reitman.
Those were my thoughts-how about yours? Does anyone want to make the case for someone other than the Coen Brothers, or are we all fine with giving this to the Minnesotans? What do you think it'll take for Paul Thomas Anderson to finally win an Oscar? And do you think Paul Greengrass was closer than expected to a nomination here? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Also in 2007: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment