OVP: Best Director (2015)
The Nominees Were...
Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
My Thoughts: This morning we discussed the original Mad Max film, so it felt fitting that we show what that eventually culminated in due to one of the strangest journeys in Oscar history. George Miller's bare-budget action film that catapaulted the career of Mel Gibson, one that could have so easily have been disposable & forgettable, ended up launching a franchise that eventually became only the eighth sequel to ever win an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, and won Miller his first citation in this category. Considering the time it took to get to this citation, I won't make Mr. Miller wait any longer and so we'll start our discussion with him.
Mad Max: Fury Road is not what you'd consider a writer's film or an actor's film, though there are elements in both of these camps that might deserve praise-it is completely a director's picture. The movie unfolds with mesmerizing action sequences, and this is really why it was hailed as a landmark when it initially came out; George Miller deserves most of the credit for creating such a spectacle. It takes a lot to be able to guide a film that has a host of ardent, obsessive fans of the previous installments while also creating something accessible to a new generation of moviegoers (myself included) who saw the picture without any grounding in the previous installments. Miller's giant desert spectacles are mesmerizing, and I love the way that he creates a distance between this world and our own, but never a particularly giant distance to our own world, his environmental message very much on-display. A roaring achievement, and one that more than earned its place here.
Arguably the person with the most similar challenge to Miller's is Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, who also has to create a universe that is entirely action-driven, one that doesn't rely in a meaningful way on plot, and instead is an action-adventure (though Miller has to do so within the confines of a specific filmic universe that already has three pictures to its name). AGI doesn't equal Miller in any capacity other than getting out of the way of the cinematographer, though, as his film feels too-often directionless. The opening sequences and the scene with the bear notwithstanding, the director's choices to limit our exposure to Leo's Hugh Glass as a person are poor, making the movie seem more like a nature documentary...that somehow wants you to invest personally into the travails of its main characters. The film is occasionally stunning, but I give that credit more to Lubezki than Gonzalez Inarritu.
Another challenge, though on a different scale would be the one encountered by Lenny Abrahamson. Particularly the first half of Room requires in an incredible amount of intricacy, as we have to see the world from both the eyes of Joy and Jack. Abrahamson does this very well, with an astute amount of technical prowess, showing us (without underlining it) the actual reality of living in a shed in the backyard of a kidnapper, and the expansive world that Jack has created since he knows nothing of what lies beyond it. The film's second half isn't nearly as technically impressive, and it shows as the movie doesn't overwhelm with the possibilities of this new world in the same way that it did with the finite one, but that's only a small knock on Abrahamson's achievements, as the picture certainly wouldn't work without his care in the first half.
Care is not a word that one attributes to Adam McKay very often. The Big Short is a movie that is loud, bawdy, and oftentimes too clunky. There are moments in the movie that work (I stand behind the asides by Margot Robbie & Selena Gomez explaining to the audience in entertaining, layman's terms what is happening through a fourth wall-breaking trope), but the back half of the movie shows a complete lack in interest to what "McKay the Writer" was trying to achieve in the first half of the movie. The film doesn't really have an interesting directorial achievement here, and it feels like the type that just happened because it was nominated for Best Picture (and was an option to actually win that trophy), so the Oscars just went with it here too. A deeply misguided ending & a lack of originality other than the fourth well-breaking makes The Big Short arguably the biggest waste of a nomination here (at least AGI was creating something beautiful).
The final nomination in some ways is also a "well, we nominated it for Best Picture so let's put it here" and perhaps a little bit is a nod to the Directors' Branch's weird obsession with actor-directors (McCarthy you recognize up top from his parts in films like Meet the Parents, Syriana, The Lovely Bones, and Duplicity, as well as his recurring roles on Boston Public and The Wire). However, I don't think this is entirely the case for Spotlight (which is also a better film than The Big Short or The Revenant). He does a very strong job of unfolding the story here, methodically showing us the intricacies of the journalistic process without it ever feeling boring or like a lecture. That's harder to do than you'd think, and while the film's back half never maintains the tightness of those earlier scenes, it's still an achievement, and Oscar has done a lot worse than honoring someone who makes a prestige film have at least something of an artistic angle.
Mad Max: Fury Road is not what you'd consider a writer's film or an actor's film, though there are elements in both of these camps that might deserve praise-it is completely a director's picture. The movie unfolds with mesmerizing action sequences, and this is really why it was hailed as a landmark when it initially came out; George Miller deserves most of the credit for creating such a spectacle. It takes a lot to be able to guide a film that has a host of ardent, obsessive fans of the previous installments while also creating something accessible to a new generation of moviegoers (myself included) who saw the picture without any grounding in the previous installments. Miller's giant desert spectacles are mesmerizing, and I love the way that he creates a distance between this world and our own, but never a particularly giant distance to our own world, his environmental message very much on-display. A roaring achievement, and one that more than earned its place here.
Arguably the person with the most similar challenge to Miller's is Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, who also has to create a universe that is entirely action-driven, one that doesn't rely in a meaningful way on plot, and instead is an action-adventure (though Miller has to do so within the confines of a specific filmic universe that already has three pictures to its name). AGI doesn't equal Miller in any capacity other than getting out of the way of the cinematographer, though, as his film feels too-often directionless. The opening sequences and the scene with the bear notwithstanding, the director's choices to limit our exposure to Leo's Hugh Glass as a person are poor, making the movie seem more like a nature documentary...that somehow wants you to invest personally into the travails of its main characters. The film is occasionally stunning, but I give that credit more to Lubezki than Gonzalez Inarritu.
Another challenge, though on a different scale would be the one encountered by Lenny Abrahamson. Particularly the first half of Room requires in an incredible amount of intricacy, as we have to see the world from both the eyes of Joy and Jack. Abrahamson does this very well, with an astute amount of technical prowess, showing us (without underlining it) the actual reality of living in a shed in the backyard of a kidnapper, and the expansive world that Jack has created since he knows nothing of what lies beyond it. The film's second half isn't nearly as technically impressive, and it shows as the movie doesn't overwhelm with the possibilities of this new world in the same way that it did with the finite one, but that's only a small knock on Abrahamson's achievements, as the picture certainly wouldn't work without his care in the first half.
Care is not a word that one attributes to Adam McKay very often. The Big Short is a movie that is loud, bawdy, and oftentimes too clunky. There are moments in the movie that work (I stand behind the asides by Margot Robbie & Selena Gomez explaining to the audience in entertaining, layman's terms what is happening through a fourth wall-breaking trope), but the back half of the movie shows a complete lack in interest to what "McKay the Writer" was trying to achieve in the first half of the movie. The film doesn't really have an interesting directorial achievement here, and it feels like the type that just happened because it was nominated for Best Picture (and was an option to actually win that trophy), so the Oscars just went with it here too. A deeply misguided ending & a lack of originality other than the fourth well-breaking makes The Big Short arguably the biggest waste of a nomination here (at least AGI was creating something beautiful).
The final nomination in some ways is also a "well, we nominated it for Best Picture so let's put it here" and perhaps a little bit is a nod to the Directors' Branch's weird obsession with actor-directors (McCarthy you recognize up top from his parts in films like Meet the Parents, Syriana, The Lovely Bones, and Duplicity, as well as his recurring roles on Boston Public and The Wire). However, I don't think this is entirely the case for Spotlight (which is also a better film than The Big Short or The Revenant). He does a very strong job of unfolding the story here, methodically showing us the intricacies of the journalistic process without it ever feeling boring or like a lecture. That's harder to do than you'd think, and while the film's back half never maintains the tightness of those earlier scenes, it's still an achievement, and Oscar has done a lot worse than honoring someone who makes a prestige film have at least something of an artistic angle.
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). The Globes gave their trophy to Inarritu, while replacing McKay & Abrahamson with Todd Haynes (Carol) and Ridley Scott (The Martian). The BAFTAs went with Inarritu as their winner as well, but also found room for Haynes, Scott, and Steven Spielberg (Bridge of Spies), with only McKay joining Inarritu from Oscar's lineup. The DGA's were the closest to the eventual AMPAS list, this time only skipping Abrahamson in favor of Scott (with Inarritu completing the trifecta). Scott was almost certainly in sixth place, and quite frankly I am still stunned how he didn't get nominated considering his position in the directing branch as one of the few truly living (English-language) legends who has never taken home an Oscar. I think, had he been nominated, he would've been the only person who came close to spoiling it for Inarritu.
Directors I Would Have Nominated: I'd honestly chuck most of this lineup and start from scratch. Surely Todd Haynes deserved mention for Carol, as few people could have put such a distinctive style on a previously-written novel (and made it so beautiful). I'd also throw in Andrew Haigh's specific work in 45 Years, and John Crowley's epic love story of Brooklyn. Finally, I'd go with Oliver Assayas, one of the most interesting filmmakers working today, who created a cerebral mind game that still is a damn compelling movie in Clouds of Sils Maria.
Oscar's Choice: AGI dominated the precursors, and without the sentimental pull of Ridley Scott finally getting an Oscar (he's now in his 80's-there won't be many more opportunities to do this), his closest competition was likely George Miller (which is to say there wasn't much competition at all).
Oscar's Choice: AGI dominated the precursors, and without the sentimental pull of Ridley Scott finally getting an Oscar (he's now in his 80's-there won't be many more opportunities to do this), his closest competition was likely George Miller (which is to say there wasn't much competition at all).
My Choice: An easy crown for Miller, who is the only one doing work that feels worthy of inclusion in such a list. Follow him with Abrahamson, McCarthy, Gonzalez Inarritu, and finally McKay.
Those were my thoughts-how about yours? Are you with me on it being Miller or does AGI have his ardent admirers here? At one point does the fascination with Adam McKay wane or is he destined to win this one eventually? And how the hell did Ridley Scott not get nominated here? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Also in 2015: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment