OVP: Best Director (2005)
The Nominees Were...
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller, Capote
Steven Spielberg, Munich
Paul Haggis, Crash
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller, Capote
Steven Spielberg, Munich
My Thoughts: All right-we will finish up our (only once interrupted rundown) of the 2005 Oscars this week, as we address the Best Picture & Director nominees. I will try not to be redundant, but in 2005 the Academy didn't make that easy for me as the nominees for Best Picture & Director were the same five films. This isn't very common at the Oscars-before 2005 you have to go back all the way to 1981 to find a Best Picture field that matches with Best Director. That year had genuine film classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Reds, and Chariots of Fire in contention. It also weirdly split the actual winners, something that would also be duplicated in 2005. But we'll get to that when we address Best Picture.
Our first contender is going to be Munich, mostly because I like the symmetry with 1981 due to that race also including Steven Spielberg. Munich is modern-day Spielberg, where the technical achievement is all there, but we don't see the passion or creative risk we got with a movie like Raiders. This is partially because Munich is more concerned about spreading the message of its film than about crafting a truly remarkable motion picture (it feels like it could've been an ace documentary). The technical prowess of Spielberg can't totally be hidden-we see it in the ticking bomb action sequences, but he doesn't grow characters, and his tendency to stifle female performers is there as we get a sea of wives & girlfriends (and Golda Meir) while the men get more interesting parts. Munich is therefore mid-level work from him, good but hardly classic.
The same can be said for Bennett Miller in Capote. This film is sharp, and looks great-it has a cold demeanor, and Miller isn't shy about bringing out tricks that highlight his vision for Capote & the stars of the movie. However, the fact that Miller can't get Hoffman's mimicry to jive with the chilly motif he's trying to bring to Capote is a big turnoff for the direction, and kind of makes all of the cool touches he drops feel like wasted opportunity more than something trying to elevate the movie. Capote is entirely dependent on your love for Hoffman's work, and as I was fairly ambivalent, you can't really enjoy anything that it seems to touch, including Miller's mechanical direction.
Ang Lee's work is slightly less reliant on his chief actors, but it's helped that they have performances I can get behind. The way that he brings to life Brokeback is best when he's showing the passage of time, as we watch these men's lives flee before our eyes, and realize as it goes how precious life is, and how easy it is to waste time. Lee's direction is stunning: compact, judicious, but never rushed, and he brings a potentially thin initial story to life. Brokeback works because of its director, and the way he never gives us a spare second (even when we want one).
Paul Haggis, on the other hand, drowns under the weight of his film. If anyone was going to save Crash, it had to be the director. This is a multi-plotline film with broad, intersecting stories, so he has to bring out the subtleties that the actors are capable of, and try to make them feel more delicate or complicated than the screenplay is willing to do. Haggis fails in this-there is little directorial style to his decisions, and oftentimes any sort of direction cedes to the background. There's a reason that Crash lost this prize while winning Picture & Screenplay-it's because the director is practically invisible in the shaping of the movie, it feels so much an actor's & writer's project.
The final nominee can't get such a criticism. George Clooney more than anyone nominated this year crafts a distinct vision in Good Night, and Good Luck, giving us a motif that feels like a secret. The ways that Clooney moves the camera or stays just a little too long on a singer or a conversation-it would fail in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. Never before or since has Clooney been able to so well-match his sophisticated style with a film, but that doesn't mean that Good Night doesn't stand as a triumph for the director. It's a sharp, distinctive movie.
Our first contender is going to be Munich, mostly because I like the symmetry with 1981 due to that race also including Steven Spielberg. Munich is modern-day Spielberg, where the technical achievement is all there, but we don't see the passion or creative risk we got with a movie like Raiders. This is partially because Munich is more concerned about spreading the message of its film than about crafting a truly remarkable motion picture (it feels like it could've been an ace documentary). The technical prowess of Spielberg can't totally be hidden-we see it in the ticking bomb action sequences, but he doesn't grow characters, and his tendency to stifle female performers is there as we get a sea of wives & girlfriends (and Golda Meir) while the men get more interesting parts. Munich is therefore mid-level work from him, good but hardly classic.
The same can be said for Bennett Miller in Capote. This film is sharp, and looks great-it has a cold demeanor, and Miller isn't shy about bringing out tricks that highlight his vision for Capote & the stars of the movie. However, the fact that Miller can't get Hoffman's mimicry to jive with the chilly motif he's trying to bring to Capote is a big turnoff for the direction, and kind of makes all of the cool touches he drops feel like wasted opportunity more than something trying to elevate the movie. Capote is entirely dependent on your love for Hoffman's work, and as I was fairly ambivalent, you can't really enjoy anything that it seems to touch, including Miller's mechanical direction.
Ang Lee's work is slightly less reliant on his chief actors, but it's helped that they have performances I can get behind. The way that he brings to life Brokeback is best when he's showing the passage of time, as we watch these men's lives flee before our eyes, and realize as it goes how precious life is, and how easy it is to waste time. Lee's direction is stunning: compact, judicious, but never rushed, and he brings a potentially thin initial story to life. Brokeback works because of its director, and the way he never gives us a spare second (even when we want one).
Paul Haggis, on the other hand, drowns under the weight of his film. If anyone was going to save Crash, it had to be the director. This is a multi-plotline film with broad, intersecting stories, so he has to bring out the subtleties that the actors are capable of, and try to make them feel more delicate or complicated than the screenplay is willing to do. Haggis fails in this-there is little directorial style to his decisions, and oftentimes any sort of direction cedes to the background. There's a reason that Crash lost this prize while winning Picture & Screenplay-it's because the director is practically invisible in the shaping of the movie, it feels so much an actor's & writer's project.
The final nominee can't get such a criticism. George Clooney more than anyone nominated this year crafts a distinct vision in Good Night, and Good Luck, giving us a motif that feels like a secret. The ways that Clooney moves the camera or stays just a little too long on a singer or a conversation-it would fail in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. Never before or since has Clooney been able to so well-match his sophisticated style with a film, but that doesn't mean that Good Night doesn't stand as a triumph for the director. It's a sharp, distinctive movie.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes cheated, so we don't get five nominees from each precursor here as while they gave their trophy to Ang Lee, he beat five nominees to win in it rather than four: Clooney, Spielberg, Woody Allen (Match Point), Peter Jackson (King Kong), & Fernando Meirelles (The Constant Gardener). BAFTA kept to five nominees, picking Lee as its winner, and replacing from Oscar's lineup only Spielberg in favor of Meirelles. The DGA wasn't very creative either, giving the trophy to Lee, and picking Oscar's exact lineup. Honestly-while Meirelles makes the most sense for sixth (he was a surprise nominee in this category just two years prior), I think he was a distant sixth.
Directors I Would Have Nominated: For starters, Terrence Malick is making this list. The New World gets better with age, and is a truly triumphant comeback for the director after a seven-year hiatus. I'd also include Michael Haneke, who finds so many creepy moments in Cache, and gives us an entirely modern spin on the concept of celebrity & privacy. And before you think that I can't get behind popcorn fare, I'd be onboard with HFPA's Peter Jackson nod-this isn't Lord of the Rings, but Kong is epic & ambitious, and it succeeds enough to be spectacular.
Oscar's Choice: Showing few signs of what was to come, Ang Lee won an easy trophy here.
Oscar's Choice: Showing few signs of what was to come, Ang Lee won an easy trophy here.
My Choice: Lee, with apologies to Clooney who would've been in the running against a different field. Spielberg, Miller, and Haggis all follow (in that order).
Those were my thoughts-how about yours? Does anyone dare speak aloud a nominee other than Ang Lee, or are we all behind Brokeback in this lineup? Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to who was in second (for my money, I'm betting on Clooney rather than Haggis)? And why wasn't there more momentum for Allen or Meirelles to create a split here? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Also in 2005: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Original Score, Original Song, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment