OVP: Best Director (2012)
The Nominees Were...
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
My Thoughts: The five men that make up this race include a two-time Best Director winner, another two-time Best Director winner, the current go-to director for the Academy, a relative newcomer out of nowhere, and a Cannes-endorsed titan of cinema. And, lest we forget, the list doesn't include the first woman to ever win Best Director, the guy who picked up this trophy the year after her, a two-time Oscar winner with international name recognition, and the helmer of the Best Picture.
The Best Director race of 2012 will long be remembered as much for the fact that Ben Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Tom Hooper didn't make it as for who did. It's easy to see all four of those directors making the lineup and displacing all but Spielberg, and it seems an equally plausible list (perhaps even more of a plausible list, considering the category's penchant for rewarding past winners).
But this is the list we got, and I'm not necessarily saying it's the poorer one. We'll start with the man who couldn't have been removed, Steven Spielberg. Though Spielberg has been cut oddly for other races, it's impossible to imagine him missing for his latest magnum opus, his first serious threat in the Oscar race since Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's work in the film is, like I've said before, occasionally sturdy, but the film suffers from a lack of distinction. The movie, and Spielberg's work, is handsome, but hardly interesting. I'd wager that a director that was a little bit newer to the field may have made some more risks, which could have gone either way, but it would have given us something new to say about this major historical figure. Instead, we're left with a textbook, a well-written one, but still a textbook.
Ang Lee is also a director that has made more adventurous films than the one he was cited for this year. Like Spielberg, Lee is too talented to make a film that is poor. Life of Pi is visually beautiful, a cornucopia of lovely frames and grand visual effects. These are important items in the pro-column for the director, and are worth noting. However, the film doesn't have the script and the character development to create a great narrative, and that's what a strong director, the Best Director, at least, has to do. I will say that in both Lee's and Spielberg's cases, I give them significantly higher points than I will for their Best Picture race, as the faults are less on the direction and more on the script for Pi and the editors of Lincoln, but they still didn't fix matters.
Michael Haneke's films have a distinct focus to them. He rarely gives you all of the cards that he's about to play-think of the stunning twist toward the end of Cache or the maddening effects of The White Ribbon. I've stated that his Amour is his most traditional, but you do occasionally see those touches peaking out-the climactic scene with the pillow, the almost horror film moment toward the end of the film with Isabelle Huppert ("you're next"). These are great, pin drop worthy scenes in Haneke's movie, and the stuff that got people to call it a masterpiece.
But the rest of the film is too dry for my liking, and I think that, while saddled with a tough subject, Haneke doesn't do enough to guide the story. He doesn't give hope before crushing it, he doesn't subscribe strongly enough to the claustrophobia of what Anne is going through. It's a strong piece of work, but it's not a masterwork (to be fair, none of the nominees in this lineup hit that height). It's not Oscar-winning, at least not when I'm giving out the trophies.
Benh Zeitlin is the least known of these directors and it shows. His film takes the most risks, and for the most part they pay off. Hiring Wallis is probably enough to warrant the Oscar nomination to begin with, as she owns his movie. The smart way that he focuses so clearly on Hushpuppy in the early scenes, the scenes before the Bathtub starts to go under water-it's a strategic move. We can't focus solely on her for the rest of the movie, as we're going to be distracted by the world around her, so his establishment of her actions, her inner narrative keeps his film strong even as we get to more heavy-handed scenes (I've said it before, and will say it again, but I just don't think Dwight Henry was the right choice for that part). Zeitlin also has a sense of wonder, of play with his camera (something that reminded me a bit of a young Steven Spielberg)-the blurred lines between imaginary and real, not too many directors could introduce those without codifying for the audience, but Zeitlin's movie is so magical and fresh, it doesn't seem to matter.
Finally, we have the film that I've been perhaps the harshest on (between it and Life of Pi): David O. Russell and his Silver Linings Playbook. I've maintained for most of the plot and structural nominations for the film that it does itself a giant disservice by not subscribing to either being a mental health dramedy or a romantic comedy. I remember thinking how wonderful the film had been up until the point where Tiffany and Pat start dancing together, a moment so obviously should have been the "high point" of the movie, but the way that he disregards almost all of their character traits as quirks rather than true illnesses-it felt offensive. Russell, as writer and director, deserves the brunt of that blame.
The Best Director race of 2012 will long be remembered as much for the fact that Ben Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Tom Hooper didn't make it as for who did. It's easy to see all four of those directors making the lineup and displacing all but Spielberg, and it seems an equally plausible list (perhaps even more of a plausible list, considering the category's penchant for rewarding past winners).
But this is the list we got, and I'm not necessarily saying it's the poorer one. We'll start with the man who couldn't have been removed, Steven Spielberg. Though Spielberg has been cut oddly for other races, it's impossible to imagine him missing for his latest magnum opus, his first serious threat in the Oscar race since Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's work in the film is, like I've said before, occasionally sturdy, but the film suffers from a lack of distinction. The movie, and Spielberg's work, is handsome, but hardly interesting. I'd wager that a director that was a little bit newer to the field may have made some more risks, which could have gone either way, but it would have given us something new to say about this major historical figure. Instead, we're left with a textbook, a well-written one, but still a textbook.
Ang Lee is also a director that has made more adventurous films than the one he was cited for this year. Like Spielberg, Lee is too talented to make a film that is poor. Life of Pi is visually beautiful, a cornucopia of lovely frames and grand visual effects. These are important items in the pro-column for the director, and are worth noting. However, the film doesn't have the script and the character development to create a great narrative, and that's what a strong director, the Best Director, at least, has to do. I will say that in both Lee's and Spielberg's cases, I give them significantly higher points than I will for their Best Picture race, as the faults are less on the direction and more on the script for Pi and the editors of Lincoln, but they still didn't fix matters.
Michael Haneke's films have a distinct focus to them. He rarely gives you all of the cards that he's about to play-think of the stunning twist toward the end of Cache or the maddening effects of The White Ribbon. I've stated that his Amour is his most traditional, but you do occasionally see those touches peaking out-the climactic scene with the pillow, the almost horror film moment toward the end of the film with Isabelle Huppert ("you're next"). These are great, pin drop worthy scenes in Haneke's movie, and the stuff that got people to call it a masterpiece.
But the rest of the film is too dry for my liking, and I think that, while saddled with a tough subject, Haneke doesn't do enough to guide the story. He doesn't give hope before crushing it, he doesn't subscribe strongly enough to the claustrophobia of what Anne is going through. It's a strong piece of work, but it's not a masterwork (to be fair, none of the nominees in this lineup hit that height). It's not Oscar-winning, at least not when I'm giving out the trophies.
Benh Zeitlin is the least known of these directors and it shows. His film takes the most risks, and for the most part they pay off. Hiring Wallis is probably enough to warrant the Oscar nomination to begin with, as she owns his movie. The smart way that he focuses so clearly on Hushpuppy in the early scenes, the scenes before the Bathtub starts to go under water-it's a strategic move. We can't focus solely on her for the rest of the movie, as we're going to be distracted by the world around her, so his establishment of her actions, her inner narrative keeps his film strong even as we get to more heavy-handed scenes (I've said it before, and will say it again, but I just don't think Dwight Henry was the right choice for that part). Zeitlin also has a sense of wonder, of play with his camera (something that reminded me a bit of a young Steven Spielberg)-the blurred lines between imaginary and real, not too many directors could introduce those without codifying for the audience, but Zeitlin's movie is so magical and fresh, it doesn't seem to matter.
Finally, we have the film that I've been perhaps the harshest on (between it and Life of Pi): David O. Russell and his Silver Linings Playbook. I've maintained for most of the plot and structural nominations for the film that it does itself a giant disservice by not subscribing to either being a mental health dramedy or a romantic comedy. I remember thinking how wonderful the film had been up until the point where Tiffany and Pat start dancing together, a moment so obviously should have been the "high point" of the movie, but the way that he disregards almost all of their character traits as quirks rather than true illnesses-it felt offensive. Russell, as writer and director, deserves the brunt of that blame.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Oscars filled their dance card with a number of surprises, so our precursors feature a host of names that we didn't see at the Dolby. At the Globes, only Lee and Spielberg stayed in the lineup, with Ben Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow, and Quentin Tarantino also getting nominated (the HFPA likes their celebrities, and Affleck winning proved that point). The BAFTA Awards skipped Zeitlin, Russell, and most stunningly, Spielberg, leaving only Haneke and Lee to take on Affleck (the eventual winner), Tarantino, and Bigelow. Finally, the DGA Awards gave nominations to Lee and Spielberg, but found room for Hooper, Affleck, and Bigelow (Affleck, keeping with the streak, won here as well).
Films I Would Have Nominated: I could go through some of the also-rans I just listed, but even though they missed out on the Oscars, they clearly got well-rewarded throughout the season (most moviemakers would kill for a Guild or Globe nod just as much as one from Oscar). Instead I want to highlight two names that deserved inclusion but never made it into the running: Steven Soderbergh and Paul Thomas Anderson. Soderbergh makes sharp, quick decisions with Magic Mike, never getting too sentimental or comical (most movies find naked men hi-larious for some reason). Anderson takes a duet between two men and does something most directors wouldn't dare-he creates something epic, something sprawling and vast and not at all easy. Both of these men are better than the eventual nominees or any of the people I just listed in the precursors.
Oscar’s Choice: In one of the most riveting races in recent Academy history, the Oscars didn't get the chance to honor the frontrunner (Affleck), so it came down to Lee, Spielberg, and probably Haneke, with Lee emerging victorious as something of a compromise with the pro-Affleck crowd, who turned steadily against Spielberg.
My Choice: A close call between Lee, Spielberg, and Zeitlin, but I'm going to go with the riskiest movie here and reward Zeitlin with the victory. I'd follow it with Spielberg, Lee, Haneke, and finally Russell.
One more to go and then we bid adieu to 2012. In the meantime, let's discuss the strange race that was last year's Best Director lineup. Do you think that Affleck (or Bigelow or Tarantino or Hooper) deserved inclusion? Did the Academy make the right decision with Lee or should they have gone with one of the others (perhaps giving Haneke an historic victory)? And who was the Best Director of 2012?
Also in 2012: 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, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2012
