OVP: Director (2002)

OVP: Best Director (2002)

The Nominees Were...

Pedro Almodovar, Talk to Her

Stephen Daldry, The Hours

Rob Marshall, Chicago

Roman Polanski, The Pianist

Martin Scorsese, Gangs of New York

My Thoughts: My goal is for us to finish up 2002 this weekend (that will depend on how tired I am tomorrow after doing some winter recreation that is a bit outside of my wheelhouse so I'm hoping it doesn't knock me out), but for sure we're going to do Best Director today, because, well, you're reading it today.  The Best Director field of 2002 is fascinating partially because of who is not there.  In 2002, it was stunning that Peter Jackson, who had nearly won the Oscar the year before and was cited for Best Picture, was missing from the Best Director lineup, as he was assumed to be safe (and this nomination was a down payment on a win the following year that did materialize).  Instead, two directors, both with incredible filmographies (though wildly different public personas) got the nominations instead.

The first of those was Pedro Almodovar, who got his only (to date) nomination here for Best Director.  Almodovar's Talk to Her is a marvelously taut mystery, and similar to Original Screenplay, this is a worthy nomination & a great way for Oscar to have gotten creative.  I love the way that he frames this movie as a sort of expanding Rubik's Cube, where you don't entirely know where you'll go next and where the ground is ever-shifting.  Almodovar is also one of the truest "auteurs" working in movies today, giving his own flare to pretty much every inch of his movies, and this is no exception.

Roman Polanski, despite the fact that he won the Oscar for The Pianist, wasn't really expected to even get nominated headed into the ceremony.  Polanski's criminal history (which is well-documented online, and too long of a story to get into fully here) was something that many expected would keep him off of the Best Director list, which he hadn't been on since 1980's Tess.  I try really hard to keep an artist's personal biography out of these write-ups (it's hard not to, but I want to ultimately decide the wins here based on the work at hand), and it has to be noted that Polanski's direction here is superb. He keeps the story & film tightly focused on Brody's character, giving us an unflinching look at the Holocaust from someone who actually lived through it (Polanski, whose family were Polish Jews, lived in the Warsaw Ghetto as a child during World War II).  It's a mesmerizing one-man act that's really a two-man one, as this level of performance is only possible with a director helping Brody along every step.

Stephen Daldry's The Hours nomination was also somewhat in question in 2002, though not to the same degree.  Films with female leads sometimes get missed in the top categories, and obviously this is the story of three women, but I'm so glad he made it.  Daldry's work here is splendid, the way that he intersperses these women's lives, and I love the quickness of his direction...we never spend more than a scene or two with characters, and frequently leave people behind (think how Toni Collette makes this amazing impression, and then we are deprived of her for the rest of the film).  There's something so assured in his storytelling.

Our last two names weren't remotely in question in 2002-everyone knew they'd get nominated.  Rob Marshall was making his big-screen debut after years in theater & television (primarily focusing on musicals).  I'm going to own something here-I think the direction is the weakest element in Chicago.  The film just sort of sits there, and there's not enough flow from scene-to-scene, not enough connection to the musical numbers that are knocking it out of the park, and suddenly we return back to Roxie's world.  Marshall was criticized for this approach in later movies that didn't really call for it (this is not unusual for staged versions of Chicago), but I think here it doesn't work either-it's just flat, and it's the one thing holding Chicago back for me.

The final nomination is also one that I don't love, and it's from one of my favorite directors of all-time.  This was when we had officially entered the "Marty wants an Oscar" stage of Scorsese's career, where he was worried about becoming Kubrick & Hitchcock & Lumet, men who couldn't get competitive Oscars.  Gangs of New York, though, doesn't have the tightness that his other films do, and the sub-romances in the movie don't work at all.  This is a long, bloated epic that has the benefit of an incredible performance at its center, but in Scorsese's long filmography, this is the only celebrated title that I totally check out from, and I'm personally glad this isn't where he won his statue.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Scorsese, and they did so over a six-wide field (atypical for the HFPA) as they had him beating Daldry, Marshall, Peter Jackson (The Two Towers), Spike Jonze (Adaptation), & Alexander Payne (About Schmidt).  The BAFTA Awards gave their statue to Polanski, and they had the same lineup as Oscar with Almodovar getting skipped for Jackson.  DGA had the same lineup as BAFTA (no Pedro, Jackson's there), but they went with Marshall for their winner.  And the sixth place is so clearly Peter Jackson, I won't entertain discussions about it being someone else.

Directors I Would Have Nominated: I already have the My Ballot ready, so I won't telegraph too much here other than I consider Jackson's miss to be a proper snub, and I will be correcting it on my end.  For the rest, tune in on Sunday!
Oscar's Choice: Heading into Oscar night, it was considered a truly tight race between Scorsese & Marshall, both of which felt like compromise wins (Marshall was brand new, Scorsese was winning for a film that no one agreed was one of his best), which is likely how Roman Polanski pulled off an upset and a standing ovation that featured Scorsese, Diane Lane, Meryl Streep, and (shudder) Harvey Weinstein that would be unthinkable today.

My Choice: Daldry, and not because I'm uncomfortable voting for Polanski (though truth-be-told, I would've struggled to vote for him if the Academy hadn't given me an out with a better directorial achievement).  Behind those two I'd go Pedro, followed by Marshall & then Scorsese.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  Are you more with the Academy honoring the controversial Polanski, or do you want to join me on less tempestuous ground surrounding Daldry?  Am I alone in thinking that Scorsese's nomination here is the one big miss in an otherwise grand Oscar history?  And where the hell is Peter Jackson?!?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2002: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2002

Past Best Director Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OVP: Original Screenplay (2002)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2002)

The Nominees Were...

Todd Haynes, Far from Heaven

Jay Cocks, Steve Zaillian, & Kenneth Lonergan, Gangs of New York

Nia Vardalos, My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Pedro Almodovar, Talk to Her

Carlos Cuaron & Alfonso Cuaron, Y Tu Mama Tambien

My Thoughts: We are moving into the Big 8 categories today, and a day after we talked about how none of 2002's Best Foreign Language film nominees got cited for any other categories, we somehow have two non-English films in contention.  The 2002 Original Screenplay category is also indicative of what this category was for a brief time in the late 1990's and early 2000's-kind of a free-for-all when it comes to films that were cited.  Only one of these movies is a Best Picture nominee, and headed into the 2002 ceremony (we are still in an era where I was actively following the Oscar race, so you're getting tidbits as much as possible from my memory until that's no longer the case!) this was something of a tossup race.

One of the films in Spanish in 2002 was Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her.  I am a huge fan of Almodovar's in general, and while I haven't seen all of his movies, I kind of wonder if this might be my favorite of the ones I've caught (give or take Bad Education).  Talk to Her is grand, shocking, and its screenplay really is the biggest star of the film.  The twists are intense, and well-structured for maximum effort-it all makes sense, but you don't always see what's coming, and the character development works well within the movie, getting to know each of our main players at just the right juncture.  A taut mystery told exceedingly well.

Equally strong is Todd Haynes' Far from Heaven.  This is a movie I recently revisited, and it's fascinating how well the story is contained, particularly given that the visuals are definitely the headliner (it's emulating Douglas Sirk...it's gonna look good).  I loved the way that we have multiple stories that are fairly similar (forbidden love, prejudice, betrayal) but they end up in different places because of what each character is willing to sacrifice.  The monologues are great too.  Think of the late-in-the-movie phone call between Dennis Quaid & Julianne Moore...the casual confessional, the cruelty of it, and the placidness with which Moore finally realizes her reality...it's devastating acting, but it's only possible because the scrip is so succinct.

Gangs of New York is the sole Best Picture nominee of the bunch, though you have to wonder if that was based on a lack of "acceptable to Oscar" options to fill up the nominees.  The dialogue in this movie, particularly early scenes between Diaz & DiCaprio, feels clunky, almost as if we're stuck in a James Cameron love scene (sorry Jim, but we all know directing is your forte), but unlike with Cameron it's meant to be thought of as grounded.  It also doesn't instill a lot of story.  Scorsese's films usually unfold so well in terms of their script (think of how The Departed is almost perfectly put into three acts), but Gangs is cheesy and even more damning, somewhat forgettable.

Y Tu Mama Tambien is a film the first time I saw it, I didn't really get.  Still in the closet the first time I saw it, I'll totally own that I was watching this less for its artistic merits and more because it was, well, hormonal.  Rewatching it later, I was struck by how knowing Cuaron's film was.  It's not as well-drawn as it should be (there should be at least one more queer scene...I feel like we should've taken this a bit further since it's crucial for the story), but I think the juxtaposition of these two young men who are struggling with their friendship (and whether it will survive into adulthood) and this older woman who knows far more than they realize is fascinating.  It's not flawless, and it's not my favorite Cuaron movie, but it works quite well as a film that carries multiple perspectives.

It's hard to instill to people today what a big deal My Big Fat Greek Wedding was when it first came out.  Everyone went to see it-EVERYONE.  It was a movie that played for multiple weeks at our single-screen theater, and I remember watching it in a completely packed audience; 23 million people watched the TV spinoff when it aired (for comparison's sake, 19 million people watched the Game of Thrones finale, which was considered a cultural phenomenon).  This plays oddly now because the movie feels so meh in retrospect.  It's cute-Vardalos & Corbett have good chemistry-but it's hardly something you'd think of as Oscar-worthy, and yet it was definitely cited for a script that relied on jokes about Windex & dozens of other stereotypes.  I'm not going to rag on it (kudos to Vardalos for pulling off something that basically has no precedent before-or-after: a blockbuster rom-com with no established stars), but, like, you really want this to compete with movies as good as Talk to Her and Far from Heaven?  Come on now.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted and original into one category, so we only have one nominee that was eligible for original screenplay (Far from Heaven), which lost to About Schmidt.  The BAFTA's split theirs, so they went with Talk to Her atop Dirty Pretty Things (which was eligible the following year for Oscar & was nominated), Gangs of New York, The Magdalene Sisters, and Y Tu Mama Tambien.  WGA gave their trophy to Bowling for Columbine (what?!?) against Antwone Fisher, Far From Heaven, Gangs of New York, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  In terms of sixth place, I'm going to guess it was a film that didn't show up anywhere as none of these other films feel in Oscar's wheelhouse, so I'd wager Punch-Drunk Love given their general proclivity for Paul Thomas Anderson.

Films I Would Have Nominated: To be fair to Oscar, there's not a lot of great options here, or at least obvious ones.  But given that they were already giving Spirited Away another trophy, they should've found more room for Hayao Miyazaki's epic in this lineup.

Oscar’s Choice: This was a close threeway race between Talk to Her, Far from Heaven, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding at the time, but Oscar wisely chose to give this to Pedro, a win that looks both surprising & prescient in retrospect.

My Choice: I will also go with Talk to Her, which is an easier film to cite specifically for writing, even though it's a close contest with Far from Heaven.  Y Tu Mama Tambien is a respectable third followed by My Big Fat Greek Wedding and then Gangs of New York.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Do we all align to Pedro getting this, or does someone want to advocate for another movie getting the statue?  Does anyone else remember what a big deal My Big Fat Greek Wedding was when it came out?  And does anyone have a more logical option for sixth place than Punch-Drunk Love?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2002: Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2002

Past Best Original Screenplay Contests: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

OVP: Pain & Glory (2019)

Film: Pain & Glory (2019)
Actors: Antonio Banderas, Penelope Cruz, Leonardo Sbaraglia, Asier Exteandia, Cecilia Roth
Director: Pedro Almodovar
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Actor-Antonio Banderas, International Feature Film-Spain)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Few working directors have the consistent motif and style of Pedro Almodovar.  In many ways he is the true heir to Alfred Hitchcock, not in terms of subject matter (though Almodovar is not above making a great thriller), but in the way that you know it's his movie from the film's start to the eventual finish.  He repeats cast members, he repeats stories, but they always feel full of feeling, of depth.  Even when it doesn't work, it still pretty much does-few directors are as well-equipped to handle style to get past gaps in substance as Pedro.  As a result, I was curious what Pain & Glory would do for the director.  In many ways, this feels like one of the most autobiographical movies in his filmography, and like so many directors who stray into their own stories, would this feel too indulgent, too personal, to work on a big-screen?

(Spoilers Ahead) As you can imagine since it's autobiographical, the movie is about a film director, in this case Salvador Mallo (Banderas), a once great filmmaker who is most noted for his picture Sabor, a movie he didn't approve of when it was released but nonetheless has been rediscovered by audiences.  The initial moments of the picture show him trying to reconnect with the film's star Alberto Crespo (Exteandia) whom he loathed at one point, and bad-mouthed to the point that Alberto's career never recovered (due to Crespo's drug use).  However, Mallo, suffering from debilitating pain due to a series of ailments, becomes hooked on heroin due to Crespo dealing with him, and we slowly see him remember his life during heroin highs, recalling his domineering mother (played when she's young by Cruz, and as an older woman by Julieta Serrano), and his lust after a local painter when he was a young man, Eduardo (Vicente).  We get brief interludes where we see Mallo with the love of his life Federico (Sbaraglia) one night (a man whom he abandoned, but still pines for in his work), and ultimately we see redemption, as Salvador kicks the heroin habit, gets surgery for his ailments, and goes back to work, circularly making a film that resembles Pain & Glory.

The film, like all of Almodovar's work, has a lot to offer.  Banderas has been getting Oscar buzz (though I don't think it's going to be loud enough for him to land for this), and it shows.  This is a big role for an actor who has long been Almodovar's muse, and while he doesn't play this as Pedro (his Salvador is more introverted, less flashy), you can see the director's inspiration in the care he gives his work & consideration of it.  Cruz is also good as the mother, an atypical part (in the last scene it's not entirely clear if Cruz has been playing the mother or an actress playing Salvador's mother), but she brings an understanding to the role that other actresses might have biffed.  She knows why her son is obsessed with Eduardo, and why he literally passes out after watching Eduardo bathe in front of him (to be fair-if you've seen this scene I'm surprised they didn't have resuscitation paddles outside the theater for patrons who passed out due to Vicente's sex appeal), but she's reluctant enough in her acceptance of it to not mention such a thing, for fear she'll have to condone it.  Other actresses would have found room for a "big scene" here, perhaps in an Oscar play, but Cruz (who already has an Oscar) doesn't need to to make sure that we know that her mother is all-knowing.

The film's drug haze feels tired at times-we've seen so many movies about the damages of drugs with famous artists recently with music biopic fever that I didn't really need this in yet another movie, and the "haziness providing clarity" is a pretty lazy trope for the flashbacks.  But Pain & Glory has a lot to offer even if it's not going to be one of the "mountains" in Pedro's filmography.  The scenes between Salvador & Federico are sweet and felt, the way we rarely see from mature romances onscreen where only young love is worth celebrating, and I loved the way that Pedro's script invests in a love of movies without ever having to have a series of expositional studies about classic cinema. Pain & Glory takes some turns and risks that don't pay off, but at it's best it's more than worth the price of a ticket, the price of admission to see a master of his craft.