When judging the directing nominees for the Oscars, one cannot exclusively look at how good the movie was. There is a whole other category for that. I like to look at the style and tonal control of their movie. It is also necessary to take into account the experience of the overall production, meaning how large the crew was and what aspects of filmmaking the director focused on more. With that said, here are the nominees: David O. Russell, American Hustle; Alfonso Cuarón, Gravity; Alexander Payne, Nebraska; Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave; and Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street.
David O. Russell did a much better job directing American Hustle than he did with Silver Linings Playbook. Hustle is much less sloppy, despite its noticeable pacing flaws. Although it was shot largely using SteadiCam technology, it lacks the irksome shakiness of last year's Playbook. Russell also managed to get better performances out of his actors, and having two (or three, if you count De Niro being in one scene) of the same actors (Lawrence and Cooper) in it more accurately allows us to compare that. Russell is a big "actor's director," so this accomplishment is a testament to the time he spends communicating his vision with the actors. Although some scenes, like the one with Adams and Cooper in the club, are stylish, the film in itself is not artistically fresh enough for me to be rooting for Russell for Best Directing.
Alfonso Cuarón did a great job managing his technical team, but the only style to Gravity is due to the great Visual Effects team. When a tear slides down off of Bullock's face and is carried away by the zero gravity, it goes out of focus, immediately destroying the 3D effect that had been implemented excellently up to that point. If this were a mistake - which I highly doubt - then that is embarrassing. If it was not a mistake - and it probably was done on purpose - then Cuarón made a terrible executive decision that seems harmless, but was detrimental to the illusion of being in outer space. Additionally, Cuarón only had two main actors to direct. Bullock says that Cuarón would direct her via earpiece when she was isolated in the simulated spacesuits and spacecrafts. You could argue that she had a good performance, but Clooney - the only other actor that Cuarón had to worry about - was HORRENDOUS. I cannot emphasize that enough. Russell got five or six noteworthy performances out of his actors. Cuarón only had two total seen actors, and one of them was really unwatchable. He will probably win for directing, as Ang Lee did for his 3D film last year, Life of Pi. But should we really keep awarding people who spend all their time overseeing a process that is unnecessary for film, a storytelling medium of art?
Alexander Payne delivered as usual with Nebraska. Probably more so than in his other films, the shot list was effective in highlighting satirical (the family in front of the television set) and emotional moments (Dern's walking along the road). But the overall tone of the movie was the same as all of his other movies, particularly that of About Schmidt and The Descendants. Considering that the official title of the category is "Achievement in Directing," I do not think he deserves the title of having achieved something when he has already "achieved" it many times before.
Steve McQueen, much like David O. Russell with Playbook last year, took a more emotional approach to directing 12 Years a Slave. He really connected with the material and with the actors. As a result, he got an outstanding debut performance from Supporting Actress Nominee Lupita Nyong'o. I would like to see a director with more artistic originality than McQueen win, your Shane Carruths and Michael Hanekes of the world, if you will. Stylistically, Slave looked like a replica of a Steven Spielberg movie, but I guess some people might take that as a compliment.
Martin Scorsese keeps getting better and better with his artistic vision. The Wolf of Wall Street does not have the visual feast that Hugo did two years ago. Despite how long production was for Wolf, it is incredible that Scorsese released the three-hour epic just two years after Hugo. Scorsese was clearly not worried about continuity, which was a huge risk to take. Instead, he includes disjointed insert shots that actually connect the shots very well and in an exciting manner. Everything he did in this film should not have worked, but with his patience and film wisdom that usually only older, more seasoned filmmakers can muster, it did.
Personally, I think Martin Scorsese deserves the Achievement in Directing Oscar this year. He had the best artistic control over his movie, and he used his authority to produce an exceptional product. The reality is, we will most likely see Cuarón win tonight, with McQueen a close second. There is always next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment