Oscar's Best Director (2009)

Here are the five Academy Award nominees for Best Director: Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire), Stephen Daldry (The Reader), David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon) and Gus Van Sant (MILK). Who will win? Who should win? Who was snubbed? Vote and discuss.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I think Boyle takes it, because I think Slumdog Millionaire takes Best Picture.

That said, I'm less sure about Director than I am about Picture. I can see Benjamin Button taking almost every major award except Best Picture, as if to say "really, really impressive film when taking each piece by itself. But it didn't come together quite right." Which seems to be the tack a lot of reviewers are taking.

David Fincher will win this award , I guarantee it.

It's like when they gave Scorsese the award for The Departed. (except I enjoy The Departed)

__________________

I'm about 101% sure that this award is either going to Boyle or Fincher because it seems like everybody loved Slumdog and just as many people admired the hell out of Curious Case. Bit of a toss-up in my opinion.

Who got left out? Nolan's the biggest omission and I'm not even going to rant that point, but I would've liked to have seen some love thrown in Aronofsky's direction as well...

These nominations are a bit of a joke to me and I guess I'll delve into that whenever I hit up the Best Picture thread. I'm rooting for Fincher to win, if only in the hope that he apologizes in his acceptance speech and admits that Ben Button is actually just abject tripe and then asks the academy members if they even bothered watching their screener copies of Zodiac last year.

I think it is a "oops, missed your really good movies, here's one to make up for all those" Oscar for Fincher, like the already mentioned, The Departed for Scorcese. But from what I've seen, I really liked Howard's direction, I believe he told it like it was a documentary. That was a pretty genius idea, and it should be rewarded with one more little golden guy.

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

I don't think the Academy is ready to award Fincher, I honestly don't.

That said, Boyle will take it.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

ok, silly question from someone who's not quite the cinephile you all are - why do the oscars always seem so incestuous? it bugs me to no end that the same movies can take all awards. why not have just one category, reward everyone who remotely touched the movie and call it a day?

as far as Im concerned it doesnt necessarily follow that the best picture had the best director, or best actor/actress for that matter. Etc., ad nauseum, but I digress. And yes, I do understand the corelation from a general perspective, but I think they grossly overgeneralize.

and in this case, from what I have seen - I think either Daldry or Fincher - Fincher more so.

__________________
something witty goes here......

I'd like to see Fincher get it, but I think it'll go to Danny Boyle. I see the Best Picture/Best Director being split this year.

OK, first of all this year the five Best Director nominees match up with the Best Pictures. This is actually not a common occurrence at the Academy Awards. Since 1965 this is only the fourth time the two categories match up. It happened at the 1965 ceremony, the 1982 and 2006. If you think this would make it more likely that then the Director and Picture winners would also match, again you'd be wrong. In 1965 they did (George Cuckor/My Fair Lady) but '82 it was split (Warren Beatty, Reds/Chariots of Fire) as was 2006 (Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain/Crash).

Secondly, I'll go through my annual Director=Picture spiel. It used to be rare that the Best Director was not also Best Picture. From 1968 to 1998 it happened only four times: In '68 (Mike Nichols, The Graduate/In the Heat of the Night), 1972 (Bob Fosse, Cabaret/The Godfather), 1982 (Warren Beatty, Reds/Chariots of Fire) and 1990 (Oliver Stone, Born On the Fourth of July/Driving Miss Daisy).


So, four times in thirty years ain't a lot. But then came the more recent Oscar history. From 1999 through 2008 the Best Director and Best Picture have been split four more times: 1999 (Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan/Shakespeare in Love), 2001 (Steven Soderbergh, Traffic/Gladiator), 2003 (Roman Polanski, The Pianist/Chicago) and the aforementioned 2006 (Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain/Crash).

So from four in three decades to four in nine years. Will it be a fifth in ten this year?


Stephen Daldry and The Reader getting noms for both Director and Picture was a bit of a stunner Thursday morning. But this is already Daldry's third nomination, getting previous nods for Billy Elliot and The Hours. Considering these are the first three feature films he has ever directed, that is damned impressive. I'll have to research it, but I can't think of any other director who has done that, certainly none in the post-Studio System era. But despite this amazing bit of trivia, I don't think anybody would list him among the top two or three directors working today. I doubt he would even be mentioned in most people's top twenty or even fifty. But here he is. I think he has absolutely zero chance of winning this year, but I'm going to have to start figuring him into my pre-Oscar predictions. His next project is going to be an adaptation of Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay. So maybe the fourth time will be the charm?

This is Ron Howard's second nomination as Best Director. It should be his third but somehow even though he won the DGA Award for Apollo 13 he wasn't even nominated at the Oscar's (the year Mel Gibson and Braveheart won). Of course Ronny won the Academy Award for A Beautiful Mind, as did the film for Picture. I suppose he has more of a chance of winning than Daldry this time, but not much more. Frost/Nixon is well made and showcases a couple of top-notch performances, but it and Ron just plain are not going to be given Oscar gold.

Unlike Daldry, who even with his consistent Oscar nominations is not a known commodity in the business, the name David Fincher has been something special for quite a while now. That this is his first dance at the Oscars is silly but typical, and his earlier genre films aren't the "usual" Oscar fare. I happen to like Benjamin Button a lot, but even its detractors have to admit it is an extremely well crafted bit of cinema. If you don't connect with it I think it's probably fault of the something in the story and script, not Fincher's demonstrable skills behind the camera. Since Christopher Nolan didn't make the cut, it is Fincher and Button that is the most ambitious and technically complex of the entries. I think that's going to get Fincher some votes, whether or not those same people vote for Button as Picture.



Gus Van Sant was nominated once before, for Good Will Hunting (the year of the Titanic juggernaut). After reveling in the independent film world that thrust him into the mainstream. He took that newfound clout for one of the oddest moves in recent decades: an often shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho. He lives here in Portland and I've run into him a couple times at screenings around town, but I haven't yet mustered up the courage to ask him WTF that was about. Bar bet, is my guess. After the inevitable critical and popular failure of that project he made Finding Forrester, which is a nice if unremarkable Studio pic. From there he really went back to his roots, experimenting with tones and styles in a series of indie projects that not only alienated whatever Good Will Hunting fans were left but even puzzled some who adored Drugstore Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho. When he signed on to MILK it was definitely a return to the mainstream, being a big biopic with an acknowledged great actor with a prime release for awards consideration, but unlike Psycho and Forrester there is no hint of selling out or subverted passion for cinema. The hubub over California's Prop 8 underlined the relevance of Harvey Milk's story and gave it an extra immediacy it probably wouldn't have had three or four years ago. Everything clicked for Van Sant this time. But is it enough for an Oscar win?

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire is by far the most satisfying stand-up-and-cheer flick of the year, and like Van Sant he didn't really have to change his style or sensibility from his earlier works that built his reputation in making this crowd-pleaser. In fact it is because of his editing and visual style that Slumdog doesn't come off as a sentimental bit of hokum, but feels like a fresh, fun ride. The question is, even with the enormous goodwill the movie has and it clearly being the one and only pure "entertainment" among the nominees, is it going to garner the Oscars for either Best Director and/or Best Picture?


I actually smell another split coming this year. Despite all the love I think that Slumdog isn't going to make it and that David Fincher is going to just beat out Van Sant in this category. But it's the closest three-way Director race in years, as I see it. Usually it comes down to two viable candidates, but Howard and Daldry are the only two I count completely out of this one. The only real "surprise" in this category the past couple decades was when Polanski won over Scorsese and Rob Marshall (and Daldry). I don't think we're in for another shocker here, but I do feel Fincher is going to win out this time.

But that's only my guess.

this is what you said:

this is what I read:

1a. the director/movie categories have matched in all five nominations only 4 times (including this year)
1b. of those previous 3 times (all five nominations matching in both categories), only one nomination won both director and picture

2a. from '68 to '98 - a 30year period - only 4 nominations failed to win both picture and director (13.33% of movies)
2b. from '98 to now - a 9 year period - 4 more nominations failed to win director and picture (44.44% of movies)

approx a 31% increase in splits between director/picture

in sum: the oscars have always been incestuous (2a), and in those years when they were most incestuous (1a), they branched out of the family (1b). Actually, in recent years they've started aggressively branching out of the happy little family (2b).

this is what I want to know:

why? why does Director=Picture, and if there really is a strong argument for why it does, why do we have 2 categories at all? this may not be the best thread for an Oscars Philosophy Crash Course, nor am I trying to waylay the direction of this particular discussion from the nominated pictures/directors, but I really do want to know.

Ummmmm, as I think you formulate just fine, I was detailing that the notion of Best Director automatically equals Best Picture is actually a fallacy, voting wise and philosophically. Also not sure why voting that the year's Best Picture means that they are also the Best Director is "incestuous", but thanks for paying attention!

Hitchcock and Kurosawa both basically said that a director cannot make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear". To me, that means that there should be a greater correlation between Best Screenplay and Best Picture than the one between Picture and Director, but the average folk (and I'm trying to explain it to you that on most sets, the director dominates over the scripter) are going to vote for the person they feel most responsible for the finished project. If the actors see the director every single shot and see the scripter once a week, they will vote Best Director along the same lines as they vote Best Picture. It's just human nature, and I'm pretty sure that actors are by far the major percentage of Academy members.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I'm going Boyle here. I think this is a split year. And I think Boyle's work was impressive.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

hmm. i think there has not yet been a clearly explained answer as to why the Director/Picture nominations are often the same. We can split hairs over minor percentages where the nominations or wins were split, but its clear that those instances were the exceptions, not the rule.

oh. i'm sorry if the analogy "incestuous" is a problem for you. I realize it does have a negative connotation, but its a connotation i intended because i think it applies. to answer your implied question: to me, without further explanation, several of the oscar awards categories have an unhealthy, unexplained and potentially unfair(?) correlation. i suppose I could have said it feels like . . . nepotism! but that word is even more inexact. regardless of the choice of word, i trust most people understand my meaning about the relationship between the categories. i also grant that its perfectly reasonable to disagree with the characterization of the oscars as incestuous, but i find it unfortunate that several posts later my initial question (why are they correlated?) still hasnt been answered.

i just want an answer to the simple question, is all. its not necessary to suggest that the question itself isnt legitimate, simply because one doesnt agree the awards are incestuous. just tell me why they're not incestuous. and actually, from a learning standpoint, i'd also be interested in knowing why the question itself isnt considered legitimate by film industry buffs (if indeed that is the case).

but I surmise its not.

Person A: I think the oscars are incestuous. Why?
Person B: The best director always wins best picture for the most part.
Person A: Exactly so! Incestuous! Why?
Person B: I dont like that word "incestuous." And I disagree!
Person A: Clearly. But you havent answered my origional question. Why?

nevertheless. getting to the bottom of, or getting a straight answer on this question is proving to be quite an education - mostly its because everyone seems to take the Best Picture/Best Director corelation for granted (apparently also Best Picture/Best Screenplay), and to assume that everyone else does as well. I find it interesting that "because" is accepted as a good enough answer.

i've turned to googling, and even that is like sifting through vague ambiguities, where everyone seems to accept that the answer removes the need for the question. One self proclaimed Oscar blogger expressed detailed and noteworthy Oscar trivia from his years of personal study in his blog. I thought the following of his observations germane to my question - though not answering it:

the issue came up as an off-color commentary in one old newspaper article about the Best Directors from North Carolina. The comments made seemed to circle a little closer to the direct question, and were, in pertinent part:

mark - i just read your post, and I think it paints a much clearer picture. if its considered that the director "managed the circus" that made the best picture, its often seems to naturally follow (from an average person standpoint) that the director is perceived to have also been the best director?

i think it helps to understand if it is true that the voters here are essentially the actors being "directed." its odd though.

i will be the first to confess im not versed about the film industry, so from the outside, it seems that the coach should get a championship ring with the team, but that's just it: get one with the team. it becomes more problematic when you separate the coaches from the team, and award them separately. I would imagine the purpose for separating the two in the first place was because someone decided that some outstanding coaches were underserved when the award is lumped together with the team (e.g. in some years a great team won, and everyone knew the coach was mediocre or nonexistent, and had they the choice, they would have given the "coach" award to another).

(analogy is coach=director, team=picture)

ok. fine. but if that is why they separated them, you would think that in 30 years the separation would have been justified - that they would have split the awards more often. if you split the awards 4 times in 30 years, i dont see the separate category as being justified.

the point holden (seems to be!) making simply points out that in the more recent past, the separate category began to justify itself by splitting the awards more often.

I look at it this way, if people think that you are qualified as one of the best directors of the year (the 5 nominated) chances are you've directed one of the best films of the year (the 5 nominated).

I think it's definitely a split year, and I think who wins the thing comes down to which also-ran film the Academy wants to award for director. All these guys are deserving enough, but I think Sant hasn't quite climbed far enough back onto Olympus to win this year. Fincher and Boyle are two guys that have been climbing into the Academy's good graces for years, I think, and both are certainly due some kind of recognition for being continually fresh, competent visionaries. It comes down to these two, and I think Fincher gets it unless the Academy is feeling particularly Little Miss Sunshine in this category.

All that said, I think it's entirely possible that Howard could steal this one. I think Frost/Nixon is a viable sleeper, and Howard has earned enough chips over the years to cash in for Academy pantheon gold. That, and with all the recent political events, I can't see Frost/Nixon going unrecognized.

Danny Boyle wins the Directors Guild Award.

And I guess that's my cue for my annual DGA/Oscar spiel. The Directors Guild Award is one of the best Oscar predictors around. Since its inception in 1949 the DGA winner has been the Oscar winner for Best Director every year except for six...

2003: Rob Marshall, Chicago - Roman Polanski, The Pianist
2001: Ange Lee, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - Steven Soderbergh, Traffic
1996: Ron Howard, Apollo 13 - Mel Gibson, Braveheart
1986: Steven Spielberg, The Color Purple - Sydney Pollack, Out of Africa
1973: Francis Ford Coppola, The Godfather - Bob Fosse, Cabaret
1969: Anthony Harvey, The Lion in Winter - Carol Reed, Oliver!

So this definitely makes Boyle the favorite. Not a lock, especially since three of the six DGA differences with the Academy have come in the past dozen years, but most definitely the favorite.

Boyle has this, but I'd rather see Fincher take it.

-UJ