Directors Guild Nominations

[CMJ]

The DGA usually recognizes four out of the five nominated directors at the Academy Awards. As it stands, this is quite a list as well.

Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings - Two Towers
Steven Daldry, The Hours
Roman Polanski, The Pianist
Rob Marshall, Chicago
Martin Scorsese, Gangs of New York

[ReaperFett]

Any news on the DIrectors Guild? ;)


I think Scorsese will be the dropped one.

[CMJ]

I fixed the spelling. ;)

Scorcese is a mortal lock. Most likely to get left off is Polanski IMHO.

[Loki Ahmrah]

I agree with you on that Fett after seeing GONY on Sunday.

[ReaperFett]

the two non-"epic"s are going to make it, leaving Chicago, TTT and Gangs. Chicago is a musical, and I think will make it. This leaves Gangs and TTT to duke it out. I've not heard ANY bad word on Jacksons directing, while I HAVE about Scorsose.

[CMJ]

Scorcese got a Lifetime Achievement Award AND a regular nomination for GONY from the DGA. There is no way he won't be nominated.

Hell, I'd be flabberghasted if he doesn't win.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you CMJ the Globes assured he will be nominated, I think its between Jackson and Poloanski over who will be dropped.

[ReaperFett]

So because a small portion put him up for something about 20-30 years of filmmaking and votes him 5th for this film (possible), he will beat another that might have had many more votes?

[Jedi Master Carr]

What do you mean fifth what? If you mean the list I am sure its in no particular order.

[ReaperFett]

Yes, but it COULD be fifth is my point.

[CMJ]

Believe me Reaper when I say he will be nominated. If he isn't it would be one of the biggest shocks in Oscar history.

Take it to the bank. Scorcese will be nominated even if GONY isn't.

[Figrin D'an]

Scorcese is a lock, I agree. I personally was not that impressed with GONY, but if Scorcese doesn't get nominated, I'd be shocked.

[JonathanLB]

CMJ is the resident awards expert and he is totally right on this matter.

Does that list posted in the topic surprise anyone? It sure doesn't me. I would have written that movie for movie if asked. I think it was rather obvious. Chicago, The Pianist, The Two Towers, The Hours, and Gangs of New York. Those are the five big movies.

[Darth23]

Lucas snubbed again

;)

[CMJ]

Jonathan, it didn't totally shock me, but don't expect these same 5 nominee's come Academy Award day.

[JMK]

:lol @ Darth!

I can't believe it either!

[Loki Ahmrah]

I don't care about the lifetime achievement awards. He would be nominated for GONY which was a dissappointment. If Peter Jackson doesn't get an oscar for best director after ROTK I will lose what shred of faith I have left for the Acadamy Awards.

[CMJ]

In your opinion GONY was a disappointment. I found it to be a remarkable film. Most likely I will be pulling for him. Unless of course Sam Mendes is somehow nominated come Oscar time. ;)

[Hector Diens]

Scorsese is definatly in... I'd like to see Jackson in tho...

[Marcus Telcontar]

I think Jackson will be in. He wont win, but I'd bet that if ROTK even gets close to FOTR and TTT in quality, he will be absolute hands down cert. Either that, or the acadamy will get collectively lynched.

[Loki Ahmrah]

Yes, in my opinion it was a dissappointment. I'll make it clear now that I don't presume my views on anything are shared amongst all, not at all, so if I do say something like: "He would be nominated for GONY which was a dissappointment" I am making reference to my own opinion.

What Jackson has done is such a remarkable achievement; for simply taking on such an enormous project alone should've been award-worthy but to make sure a much-loved story is translated into a trilogy of - what are in my opinion - cinematic masterpieces should most definately earn him at least one Best Director award.

[CMJ]

I think Scorcese's project was a pretty damn big undertaking too. It took him 25 years to bring it to the screen. Personally I enjoyed TTT and GONY about equally(as in a bunch), but this year I'd vote for Marty.

[ReaperFett]

And some have said he made it TOO epic :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

:huh

CMJ, I've heard Scorcese really got screwed around by Miramax - do you think that with two films to promote, Miramax will just push one? I dotn doubt Scorcese has quite body of work that should have long ago been rewarded, but do yu think Miramax might not back him as much as the director of Chicago?

[ReaperFett]

I think the Miramax problem went both ways. They wanted things, he wouldnt give.

Dont know if ittd affect things. They both did well at the GG, whos to say they wouldnt again?

[JonathanLB]

Not to take sides on this issue, because I actually am closer to CMJ in my opinion (I felt that Gangs of New York came VERY close to greatness, it flirted with it over and over, and just barely fell short -- but was a worthy film), but I wanted to point out that objectively Gangs of New York is not a very acclaimed film.

I challenge anyway to prove otherwise, including CMJ, but if you look through those reviews of Gangs of New York, it got a lot of 3 to 3.5 star ratings, a lot of B's, and a lot of B+ ratings -- VERY few A ratings. Entertainment Weekly as I recall put it in the B range, my paper, The Oregonian, gave it a B, I gave it a B+. There is critical consensus, actually, that Gangs of New York was good, or very good, but not great. It's a small minority of people who really think it was a great film, so for it to be doing so well in the early awards figuring is rather remarkable and a total testament to Scorsese's brilliance.

Lest anyone forget, even if they don't like Gangs of New York, Scorsese is an absolutely incredible director. The fact that Gangs of New York is one of my least favorite films of his, yet I gave it 3.5 stars, is a testament to his craft. It's obvious people have high regard for him because he's an amazingly talented individual, but I think it's rather unfair to judge a work by who created it when you really should look at the work itself. Gangs of New York is not worthy of being considered one of the best films of the year, which is not to say that I am offended that it is doing well in awards shows. To the contrary, I'm really happy that it's doing well because last year, Gangs of New York was replaced with something TERRIBLE like In the Bedroom or that stupid POS Gosford Park. At least this year they're in the ball park because Gangs of New York still would make my top 25, probably #19 or #20 actually (I gave 16 four-star ratings).

So in defense of CMJ's opinion though, I found that in many parts Gangs of New York was great, but I'm still saying that the critical consensus for that film was decidely less enthusiastic than Chicago, The Pianist, The Hours, FAR less than Lord of the Rings (with damn near 100% approval), and even something like Bowling for Columbine, Road to Perdition, etc. It's just rather odd for a film with about 75% approval (and most of those 75% giving it B's) to be competing for Best Picture. Hard to understand, really, until you read, "DIRECTED BY MARTIN SCORSESE."

"If Peter Jackson doesn't get an oscar for best director after ROTK I will lose what shred of faith I have left for the Acadamy Awards."

Well, I'm surprised personally you have any shred of faith in the Academy. I have great respect for the Academy of the past, and I actually include awards information in almost ALL of my classic movie reviews (even if it won no awards, then it's worth mentioning if the film made the AFI Top 100, for instance). Sure, the Academy has been making "mistakes" since the early days of its operation, but I find that many of their decisions in the past are very commendable. I may not agree that one great movie was better than another great movie the same year, but I do agree that their choice is great, still. I mean, only a fool would expect that their personal favorite film from each year would also be the majority favorite film of the Academy, for instance. If the film they chose made your top 10 or 15 list, or even top 25 list, assuming you saw 100+ movies (as a critic, too), then that's in the ball park and certainly commendable. When they choose a film you felt was only mediocre, well, that is pretty damaging to any respect you can have for them.

The total lack of respect for a film like FOTR in favor of ridiculous actor-driven nonsense like A Beautiful Mind stuns me. I've rarely seen such a mediocre film win best picture -- usually I either hate the winner or love it, but ABM defines mediocrity for me, C, 2 stars, etc.

If Jackson doesn't win an Oscar for ROTK, I will seriously be sad for him because he deserves that honor of going in front of a body of people, a respected Academy, and receiving the ultimate glory that a director can, really, at least from the critical establishment. What he has done is perhaps one of the most remarkable feats in cinema history. I'm not sure you can compare any single production to the making of three epic, three-hour long movies. Lucas' task with making 6 Star Wars movies over like 30 years (1975-2005) is, to me, definitely one of the most stunning achievements, too, because he even invented a lot of his own special effects technology between trilogies to complete his saga. It is a remarkable body of work in and of itself, truly like a life's work, but Jackson absolutely deserves an Oscar for his work on at least one of these LOTR films. I mean, boy, if they don't give him one, they better MAKE UP a Special Achievement Award of some sort to atone for that lack of acknowledgement, which would be an injustice, IMO.

[CMJ]

Scorcese's films are often divided critically.

To answer Marcus, I am really curious what Miramax does about pushing the films they have in contention.

[CMJ]

And Rob Marshall wins for 'Chicago'. He basically has the Oscar locked up now(Scorcese loses Best Director to a 1st timer again) with the DGA's track record.

[JonathanLB]

That's not a very good decision. Chicago was a great film, but the direction wasn't its huge strong point by any means. It's nice for him that he won, and not a terrible decision (thank you for not awarding The Hours of Boredom, DGA), but Peter Jackson was clearly the best director of the year with the hardest project to complete. I mean besides George Lucas, who wasn't nominated and who Hollywood hates, so I just leave his name out when I'm discussing these things ;)

Still not a "bad" decision, it's just surprising what they choose to recognize.

[ReaperFett]

One award doesnt clinch it. He didnt win a BAFTA, did he? ;)

[CMJ]

It doesn't clinch it, but it all but does. The DGA is the gold standard of track records. In 54 years their winner of Best Director has won the Oscar all but 5 times. So you've got a nearly 90% certanity looming.

I'd say only Scorcese could upset him.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think there is a chance that Chicago will have a big night. Hey by the way when is the Oscars, does it fall on a Sunday again?

[CMJ]

The Academy Awards are on the 23rd(a Sunday). I expect the musical to win perhaps 7 or more Oscar's.

[JonathanLB]

No doubt...

Although this year could be pretty divided, I mean, it has that potential given that critics are very split on what is actually the best film. It's not like Ben-Hur or Gone With the Wind just came out. The movies that came out last year, many of them, were very good and have their own groups of fans in the critical and artistic community, so it'll be interesting to see how people vote. Chicago is by no means a consensus best picture. It may win the most votes, definitely a good chance of that, but if you polled all critics, then all directors, actors, etc., and asked them to name any movie they wanted for best picture, you'd probably get quite a wide scope that was very much divided and I'm not sure you'd get Chicago with the most votes. But between those five nominees, perhaps.

[CMJ]

I doubt many films win Best Picture from the Academy going away. Every film is sure to have it's diehards. I think 'Chicago' is looming as the surest thing in several years...maybe since '97.

[JonathanLB]

I'm not sure I agree with you honestly CMJ.

You are making an assumption that I don't think there is good reason to believe. I think 1997 would have been a really close race. In fact, I felt it was shocking that Titanic won Best Picture. I expected it to sweep technical categories, just like Star Wars did in '77, but I thought for sure L.A. Confidential would win Best Picture. It had won best film from all eleven major critics circles. I was surprised to see that the Academy differed from everyone else. There really isn't a serious film critic around today who thinks Titanic is the best film of '97, sorry. If you can find one, I'd be impressed. I think it must have been all of the actors and actresses and stuff who voted for that film, because the critical majority would never have made it Best Picture. Ever.

I think every year is somewhat surprising in some ways. There are always a few films that are deserving, only one that can win.

[CMJ]

If I remember right, Peter Travers had it as his #1 film. I'm sure there were others.

I'm making the assumption based on how many Oscar's 'Titanic' won - 11. "LA Confidential" won two. In fact I don't think anything else won more than two. That means it most likely had support in ALL the branches. The techie people *probably* voted for it, the actors *probably* voted for it, and the directors *probably* voted for it. Of course I'm not saying all members in these groups voted for it, but the majority...or at least a high plurality most likely did.

About the only group among the Academy that most likely didn't go for it was the writer's...and that's because they didn't nominate it, which I remember being a shock because the Writer's Guild HAD nominated it.

I think 'Titanic' probably won in a landslide.

BTW here's the most current breakdown of the Academy that I have.

AMPAS Breakdown:
5,739 Total voters
1,315 Actors
459 Producers
430 Executives
409 Writers
409 Sound
368 Public relations
364 Art directors
364 Directors
362 Members-at-large
299 Shorts
247 Music composers, lyricists
217 Visual effects
216 Film editors
170Cinematographers
110 Documentarians

[Jedieb]

No critics? But I thought they knew everything....

[JonathanLB]

Guaranteed any critic knows more than any actor. I bet that's true to a person. I doubt there is even one actor who has half the film knowledge of even one professional critic working for a magazine or newspaper of any kind.

I suppose maybe the worst few critics who don't even deserve to be called critics may know less than a 70-year-old actor, but... I doubt it.

Oh, and I don't mean actor-directors like Clint Eastwood. He knows his stuff.

Most actors don't know that much about film history from what I have seen, but who cares? They know their craft. That's plenty good enough. I don't think you can expect an actor or actress to know everything about film history. That's not very useful to them, IMO. As long as they know how to act and have taken classes in it, maybe seen a few movies with especially good acting (you know, studied James Dean a bit, or whatever). Directors, however, should really know their film history. I think so, anyway. If they don't, well, that's ok as long as they can make great movies, but I would argue that you need an appreciation of film history to be a great director. Lucas knew from Kurosawa's works plus Metropolis, all foreign films, and plenty of other directors were influenced by lesser known movies, too. Look at The Untouchables with the step sequence that mimics Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin witht he Odessa Steps sequence (one of the most famous sequences in film history). Palma no doubt watched that in film school, as I did in film class, and decided to pay homage to it through his film.

You do get better results when you have critics vote on awards instead of the Academy sometimes, I think. Give me L. A. Confidential over Titanic any day. Then again, sometimes the critics are too weird and choose films that nobody has seen 'cept them, lol.

I don't have anything against actors and actresses, for the record, but I do think that most of them strike me as pretty life dumb. It's a lot like in football, I mean you can try to act like no difference exists, but you're simply a fool if you really believe that quarterbacks are as STUPID as those linemen. Almost every one of those linemen are incredibly stupid. The brain cells they may have had at one point, while not sizeable, are destroyed through constant bashing heads. The quarterbacks are often very intelligent, like Joe Montana or Steve Young, or John Elway. The directors are smart. They know their film history. Many of them know how to manage their money quite well too, like Spielberg or Lucas, for instance. Then there are the actors and actresses. Most of the actresses are airheads with very little class, while a few of them are smart and classy, this is rare. That's why Natalie Portman is so awesome. She's smart and she's a good actress. Rare combo. The actors are not a lot better. You listen to these people on Leno and you tell me they are real sharp, LOL. There are a few, that's for sure. Robin Williams is great, for instance. But many of them I have been incredibly unimpressed with. I used to think Gillian Anderson was a goddess on Earth, but after a few interviews I saw with her, she's pretty low class and I doubt she's that intelligent.

Actors and actresses often think they are the big deal, they are the kings and queens of the world. In reality, they are the pawns. The directors are the kings. That's proven when the director tells THEM how to act, where to stand, and where to move. lol.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by CMJ
I doubt many films win Best Picture from the Academy going away. Every film is sure to have it's diehards. I think 'Chicago' is looming as the surest thing in several years...maybe since '97.

:(

If TTT dont win I want Gangs to win.

[JonathanLB]

I wish TTT could win too. :\

[CMJ]

I'm pulling for GONY, but "Chicago" is an unbeatable train right now.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah well you know what happens to a train with just a little bit of dynamite...

...giant train wreck :D

[CMJ]

Yes, but this year I just don't see that happening. The stars have aligned for the musical this year. As I said earlier, it may DOMINATE the awards, winning seven or more. The last few years awards have been fairly evenly spread out.

I don't expect that to be the case this year.

[JonathanLB]

Perhaps so. At least it would mean an excellent movie winning a lot of awards, which is something I can certainly tolerate. :)

I liked the 2001 awards for 2000 with both Gladiator and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon racking up a ton of nominations. Now that was more like it. This year is good, too. Last year... throw that to the fire.

[CMJ]

Well look at it this way. The last few years the top winning films won...

1999 - American Beauty with 5
2000 - Gladiator with 5
2001 - A Beautiful Mind with 4

In addition in 2000 and 2001 there were strong challengers winning alot of awards.

(1999 - Matrix won 4, however it wasn't up for the "Majors", so it's more of a footnote)
2000 - Traffic with 4, CTHD with 4
2001 - FOTR with 4

Really 1998 was a super competitive race too with "Shakeaspeare in Love" winning 7 to Spielberg's SPR's 5.

Previous to '98, the trend was the Oscar blowout. Most Best Picture winners won MANY of the awards with several films vying for the scraps.

This year seems to be more akin to Pre 98 from what I can tell.

[JonathanLB]

Good points, CMJ, thanks for the facts :)

I had forgotten how many nominations CTHD got though before the other day when I was writing an article for my site and my WR201 class (that I will share later). That movie really hit it big. Not many foreign films have ever done that well, certainly, even though there are plenty that deserved to do just as well (well, some of Kurosawa's films only got a few nominations when they could have easily had more like 7 or 8 anyway).

You never know, this year could be quite even too. It's still hard to say. Chicago could very well win Best Picture, but maybe Scorsese upsets with Best Director, hard to say.