In today’s Oscar predictions post, I’m going to write about the Best Director category. This category has had a few surprises and is throwing everyone’s prognostications out of whack. Fun!
Best Director
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Note: I’m warning you – this is going to be a long Note section.
First of all, let’s talk a minute about Kathryn Bigelow. The backlash against her and Zero Dark Thirty in the press reeks of angry, resentful sexism. However, I don’t think sexism is the reason she was snubbed at the Oscars. She and Ben Affleck were considered two frontrunners in this category, and they were both snubbed.
Why were they snubbed? Maybe the Academy members thought Bigelow and Affleck were guaranteed nominations, and voted for Haneke and Zeitlin to give them a fighting chance, and the second-guessing managed to push Bigelow and Affleck out of the way. Maybe they didn’t feel the need to award Bigelow because she won just a few years ago for a movie with similar themes and scope.
Or maybe, just maybe, they thought the five directors listed did a better job than Bigelow and Affleck. This is an unusually good year for film, after all. Had Bigelow and Affleck’s films come out in the highly unimpressive 2011 movie year, their films would’ve won everything. But you can’t look at the list of the five nominated directors and tell me that any of those five people are slouches who made boring trash. Their films were very good, too.
So, can we please stop it with the “AFFLECK WAS SNUBBED, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE” complaining? Yes, he made a very good film, but it is only the third-ever movie he’s directed and he has a big career ahead of him. To talk of his snub as though it’s the 2010s equivalent of Martin Scorsese losing again is a little much. Also, one could argue that the biggest responsibility of the director is to get good performances out of his/her actors, and uh…Affleck the actor still suffers from Imminent Death Syndrome. Besides, of the two previous frontrunners who were overlooked, he’s not the one being compared to a Nazi propagandist, so let’s all calm down, shall we?
Having said all that, I would not have minded if Affleck had been nominated, and won, in this category this year. Remember what I said before about not wanting the same people winning all the time? Well, that remains true. My three favorites in this category are Lee, Zeitlin, and Senor Spielbergo. Lee and Spielberg have won before. Zeitlin made a beautiful movie and I’m thrilled he was recognized, but I also feel that his nomination is his win. This is his first ever feature film. He doesn’t need to win an Oscar for that. And though I thought Beasts was excellent and loved it more than Argo, Argo is a comparable achievement in directing. Affleck’s not a Spielberg or Lee previous winner, and he’s not a fresh newbie like Zeitlin, so his win would’ve been a nice middle ground, if you will. (A win for Michael Haneke would also accomplish that middle ground, though, as he has a great career and has never been nominated for an Oscar.)
ANYWAY.
Should Win: Ang Lee. Picking my favorite was tough. Spielberg made Congressional procedure fascinating, Haneke was restrained and made a heartbreaking film, Russell did great work with his actors, and Zeitlin made arguably the best movie of the year (Beasts is soooooo good, people). Still, I would love to see Ang Lee win this award. I just love how precise his films are, and Life of Pi is no exception. He doesn’t waste a single shot, he doesn’t overindulge, he treats the emotional moments with the weight they deserve without wandering into treacly sentimental territory. Life of Pi was more than just a brilliant CGI achievement. It was a beautiful, moving story. His ability to combine technical brilliance with real human emotion never ceases to amaze me. He’s probably my favorite film director ever. (I have not seen The Hulk.)
Will Win: I have no clue? Heh. Now I DO want to join in on the “WHY WASN’T AFFLECK NOMINATED?!” complaining, because an Affleck nomination would make this category much easier to predict! I am very tentatively predicting Steven Spielberg. Lincoln, once considered THE frontrunner, is very quickly losing momentum. In the BAFTAs, it was nominated for a bunch of awards but then lost in every category except Best Actor. Maybe the Academy likes Lincoln more than other awards organizations do, but who knows?
Confidence Level in Making This Prediction: 25%. This category, man.
Possible Upset: Anyone except Benh Zeitlin, and most likely Michael Haneke. The stick up the Academy’s butt seems to be loosening a little in that they nominated Zeitlin at all, but not so much that they’ll award a snotty little upstart for his first-ever feature film. (I do not think Zeitlin is a snotty little upstart, but the Academy probably does.) Ang Lee could win for adapting an impossible book, making a very good and entirely non-controversial movie, and just for being Ang Lee, because who doesn’t like Ang Lee? (If you don’t like Ang Lee, don’t talk to me.) David O. Russell could win this because of how popular his film is, and because Harvey Weinstein is Harvey Weinstein. Michael Haneke is the likeliest upset, I think, because Amour has momentum. Amourmentum!
The important thing is, I am definitely not winning any money in the Oscar pool this year, because even if my other predictions are all correct, this category will completely undo me, and I never know how to predict the short film/documentary/movies nobody sees categories anyway.
For Your Consideration (besides Bigelow and Affleck): Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower; Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained; Joss Whedon, The Avengers.
Articles
Interviews
Novels, Fiction & Silliness
Reviews
I’m not American and I’ve never watched or followed the Oscars before (although I usually end up hearing some of the winners) but I have found your Oscar predictions really interesting. One thing though that I am really struggling to understand is that you have implied that the judges(voters? The Academy?) are influenced by previous wins at other awards shows. I accept that may be the case but that doesn’t seem very fair because whilst judging a film or a performance is obviously subjective shouldn’t the judges base it solely on the film and not how other people/judges have responded? You have also said how you think that if someone from one film wins one category, it’s more likely that someone else from a different film will win another. I’ve also heard that people ‘campaign’ for an Oscar, and I don’t understand why this affects it either? Who decides who wins Oscars? Basically the impression I’m getting is that they are based on some sort of weird film politics.
First, apologies for this reply being a month late. I’ve been super busy.
To answer your questions:
One thing though that I am really struggling to understand is that you have implied that the judges(voters? The Academy?) are influenced by previous wins at other awards shows. I accept that may be the case but that doesn’t seem very fair because whilst judging a film or a performance is obviously subjective shouldn’t the judges base it solely on the film and not how other people/judges have responded?
There is some overlap between the Oscar voters and the voters for other awards categories. The voters for the Golden Globes are not the same as the ones for the Oscars, but there is some overlap between SAG voters and Oscar voters, and a BIG overlap between BAFTA voters and Oscar voters. It’s not so much that they’re influenced by previous wins as some of the same people are voting for different awards. The Golden Globes are not the best predictor, but they can be good sign of the general “mood” of the awards season and which performances are favorites.
You have also said how you think that if someone from one film wins one category, it’s more likely that someone else from a different film will win another.
That’s how I felt this year, simply because this was a really good year for movies. I didn’t think any film would sweep and the Academy would want to spread the wealth. There are some years, though, when a film is a huge juggernaut and wins a ton of awards (the years Titanic and Return of the King won, for example). I also didn’t think something like Django Unchained would win two major awards because Tarantino is often too controversial for the Academy. (I was happy to be wrong in this case.)
I’ve also heard that people ‘campaign’ for an Oscar, and I don’t understand why this affects it either? Who decides who wins Oscars?
I’m reading a book on the history of the Oscars and the history of campaigning is almost as long as the history of the ceremony. People will put ads in papers highlighting their performances. You are indeed correct that there are a LOT of film politics involved in the awards 🙂