Final Best Director predictions: Will Lanthimos score?
Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 10:00AM Will the Academy's 512 wide director's branch go their own way this week while balloting for their nominations, or will they just co-sign what the Globes and the DGA said (i.e. Cooper, Cuarón, Farrelly, Lee, and McKay)? BAFTA, for all its myriad problems of trying to be part of the Oscar race rather than keep its own uniquely British identity, actually gave us a possibly best case scenario (i.e. Cooper, Cuarón, Lee, Pawlikowski, and Lanthimos)...
I've come to believe that there are only two true locks, Alfonso Cuarón and Spike Lee, both of whom would be strong contenders if the films were released in any other year, too, given their filmographies and reputations and previous Oscar history, both a lot of it and far-too-little-and-everyone-knows-it, respectively. Bradley Cooper, Adam McKay, and Peter Farrelly, are all vulnerable in different ways: Cooper because the film is a romantic drama which often gives Oscar pause because they're so 'manly'-movie focused; McKay because the film is divisive; Farrelly due to a bumpy season with noisy vocal detractors.
That said, the DGA nominations suggest that they're also definitely formidable contenders for the coveted Oscar nomination. But this is what's important to remember always during awards season: the Academy voting populace is much smaller and much different than the guilds or and has no overlap with the other precursors in terms of voters (like the Globes, critics awards, etcetera). The DGA represents 16,000 or so directors and assistant directors so Oscar's 512 voting directors are but a tiny fraction of the DGA equation. Oscar's directing branch generally ditches a DGA choice for one of their own (and famously ditched 3 of the choices in 2012, their most iconoclastic year this century as previously discussed). For the time being I've chosen to randomly select McKay as the one who gets the chop and Lanthimos as the more idiosyncratic choice of the Director's branch.
Part of me wanted to predict a surprise from Pawlikowski of Chazelle along with Lanthimos both of whom are right in the wheelhouse of what the director's branch sometimes goes for (foreign masters and ambitious technical achievements, respectively). The trouble is that Alfonso Cuarón satisifies both of those impulses and has received the lion's share of attention. In the end I've opted to just stick with Lanthimos under career momentum reasoning. His reputation has been building for years and The Favourite is already his biggest hit ($20 million and growing) with plenty of steam still left in its release. What's more he accomplished that without losing even a fraction of his own peculiar voice... even though he didn't write the screenplay this time.
It's more than possible that Lanthimos won't make it, of course, but if he doesn't he'll be "overdue" next time around. Oscar is a continuum, you see, with past, present, and future all in play. In fact, of the director's who are likely to be passed over this year, Ryan Coogler (Black Panther) would also benefit in this way. All three of Coogler's films (Fruitvale Station, Creed, Black Panther) have been very well received by audiences and critics so it's only a matter of time before Oscar comes around. Here's the director chart.
Now watch the Director's branch throw another 2012 our way. And they might (if Cuarón and Lee are hogging too many ballots, intense and very small fandoms could give us the other three nominees in which case all bets are off) Stay tuned!
Reader Comments (37)
I would call Cooper a lock as well. After him, Lee, and Cuarón, the remaining two spots are up for grabs. I agree Lanthimos probably takes one of them.
Farrelly’s past and the Green Book scandals of the past week probably doom him, and Vice is too divisive. Will go out on a limb and say Jenkins/Beale Street sneaks in. I wish it was Chazelle but it just doesn’t seem like it’s happening this year.
Maybe it will be Spike Lee who gets booted. Isn’t it always the deserving “locked” candidates who become the surprise snubs? I am still reeling from Dennis Quaid in 2002. 😂
After reading this, I think Cuaron is the only true lock. Cuaron's presence will probably just about kill off any chances for Pawlikowski too.
I've pretty much given up hope of anyone getting anything right and/or doing something cool this year. Everyone's been so lacking in self-awareness so far that at this point I'd barely be shocked if they nominated Bryan effing Singer.
I am praying for
Cuarón
Lee
Lanthimos
Granik
B Jenkins
My ideal ballot would be:
Zhao - Granik - Lanthimos - B Jenkins - Guadagnino / Schnabel
This will never happen, but I am glad that happens in my mind.
I think Lanthimos is the worst thing of the film- Fight me!!
But I think he's in.
Prediction:
CUARÓN
LANTHIMOS
SPIKE LEE (deserved!! Try to make a topical film that is a thriller, buddy comedy and political manifesto while make it entertaining!! It could have been a righteous, condescending docudrama)
COOPER
CHAZELLE (Susrprise, surprise!! The Academy won't forget big spectacle that manages to be so intimate)
My ideal ballot
1- Spike Lee
2- Paul Shrader (understatement is so underrated these days)
3- Debra Granik
4- Pavel Pawlikowski (a formalist, no matter what you think of the film. he never gets in the way like Cuarón often does. And I love Alfonso!)
5- Clint Eastwood (I just saw The Mule! Is extraordinary! The last of the classical directors makinh another crepuscular film. Americans will miss him when he's gone. And regret overlooking this film. The shots that open and close it are pure beauty!)
I too think that Cuarón is the only lock. Cooper could miss the way Affleck did (though I don't think he will), Lee could miss as it seems too good to be true that he finally gets a Directing nomination (though I hope he does), and Lanthimos, Farrelly and McKay are all in there but probably can't all be fitted in.
For his beautiful control of First Reformed, its quiet sobriety and that ending, Schrader deserves a nomination. First Man feels as though it could be this year's Foxcatcher and get in for Chazelle but not for Picture - or it could be one of those films that rebounds with a hefty stack of nominations, leaving us all baffled as to why we thought it would miss. Or it could miss!
Pawlikowski is a potential spoiler. Granik would be a very pleasant surprise.
I do think the Directors' branch usually comes through on the side of the good.
If Peter Fucking Farrelly gets nominated for best director of Barry Jenkins/Yorgos Lanthimos/Damien Chazelle/etc I will rage for days.
over, not of.
You'll live, one way or another.
Don't let fanboyism lead you down to Peter Fucking Farrelly then complan about...well, anything.
If Beale Street Could Talk has some very thoughtful criticism from people who really want to like the film. Whichever is the better film over time, it is lamentable that the criticism of Green Book isn't as thoughtful as you think your choice of film (Beale Street) is.
For the record, not that I've yet made a top 10 director list, but I don't think Farrelly wouldn't get in.
I just wish sophisticated cinephiles could criticize Green Book beyond its existence as simple (such a bad thing) or things like the comment above. Would make for some actual discourse and reason for less whiny film lovers, but it's really just a matter of people not wanting to like a film and trying to bully it.
For me hopefully....
Alfonso Cuaron
Steve McQueen
Barry Jenkins
Spike Lee
Luca Guadagnino
I would also hope for women to be nominated even though I didn't see a lot of new films directed by women in 2018.
I just hope there's no director nods for Bryan Singer (ew!) and Peter Farrelly (boo!).
I have second hand embarrassment for people defending Green Book.
You have firsthand dumbfuck in posting.
What's annoying is that the people "defending" Green Book aren't actually offering any real defense of it, they're just sort of plugging their ears and going "I don't want to hear it" in the face of any number of points about the film's tropes, messaging, blandness, place in film history, historical accuracy, and the conduct of the people who made it. It's like they realize they realized they signed up for a cult and just keep on defending it in spite of mounting evidence just because they have too much pride to admit they were wrong.
MJS;
No one likes hearing the pot calling the lemon black.
A few posts above lies a post looking for discourse, making some quick points, and your whiny ass comes in because you think you know what you're saying.
And sorry, as I kinda cross the line into speaking for you. But all you did was clearly insult me while backing someone calling people embarrassing, despite saying nothing.
First of all, historical inaccuracy? Seriously? About two guys who drove in a car together and weren't recorded?
Conduct of people who made it? That's like someone calling out the guy who recorded the Eric Gardener incident for having a criminal record. Have something to offer, not shit to spew.
The movie is a story of two different people, crossing thru a time and place that can bring out the worst. One is not the hero ready to illuminate, as neither the other the obvious ignorant who needs to be saved.
They bond. The two performances are superb, particularly the cornball white man and his "It's all about what I've learned" "trope", and the movie is hilarious.
The chicken is scene is hysterical, and if you didn't laugh then that's your problem.
It's simple, simpler than Driving Miss Daisy. And it's sweet, clever, riddled with personality (bland lol), and positive.
Also, it doesn't go for any of the obvious that you claim. Your palette is clearly too sophisticated. Many of you who are appalled by how simple this is, LOVE Crazy Rich Asians.
Which, in itself, is not the problem. But it's funny you think I have to tell tell you why you're wrong, rather than you not insult and actually tell me what you think.
Btw, Nathaniel I think liked it. Not sure if he's nominating Viggo or not, but maybe he dislikes it.
Doesn't stop him from not sounding stupid, either way.
Palate**
“So if my reaction to “Green Book”’s not “stupid” enough and if it’s not “sophisticated” enough and if it’s not “lemon” enough, then tell me, Me, what am I?!”
Me;
When you make a post with stuff about "fanboyism" and "whiny film lovers" and stuff like "the criticism of Green Book isn't thoughtful" and "it's really just a matter of people not wanting to like a film and trying to bully it" you are not "asking for discourse" you are plainly trying to provoke peoples passions or "flame" as they say around the internet.
Your comparison to the guy who filmed the Eric Garner incident is frankly bizarre, these aren't people who happened to be somewhere in order to witness a real-life incident, they're people who were chosen to script and then film a narrative feature over the course of several years and meticulously decide what to put in the film, what not to put in the film, and what to invent for the film. Their worldview obviously effects what they have created in a way that someone pressing record while in the vicinity of police violence does not.
That the movie is about people bonding on a road trip is not an insight, it's a plot summary. The notion that a black person and a white person can be friends is not a bold and new idea in 2018, for that matter it wasn't bold and new in 1989, it's a banality. It's an attitude that ignores the systemic prejudice that exists in this country and advances this naive and unproductive notion that "progress" just comes down to individuals being nice to one another. It's a movie that treats racism as if it's some archaic social ill that was overcome in the 60s and it seldom challenges any kind of racism that isn't of the Jim Crow variety and basically gives a free pass to the way African Americans have been treated outside of the South (the scene with the benevolent Northern cop who pulls them over towards the end is particularly galling).
You mention If Beale Street Could Talk earlier, that's a movie that takes place a decade after Green Book and in the middle of New York City and it doesn't labor under any of the same delusions, it shows exactly how systems are used as a means of oppression rather than acting like it's some matter of day to day politeness and is unafraid to show how these social ills linger on and how it's not going to be so simple to overcome them.
And for the record, Crazy Rich Asians did nothing for me.
You know, that came to mind quite suddenly and I actually deleted it, as I shouldn't use that at all.
All I'll say is watch it on its own merits. If you think it's ass, then so be it. The implication was that it's relevant to discuss that stuff when discussing the film. And it's not, and that's absolute.
And you know what, at best you are disenguous. Those quotes are directed at a lot of the people here and at those specific comments. As already said, THAT is the problem.
And it's rather bullshit that you deliberately cut and paste the sentences you like, in the context you paint.
I didn't say what you're saying. And it's right there in front of you.
Also who gives a shit if it is or isn't a new idea. You called my comment bizaree, given that I'm confident you're smart enough to know that I'm saying forget the director's comments or so-called past behavior.
But you took it to Jim Crow laws.
And you think you're making your point, but you're making mine, which isn't actually making me happy. The film does nothing to suggest it's supposed to change attitudes. It's its own story.
And btw I told you what I thought it didn't do, as well as why I think it succeeds. You take the beginning of my half-assed review and then tell me I gave a plot summary and not an insight.
literally ignored what I wrote.
Advance a notion? What fucking notion? You will never bother to see that you only criticize it for what you think it should be about.
Me;
Look dude. I'm really not following your logic here and you don't seem to really be listening to what I'm saying so I'm just going to let you have the last word. Just know that racial politics is not something people should treat casually in 2018 and making a movie about racism in 2018 you take on certain responsibilities beyond simply making an affable road movie. The people who made the film seem to have rejected that responsibility in favor of making a banal movie that advances a rather trite message that we don't need anymore. The Oscars are supposed to be about the best that cinema has to offer and when movies compete for them it's not unreasonable that they get held to a higher standard.
Buddy, we must be at an impasse. Because you tell me I'm not hearing you, and I tell you that you're not hearing me.
And I'm just asking, what racial politics?
The conversation around Debra Granik may be peaking at the right time to get her in for Best Director. I agree she's a long shot because Leave No Trace is so small, but I could see it happen in the wake of the Peter Farrelly controversy. Plus, his past filmography isn't exactly helping his chances. There have to be voters who like Green Book but can't get behind the mind behind films like Dumb and Dumber and Shallow Hal as an Oscar nominee.
Seems to crazy to me that no woman is gonna get in this year. I don't believe in awarding just to make a statement (at least usually), tho it's not like awards don't do that.
Plus it seems like most of the films I've seen this year have been directed by women.
4 of my top 6 are directed by women. Obviously that's just my list, and they're smaller films, but man.
Lynne, surprise like Meirelles did, please 😥
Perhaps this'll reek of hopedicting but my honest hunch is Chazelle, Cooper, Cuaron, Jenkins and Lee.
If both Jenkins and Lee get nominated will this be the first time two African Americans got nominated in this category?
Also if Cooper doesn't get nominated here does that increase his chances of winning best actor? And vice versa?
Tom G -- yes, it will be the first time two African Americans are nominated in that category simultaneously if that happens. We've only ever had 5 black nominees for directing (one of them British) adn none of them have ever come back for a second nomination (which used to be the case with black actresses to but Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis changed that) so if Barry Jenkins is nominated this year he'll be the very first black director ever to be a multiple nominee in the category.
Also i think Cooper not getting nominated here would help him in Best Actor. But at this point I think he's going to go home empty handed. It wouldn't be the first time that happened to somehow who did everything on their film.
Me -- I think the films directed by women this year are at a huge disadvantage primarily because the conversation, the greater media narrative of 2018, has been about this stupid "will Oscar nominate popular films?!" question and so blockbusters have kind of taken over the discussion. The only woman with a huge grosser this year was Ava Duvernay for A Wrinkle in Time but that wasn't particularly respected. I'll be
Oh and please be civil. I agree with you that some of the discourse around Green Book has been reductive and not really looking at the film itself (always a problem no matter what film is being discussed) but please be civil and dont call people dumbfucks or say I'm stupid because I don't agree with you on something.
Dusty you just reopened an old wound. Dennis Quaid. *CRIES*
Gabe LOL. thanks for the chuckle in the middle of the tension in this comment thread.
Nathaniel;
All good, but to be clear (just in case I wasn't before) I did say you were not being stupid. I actually don't know your final view on it (you don't have a grade up, unless I keep missing it).
Such a shame (the women). And pretty strange. Feels like a year where the big films are getting in.
Could Marielle Heller get extra points for being a woman?
Gabe;
You're lemon enough for me.
My first impression was that Farrelly and McKay would get the boot and be replaced by Lanthimos and somebody else (Coogler? But BP is underperforming in these awards... Jenkins? Chazelle? Pawlikowski?). However, I think you've convinced me that Cuaron will command so much of the 'auteur'-leaning vote that someone more mainstream like Farrelly will get in.
I dun tink the director branch will nom Farrelly after the penis flashing debacle. Sure he has apologised, but imagine the backlash agst the Academy if he's nom. He is in the same unfortunate situation as Franco last yr: being accused o indecent behaviour right in the midst o the ballots.
N I tink Nicky V will miss the Screenplay nom too. I feel his apology is crafter by the studio for damage control n not sincere at all! I doubt he's really sorry for the tweet, he's more sorry tt he has derailed GB oscar chances.
Nathaniel, I find it interesting you think Farelly is ahead of McKay (right now, I'd rate McKay ahead). I haven't seen Vice (at this point, anything about the GOP is basically a weapons grade allergen) but it does seem like a capital-D director's film more than McKay, which strikes me as the type of film typically left out of director. The directors do like previous nominees (see Mel Gibson over Garth Davis in 2016, or even PTA over Martin McDonagh last year) which helps him (and Jenkins).
You mean Vice is more or a director's film than Green Book? You said Vice more than McKay lol.
If Green Book misses screenplay it's a shock. He's not the only writer for the film. I certainly see the movie losing the award.
Well spotted. Yes, I meant Vice over Green Book.
To the dude named Me; other than the uncomfortable racial connotations featured in Green Book, I feel like its a nice breezy little movie that gets really good when the dialogue between the two leads kicks in. That said; that’s all it is. Solid, but nothing special.
@Nathaniel
That think U said about Popular Film an Women work... Boy!! 😱
Someone return in time and fuck the conversation at AMPAS about Popular Film. This is fucking this year!
Now I understand the love to some movies at critics this year... 😨
Nominated or not, the guy's a genius.