Oscar Volley: Which five will be named "Best Director"?

Team Experience will be discussing each Oscar category as we head into the precursors. Here's Eric Blume and Glenn Dunks...  

THE FABELMANS

ERIC:  Glenn, before we get to this year's nominees, I just want to celebrate the Academy's relative great taste in this category compared to most others.  It's phenomenal that only once in the last 14 years has this award gone to a straight white American man (Damien Chazelle, deservedly in my opinion).  In those years, we've had three women, two Asian men, two Brits, and a French guy who have won, plus three great Latin filmmakers (including double wins for Iñárritu and Cuarón).  It's the category where they now have diversity and true talent.  I might have chosen differently in any given year, but none of the filmmakers are bad or untalented.  Tom Hooper beating David Fincher didn't land back then and certainly hasn't aged well, but regardless it's a great category filled with remarkable work.

This year, it seems our one lock is Steven Spielberg?  He wouldn't be in my top five, but he's received the reviews and the industry is in his back pocket...

The script of The Fabelmans brings out some of his best qualities: his ability to make his movies feel magical, his skill with young actors, his control over a big narrative; It also brings out some of his worst qualities:  overly-commercial instincts, dated sensibilities, superficial depth. I  quite liked the film, but I can't praise any director too highly when he's claiming to make his most personal film yet is really sharing nothing particularly revealing.  But this is his best film in a long time, so I think he's a lock.  

What do you think of this category in general over these recent years?  Do you agree with Spielberg being a lock?  Who are the other leading candidates in your eyes?

WOMEN TALKING

GLENN:  What a wild run of winners lately. And I think very indicative of the notion that if women and people of color only had the opportunities offered to so many mediocre white men for all these years then we probably wouldn't still need to talk about it. It would just be the norm. Justice for Yentl ! 

I do reckon that Spielberg is a lock, certainly more so than I would have thought last year for West Side Story. Although in the age of the expanded best picture field, he has had three movies nominated without his name in the Best Director shortlist (War Horse, Bridge of Spies, The Post). It may be a stat for other trivia buffs to look up as to whether he's the director with the most lone best picture nods of the current era, but either way he remains very popular with the Academy and I see no reason for The Fabelmans to disrupt that given *gestures wildly at everything about that movie*. Especially this year. See, the table of contenders feels stacked with many names that you can easily see getting a nomination only to follow that up with a "but..." Consider names like Baz Luhrmann, Damien Chazelle, James Cameron, Sarah Polley, S.S. Rajamouli, Todd Field, The Daniels, even two very different names, Martin McDonagh and Joseph Kosinski. All seem logical in some way due to their movies or their reputation or their creative ambition. But... but... 

TRIANGLE OF SADNESS

Weirdly, the name I feel the most confident about is Ruben Östlund who may barf and shit himself to multiple nominations in lieu of the now unofficial foreign language / international slot (Triangle of Sadness is in the English language). If Park Chan-wook's Decision to Leave was a smidge less chilly. If Edward Berger's All Quiet On the Western Front was a bit less Netflix.... but maybe I'm just being too hesitant about those two that could theoretically fill that slot. Is there something there I'm not seeing among all of these contenders?

ERIC: I have Östlund barfing and shitting into sixth place.  Tell me why you're so confident he's in?  I think the directors' branch will appreciate his sheer daring of the artful grossout, and I also think they'll get that Östlund's sledgehammer style is very deliberate.  If it gets in anywhere, I think it'd be here, but I'm curious about your placing him so securely?  

The candidate I'm bullish about is Todd Field.  I'll be shocked if he doesn't get in, because the other directors will get his mastery.  They're all going to wish they'd been able to be that influential on a performance like the one Blanchett is giving, and they'll be envious of the kind of scale Field found on such a modest budget.  There's a large chunk of directors in that branch who feel directing ultimately comes down to control, and to deliver a movie that is both measured AND original.  Nobody else would have made TÁR the way Field did....it's a bit of a masterpiece, and the entire conception is Field's.  Plus, it feels like a foreign film even though it's not, and the European contingent will reward Field for being what they view as oxymoronic: an intellectual American.

TÁR

I feel like The Daniels will be our "shocking snub"?  Others feel very confident on their nomination, but I fear the film will suffer from genre bias and will be met by confusion by the older members.  I also can't see Joseph Kosinsky getting into this category:  a huge part of what directors deal with is budget issues, and having to be creative with less funding than you need. Kosinsky had all the money in the world here, and I think he'll be shrugged off as a result.

I also can't see Baz Luhrmann making the cut. I haven't talked to a single person here in LA who likes it?  Luhrmann is the textbook definition of a director who has high highs and low lows, and that's Elvis in a nutshell.  After every ten minutes of visual splendor, the movie crashes to a halt when he has to direct something out of his wheelhouse:  an actual scene.  But those high highs!

ELVIS

GLENN: Here's the conundrum that I was talking about. Todd Field makes total sense, but... the Academy passed him (and Luhrmann!) over before for a Best Picture nominee (when there were only five!) and TÁR is even more deliberately austere than In the Bedroom. Although, yes, it would probably be the directors who recognise its achievements. Regarding Östlund, Triangle of Sadness at least feels like it has career momentum for him. It's an ambitious upgrade, it's European but accessible, and takes enough big swings that it's hard not to appreciate it... at least in some capacity. Plus, without a major headlining performance to focus on, Östlund is the star. As for Luhrmann? Everything I have seen and heard suggests Elvis is going over gangbusters with guilds as much as it did with general audiences. Although I'd still see the director's branch being a bit snobbish towards him (and the film does have significant problems).

Of course, talking about all of this — all these great names making ambitious movies — and the name I put fifth on my predictions ballot recently was actually Laura Poitras for All the Beauty and the Bloodshed. An extreme foolhardy attempt at drumming up attention, I am sure, but why not her? She is immensely respected and making a film that won the Golden Lion and has found unanimous praise. Yes, it's a documentary, and that's it's biggest barrier, but if the branch actually think about it, how great would that bit of history making be? It has the scope and the import to be elevated. I am sure it won't happen, but maybe it should. 

BABYLON

ERIC:  I love that you're championing Poitras.  But yeah, it would be a shock if she made the list with these bigger names and more commercial films in the mix.  I'm also still a little skeptical of Sarah Polley getting in, as the movie feels more like a festival and critics pick. I'm curious to see the reaction once people outside of that bubble start to see it. We've seen it happen again and again that reactions aren't always the same once a film opens. Do you think she'll make it?

Damien, Chazelle, and even Martin McDonagh feel both likely and unlikely at the same time. Will voters deem Babylon's excesses too ...um, excessive... despite the stunning filmmaking?  Is there jealousy in a too-much-too-soon kind of way? (He's the youngest Best Director winner of all time)  I think McDonagh is probably in. The Banshees of Inisherin is a major step forward for him as a director in terms of framing, visual unity, and craftsmanship.  He's on my list, but I also feel like he could be the person left off the list in favor of an out-of-left-fielder.

Then there's James Cameron.  Nobody was counting him in the finals until a few days ago when Avatar: The Way of Water dropped to FilmTwitter wadshots everywhere.  Now he seems  probable.  What are your thoughts on the Polley/Chazelle/McDonagh/Cameron of it all?

GLENN:  Like I've been saying, all those names sound entirely probably, but... Chazelle and Cameron (and Iñárritu, too!) certainly do the most directing. it will be fascinating to see where this category goes, and even as we have been discussing and as I have been mulling things over, and looking at my own awards ballots for the Golden Globes, I wonder if we're all sleeping on Gina Prince-Bythewood for The Woman King? So many things could happen, that it will be really disappointing on Oscar morning if it just ends up being Spielberg, Cameron, Chazelle, McDonagh and Östlund. As worthy as they all might be. 

THE WOMAN KING

What are your final predictions, though? Anything could happen but as of right now, I'm thinking 

• Spielberg
• Cameron
• McDonagh
• Östlund
• Polley

ERIC:  I'm thinking the same list minus Östlund plus Field. But not confident about three of them.  Last question for you:  who are your personal five favorites?

GLENN:  My personal ballot would likely look very different. It would be hard for me to move past David Cronenberg, Luca Guadagnino, Laura Poitas, and Gina Prince-Bythewood. That's four so, gosh, can we put Luhrmann, Cameron and Chazelle in a mixer together for the fifth spot? I admire their gumption.

ERIC:  That's a fine list.  I'm partial to Field and Park Chan-wook this season, but so many great accomplishments.  Now I need some time to digest what a Baz/Jim/Damien blended cocktail might taste like --   Disgusting or awesome?

RELATED:

Best Original Song - with Eurocheese & Baby Clyde
Best Cinematography - with Eric and Chris
Best Makeup & Hairstyling - with Nathaniel & Elisa 
Best Film Editing - with Ben & Nick
Best Costume Design - with Cláudio & Elisa
Best Production Design - with Eurocheese & Nick

Best Director Oscar Chart - Nathaniel's Predictions

Comments

[McGill]

One of the NYT critics (A.O. Scott?) listed Celine Sciamma’s “Petite Maman” as one of his top 10 movies of 2022.
Does this mean that Celine Sciamma is eligible for Best Director? She would definitely be in my top 5. I thought that was a wondrous amazing original movie.

[NATHANIEL R]

McGill -- PETITE MAMAN has an Oscar qualifying run last year (for a week) so it's not eligible this year. I'm trying to find out which of the January opening titles did that this year and it's always so annoyingly difficult to track unless you just wait for the Oscar eligible list (which generally arrives sometime in January)

[Mr Ripley79]

My current nominees would be ,The Daniels,McDonagh,Spielberg.Chazelle and Field.

I have Charlotte Wells in my predictions but i've seen few of the frontrunner films.

[andrewfraser]

I'm currently thinking

1. Spielberg
2. The Daniels
3. Field
4. Rajmouli
5. McDonagh

however, I think Chan-Wook could easily sub in there. On the outskirts I have Polley, Luhrmann, Cameron & Wells!

[Duncan]

I have a pet theory that this is a category that most often breaks down to mathematical ‘types’.

Type One: The Narrative
Each year the front runner is a director who establishes an awards season narrative to win - whether that’s about ambition, representation, or technical accomplishment. Usually it’s something that appeals to crafts, and actors, and has a personal quality.

Type Two: Visuals & Class
This is usually a veteran, it’s someone whose place in the category is earned by technical accomplishment and who usually represents a classy old-school academy choice.

Type Three: The Personal Auteur
This is always a writer-director, usually more prominently known as a writer. They are often a screenplay winner and are rewarded here for a personal, often autobiographical element they bring to the film.

Type Four: Divisive, Daring, Distinct
This is where you get someone who has a strong style that’s off-putting to a lot of people. There’s an undeniable directorial voice, some people hate whatever they’re trying, but the people it connects to have enough passion to put it in.

Type Five: The Arthouse Pick
This is where the international bloc votes go, or the votes for a highbrow veteran director. These films are usually outside the Picture Top Five, but this is where the directors branch asserts their sense of taste.

Each year usually reflects this pattern in some way;

2021:
Type One: Campion
Type Two: Spielberg
Type Three: Branagh
Type Four: Anderson
Type Five Hamaguchi

2020:
Zhao / Fincher / Chung / Fennell / Vinterberg

2019:
Bong / Mendes / Tarantino / Phillips / Scorsese

2018:
Cuaron / Lanthimos / Lee / McKay / Pawlikowski

2017:
Del Toro / Nolan / Gerwig / Peele / Anderson

2016:
Chazelle / Villeneuve / Lonergan / Gibson / Jenkins

2015:
Iñárritu / Miller / McCarthy / McKay / Abrahamson

2014:
Iñárritu / Tyldum / Linklater / Anderson / Miller

2012:
Lee / Spielberg / Russell / Zeitlin / Haneke

I also think that these types sometimes explain key snubs - if there’s a stronger contender for a particular bloc, it swallows up the oxygen. For instance, Denis Villeneuve last year was going for the same spot as Spielberg, but they ultimately liked Spielberg more. In 2020, Sorkin was going for the same spot as Chung but couldn’t match him for the personal quality.

So this year who fits in which category:

Type One: Spielberg
Type Two: Cameron (at Chazelle and Kosinski’s expense)
Type Three: McDonagh (taking Polley and Charlotte Wells’ place)
Type Four: Daniels (pushing out Luhrmann, Chazelle, and Ostlund)
Type Five: Field (competing with the splintered international bloc, with some attention for Rajamouli, Park, Ostlund and Wells)

And if one of them misses I think it’ll be for another contender in their demographic.

[Dan H]

@Eric "I quite liked the film, but I can't praise any director too highly when he's claiming to make his most personal film yet is really sharing nothing particularly revealing."

It's subtle, and not dwelled upon, but toward the end, when the Spielberg character is challenged by the anti-semitic Arian god that he glorified in in student film as to why he would make him the gorgeous center of the piece considering he bullied him all year, he says something like, "I don't know. I probably need therapy!" I'm guessing Tony Kushner put that in, but it's amazingly revealing.

Film scholars have noted for years the paradox of the great Jewish director gravitating toward the kind of subjects that would have attracted Leni Riefenstahl. As Susan Sontag argues in her landmark essay, "Fascinating Fascism," the aesthetics of the Hollywood spectacle are the aesthetics of fascism. E.T. is basically a Christian allegory, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is an Ubermensch story. Spielberg's one film about the Holocaust serves to make a German Christian the hero. There's certainly another side to Spielberg, the Jewish side, the side that makes many of his heroes first and foremost intelligent, educated men: Professor Indiana Jones and so on, but I found that moment to be incredibly revealing. He admits to the paradox of his career.