Films

[bocumaroy]

I'd say its to do with the tone and the pacing of the film - although I've always thought that visually a great director has trademarks that come from them rather from say a cinematographer for example (I'm willing to be corrected here - I'm no expert and am not 100% clear where one role ends and the other starts).

A great director for me leaves an imprint on the film - you can always tell its one of theirs. Most obvious examples that spring to mind off the top of my head are Hitchcock and Kurosawa - though as a fan boy of the Coens I'd always claim I can recognise something they've done. What little film criticism I do know also talks about consistent social impact - saying messages/ commentary that repeat across bodies of work. Examples being Eisenstein, Bunuel or French realist cinema. But this is a bit beyond me - I just like watching films.

Pacing is an interesting one that I hadn't thought of actually, but I'd say the screenplay might come into that as well. Good point though.

I agree with the rest, but it doesn't really change my mind about awards for best directors on individual films. Those kind of judgements about filmmakers as auteurs can only be made in wider context of their careers. Using it as a basis for awards would mean that a relatively unknown director who has a huge influence on a brilliant film would go unrewarded, whereas a 'big name' director who, hypothetically, leaves most of the work down to the people around him, would get the prize, simply because the film resonates with their established traits. Wouldn't necessary reflect their actual contributions.

If that was the case best picture and best director would be the same winners every year, like you said it's a collaboration of all things and seeing how they all gel together rather simply being the best film. For example last year's best flick was 12 Years Of Slave where as best director was the guy that did Gravity, of course this is working on the basis the oscars actually mean fuck all.

Yeah, which is why I think it's a strange award. How do you distinguish between the two? Surely the 'best' film, trying to look at it as objectively as possible, is one where all the individual components come together to create a unified whole?

Obviously directors do a lot of work and have a huge influence on the film, I just don't think it can be judged particularly well from an outsider point of view.

[jump]

Yeah, which is why I think it's a strange award. How do you distinguish between the two? Surely the 'best' film, trying to look at it as objectively as possible, is one where all the individual components come together to create a unified whole?

Obviously directors do a lot of work and have a huge influence on the film, I just don't think it can be judged particularly well from an outsider point of view.

The best film is for the movie that was the best where as best director is the one who excuted it the best, you're still judging it by is the film any good. Like my previous example of Garvity which on a technical level is brilliant and won best director but as movie itself it's very simple which is why it didn't win best flick.

Of course it's harder to judge not knowing the process it went through which is why actors who don a fake nose and put weight on whilst playing a mentally disabled horny Nazi leads to best actor awards as it's more showy.

Edited December 30, 2014 by jump

[bocumaroy]

The best film is for the movie that was the best where as best director is the one who excuted it the best, you're still judging it by is the film any good. Like my previous example of Garvity which on a technical level is brilliant and won best director but as movie itself it's very simple which is why it didn't win best flick.

Of course it's harder to judge not knowing the process it went through which is why actors who don a fake nose and put weight on whilst playing a mentally disabled horny Nazi leads to best actor awards as it's more showy.

I get your point in the sense that a film might not have an impressive screenplay, for example, but is brilliant in other areas that are more influenced by the director. But it's all too invisible and unknown for me to actually take it seriously as an award. The difference with actors is their contribution to the film is clearly tangible and observable.

All awards are a bit redundant, in fairness, so it's probably not a particularly worthwhile point.

To me Gravity looked and felt a bit like a video game.

[jump]

Speaking of Oscars, the makers of Transformers are campaigning for it to be best movie.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Speaking of Oscars, the makers of Transformers are campaigning for it to be best movie.

If this gets nominated for Best Director it kinds of negates any form of argument about the value of that award. I also note they're not pushing Wahlberg for best actor. He's so sensitive in that role as well

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Pacing is an interesting one that I hadn't thought of actually, but I'd say the screenplay might come into that as well. Good point though.

I agree with the rest, but it doesn't really change my mind about awards for best directors on individual films. Those kind of judgements about filmmakers as auteurs can only be made in wider context of their careers. Using it as a basis for awards would mean that a relatively unknown director who has a huge influence on a brilliant film would go unrewarded, whereas a 'big name' director who, hypothetically, leaves most of the work down to the people around him, would get the prize, simply because the film resonates with their established traits. Wouldn't necessary reflect their actual contributions.

Yeah - re-reading my previous comment I do tend to come out in favour of auteur theory which wasn't a conscious move. I think the more I look at this the more I come round to your POV actually. Looking at who didnt win (Kubrick for example), acknowledging a comment from someone earlier about Scorsese just getting it for a body of work rather than one film and the talk that this year Interstellar might get it to give Nolan an award for his career thus far makes it harder to make it a coherent argument for a Director award for one specific movie above the role of chief collaborator (almost a project management function). Going to have to think some more about this one and get back. Good posts Bocumaroy and jump!

[dentalplan]

If that was the case best picture and best director would be the same winners every year, like you said it's a collaboration of all things and seeing how they all gel together rather simply being the best film. For example last year's best flick was 12 Years Of Slave where as best director was the guy that did Gravity, of course this is working on the basis the oscars actually mean fuck all.

That is the case most of the time.

[metallimuse]

Speaking of Oscars, the makers of Transformers are campaigning for it to be best movie.

That's a joke surely?!?!

[Ted Dansons Wig]

That's a joke surely?!?!

I'd bet money it isnt. They know they wont get a nod for Best picture - but they might get a nomination in some of the technical categories.

[bocumaroy]

Yeah - re-reading my previous comment I do tend to come out in favour of auteur theory which wasn't a conscious move. I think the more I look at this the more I come round to your POV actually. Looking at who didnt win (Kubrick for example), acknowledging a comment from someone earlier about Scorsese just getting it for a body of work rather than one film and the talk that this year Interstellar might get it to give Nolan an award for his career thus far makes it harder to make it a coherent argument for a Director award for one specific movie above the role of chief collaborator (almost a project management function). Going to have to think some more about this one and get back. Good posts Bocumaroy and jump!

I'm coming around to understanding why there's any point at all in such awards existing (other than ego); for the very minimal dialogue films maybe, where the screenplay doesn't play a huge role in shaping the pace (as you mentioned before), leaving it down to the director.

But there's still too much guesswork with regardless to individual films in isolation.

[philipsteak]

Surely the reason there's a separate best picture and best director Oscar is just so that producers can get a trophy too

[Ted Dansons Wig]

On a separate note. Just watched the Babadook.

There's a deeply unpleasant 93 minutes I'll never get back.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I'm coming around to understanding why there's any point at all in such awards existing (other than ego); for the very minimal dialogue films maybe, where the screenplay doesn't play a huge role in shaping the pace (as you mentioned before), leaving it down to the director.

But there's still too much guesswork with regardless to individual films in isolation.

I think I need to look at the role of the cinematographer and how that works. A film I love is Rope. Not an action move by any stretch - but one with a particular pace and sense of movement and because of the use of the one take particular to the Director. It was a conscious decision by Hitch to film in that way. It also has a different cinematographer to his next film (and his previous one) which also uses long takes (Under Capricorn).

The point I'm making is that the way the film functions you can directly attribute back to the director and is view of what he was trying to achieve (which I'd put down to generating a sense of claustrophobia and nearness to the corpse in the chest). So something is going on on one film which is relevant to a Director and potentially is more than just the sum of the parts of the others participants of the makers of the film.

I need to stop drinking red wine now apparently so I'll stop blathering. Not that he got an award for Rope in any case.

[RichieSpenno]

Was Dallas Buyers Club any good?

Not a fan of McConaughey or Leto but willing to give it a go (as it's on Netflix) if it actually IS a decent film.

[jump]

That's a joke surely?!?!

Nope, they are campaigning for it.

I can sort of see a point about how the snobbery around the Oscars should be ignored so blockbuster films can compete but when it's the likes of Transformers it just shows they are right to ignore it in the first place.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Nope, they are campaigning for it.

I can sort of see a point about how the snobbery around the Oscars should be ignored so blockbuster films can compete but when it's the likes of Transformers it just shows they are right to ignore it in the first place.

Nothing to do with snobbery in this case. More to do with an attempt to polish a very expensive turd

[metallimuse]

Was Dallas Buyers Club any good?

Not a fan of McConaughey or Leto but willing to give it a go (as it's on Netflix) if it actually IS a decent film.

Great film and fantastic performances.

[The Nal]

Watched The Drop last night. Very enjoyable indie crime drama/slow burning thriller.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Watched The Drop last night. Very enjoyable indie crime drama/slow burning thriller.

Is that the Gandolfini one?

[Bisque]

Stuck through American Gangster, had been put off watching it due to friends saying it was really violent, decent film & nowhere near as violent as people had made out.

[The Nal]

Is that the Gandolfini one?

Yeah. And Tom Hardy. Really good.

[metallimuse]

Watched The Drop last night. Very enjoyable indie crime drama/slow burning thriller.

Oww,I wanna see that.

[The Nal]

Oww,I wanna see that.

Tis "available"

[Katster]

On a separate note. Just watched the Babadook.

There's a deeply unpleasant 93 minutes I'll never get back.

Oh my goodness yes. An actual horror that is actually disturbing.

[bocumaroy]

Watched Her again today. By far my top film of the year, and one of my favourites of all time. There's so much going on there that resonates deeply with me, and it's about far, far more than the 'disconnected in the digital age' theme that I've seen it criticised for.

With all the AOTY chat, I was thinking about films this year, and realised I've hardly seen any new releases. My other favourites were Inside Llewyn Davis, Mistaken For Strangers, Wolf Of Wall Street and then Dallas Buyers Club. All released early in the year. Since then I've not been to the cinema much, but have been disappointed mostly. Didn't like Boyhood or Gone Girl. Two Days, One Night was decent, but I'll watch anything with Marion Cotillard. The only other one was the Hendrix biopic, pretty forgettable, apart from the stylised editing, which was amongst the most impressive I've ever seen. Recommended for that alone. Can't think of much else.

I think I need to look at the role of the cinematographer and how that works. A film I love is Rope. Not an action move by any stretch - but one with a particular pace and sense of movement and because of the use of the one take particular to the Director. It was a conscious decision by Hitch to film in that way. It also has a different cinematographer to his next film (and his previous one) which also uses long takes (Under Capricorn).

The point I'm making is that the way the film functions you can directly attribute back to the director and is view of what he was trying to achieve (which I'd put down to generating a sense of claustrophobia and nearness to the corpse in the chest). So something is going on on one film which is relevant to a Director and potentially is more than just the sum of the parts of the others participants of the makers of the film.

I need to stop drinking red wine now apparently so I'll stop blathering. Not that he got an award for Rope in any case.

Oh yeah, directors can often have a huge say in the way a film looks, and will often actually dictate exactly how it's shot, with storyboards and everything. Sometimes they might leave it more up to the cinematographer/DOP.

Edited December 31, 2014 by bocumaroy