Odd Man Out - Which director will it be

[Mister Tee]

Can I also say that there is little point in debating the odd man out director slot (s) until we actually know what some of the contenders are.

Bingo.

[FilmFan720]

Can I just say I don't even understand what we are debating anymore. We are bandying around a lot of terms that don't seem related to Slumdog Millionaire or the odd man out director slot.

Can I also say that there is little point in debating the odd man out director slot (s) until we actually know what some of the contenders are.



Edited By FilmFan720 on 1223068063

[Mister Tee]

There are probably too many terms being thrown around to describe various sets of films, and I'm not sure any of us are being 100% precise, or that our dichotomies -- edgy/cutesy, sentimental/cutting edge -- are perfectly set out. There would probably also be reluctance by some of us to accept that certain films fit the pejoratively-named categories simply because we like them better than other films in the same vein. For instance, I think Little Miss Sunshine and the Full Monty are utterly minor, undistinguished efforts...thus, I don't like seeing them lumped together with Four Weddings and a Funeral, which I consider infinitely more witty and better-conceived.

On the other hand, I consider all of them -- along with Juno, Chocolat, Finding Neverland -- as lightweight efforts, and on the whole not what I'd prefer to see nominated as best picture. It seems to me they represent a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to the early/mid 90s. There had always been bad movies nominated -- sometimes egregiously bad -- but starting with Four Weddings and Shawshank in '94, and Il Postino in '95 (where alternatives included Nobody's Fool, Leaving Las Vegas and Nixon, among others), there began a tendency for voters to opt for "nice" movies and leave anything remotely challenging to the side. Such efforts as Shine, The Full Monty and The Cider House Rules turned up on the best picture slate, while The Ice Storm or The Talented Mr. Ripley -- far better-reviewed films -- were left off. And even when films like Traffic or Sideways got nominations, they were treated as risky indies, rather than down-the-middle popular art.

So, my take on Juno or Sunshine would be not that they were high or low-brow, but that they were too flimsy by my lights to really belong in this race. (Obviously other's opinions may differ)

In any case, what I was originally suggesting was that Slumdog may belong more in that middle area than at either the far-cutting-edge or in this "nothing too serious" land. (The territory from which a great many best picture winners and nominees of my youth -- the late 60s and 70s -- came, an era I far preferred)

[rolotomasi99]

Can we stop viewing this as if Juno (or The Full Monty, or Little Miss Sunshine) and No Country for Old Men (or There Will Be Blood, or Lost in Translation) are the only two points on the spectrum? That's like saying your only two political options are Dennis Kucinich or Sarah Palin -- it leaves out not just alot of people, but, um, MOST people (in Academy terms, certainly)

Everyone seems to be acknowledging these reviews are from outer-edge hipster teritory. But, rolo, you seem to feel any other reaction is from the Chocolat crowd. I put myself in neither group. What I got from the Variety review was that Slumdog Millionaire could be in the vein of Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Pan's Labyrinth, Crouching Tiger -- not remotely glop, but mainstream and engaging enough that fans of traditional narrative are excited by it even while it doesn't insult the intelligence of higher brows. That, it seems to me, is often the Academy's sweet spot.

Of course, all of us will have to wait for the bulk of critics to weigh in before we have a fuller sense of where this film lies on the spectrum.

i am confused. are you saying JUNO, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, and THE FULL MONTY are lowbrow? what is lowbrow about them, if that is what you are saying? does lowbrow mean poorly made to you, or just not edgy? they may not be edgy, but i do not consider any of those three films poorly made.

as for the polarizing views of the academy, i do think there are the voters who support edgy stuff like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and then the voters who support a cutesy movie like JUNO. of course there is an in-between. MICHAEL CLAYTON is not cutesy, but i would not call it edgy. ATONEMENT is sentimental but beautifully made.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, MILK, CHANGELING, THE READER are not movies i would call edgy, but they seem far from cutesy. THE DARK KNIGHT is populist but not cutesy. WALL-E is the movie i think the JUNO crowd would rally around if it did not have the handicap of being an animated film.

this year i feel like the truly edgy films like THE WRESTLER and THE ROAD just do not seem likely to break into the best picture category. i would love to be wrong about that, but it feels like the academy might be headed toward safer ground after going out as far as they did on the "edgy" limb last year.

maybe SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE will be the perfect movie. edgy enough for the THERE WILL BE BLOOD crowd and cutesy enough for the JUNO crowd...or maybe it will be too cutesy for the edgy crowd and too edgy for the cutesy crowd. meanwhile, in-the-middle films like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, MILK, CHANGELING, THE READER, THE DARK KNIGHT, etc. may dominate the oscars. we will not know until 2009. we can only continue to discuss it for now.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1223060739

[Mister Tee]

Can we stop viewing this as if Juno (or The Full Monty, or Little Miss Sunshine) and No Country for Old Men (or There Will Be Blood, or Lost in Translation) are the only two points on the spectrum? That's like saying your only two political options are Dennis Kucinich or Sarah Palin -- it leaves out not just alot of people, but, um, MOST people (in Academy terms, certainly)

Everyone seems to be acknowledging these reviews are from outer-edge hipster teritory. But, rolo, you seem to feel any other reaction is from the Chocolat crowd. I put myself in neither group. What I got from the Variety review was that Slumdog Millionaire could be in the vein of Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Pan's Labyrinth, Crouching Tiger -- not remotely glop, but mainstream and engaging enough that fans of traditional narrative are excited by it even while it doesn't insult the intelligence of higher brows. That, it seems to me, is often the Academy's sweet spot.

Of course, all of us will have to wait for the bulk of critics to weigh in before we have a fuller sense of where this film lies on the spectrum.

[rolotomasi99]

The AV Club, which I'd never even heard of before seems to be even more "hip". I trust the more mainstream critics to have more of a finger on Oscar's pulse.

the avclub is awesome! they are absolutely irreverant and brash in their "reviews" of film, tv, music, celebrities, etc. their whole site reminds me of kathy griffin, in the way she loves celebrities and hollywood but loves making fun of them even more. i highly recommend checking them out.

http://avclub.com

[rolotomasi99]

I don't know. Both the Indiewire review and the Onion review are a) written by people whose taste skew more arty/indie/hip than the directors' branch usually leans, it seems to me, and b) are worded in a way that make me think the film contains the kind of sentimentality that tends to be tolerated or even embraced by Oscar.

that was my point! sentimental does not = bad! i was just defending myself. i said i had read in other places it was sentimental, but i never said that meant oscar would ignore it.

what i think its biggest obstacle is its "otherness." the film is entirely set in india (as far as i know), the characters speak english but they also speak hindi, and it mixes the sentimental with the "garbage, shit, and scars." the people who vote for movies like LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and BABEL are not necessarily the same people who vote for LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and JUNO. the foreign aspects of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE might put off the sentimental voters is all i am saying.

i still have SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE on my predictions list, but i just do not think we should point to LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and JUNO as definitive proof the film will find support in the academy because SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE sounds different (and in my opinion better) than those films.

i just want to say one last time, sentimental does not make a movie bad. it just means it appeals to a certain type of voter within the academy's large body of voters. my only question is, will the sentimental voter block be put off by the very foreign nature of the movie? i think it is a legitimate question. i have no idea how it somehow became an attack on danny boyle or sentimental films.

[dreaMaker]

If Daldry gets nominated for Best Director, will he be the only director in history with 3 nominations for his 3 first films?

[Big Magilla]

The AV Club, which I'd never even heard of before seems to be even more "hip". I trust the more mainstream critics to have more of a finger on Oscar's pulse.

"As with last year's fest-fave Juno, expect the bloom to fade from the rose once the movie goes wide and reality fails to justify the hype." is simply not true. The bloom didn't fade until long after the film left the theatres and came out on DVD. It wasn't a film that I especially liked myself but to denigrate its success with audiences is unfair.

[rain Bard]

I don't know. Both the Indiewire review and the Onion review are a) written by people whose taste skew more arty/indie/hip than the directors' branch usually leans, it seems to me, and b) are worded in a way that make me think the film contains the kind of sentimentality that tends to be tolerated or even embraced by Oscar.

[rolotomasi99]

The above are from the Variety review of Slumdog Millionaire. Is there anything in there to suggest this film is some kind of sentimental jerk-off? rolo, I truly don't know why you've so latched onto this view of the film -- especially given Boyle's past career, which hasn't exactly been marked by sentimentality.

now i am fully aware none of these sources can trump the prestigious variety review, but i just wanted to show where my impression about SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE came from. it is not like i have some vendetta against danny boyle, but even people who like the movie (the first paragraph) admit the film is sentimental. these three reviews have different takes on the film, but they all seem to see boyle really trying to work the audiences heartstrings.

sentimental does not automatically equal bad, but usually the sentimental films (LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, CHOCOLAT, FINDING NEVERLAND, MOULIN ROUGE, FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, PRINCE OF TIDES, AWAKENINGS, THE GREEN MILE) of the best picture nominees are the ones to not receive director nominations -- though there are certainly exceptions to that rule (JUNO, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, THE FULL MONTY, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, THE CIDER HOUSE RULES).

apparently there is even debate among us on the board whether certain films -- like MILLIONS and JUNO -- are sentimental. i am quick to call a film sentimental if it does not present things rather bluntly, but like i said that does not necessarily make it a bad film. capra was great with sentimentality, but if MILLIONS is any indication (a movie which had me sobbing like a baby) boyle cannot quite pull off sentimental in films as well as capra.


"The film gently deals with a wide ranges of topics and themes - social mobility, Indian subcultures, the challenges of poverty, the relationship between siblings. It does so in a very sentimental manner, and at moments I sat nervously as it almost went too far, tugging aggressively at the audience's heart. But that's what a story like this is supposed to do. Its a melodrama, and its very affecting in this sense."
--IndieWire

"No film festival would be complete without the requisite crop of the overrated and overbuzzed. For me, that would be...Danny Boyle's slickly sentimental Slumdog Millionaire, about a Mumbai street kid who wins big on the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."
--Christian Science Monitor

"Oscar Chances: Judging by the ecstatic reaction from the Telluride and Toronto film festivals, Slumdog Millionaire is on pace to be one of the best-reviewed movies of the year. Unless the Academy is put off by Boyle's preoccupation with garbage, shit, and scars, this is the kind of feel-good story (both on and off the screen) that will sneak into a surprising number of categories, including Best Picture.
Our Take: When, oh when, will the Slumdog backlash begin? This is an entertaining film studded with memorable moments, but after a promising first hour, it devolves into a predictable, preposterous love story cut with cartoonish criminal elements. It's far too sketchy and contrived to be as widely acclaimed as it's been so far. As with last year's fest-fave Juno, expect the bloom to fade from the rose once the movie goes wide and reality fails to justify the hype."
--AV Club

[Mister Tee]

"Driven by fantastic energy and a torrent of vivid images of India old and new, "Slumdog Millionaire" is a blast. Danny Boyle's film uses the dilemma of a poor teenager suspected of cheating on the local version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'' to tell a story of social mobility that is positively Dickensian in its attention to detail and the extremes of poverty and wealth within a culture. Tasty item looks to catch on in a big way with young, adventurous and merely curious viewers in wide specialized release.

....

The tough look at poverty and crime at all levels of society shoves the occasional coincidences and questionable plot developments firmly to the side, and the rush Boyle manifestly got from shooting such an intense story on these locations is fully felt in the film itself.

....

As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, "Slumdog Millionaire" is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place. Musical elements provide a major kick, as does a rousing and unexpected end-credits dance number at a train station."


The above are from the Variety review of Slumdog Millionaire. Is there anything in there to suggest this film is some kind of sentimental jerk-off? rolo, I truly don't know why you've so latched onto this view of the film -- especially given Boyle's past career, which hasn't exactly been marked by sentimentality.

As far as Boyle's spotty resume...I like some of the films more than you, but, more to the point, my view is, if someone's hit the high note once, I always hold the hope he can recapture it at some point. Especially when alot of people are saying he has.

And regarding the two-director thing...as Film Fan suggests, the absence of such combos from the nominations list is -- like the shortage of women in the category -- more a reflection of how few contending films have been made by duos than some conspiracy to deny them homage.

[Penelope]

I've learned not to put anything sight unseen into the "safest bet" category. I think The Dark Knight is a pretty good probability, certainly among films that have already been released, it's the only one that has any kind of chance.

As for Milk, well, I'm trying to be cautious in my expectations; see, all the websites I visit, it's the only movie anybody is talking about with any anticipation, which would make you think it's the next movie of the year. But all of these sites are gay, or very gay friendly, so that skews the result.

I don't frequent the other Oscar forums anymore, so this is the only place I see any mention of Slumdog Millionaire. I suppose it could happen, but based on what I've seen and know of the film, I just think it's incredibly unlikely. May I be wrong.

[Sabin]

just out of curiousity, though, am i the only person who thinks CHANGELING is going to be nominated for picture and director?

I think it probably will. It might now but it could. Then again, right now I think the safest bets are 'The Dark Knight', 'Milk', and 'Slumdog Millionaire'.

[rolotomasi99]

A couple of things...

First off, I have never heard anyone refer to Juno as schmaltz before. I didn't find the film that sentimental, over dramatic or nostalgic in the least. Not like a Seabiscuit or Finding Neverland. What makes you think it is schmaltzy?

Second, is there really some sort of conspiracy against directing duos? I know only 3 have ever been nominated (and 2 of those won!), but I can't seem to remember too many that were overlooked. How many contenders were there that were directed by a duo. Surely there is no one claiming the Wachowskis missed a nomination for The Matrix because there were two names on the credit, or that the Farrellys have been unfairly overlooked for that reason. The only example I can think of was Little Miss Sunshine, and I think the film had a lot of other detractors affecting the director's branch decision there.

Finally, I have always enjoyed the acting in Danny Boyle films, from some great work in Shallow Grave and Trainspotting (Ewan McGregor's best work hands down) through 28 Days Later to last years exquisite Sunshine (which had some great ensemble work and a great lead performance from the underrated Cillian Murphy).

i had to actually look up the definition of schmaltz to make sure i was not mis-using it. the definition i found is "excessively sentimental or maudlin sentimentality." the cutesy dialogue, the teary-eyed ending of everything just being peachy-keen after this young girl makes this difficult decision, everyone living happily ever after, etc. JUNO really struck me as being ridiculously sunny for such a serious topic. i am in no way saying it needed to be some sort of 400 BLOWS realistic look at teen pregnancy and adoption, but it just seemed too cute for its own good. i think a better strategy would have been the hilarious take on abortion we saw in CITIZEN RUTH. that film was funny, smart, and honest. oh, well. no point dwelling on its nomination when that year gave us two great picture/director nominations.

as far as i have read, the director's guild (of which most of the director's branch of the academy are members) generally frown upon directing teams. they like one person on the credits. both coen brothers directed FARGO but only joel was listed because (i had read) they did not want to anger the director's guild. maybe i misunderstood. only now that they have become more powerful directors have they started listing both of themselves as directors on their films.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1222982357