DGA Nominees

[nightwingnova]

Conflicted between Hazanavicius and Scorsese.

The Artist is poetry. Hugo is a family film of sublime drama. Hugo is technically brilliant. The Artist is technically perfect. I keep swinging back and forth.

[Damien]

The DGA is traditionally, umm, less adventurous than the Academy's Directors Branch, so I don't think this snub means much of anything regarding Malick's Oscar chances, and I am still pretty confident that he will get his deserved nomination. And I am very confident that at least 250 Academy members will list The Tree of life as their number one movie of the year.

[Okri]

Not only I'll never understand what so many respectable people see in Midnight in Paris; what I understand even less is what they see in the way it's directed by Woody Allen. The script may be banal and predictable but it's the element this movie clearly owes its success to. But Woody Allen today is really an uninspired director, and honestly it's not like this year they couldn't find better alternatives.

I don't think these five will all return at the Oscars, but I'm afraid that Woody Allen will - the Academy loves and respects him, so I doubt that he will be left out.

Oh, don't get me started. It's success this season is massively disappointing.

[OscarGuy]

I think this was Malick's last chance. Clearly they don't love Tree of Life.

And I realized something today when thinking about why Dragon Tattoo was suddenly on such an upward trajectory, then I remembered Scott Rudin. Rudin had been banking on Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but as that film imploded, I think he realized he had a shot with Dragon Tattoo and thus why it's making such a strong push in the last week. I think Fincher's in.

The weakest names on this list, IMO, are Woody and Alexander. The Descendants, while doing well, seems to have run into a problem. It's not as rewarded as The Artist and not as popular as The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It doesn't have the trajectory that Sideways did, which I think may ultimately cause it to miss Best Director in favor of either a more esoteric choice (say A Asghar Farhadi) or something more bland (like Tate Taylor).

[dreaMaker]

Well, Woody Allen's inclusion is just tragic.

[ITALIANO]

Not only I'll never understand what so many respectable people see in Midnight in Paris; what I understand even less is what they see in the way it's directed by Woody Allen. The script may be banal and predictable but it's the element this movie clearly owes its success to. But Woody Allen today is really an uninspired director, and honestly it's not like this year they couldn't find better alternatives.

I don't think these five will all return at the Oscars, but I'm afraid that Woody Allen will - the Academy loves and respects him, so I doubt that he will be left out.

[Sabin]

The question then is who's out if anyone is to be one? The DGA have been 5/5 three twice in the past ten years:
2009 - Bigelow, Cameron, Daniels, Reitman, Tarantino.
2005 - Clooney, Haggis, Lee, Miller, Spielberg.

Is there any reason to believe they won't again?

Woody Allen - his film has hung in there for months, it's his biggest hit commercially and critically in ages, he's been respected by the industry forever while still being a total outsider which means that enough people want to be him (well...) to make up for being a consistent no-show. I guess he's in.

David Fincher - well, it's making money, it has mostly respectable reviews, they like him, there is sentiment that he is due, it looks fantastic, he's got Scott Rudin pushing him, it has a star-making performance...despite its gruesome subject matter, can it make Hollywood feel proud of itself? Yes, it can. I guess he's in.

Michael Hazanavicius - he's won countless awards for directing this film that he's also written, it's a labor of love, he's the presumptive front-runner and he has the Weinsteins pushing him....despite it being a foreign film, can it make Hollywood feel proud of itself? Yes, it can. I guess he's in.

Martin Scorsese - he's won countless awards for directing this film, it's a change of pace for him, it may not be a labor of love but it feels like it, he's been respected by the industry forever while still being a total outsider which means that enough people want to be him (no "well"s about it!) to make up for being a all-but-recent consistent also-ran, there is sentiment that he is still due, it looks fantastic... despite the fact that it's a flop, can it make Hollywood feel proud of itself? Yes, it can. I guess he's in.

Alexander Payne...

Nah, he's probably in too. This might be a 5/5 year. Poor, Terry.

[Sonic Youth]

As for Tattoo, I didn't love it but for the 2:45 minutes I was never bored and thought it was very decent entertainment despite lots of demerits. For example, Fincher's direction is totally at the service of the story, the sexual politics are very questionable, etc. But it's well-made, well acted, extraordinarily produced and I suppose this is as good a film as we can expect from the material. I wouldn't want to see a third adaptation, no matter how great it may be, and I have no interest in any sequels.

But more importantly, Tattoo seems to be on the upswing. After a disappointing box office performance immediately out of the gate, it's slowly accumulating a good-sized audience. The DGA nom may be a sign that the film is cresting its way to considerable AMPAS noms. Actress and screenplay seems more certain than before and tech noms are a given. So, why not Best Picture/Director. It's something to keep our eye on.

[Sonic Youth]

Hugo is not aware of its limitations and nobody seems to be.

*raises hand* The screenplay x 5. Plus, despite numerous incidental pleasures, the pacing could make Merchant-Ivory yawn.

And yet, I want to see it again.

[Sabin]

Interesting/lame.

So, we can now assume that if for whatever reason The Golden Globes nominated only five films and the Producer's Guild nominated only five films, we wouldn't be saying "But, War Horse has a Producer's Guild nomination and a Golden Globe nomination!" It would simply be the film that stuffed at the Golden Globes and the two major Guilds that mattered. Which means, I shall drop it from my list awaiting a headline that reads "War Horse snubbed for Bridesmaids."

This has to be the worst lineup of my lifetime. The best film nominated is probably Midnight in Paris, just because even when it's lazy and simplistic, it's so brisk and entertaining. I'm absolutely aware of its limitations, but that's because it's impossible to live in this decade and not be aware of Woody Allen's limitations. Hugo is not aware of its limitations and nobody seems to be. I don't think I can fault Martin Scorsese's direction of Hugo, but I can fault the story. Absolutely. And that doesn't begin to describe the problem's I have with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. At least Hugo has some real pull at the start of it. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a NIN screen-saver on the screen, like a rolling trailer for something I might care about if it were anything else. I guess that sequel is coming now.

Between those three films, yes, it must go again to Marty, but I can't give any of them more than **1/2. Alexander Payne's direction in The Descendants rather actively bad. I just heard the other day that apparently Louis CK was in early talks for the role, and my God, what a better film that might have made!

[anonymous1980]

As much as I hate to say it, at what point do we stop making excuses for why The Tree of Life isn't showing up anywhere? I mean, I'm with most in thinking Malick was more of an Oscar-not-DGA candidate, that the WGA wasn't going to bite, and that the film wouldn't be Globe-bait at all. But...still. How often does a movie that's completely MIA from the Globe/Guild portion of the precursors make a big Oscar splash?

It's the #1 ballot rule, that's why we're still holding out hope. All The Tree of Life is at least 250 Malick fans/cinephiles within the Academy to mark it as #1 on their Best Picture ballots and it will prevail. I know its chances seem grim but that's what I'm counting on and pinning my hopes on.

You know that new way of counting Best Picture ballots would be an interesting experiment. It may produce surprise inclusions and exclusions. Will it favor small (often divisive) films with passionate fan bases (The Tree of Life, Drive, etc.) or will it favor popular, bland, middlebrow fare (The Help)?

[Damien]

Scorsese's inclusion surprised me. I didn't think Hugo was currying much favor other than reviewers who felt obligated to praise a Scorsese picture and Scorsese acolytes, of which there are apparently many in the Directors Guild. FIncher seems to have coe out of nowhere -- perhaps from residue sympathy over his losing the Oscar last year? I expect him to be replaced by Malick at the Oscars.

I was talking to a screenwriter acquaintance of mine who's an Academy member and he said that Midnight In Paris seems to be the film that everyone in the industry has decided they love. One thing standing in its way is that Harvey will definitely make sure that The Artist wins the Globe for Musical/Comedy.

[Mister Tee]

Unless I'm forgetting something, this is the first year since Spielberg arrived on the scene that one of his films has been considered in the Oscar running where he's failed to get the DGA nod. His infamous directing snubs (Jaws & Color Purple) got him DGA attention; so did the ultimately Academy-ignored Empire of the Sun and Amistad. It's hard to look at the results from all the guilds and not conclude that War Horse's serious best picture candidacy has been largely a blogger fantasy.

I don't know that Fincher will carry over to an AMPAS directing nod -- he's one who could be replaced by Malick, or Miller -- but I think you have to look at Dragon Tattoo as a serious possibility for best picture/screenplay nomination.

Since Tate Taylor was infinitely more likely to place here than in the Oscar directing category -- and given the prohibitive odds against a non-directing nominee winning best picture -- I'd have to say the idea of The Help pulling out an ultimate best film victory is reduced to deep long shot.

The deeper we get into the season, the less certain I am of any category, best picture/director included.

[Sonic Youth]

Is everyone more excited about the Oscar predicting game than they are for the films themselves? Me too.

I had said that if the five DGA nominees matched up with five of the ten PGA nominees, it would clarify the Best Picture race and end the mystery once and for all. I was wrong... or maybe I wasn't and we don't know it yet.

[The Original BJ]

Yeah, I was pretty sure Woody Allen would make it. Fincher, though, I didn't see coming at all -- I assumed Taylor, Malick, Miller, and Spielberg were all running ahead of him.

As much as I hate to say it, at what point do we stop making excuses for why The Tree of Life isn't showing up anywhere? I mean, I'm with most in thinking Malick was more of an Oscar-not-DGA candidate, that the WGA wasn't going to bite, and that the film wouldn't be Globe-bait at all. But...still. How often does a movie that's completely MIA from the Globe/Guild portion of the precursors make a big Oscar splash? Even The Thin Red Line scored with the DGA.

Then again, one wonders how close City of God and Vera Drake came to Best Picture nominations, despite being on no one's Best Picture radar in five-wide fields, so maybe thinking The Tree of Life still has a shot at Director AND Picture nominations in an expanded field isn't so crazy.