Johnny Simmons

So, apparently on the cusp of the ASC win for Inception it’s turned into the frontrunner for Cinematography.

          

I feel like such a fraud having next to no enthusiasm about the race, so despite the fact that Inception shows up nowhere in my top 12 directors of photography I’d be least interested if it actually wins. Logic dictates that True Grit’s Roger Deakins (who’s been trying for that Oscar for some time) will get his due, but I won’t be surprise if he loses. In fact, my gut tells me that The King’s Speech could very well take this, and I’d be fine since it actually makes my list of nominees – but that could result in a potential bloodbath since everyone isn’t convinced that it’s well shot – and the backlash against it is already deafening. The Social Network is not one to rule out here, either and logically, you have to at least consider the possibility of a Black Swan – a win I’d be on board with. Inception aside (or not, even) it’s a fine bunch of nominees.

NOMINEES: Black Swan (Matthew Libatique) / Inception (Wally Pfister) / The King’s Speech (Danny Cohen) / The Social Network (Jeff Cronoweth) / True Grit (Roger Deakins) Prediction: The King’s Speech Alternate: True Grit

Maybe I’ll change my mind, but I’m going with The King’s Speech for cinematography – which is based, more than anything, on a maddening hunch of mine.

As far as locks go, I don’t think that Inception is as assured of its win here as – say – Avatar last year; but it’s most likely to assume that it’ll win here. Logically, I’d only see Harry Potter being any competition; but AMPAS voters have not always been known for logic and there’s no telling what sort of spoiler Alice in Wonderland could end up being here. Perhaps, a distant second...?

NOMINEES: Alice in Wonderland / Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows I / Hereafter / Inception / Iron Man II Prediction: Inception Alternate: Alice in Wonderland

You know that trend where the Best Picture winner wins editing, I’m often confused by it...but I digress. Owing to the fact that there is nary a stinker in the ten films nominated for Best Picture, the five editing nominees are quite stellar – with the exception of 127 Hours, which is too unsubtle for me to fête. The Social Network wins my own personal competition, and I predict that it’d be the logical winner here.

NOMINEES: Black Swan (Andrew Weisblum) / The Fighter (Pamela Martin) / The King’s Speech (Tariq Anwar) / 127 Hours (Jon Harris) / The Social Network (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall) Prediction: The Social Network Alternate: Black Swan

I think of The King’s Speech and Black Swan as potential spoilers, although I think the former’s editing is “better” they both have that palpable “edited” feel without being too overworked and Black Swan does accomplish much of its development through its editing, so who knows if a Black Swan surge could occur.

          

I’ve been shirking my duties as Oscar prognosticator (insert dry laughter) as of late because I’ve been counting down my own awards. I didn’t even realise the BAFTA’s had come and gone, although that could be attributed more to my mystical presence on the internet as of late (computer problems + internet issues + school drama).

             

I’m still constantly amused by the reaction to The King’s Speech leading the Oscar pack, not because I find aversion to the film impossible – that would be silly – but because too many are willing to reject its sound mixing nomination as something valid. It’s surely not the frontrunner by any means, not conceivably at least, but I don’t find its inclusion to be a moot point.

           

NOMINEES: Inception / The King’s Speech / Salt / The Social Network / True Grit Prediction: True Grit Alternate: The King’s Speech

        

NOMINEES: Inception / Toy Story III / TRON: Legacy / True Grit / Unstoppable Prediction: Inception Alternate: Toy Story III

          

I suppose that Inception will take the sound editing category, if only because 127 Hours was egregiously snubbed here. In the light of its love from the Academy (a whopping 6 nominations) I’m still surprised that they didn’t nominate it here. Sound mixing is trickier, though, and who’s to say that me deeming The King’s Speech as little to no competition will prevent it from winning. I wouldn’t complain whatever wins, none of my nominees are nominated here (Black Swan, Shutter Island, Green Zone) but I’m wary of predicting Inception to take both trophies and considering that True Grit has also been singled out for both sound categories, I’ll wager that that will take the sound mixing category.

          

Poor Arthur Kennedy never gets remembered like his peers. The man has five Oscar nominations; Champion (1949), Bright Victory (1951), Trial (1955), Peyton Place (1957), Some Came Running (1958). I've only seen three of them and true, I can't say that I'm an unbridled fan of his. Of the three I've seen him in (Bright Victory, Peyton Place, Some Came Running) the closest I came to loving him was in Peyton Place - and I was way more fond of Russ Tamblyn in that one. I did like him opposite Gertrude Lawrence in The Glass Menagerie (1950) and he does seem like a capital fellow and five Oscar nominations is nothing to shirk at.

               

I always like watching the road to the Oscars because it’s always cool seeing the nominees fraternising with each other; a bit like watching animals in their natural habitat or whatnot. Last year, I’d have given anything to see an eventual pair-up between Gabourey Sidibe and Carey Mulligan (they always seemed so chummy at events) or Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep. So, I made my own list – using the 20 nominees for the 2010 here are the five duos I’d most love to see.

          

I’ve always wanted to see Mark Ruffalo play an ultimately badass (though it is fun watching him play the ultimate stoner). And, with Renner being in good form throughout The Town playing the aggressive role for all its worth, I’d be much interested in seeing them battle it out as criminals at war. My limited imagination is seeing too much of The Departed playing out, which probably wouldn’t work as well. But, they’re such opposing technical forces it’d be interesting watching them battle it out.

I hate to sound superficial, but Jennifer Lawrence is so pretty I want to see her actually use that beauty (for good or ill) in a movie. And who better to pair her opposite than James Franco? That’s a whole lot of hotness. I don’t know why, though, but I’m now immediately flashing back to Bright Star (I swear, I can’t get that movie out of my head since we started studying Keats this semester). I’m not sure if either has a good British accent, but I wouldn’t be averse to seeing them in a period piece, but – really – I’m not that picky. Their aestheticism may distract me...

        

Perhaps it’s the red hair that I’ve seen them each sport before, but don’t they seem like an obvious duo to play a sister/sister pair. One reason I hate the Oscars’ is because in cheering on our favourites there’s that tendency to end up (ostensibly at least) disliking the competition, but though I’m not backing her I do like Natalie Portman. I find her general nature quite charming, and I’m even fonder of Amy Adams. I can’t see how any casting director could go wrong pairing the two women opposite each other in a nice drama.

          

Both Annette and Geoffrey have a stringent theatrical nature to them that’s often mistaken for histrionics (see Quills, Being Julia) and they’re both actors who work well opposite their respective scene partners. This makes me keenly interested in the idea of seeing them play opposite each other in something decidedly theatrical. Honest truth, the first idea that popped into my head was seeing them play opposite each other in Macbeth, but even something deliberately whimsical or anachronistic like a play within a play (a la Shakespeare in Love, or once again – Being Julia). Just think of the glorious shouting matches the two would have.

                

I have no idea what I’d want them to star in together, but it’s possible that this much brilliance in one film could make me combust. They’re at such opposite sides of the spectrum as actors it would be especially interesting to see what they’d be like in close proximity to each other – Kidman could be a younger stand-in for the Margaret Schlegel type in Howards End, even if I’m not in love with her British accent. But, really, I can’t be the only one who’d like to see them play against each other – they both have underrated (albeit brilliant) comedic performances. Perhaps, frenemies at war?

        

It’s weird, I don’t think that 2010 has offered us a slew of that brilliant films (but more on that later) – but it’s only proof that good direction is not synonymous with great films. For me, seven directors ruled this year for me (the five nominees and the two finalists) – and it’s really something a head-scratcher narrowing the seven down to five. But, I must (wails) – here’s who I decided on.

           
(click on the photos for reviews)
       

Lisa Cholodenko for The Kids Are All Right

Like all that wine Nic keeps ingesting, Cholodenko’s work in The Kids Are All Right gets better with time. Even though I’d admit that subtle would probably be the incorrect adjective to attribute to The Kids Are All Right Choledenko’s work is so good here because it’s not officious. Perhaps, because she co-writes it, she’s especially aware of the mood that the script calls for and she directs it in turn with sudden spurts that are not jarring as she establishes scene, character and setting with a style that’s current (though, not quite modernist) and always conscious of the viewer’s attention span, without being pandering.
                           

                                                                                        

There’s something dangerously close to posturing in the almost funereal which Fincher (and company) decide to ground The Social Network, but in all honesty I don’t mind it. It works – brilliantly too, I might add – because Fincher has always been adept at reconciling themes with directorial choices. Just like he was able to discern the appropriateness of the mock-epic style for Benjamin Button he manages a taut, hypersensitivity here that makes more and more sense as this gloomy (but not repulsive) tale unfolds. It’s all part of the wonderful irony (similarly evinced in the script) that this “social” network seems so insular.

                   

Sometimes I wonder if what could be perceived as Michôd’s occasional apathy to the situations affecting his character is a detriment to the overall narrative, but like his protagonist J – an ostensible indifference is not proof of disinterest. It’s difficult to single out key moments and say, “X scene was well directed”, but that’s the way Michôd knows it should be. I’m not a fan of the word, but there's some organic in the way that it unfolds (ironic, considering the very unnatural bloodshed ensuing). More than even Choledenko, I’d say that Michôd is the director this year that seems to hold the best interest of his characters at heart – for better, for worse.

Together with Lindsay-Abaire Mitchell succeeds in turning this story of stagnant grief into a thoroughly cinematic piece. He doesn’t smother us with the eccentricities to convey the cinematic nature but simply lets if flow as naturally as possible. One trap that directors working on stage to screen adaptations often fall into is the tendency is to over-cinematise their films, but Mitchell is shrewder. He doesn’t avoid the narrowness of the theatre but uses that same closeness to create a cinematic perspective of characters bound by their emotions.
                                            

               
                                        

Well, turns out Polanski hasn’t lost it. I wasn’t an unabated fan of The Pianist, and I’m not even an unabated fan of The Ghost Writer but Polanski’s direction – though, not exactly vociferous – is impossible to ignore. He’s a master at thrill, that doesn’t sacrifice cleverness in its quest and The Ghost’s journey unfurls with that same interest in being thrilling, occasionally mocking but always conscious of the story and what’s to come. It’s a prime example of the sort of subtle direction, that’s still noticeable but stands up to more scrutiny on the second and third viewings.
                      

       

FINALISTS: I feel like a right heathen for leaving Alejandro Amenabar (Agora) Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim vs the World) off my top 5. They work on different genres, but there’s a singularity in what they achieve. Both find their fortes in managing to keep productions that are quite sprawling in check, and managing to make them strangely personal. Amenabar retracts the sprawling Alexandrian tale to something simple, but not slight and Wright ensures that Scott Pilgrim vs the World is consistently bombastic and larger than life but never out of control. Both men are credits to their trade.

SEMI-FINALISTS: it sort of comes off like I hate Darren Aronofsky and his work in Black Swan, I don’t. When I consider the issues I have with its script, though, Aronofsky’s direction becomes even more impressive. All the heights of the story, and the successes of Nina’s insular journey succeed because he’s so in touch with his characters; it’s the same way that Noah Baumbach (Greenberg) and Sofia Coppola (Somewhere) are in touch with their introspective, and vaguely misanthropic male characters. Baumbach must be more palpably prickly, and Coppola must be more reticent in establishing that languor – they’re both excellent in controlling their stories, though; I’m still a bit partial to his Elizabeth I but it’s clear (to me, at least) that Tom Hooper’s work in The King’s Speech is proof that he’s improved. Though the writing is an important part of the equation, the subtly surprising direcotiral choices from Hooper is one of the reasons The King’s Speech seems neither tedious or rote; Matt Reeves must be more deliberate in directing Let Me In, and he succeeds in creating the appropriate atmosphere for the drama that evokes a sad redolence that’s unexpected given the genre and the subject.

HONOURABLE MENTIONS: Martin Scorsese for Shutter Island; David Russell for The Fighter; Floria Sigismondi for The Runaways. They each have one thing in common, they each prevent occasionally humdrum screenplays from subverting their attempts to create good cinema, and ultimately that’s one of the strongest suits of a good director.
       
So, director of the year...? Who'd you choose?