My Studios

i love how this poll looks like it's giving us the finger!!

[Snort] What an odd observation. At first I thought you were just trying to beat me to a thousand posts, ashkul, but, you know, you're actually RIGHT. [Laughing]

I really need to start thinking about my 1,000th post.... Hm....

I remain, as always...

Nico.

haha, i doubt there's any chance of that Nico....especially since i'll be out of town tomorrow morning for a week....

Jason Reitman win for Best Director?!?! What...?

Get out of here! Seriously, Uwe Boll has more of a shot at winning than Reitman.

I've long-since doubted the relevance and significance (to non-industry people), but if the same Academy awards Jason Reitman a Best Director Oscar that denied Oscar wins for Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, and Howard Hawks (all were given honorary (aka "I'm Sorry We Screwed Up" awards to honor their contributions to the cinema), then I'll forever kick-in my TV, pick-up the current issue of "Southern Living" and retire at the ripe age of 26.

The man is the son of the director or "Evolution"! "Evolution"! I'm still picketing Dreamworks trying to get my refund back. Mark my words, I enjoyed "Thank You for Smoking" as much as the next guy (if the next guy hadn't worked for the tobacco industry), but the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree (of Mediocrity).

yeah the jason reitman nom is just baffling.

i guess he has lots of friends.

There's plenty more directors who deserved an Oscar nom that are far more talented than Reitman. Fincher for Zodiac. Andrew Dominik for Ass of Jesse James. Hell, even Joe Wright for Atonement was far more ambitious than filling a film with Moldy Peaches songs.

Never fear, he won't win for this. PTA, Schnabel, and the Coens in any universe would win over him.

frisky:

Jason Reitman...for Best Director?!?! What...? ...Get out of here! Seriously, Uwe Boll has more of a shot... [If] the same Academy awards Jason Reitman a Best Director Oscar that denied [my emphasis --N.] Oscar wins for Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, and Howard Hawks (all were given honorary..."I'm Sorry We Screwed Up" awards to honor their contributions to the cinema), then I'll forever kick-in my TV, pick-up the current issue of Southern Living and retire at the ripe age of 26.

[Snort!] frisky and I disagree on a lot of things, folks, but I make certain never to argue with him when he's right. And, no offense intended, but he's rarely ever been righter than he is here.

I think we're perhaps hyperventilating, however, over an extremely remote possibility. (I know... from my lips to God's ears, right?) The Academy tends to do this, scattering the occasional shout-out to a relatively new and impressive talent among its really very precious and, over the course of a career, exceedingly rare (generally) Directorial noms, but the award's actual winners tend to be a who's-who of very very experienced Hollywood behind-the-camera veterans.

...Just look at the winners in the category over the last, oh, twenty years: Bernardo Bertolucci, James Cameron, Jonathan Demme, Clint Eastwood (twice), Ron Howard, Roman Polanski, Martin Scorcese, Steven Spielberg (twice), Steven Soderbergh, Robert Zemeckis. Over the course of those two decades, only nine times has the Best Director Oscar been awarded to a director as comparatively inexperienced as Juno's Reitman, for whom it is his eighth credited feature: James Cameron (also, his 8th), Oliver Stone (his 8th), Ang Lee (7th), Peter Jackson (6th), Barry Levinson (6th), Anthony Minghella (3rd), Mel Gibson (2nd), and of course the rookies, Kevin Costner (who won for Dances With Wolves, in 1990) and Sam Mendes, who became the first Best Director winner of the new century with 1999's American Beauty. And I think it's also important to note that, again going all the way back to 1987's Academy Awards, the LEAST EXPERIENCED DIRECTOR TO BE NOMINATED IN THAT YEAR -- in 2008, Reitman qualifies -- has only won five times: obviously, Mendes and Costner, as well as Gibson, Minghella and Levinson. And I rather suspect that Costner's and, especially, Gibson's wins (for Dances With Wolves and Braveheart, respectively) haunt the Academy's blue-blooded gentry to this day. What I'm saying, here, frisky, is that there is certainly precedent for AMPAS to award a Best Director Oscar to a relative neophyte like Jason Reitman, but it's not especially probable. I think you -- and, more importantly, your poor, faultless, unduly frightened television set -- can rest comparatively easy.

As far as the Southern Living and early-retirement comments go, may I suggest two things: First, the article on weekend destinations in Charleston, one of my favorite U.S. cities (yes, we're subscribers). And, second, a series of cruises to the Caribbean, and most especially to Honduras, Antigua, and Belize. Gotta love Belize. The ruins of Xunantunich ALONE are worth the trip...

A little out of order, here, but...

I've long...doubted the relevance and significance [of the Oscars]...

I hear ya. Again, though, I think I have far fewer quibbles with this year's ballot, than any other Academy Awards that I can remember. They got it mostly right this year, at least so far.

The man is the son of the director [of] Evolution! Evolution! I'm still picketing [DreamWorks] trying to get my refund back.

...Well, look. I hear ya about Evolution, one of MY big personal disappointments... I mean, a cast like that? A concept like that? And you come up with... THAT? Pbbbbbt. But, it's hardly fair to rag on a guy just because of who his father is. I mean, I think we can all agree that Tony Scott is no filmmaking genius (Crimson Tide aside), but you can hardly fault his brother, Ridley, for his own frequent poor taste and cinematic excesses.

Leave Ivan Reitman out of it... And, besides, it's not like Evolution was his career highlight, or anything. The man also directed bona fide genre classics [/i]like Dave, Twins, Stripes, and of course Ghostbusters. I think the man's earned a pass for Evolution. (Now, Six Days, Seven Nights, on the other claw...)

Mark my words, I enjoyed Thank You for Smoking as much as the next guy (if the next guy hadn't worked for the tobacco industry)...

A nearly-great film. But Juno was far, far better in my opinion.

Six, I totally concur with a nomination for David Fincher (Zodiac) -- that's just a criminal oversight, in my opinion... and for Atonement helmer Joe Wright. I'd also put in a word for Brad Bird and Jan Pinkava, the director and co-director of Ratatouille, but I'd be wasting my breath. Ridley Scott would be on my short list for American Gangster, too... as well as Julie Taymor (Across the Universe), Adrienne Shelly (Waitress), Marc Forster (The Kite Runner), Mike Nichols (Charlie Wilson's War), Michael Apted (Amazing Grace), James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma), Olivier Dahan (La Vie en rose), Ben Affleck (Gone Baby Gone), Denzel Washington (The Great Debaters), Sean Penn (Into the Wild) and Peter Berg (The Kingdom), but I doubt I'd get much support for any of those names.

Great comments, all.

I remain, as always...

Nico.

brad bird, hell yeah!

rat-a-tat was simply superb.

ridley scott is always good, but the film let him down which was ultimately due to the writer's fault that's where i felt the film was lacking.

the characters were weak as piss, especially the russell crow character.

Nico:

I will disagree with you on Ben Affleck in "Gone Baby Gone". The movie goes from decent to terrible in six seconds flat. The directorial style is all over the board and it looks like they used the same casting agent on "Deliverance" to get the seediest of people in Boston to be in the picture. Dang! I haven't seen a sketchier crowd since the family picnic of '97.

The main difference I speak of in Jason Reitman's case is the fact that the precedence in the Best Director category involves veteran actors turned directors releasing epic films. Yes, "Juno" can be classified as this year's underdog story, but for it to win over vet directors like the Coens, PT Anderson, Julian Schnabel all at the top of their games, it's simply unfathomable.

As for the suggested Charleston article. I live in Savannah. Charleston is our competition for America's dilapidated tourists. Yes, they are winning, but I find solace in the competition with Charleston a la West Side Story.

I haven't been keeping track of this thread, but I just want to comment about the Jason Reitman stuff for a second. Now, I have yet to see Michael Clayton or The Diving bell and the Butterfly...but I do agree that maybe Reitman shouldn't have been on this list, kinda. I mean he did pretty much save Juno from being the pretentious piece of garbage that the script could have led it to become, but instead of getting caught up in the cleverness of the relentless witty dialouge he stood back and let the situation and emotions come from reality. I think he did a great job with Juno and turned in quite a film that, like I said, could have been really shitty comparatively. Also, this year's directors are all relatively unexperienced with the exception of The Cohen Brothers. Clayton was Gilroy's directorial debut and Schnabel's only made three other films, while PTA only has five films to his name, so...it's a year of relatively new talent. Maybe a representation of the power shift going on throughout hollywood?

I'm just saying.

I can't really agree with all this crap regarding Reitman. For a start, I really, really enjoyed Juno, and as StnMan noted, he pretty much saved the film from turning into a contrived, pretentious indie flick which has far too much too say without actually having the heart to back it up. I found the movie one of my favourites of the last few years, and I know some will throw scorn on me for this, but I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than No Country. And I love the Coens. I think Barton Fink, Millers Crossing and Fargo are some of the best film noirs of the last 20 years. No Country was a damned good film, but I thought Juno was better.

Now of course, if we all had our way, we would see an entirely different set of Oscar noms, but then it wouldn't be the Oscars, it would be a fantaverse poll. We know the Academy will always disappoint with our favourite films, but we know to accept this and move on. In an ideal world I would have had Danny Boyle, David Fincher, Edgar Wright and Brad Bird in a Best Director list. But im happy with the choices. And why does it matter that Reitman is relatively inexperienced. Would everyone have disagreed and made such a fuss had Singer won Best Director for The Usual Suspects. That was just about his first major directorial piece. And as Nico mentioned, Sam Mendes for American Beauty.

I applaud when the Academy picks an up and coming director. It shows that they are not just restricted to the 'old guard' of directors, who, year on year, churn out mediocre efforts but are recognised because of who they are rather than what they do. Peter Jackson won a shit load of Oscars for what I, and Im sure plenty of others on here feel, was his worst of the LOTR trilogy. He won it because the Academy 'owed' him for not giving him anything previously. Similarly with The Pianist and The Departed. Now we all know that they were both very good films, and I personally love The Pianist, but they were both definitely not either Polanski or Scorcese's best films. Both were awarded the Oscar in honour of their previous works.

A director should win the award based on the film which he/she has been nominated for, not hteir star credibility. Who cares if Reitman is inexperienced, if he's good enough, then credit to him. If he wins the Oscar, which I doubt, then good on him, and good on the Academy for daring to break a few unwritten rules of 'Hollywood land'.

Its not as if he directed a messy piece of film. The public are still going to see this film, so its obviously got a lot going for it. People can relate with what he has made. Yes, Reitman has made a film which the general public have appreciated. What's wrong with that. It is a successful film because it is a good film. Usually the more successful films are successful for the wrong reasons, ie. there is a lot of hype or money pushed into the production, and soon after their intial blockbuster opening weekend, they drop like a stone. Juno has gotten stronger. This is the film EVERYONE is talking about. so he must have done something right. This is not a decent marketing strategy, just a damn good film. And I kinda hope he does win.

silversufer19:

Do you need a tissue? I didn't mean to upset Reitman Fanboy #1. I'm glad you enjoyed "Juno", many people did, but I can't see that Reitman's contributions merit the same honors that the other directors are due. That's it. "Juno" has a good script that is made better by his direction. But, I think the nature of "No Country" working on so many levels other than just as a thriller, makes it interesting on so many levels. Of course, this can also be applied to some of the other films nominated ("Blood", "Diving Bell").

I agree, the Academy will pick who they want and we'll go on living our lives no differently, but I will say that I'm happier knowing that Danny Boyle and Edgar Wright will never get nominated for a Best Director. Best Director nom for "Sunshine", are you kidding? I really like the man, but seriously. That's what the BAFTAs are created for, with all due respect.

Frisky, what you are commenting on regarding No Country is the script, not its direction. I felt the script was stunning for no country, and would deservedly win Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay. But The nature that it "works on so many levelsother than just as a thriller" is not due to its direction, that is its script. I cant comment on either Blood or Diving Bell as living in NZ has some sever disadvantages, movie release dates is one of them. Now Im not suggesting that I feel Reitman deserves it more than the Coens, and that his direction is much more astute, in fact, I fully expect them to win this category more than any other. And they will thoroughly deserve it. I just think we should give credit where it is due. The nominations are in, and going by what I have seen, Juno and No Country were two of the more deserving films to come out last year, and have been rightly nominated.

Now, regarding Sunshine, THIS is where you have upset fanboy #1. I will need some tissue after that comment. I have felt over the last few years Danny Boyle has been perfecting his art, and has now reached a level of directing that will, in the future, be regarded as one of the best. He will be ranked alongside Ridley Scott for his work on Alien. I am absolutely certain of it. The impact that film had on me, I will never forget the hairs standing on my neck and every other part of my body as Kappa met his end. The scene was heartbreaking, and one of the most stunning pieces of cinema I have seen in the past 10 years. Did you see this movie in the cinema. Because if you did, you would know what I meant. It was a completely different experience in there. It became an epic. Layering that with his use of cinematography and music, and this movie stood out for me as THE piece of art released last year.

Now regarding Edgar Wright, that is just an addition of my own because I absolutely loved Hot Fuzz, and I know he would never have been nominated for an Oscar, but I commend what he achieved with that film, and I have no doubt that with the right film in the future, he would have the right qualities for a nomination.

And your comment regarding the BAFTAs, now man. That's just seems a bit rude, and self righteous in the belief that British cinema is of a lower standard to that of Hollywood, and so does not deserve a look in at the 'big event'. The BAFTAs are, to me, what the Academy should be aspiring to achieve. It aims to be a much fairer board, which would explain why The Lives of Others was nominated in the Best Picture category. Now, I like many others on here, respected that The Lives of Others was one of thebest releases of last year. Where was it at the Oscars...Oh yeah, best foreign language film. Not good enough for Best Picture I see. Language should not be a barrier for Best Picture noms. If it is the best picture of that year, then it should be nominated in that category, regardless of language. It also recognised This is England, one of the most daring films of last year. Where was it at the Oscars. Oh yeah, not even a mention. Then there is Control, again nothing. I could go on. The BAFTAs are to me, what the Oscars will never be. It is definitely an equal to the Academy in terms of quality, and Im sure it is even better in some respects. So don't go suggesting that the BAFTAs are created for British cinema only, and that it is a secondary event to the Oscars. It is a well respected awards ceremony, which because of its location, will never be able to compete with the colossus that is the Academy Awards.

Herald,

I have to say I agree with you on your point that if something is the best film of the year no matter what it should be mentioned in that category, but not with the recognization of foreign films. I mean the B in BAFTA does stand for British, right? If they're choosing foreign films, what does that say about THEIR movies?

If we as Americans only congratulate ourselves at these awards, it doesn't mean that we haven't seen other movies and view them as lesser it just means they're not american.

Also, foreign films come into play a lot more than just in the foreign film category. Last year specifically. There were technically 3 movies of foreign origination in the best picture category last year. 2 of them had languages other than English spoken as the primary language of the film. Also, this year we have a foreign director recognized for his achievements as well as a foreign actress recognized for hers. So, basically for the most part if the Academy DOES believe something is the best they'll throw it in...despite the tradition of favoritism and rain-check awards.

I'm just saying.

I don't see what everyone is arguing about. You are arguing over a possiblity that has no chance in happening. I mean seriously, whether Rietmen deserves the award doesn't matter, because there is no way he could ever win it. I'm not even going to say that hell would have to freeze over or anything like that, because he just doesn't have a chance. It is between Schnabel and the Coen Bros, with a very slim chance for Anderson to snag it as the underdog. But don't worry Herald, I think Juno will get it's due. I firmly believe it is going to get one big win. I think it is either going to take an underdog win with either Ellen Page or Best Picture itself, with me actually leaning towards Best Picture, but I won't go into my reasoning, as I already did on the Academy Award Ballots thread.

Also Herald, I totally agree with you about Danny Boyle. He is definitely in my top 5 favortie directors. He keeps testing himself by picking scripts that are in a different genre every time, and each one ends up being a fresh new take on that genre and an excellently crafted film. I mean, he did Trainspotting (a druggy drama), 28 Days Later (horror), Millions (warm hearted kids film, and also in my top 50 all time), Sunshine (sci-fi)......I even liked The Beach (thriller), although I know many who did not.

I did get the privledge of seeing Sunshine in the theaters and I was blown away. It was seriously epic.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: