Who Will Win … Best Director?

There are some big names in this year’s directing category.  Let’s take a closer look at their chances and predict a winner.

And the nominees are…

Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Veteran wit Woody Allen had a big success this year with his newest comedy, which is also up for Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture.  However, Allen is known for his aversion to award ceremonies, and his last win was for the screenplay for Hannah and Her Sisters in 1987.  I’m not sure the Academy will give him the gold this time around, especially since his film is most likely not going to win Best Picture.

Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Malick’s film created division among critics and audiences.  Some lauded its artistic visuals and poetic storytelling technique, while others brushed it off for being too boring or too confusing.  I fell into the second category.  While the Academy obviously respected the film, giving it not only a directing nomination, but a Best Picture nod, in addition to Cinematography, I don’t think Malick will get the gold.

Alexander Payne, The Descendants

Payne, of Sideways fame, made one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year.  He’s the dark horse of the category, because if The Descendants ends up beating The Artist for Best Picture, the general trend that the director of the Best Picture wins his or her category could come into play.  The last time something different happened was in 2005, when Ang Lee won for Brokeback Mountain, but Crash ended up winning Best Picture.

Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Scorsese is in second place, if you ask me.  He’s a veteran director who won his first Oscar for 2006’s The Departed.  This past year he created a tribute to film history in a film for the whole family, something that critics applauded him for, and which the Academy might recognize.

And the Oscar goes to…

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

I’m confident that Hazanavicius, a French director known for his spy comedies starring Jean Dujardin, will come out on top this year.  He took a risk and made a film in an outdated format, and it worked for both critics and audiences.  I think the Academy will reward such creativity.

Review: The Artist

“We didn’t need dialogue.  We had faces!” — Norma Desmond, Sunset Blvd.

I finally saw it!  I made my way to the theater yesterday and saw The Artist!  It didn’t disappoint.  In case you didn’t know, The Artist is that new silent, black and white film from a French director.  That single sentence is enough to have a lot of people running for the hills.  Well, they’re missing out on a charming, clever, beautifully crafted gem of a film history tribute.

But even if you don’t know much about film history or have never seen a silent film, you’re not out of luck.  The Artist deftly works its magic to make the story and aesthetic approachable to a mainstream audience.  It’s not a pretentious art film by any means.  I don’t think it takes a viewer well-versed in silent cinema to recognize Jean Dujardin’s charisma or Uggie the dog’s cuteness.  And it doesn’t take a film historian to appreciate the film’s enlightening ideas about the film medium.  We’ve all seen movies, mostly talkies.  But I think that, contrary to popular belief, this film relies more on a viewer’s knowledge and experience with sound films than it does with silent, particularly for the reason that the film’s very plot examines the differences between the two methods.

Singin’ in the Rain looked at it as it was happening.  Sunset Blvd. examined its effect years later.  There are plenty of films which have investigated the transition from silence to sound.  The Artist is yet another one, but its creativity comes from the fact that director Michel Hazanavicius has chosen to use the earlier methods to tell the story.    His protagonist George Valentin (Dujardin) is a popular silent film star in 1927 Hollywood.  Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) is an aspiring actress looking to make it big in films.  When talking pictures become the norm, George worries about his future, while Peppy’s star starts to rise.

The film is enchanting in its simplicity.  It blends conventions of silent film, like intertitles and exaggerated acting (perfected by Dujardin) with staples of early sound films, like the classic Jack Russell terrier, here played by Uggie, who recently won a much-deserved Pawscar for his performance and is slated to perform at this year’s Oscars ceremony.  The most famous terrier is of course Skippy, who played Asta in the Thin Man series, George in Bringing Up Baby, and Mr. Smith in The Awful Truth.  In other words, he’s pretty much the mascot of the screwball comedy in my eyes.  There are also dance numbers and Vaudeville-style gags, and there’s no shortage of priceless expressions from Jean Dujardin.

Speaking of Dujardin, please give this man an Oscar.  You might be skeptical to hear that he was nominated for a silent performance, but don’t be.  He gives a charming, heartfelt, moving performance, and he masters the art of silent acting, a feat that’s certainly harder than it appears.  Bejo gives a great performance as well, although I wondered if her look and style were fitting enough for the era and aesthetic of the film.  She’s gorgeous and magnetic, but at times I was unsure of her era-appropriateness, if you will.  Just a minor nitpicky thing that really didn’t detract from the experience.

I’m hesitant to give away certain aspects of the film, because there are, in addition to the countless great moments unfortunately revealed in the film’s trailer, a number of unexpected and undeniably clever sequences which I believe should remain a surprise.  Let’s just say Hazanavicius plays with the film’s format in refreshing ways that are worth checking out.

Be prepared for the film’s boxy aspect ratio, true to the silent era, which won’t take up the full widescreen like you might be used to, and which could throw a lot of people off, as it probably did the viewers in Britain who asked for a refund after realizing the film’s format.  Once again, not to give anything away, but there’s a moment in the film which (probably unintentionally — but perhaps with foresight) is made more relevant and powerful because of the film’s recent audience reactions.

Do yourself a favor and see this movie!  And then root for it at the Academy Awards.  I know I will.