I've been listening to interviews done by Terry Gross of "Fresh Air" with the five filmmakers nominated for Best Director in this year's Academy Awards - Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, Lee Daniels, Jason Reitman, and Quentin Tarantino. After hearing each director discuss his or her films I realized that these five are a very diverse group, and not simply because they include a woman (the fourth one ever nominated for directing) and an African-American (only the second ever nominated).
There's a range of actual experience and body of work. Cameron and Bigelow are industry veterans who have both been directing major films since the 80s. Cameron has already won an Oscar for directing Titanic. On the other end of the experience spectrum, Jason Reitman has only made three films. However, this is his second nomination for Best Director; Reitman was previously nominated in 2007 for directing Juno. Lee Daniels has directed only two films after previously working as a producer and casting director.
Cameron, Reitman, and Tarantino are writer-directors, in fact Tarantino and Reitman are both nominated for screenwriting awards this year. However, their writing styles are quite different. Tarantino is known for his dense and witty dialogue. His signature scene is one like the tavern scene in Inglourious Basterds: several characters gathered around a table engaged in a lengthy conversation touching on pop culture tidbits, sociological insights, and intellectual one-upsmanship. Though Cameron is a writer, his films are known more for their technical merits than deft dialogue. In fact, that is a criticism leveled at the Oscar-nominated Avatar - the visuals are great, but the story sucks.
But to really get a sense of the diversity of this field, just look at the types of films for which they are best known. Cameron specializes in big-budget epics, often in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, such as The Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar. He seems uninterested in depicting things as they are in the real world; his films are total escapes into new realities. Bigelow has also become known for action, but, unlike Cameron's, her films are usually based in real-world dramas like the cops and surfers of Point Break or the bomb-defusing soldiers of The Hurt Locker.
In the two films he has directed, and in those he has produced, Daniels seems to gravitate toward dramas built upon the human relationships between people on the fringes of society. He does not shy away from the uglier sides of life. Reitman, on the other hand, seems to specialize in comedy/dramas about middle class America. In contrast to the often harsh and gritty images of a Daniels film, Reitman's films have an almost artificial sheen. There is something bright and clean about them, despite subject matter (teen pregnancy, tobacco lobbyists, unemployment) which is usually topical and true-to-life.
Tarantino seems in his own category entirely because his films are so identifiably "Quentin Tarantino films." He is drawn to subjects one could arguably call low-brow - heists, small-time gangsters, kung fu fighting. His influences range from Hollywood classics to cult favorites and exploitation films. And as I have already mentioned, he is famous for his dialogue; it is a dominant element in any Tarantino film.
So what makes the "best" director? Is it the effective use of groundbreaking technical innovations, a unique cinematic style, or the ability to achieve harrowing realism? Or, is it the person who directed the best film? When the choices are as varied as this year it is hard to pick one. I'll be making my predictions soon, and then we'll see if the Academy agrees.
You can listen to the "Fresh Air" interviews here.
BONUS: If you are wondering how Academy members choose the best sound editing (and aren't we all?), Slate.com has prepared this handy video primer. Check out this one for a look at film editing.
No comments:
Post a Comment