DGA Nominations announced

[MDH257 0]

They announced the nomminees for the Directors Guild Awards (The Hollywood Union for Directors). They've been giving this out for 56 years and the winner has gone on to win Best Director at the Oscars 50 times. The nomminees are:

 

Clint Eastwood - Milloin Dollar Baby

Marc Forster - Finding Neverland

Taylor Hackford - Ray

Alexader Payne - Sideways

Martin Scorsese - The Aviator

 

Usually it's safe bet that four of the five will get best director Oscar nods. I'm certain about Eastwood, Scorsese, and Payne. I'm not sure about the other two. Their best shot is for one to get a best picture nod and have the director go along for the ride. I think Finding Neverland has a better shot at that than Ray.

[2GOLD 0]

"Finding Neverland" was outstanding and "Ray" was literally carried to decent by Foxx so I have no clue how the director got a nod.

 

Hats off to Clint Eastwood though, the guy is a fantastic director. Seems like he is up for an Oscar for every film he makes.

[Mole 0]

Scorsese will go down as one of the greats never to win an Oscar. IE Hitchcock.

[MDH257 0]

Here are the nominations for the Screen Actros Guild Awards. There are no supporting actor televison catagories, so all of the lead and supporting actors have to compete against each other.

 

Movies

 

Best Ensemble Cast:

The Aviator

Finding Neverland

Hotel Rwanda

Million Dollar Baby

Ray

Sideways

 

Best Actor:

Jamie Foxx, Ray

Don Cheadle, Hotel Rwanda

Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Aviator

Paul Giamatti, Sideways

 

Best Actress:

Annette Bening, Being Julia

Catalina Sandino Moreno, Maria Full of Grace

Imelda Staunton, Vera Drake

Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby

Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

 

Best Supporting Actor:

Thomas Haden Church, Sideways

Jamie Foxx, Collateral

Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby

James Garner, The Notebook

Freddie Highmore, Finding Neverland

 

Best Supporting Actress:

Cate Blanchett, The Aviator

Cloris Leachman, Spanglish

Laura Linney, Kinsey

Virginia Madsen, Sideways

Sophie Okonedo, Hotel Rwanda

 

 

 

TELEVISION

 

Best Drama Ensemble:

24

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Six Feet Under

The Sopranos

The West Wing

 

Best Comedy Ensemble

Arrested Development

Desperate Housewives

Everybody Loves Raymond

Sex and the City

Will & Grace

 

Best Actor in a Drama Series:

Hank Azaria, Huff

James Gandolfini, The Sopranos

Anthony LaPaglia, Without a Trace

Jerry Orbach, Law & Order

Kiefer Sutherland, 24

 

Best Actress in a Drama Series:

Drea de Matteo, The Sopranos

Edie Falco, The Sopranos

Jennifer Garner, Alias

Allison Janney, The West Wing

Christine Lahti, Jack & Bobby

 

Best Actor in a Comedy Series:

Jason Bateman, Arrested Development

Sean Hayes, Will & Grace

Ray Romano, Everybody Loves Raymond

Tony Shalhoub, Monk

Charlie Sheen, Two and a Half Men

 

Best Actress in a Comedy Series:

Teri Hatcher, Desperate Housewives

Patricia Heaton, Everybody Loves Raymond

Megan Mullally, Will & Grace

Sarah Jessica Parker, Sex and the City

Doris Roberts, Everybody Loves Raymond

 

Best Actor in a Television Movie or Miniseries:

Jamie Foxx, Redemption

William H. Macy, The Wool Cap

Barry Pepper, 3: The Dale Earnhardt Story

Geoffrey Rush, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers

Jon Voight, Mitch Albom's The Five People You Meet in Heaven

 

Best Actress in a Television Movie or Miniseries:

Glenn Close, The Lion in Winter

Patricia Heaton, Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl

Keke Palmer, The Wool Cap

Hilary Swank, Iron Jawed Angels

Charlize Theron, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers

 

 

The Writers Guild nods are announced Thursday, The Oscar nods are January 25.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

glad to see they gave winslet the nomination for the better performence in Eternal then for Neverland. Neverland was just her usual act but Sunshine was something different for her.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think the Best Director category is often screwed up because the voters fail to look at why directors should win it. I mean Tarrantino is one of those guys that will never win one, but I believe he should because his movies, really leave his own personal stamp on the style of acting and the actual directing. Much like Scorceses mob films, you really get the feel that it was Scorcese stamped. Now compare that with a movie full of good actors and writing, but nothing that distinctly screams out that it was that certain director that did it.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

I agree with you on that and there's many examples on that.

 

Curious though; do you think Eastwood has developed his "stamp"; I mean we know he can direct but has he defined his own personal style?

[Jingus 0]

I think the Best Director category is often screwed up because the voters fail to look at why directors should win it.

But every single one of the voters IS a film director. That's why it's called the Director's Guild Awards.

 

Best Supporting Actor:

Jamie Foxx, Collateral

 

The FUCK?! Foxx was the lead actor in that movie, period. Sure, Cruise was billed first in the credits and the ads, but Foxx was the hero and had much more screen time, so I don't see how on earth he was "supporting" anyone.

[godthedog 0]

I think the Best Director category is often screwed up because the voters fail to look at why directors should win it.  I mean Tarrantino is one of those guys that will never win one, but I believe he should because his movies, really leave his own personal stamp on the style of acting and the actual directing.  Much like Scorceses mob films, you really get the feel that it was Scorcese stamped.  Now compare that with a movie full of good actors and writing, but nothing that distinctly screams out that it was that certain director that did it.

just because it's "distinctive" doesn't mean it's "good." a director's strength is in how compelling he makes his material, not how he can fit in his trademark pop culture references or tracking shots or whatever. i would take the "nondistinctive" approach eastwood uses in 'million dollar baby' over tarantino's overkill wanky approach in volume 1 of 'kill bill' any day.

 

Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby

--yeah. he'll probably win, and i won't complain if he does.

 

Marc Forster - Finding Neverland

--this had a far better script than 'million dollar baby', but 'baby' ended up being the better movie because of some bad choices forster made. namely he turned up the melodramatic elements way too much when it wasn't necessary: BIG DRAMATIC moments stretched on too long, intrusive music, the slow-motion was dumb, etc. the quieter moments were a lot more powerful. i'm surprised he was nominated.

 

Taylor Hackford - Ray

--meh. i'm totally indifferent to this one. not that hackford had a gold mine of material to work from, but he did his job competently and nothing more. the hallucination sequence near the end was really over-the-top and out of place.

 

Alexader Payne - Sideways

--stellar. absolutely fucking stellar. never misstepped, never wavered, and he's got a fucking pitch-perfect sense of timing, knowing just when to hit the emotional notes and how long to hold them, and knowing just when to get the laughs. i cannot gush enough about how nearly perfect this movie is.

 

Martin Scorsese - The Aviator

--haven't seen it yet, but i'm skeptical. scorsese seems to have dwindled from cinematic demigod to typically competent director, and i don't know if he has any fire left. this seems to be getting the same kind of critical hype that 'gangs of new york' got, and 'gangs' does not hold up well.

 

Curious though; do you think Eastwood has developed his "stamp"; I mean we know he can direct but has he defined his own personal style?

he cuts through the bullshit really well. that's his style, more or less. but it's not like you can watch ten minutes of his work and be able to tell who it is.

 

he isn't terribly different from the effective studio directors of the 40s/50s like michael curtiz or howard hawks or carol reed ('the third man' is an influence that eastwood says he goes back to repeatedly, especially for lighting). like them, he finds what's absolutely necessary for the story and throws everything else away. he shoots very quickly (he's known to hand out $100 dollar bills to everyone on the set if they get it right on the first take). but nobody else i know of really works like that today, so that in itself makes him distinctive.

[2GOLD 0]

Leo does not deserve a nod. I was unimpressed with his performance and it just didn't yell at me "Oscar Worthy" or even award worthy. I'm not understanding what is so great about his performance in that film.

 

Just seems like Leo is becoming the new Tom Hanks of award shows. Giving a nod just to give a nod.

[Guest El Satanico]

I don't know about being award worthy this year, but I thought Leonardo was great.

[Black Lushus 0]

refresh my memory, did Winslet win the Oscar for Titanic or was she just nominated?

[starvenger 0]

I think the Best Director category is often screwed up because the voters fail to look at why directors should win it. I mean Tarrantino is one of those guys that will never win one, but I believe he should because his movies, really leave his own personal stamp on the style of acting and the actual directing. Much like Scorceses mob films, you really get the feel that it was Scorcese stamped. Now compare that with a movie full of good actors and writing, but nothing that distinctly screams out that it was that certain director that did it.

Didn't QT resign from DGA so that he could direct a part of Sin City?

[Guest El Satanico]

I don't know if Tarantino did, but I know Robert Rodriguez did it for Sin City.

[starvenger 0]

To give Frank Miller a co-director credit, yes. Classy move, by the way.

[MDH257 0]

Here are the Writers Guild Nominations.

 

Best Original Screenplay

 

The Aviator - John Logan

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Charlie Kauffman

Garden State - Zach Braff

Hotel Rwanda - Keir Pearson and Terry George

Kinsey - Bill Condon

 

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

 

Before Sunset - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Ethan Hawke; based on characters Linklater and Kim Krizan created for their film "Before Sunrise"

 

Mean Girls - Tina Fey; based on Rosalind Wiseman's book "Queen Bees and Wannabes"

 

Million Dollar Baby - Paul Haggis; based on stories from F.X. Toole's collection "Rope Burns"

 

The Motorcycle Diaries - Jose Rivera; based on memoirs by Guevara and traveling companion Alberto Granado

 

Sideways - Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor; based on the novel by Rex Pickett

 

 

Finding Neverland was ruled ineligible because "the film was not produced under conditions of the guild's current labor contract." It could still get a Oscar nod for Adapted Screenplay because it was based on a play.

 

Two years ago Michael Moore won the Orignal Screenplay award for Bowling for

Columbine. I betting the guild members threw a fit because this year they created a catagory for documentary scripts to make sure Fahrenheit 9/11 or Spuer Size Me didn't get nominated.

 

There's politics involved in what get credited as an original or adapted screenplay. Scripts will try to submit in the catagory with easier competition for the nomination or win. A couple of years ago Antwone Fisher (the real guy) successful lobbyed for his script to be considered an Original Screenplay because he said he wrote it before he wrote his memoir which was puplished at least a couple of years before the movie was made.

Nia Vardalos also got My Big Fat Greek Wedding considered an Original Screenplay using the same reason, even though she had been performing Greek Wedding as a one women show for years.

 

I'm happy to see Before Sunset nominated, but it's not an adapted screenplay.

 

Mean Girls is based on Queen Bees and Wannabes the same way Adaptation was based on The Orchid Thief.

[bob_barron 0]

I know a lot of the things the girls did to each other was lifted directly from the book as was Tina's speech to the girls

[Boner Kawanger 0]

Best Actor in a Comedy Series:

Jason Bateman, Arrested Development

Sean Hayes, Will & Grace

Ray Romano, Everybody Loves Raymond

Tony Shalhoub, Monk

Charlie Sheen, Two and a Half Men

 

Jason Bateman is the only person that deserves this. Tony Shalhoub is all well and good, but he's been there.

[MDH257 0]

They announced the nomminees for the Directors Guild Awards (The Hollywood Union for Directors).  They've been giving this out for 56 years and the winner has gone on to win Best Director at the Oscars 50 times.  The nomminees are:

 

Clint Eastwood - Milloin Dollar Baby

Marc Forster - Finding Neverland

Taylor Hackford - Ray

Alexader Payne - Sideways

Martin Scorsese - The Aviator

The DGA Awards were held Saturday night. The Winner was:

 

Clint Eastwood

 

Scorsese has never won this award either, he's 0 for 6. This is the second time Clint's won this award, he also got it for Unforgiven.

 

SAG Awards are Feb. 5.

Writers Guild Awards are Feb. 19.

 

 

Edit:

Here are the SAG Award Winners; didn't want to bump the thread just for this.

 

Movies:

 

Best Actor: Jamie Foxx, "Ray."

 

Best Actress: Hilary Swank, "Million Dollar Baby."

 

Best Supporting Actor: Morgan Freeman, "Million Dollar Baby."

 

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "The Aviator."

 

Best Ensemble Cast: "Sideways"

 

 

Television:

 

Best Actor in a TV Movie: Geoffrey Rush, "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers."

 

Best Actress in a TV Movie: Glenn Close, "The Lion in Winter."

 

Best Drama Actor: Jerry Orbach, "Law & Order."

 

Best Drama Actress: Jennifer Garner, "Alias."

 

Best Comedy Actor: Tony Shalhoub, "Monk."

 

Best Comedy Actress: Teri Hatcher, "Desperate Housewives."

 

Best Drama Ensemble: "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."

 

Best Comedy Ensemble: "Desperate Housewives."

Edited February 6, 2005 by MDH257

[Guest Vitamin X]

The Writers Guild awards look to be, by far, the most competent nominations out of the bunch. Is Jim Carrey not a member of SAG or something? I don't think I would have put Depp over Carrey's performance in Eternal Sunshine. Although it is a pretty stacked category, it's still astounding to see him getting shafted left and right.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

refresh my memory, did Winslet win the Oscar for Titanic or was she just nominated?

Helen Hunt won for As Good As It Gets.

 

But to GTD, most of what you said, about finding the right moments or having perfect timing for the comedy in regards to the job of the director, wouldn't that all be covered in the script? By definition, what exactly does the director do with all the material that he has.

[godthedog 0]

But to GTD, most of what you said, about finding the right moments or having perfect timing for the comedy in regards to the job of the director, wouldn't that all be covered in the script?

nope. the writer can only make it work on the page. if you have, say, a really understated, dramatic moment where paul giamatti is looking off into the sunset and thinking about how shitty his life is, there's a million tiny decisions that go into that:

 

how do you want it framed--do you want a long shot of him against the empty landscape, or do you want a close-up that really focuses on his eyes?

 

how do you want it lit--do you want it soft or harsh, lightish or darkish, etc.

 

do you want to add music, to punctuate the scene, or do you want the shot to speak for itself? if you DO want music, what KIND of music? would it be more dramatic if you turn the music UP, or turn the music DOWN? is this even the kind of movie that should have a lot of music to guide the audience's attention, or should you be more subtle and focus more on the gestures and the visuals to set the tone?

 

how do you want giamatti to act in this scene--do you want him to use his body a lot, or just his eyes? do you want him to move around a lot, or stay still? what's the most appropriate approach he needs to take, not just for his character but for the tone this scene needs? obviously giamatti has his own ideas, but you're the director and it's his job to do whatever you tell him to do.

 

how long do you want the moment to last? if you make it too long, the audience gets bored or frustrated. if you make it too short, it just floats right past the audience & they don't take notice of it (especially if it's a scene with no dialogue).

 

how IMPORTANT is this moment, how much WEIGHT do you want to give it? is this supposed to be a particularly dramatic moment, in and of itself, where the audience comes to realize how much pain he's really in? is this scene just supposed to be a chance to give the audience a breather to reflect on what's already happened before the NEXT big thing happens? how much do you want the audience to take notice of the scene? why is this scene in the script, what is it trying to say, and how do you convey that with sounds and pictures?

 

there is someone in charge of each of these individual elements (the music, the picture, the acting, the editing), but it's the director's job to make all those elements gel together into something that works. you can have great music, great visuals, great acting, great editing, etc., and still be a bad movie if it doesn't all fit together in the right way.

 

you can't just transcribe what the writer says, you have to know how to use all the options available to you (sound, framing, acting, pacing, etc.) to make the story really come to life. a good director can take a script apart and find out what the story's really ABOUT and what's important, and know how to tell the audience what's important: not only what's important in a scene and why, but what scenes are important and how to make them stand out. it's the director's job to say "okay, paul, i want you to be absolutely still in this scene, this is the calm before the storm." it's his job to say "hey, get my DP and tell him to pull back on the framing, if the camera's this close the point of the shot is lost, we really want to emphasize the space." stuff like that.

 

a script can have something like, "Miles takes a step on the grass, stops. He looks out at the horizon, speechless, lost." that could justifiably go on for 3 seconds, or it could go on for 4 and a half minutes. it might have miles fighting back tears, it might have him staring blankly out into space. it might emphasize the HORIZON and miles's smallness, or it might emphasize miles's facial reaction TO the horizon.

 

put simply, payne consistently made the right kind of decisions for his story, and there were literally no moments at all in 'sideways' that felt like missteps. i can praise the writing and the acting and the photography and the editing, but the way all of them fit together is ultimately to the director's credit. the producer obviously also has a lot of hierarchical power, but as i understand it, their decisions are mainly about logistics & making sure things run smoothly, not aesthetic decisions. like, it's not the producer's job to ask for another take because they think it was acted badly.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

See I thought most of that stuff was done by the writer, as in he will describe the scene that is being set out. For instance, if the guy is going out and staring at the horizon, the writer would state that it is supposed to be a large shot, encompassing a lot of space, sort of like what's done in the novel, and the director follows that guideline.

 

How can you judge a director? It's really easy to see how good the dialogue is or how good the acting is, but how can you tell if the director did a good job with the pacing and made the right things work etc. That seems a little TOO subjective to be able to compare, not to mention that it's so easy to read the wrong things when trying to figure it out.

[godthedog 0]

"See I thought most of that stuff was done by the writer, as in he will describe the scene that is being set out. For instance, if the guy is going out and staring at the horizon, the writer would state that it is supposed to be a large shot, encompassing a lot of space, sort of like what's done in the novel, and the director follows that guideline.

 

How can you judge a director? It's really easy to see how good the dialogue is or how good the acting is, but how can you tell if the director did a good job with the pacing and made the right things work etc. That seems a little TOO subjective to be able to compare, not to mention that it's so easy to read the wrong things when trying to figure it out."

 

the basic problem is, film is a medium of pictures & sounds and the screenplay only exists on the page. there's a "meat" to every story: the issues it concerns, the kind of emotions it evokes, the kind of message it carries. the screenplay has the meat of that story in words, but the final product has to use pictures & sounds to get at that same meat, and pictures & sounds don't work the way words do. there's waaaaaaaay too many details in a film for the screenplay to cover, the best it can hope to do is pick some key elements to indicate the kind of feeling that the screenwriter is going for. take a scene from 'being john malkovich':

 

INT. CRAIG AND LOTTE' S GARAGE - MORNING

 

The place is a mess. Vivaldi blasts through cheap speakers.

A small marionette stage stands in the back of the garage.

The stage is lit and on it is a finely sculpted puppet

version of Craig. The "Craig" puppet paces back and forth,

wringing its hands with incredible subtlety. We see Craig,

above and behind the stage. He is manipulating the puppet.

His fingers move fast and furious. The puppet breaks into

a dance, a beautiful and intricate balletic piece. Soon the

puppet is leaping and tumbling through space, moves that one

would think impossible for a marionette. Sweat appears on

the real Craig’s brow. His fingers move like lightning. The

puppet moves faster and faster. Sweat appears on the puppet's

brow. We see that the sweat is being piped from a special

device that the real Craig controls. The Craig puppet

collapses on the floor of the stage. It puts its hands up to

its face and weeps. Craig hangs the puppet, and comes down

around the front of the stage. He is heaving. He switches

off the music, picks up a beer and takes a swig.

 

there's a lot of really vague shit here that's way open for interpretation. "the place is a mess": how do you convey that visually? do you give one or two empty shots of the garage before you show craig or the puppet? or do you cut straight into the action, and just let the mess be there in the background? HOW messy do you want this? what kind of shit should be strewn about his place? what should the color scheme be--do you want it to look dank and dirty, make everything brown and crusty and colorless? do you want the room to be some kind of expression of sadness, use a lot of blues? do you want to be disorienting and claustrophobic, use a bunch of big bold colors that clash with each other?

 

"Sweat appears on the real Craig’s brow.

His fingers move like lightning.

The puppet moves faster and faster.

Sweat appears on the puppet's brow.

We see that the sweat is being piped from a special device that the real Craig controls."

 

these are separate actions, but they don't necessarily have to all be separate shots. you could show craig sweating in one shot, show his fingers in the next shot. you could start with a close-up of craig's brow, then pan the camera down to his fingers. you could have a slightly wider shot that has his face and his hands in the same frame. if you want to be really fancy, you can do a weird david fincher-type CGI shot and pan from craig's brow, to his fingers, to the puppet's feet (moving faster & faster), to the puppet's brow, to the "sweat-pumping" device. and what is this device supposed to look like? should it be big and clunky and hodgepodge? should it be small and elegantly designed? WHERE should the device be, and how does craig control it? should craig get the same lighting as the puppet? should he have the harsh sunlight through the window on his face, while the puppet is lit smoothly and evenly? should the puppet be really brightly lit, with craig being more dark and shadowy?

 

"He switches off the music, picks up a beer and takes a swig."

this is a good empty beat to end the scene on, but what kind of moment should this be? do you want it to be a big dramatic moment, basking in how good craig is at what he does, or do you want to play it up for comic effect to remind the audience that he's still a pathetic unshaven loser? the timing will be different, depending on what you think the moment should be, as will the way you construct the shots. if you want to, you don't even need to SHOW craig doing this: you can linger on a close-up of the lifeless puppet on the empty stage, and have the sound effects tell the audience what craig is doing.

 

point being, the director's job isn't to transcribe what the writer put down. it's to make the story come alive on the screen, and it's done through making all these little decisions.

How can you judge a director? It's really easy to see how good the dialogue is or how good the acting is, but how can you tell if the director did a good job with the pacing and made the right things work etc. That seems a little TOO subjective to be able to compare, not to mention that it's so easy to read the wrong things when trying to figure it out

inasmuch as judging a good MOVIE is subjective, yeah, judging a good director is subjective. it's just a matter of how much you enjoy the movie, and paying attention to what the movie's actually DOING that makes you enjoy it. if a scene is confusing, or just passes right by you without you understanding the point, then the director probably fucked up. if there's a really well-written moment that seems to fall flat on the screen, the director probably missed something. it's a really nebulous kind of thing and there's a lot of wiggle room, but it's possible. 'the aviator' is a REALLY good example, where scorsese manages to go totally above and beyond a really shitty, scattered, episodic script through sheer force of will and knowing exactly how to make each misstep of the script work really well, and gets really really close to having a great movie.

 

...

 

bumpy bump bump. i already sent this in PM form, but i thought it might make for some good general points of discussion.

[ArkhamGlobe 0]

point being, the director's job isn't to transcribe what the writer put down. it's to make the story come alive on the screen, and it's done through making all these little decisions.

 

For a pretty obvious example of the opposite, look at the 5-hour tv-version of Best Intentions. Having read Bergman's script for that one, I can testify that he goes into absolutely insane, anal rentitive detail about the scenes, he's essentially trying to direct the entire film from behind his typewriter. Now granted, a director with a spine and a voice of their own would just cut through all this extraenous detail and find the bare meat of the scene and build on that, but not Bille August! Looking at the film it seems that he's doing his best to, as stated in the quoted piece, transcribe the text of the screenplay to the screen and it just completely sucks the life out of virtually every scene in the film that isn't basically solely focused on just the actors. I think that entire film serves as a textbook example that good material (in this case good material in dire need of some editing) does not by any means guarantee a good film, and especially not if the director is a clueless fucking putz who can't bring his eyes far enough out from the script to form an independent thought.

[MDH257 0]

Best Original Screenplay

 

-The Aviator - John Logan

-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Charlie Kauffman

-Garden State - Zach Braff

-Hotel Rwanda - Keir Pearson and Terry George

-Kinsey - Bill Condon

 

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

 

-Before Sunset - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, and Ethan Hawke

-Mean Girls - Tina Fey

-Million Dollar Baby - Paul Haggis

-The Motorcycle Diaries - Jose Rivera

-Sideways - Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor

 

The Writer's Guild Awards were last night, and the winners were...

 

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

and

Sideways