By Craig Kennedy - January 30th, 2011; 8:23 am
Tom Hooper is surprised to learn that the
DGA Award is actually Kathryn Bigelow.
The winners of the 2010 Directors Guild of America Awards for Outstanding Directorial Achievement are:
- Feature Film: Tom Hooper, The King’s Speech
- Documentary: Charles Ferguson, The Inside Job
Well, after about a month where many assumed The Social Network was going to win everything, it looks like Harvey Weinstein is going to have the last laugh as The King’s Speech racked up another significant victory last night with the Directors Guild of America.
Critics shmitics! The guilds are made up in part of actual academy voters and so far the DGA and PGA are all behind George VI.
For the TV winners, hit the DGA Website
Filed under: Awards
Tags: Charles Ferguson, DGA, Directors Guild of America, The Inside Job, The King's Speech, Tom Hooper
As I said on Twitter this morning, such results are going to make the Oscars incredibly boring. I’d love to know why the voters–or enough of them to be a majority–find this more worthy than any of the other nominees. As a commenter on another board said today, this movie could have been nominated in pretty much any year since the events actually occurred.
I dunno, I know plenty of people that honestly think The King’s Speech was better than The Social Network.
Now, I’m not nuts about TSN, but I didn’t feel Speech was all that great… or that much of a feel-good film.
I completely disagree with Josh on the merits of THE KING’S SPEECH.
Here’s a film that has a 96% on RT, is adored by critics, audiences and Academy voters, and connects on every level. It’s crime? Being popular. If this is what popularity is all about, I’ll take it every day of the week.
This is a VERY great film folks. Amy you could count me in with those who consider THE KING’S SPEECH better than THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
Mind you Josh, I do love TOY STORY 3, WINTER’S BONE and TRUE GRIT, but TKS is one of my favorite films of the year, hence a win here would have me smiling.
In any case, yes it’s over. PGA, DGA, 12 nominations and a probable SAG upcoming.
If you’re a better, here’s the time to make do.
ha haha. Did I stutter?
I feel like the more people who see this film the more push behind the King’s Speech there is, because viewers like it as much as the critics…and that doesn’t always happen. I have to think that the interesting content, good acting, and even the relative accessibility of the film due to it’s lack of cotroversial elements helps.
I don’t know. I’m fine with this. If you’re going to accept the Oscars as being important, you also have to accept that they often gravitate towards less challenging films.
Part of it is that, in any consensus vote among a large body, the middle tends to rise to the top.
Honestly, I’m just glad The Fighter didn’t win PGA or DGA. It could still get the SAG ensemble tonight, but whatever.
If you’re going to accept the Oscars as being important, you also have to accept that they often gravitate towards less challenging films.
Absolutely. For a really extreme example think of them picking The Greatest Show on Earth over High Noon. No way were they going to give the award to High Noon at that particular time.
Is it true that the real drama last night apparently happened when Fincher walked out after losing? (or so says the rumor mill)
I thought TKS was a solid film with wonderful performances and the type of feel-good alternative that the Academy tends to go for. I’m surprise, though, that the DGA anointed Hooper. I’m actually glad this time because I did connect a lot with the characters the story-telling and even the directing. Having said that, I truly wish Fincher or Aronofsky had walked away winners — their films are far more challenging, in my humble opinion, and not just because their main subjects are not as likable as the King, the Queen or Geoffrey “what’s not to love” Rush, but because of the subject matter they dealt with. Still, I like all three and I’m not as invested in the Oscar race this year, so I’m fine with last night’s results.
I will try very hard not to come off as snotty or condescending, but The King’s Speech did not connect with me on every level. For you, Sam, it did, and I don’t mean to say that it didn’t for many people around the world. Clearly, it has. If the best thing I can say about this presumed frontrunner compared with 2008, another year that frustrated me, it’s that I loathe Slumdog Millionaire, and I nothing The King’s Speech. I don’t really like it that much, I don’t dislike it, I nothing it.
Though I’m sure you don’t mean it, Sam, let’s remember that opinion and fact are different things. I read your post and interpret it as someone trying to tell me that, you know, The King’s Speech is a great movie, and its greatness is a fact. It’s not. I’m trying to not dislike the film as it gets more and more praise, but I do not buy it as the best of the year; I buy it as the safe bet of the year.
More to the point, if you want popularity among the Oscars this year, look no further than Toy Story 3, a movie that connected with more people worldwide (myself included), made more money, had a better RT rating, and is nominated for plenty.
Finally, can someone in this thread tell me why the DGA would think that Hooper’s achievement in direction is better than anyone else’s in the category? Putting aside the issue of which film is better, I can’t tell you that Tom Hooper’s work in The King’s Speech is more remarkable than that of David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, Joel & Ethan Coen, or even David O. Russell. I’m about as much a fan of that film as Craig is, but even that movie has an energy and style. Hooper’s work could have been done by any journeyman director, IMO. I genuinely want to hear a defense of his work, because I’ve either disagreed or not read anything coming close to a solid argument for him or his supposed achievement.
I apologize in advance if this comment comes off as being needlessly jerky. I love this site for its intelligent and educated commenters, so my heat-of-the-moment reply is simply a defense mechanism against what I’m reading as the “popular = good” argument, which I find extremely unintelligent.
Well, I’m sure people are watching and know this already, but figured I’d comment: SAG went for The King’s Speech too. Best ensemble winner.
Haha, well, this thread seems to be going about where I assumed it might when I read Craig’s post.
Josh, I haven’t seen The King’s Speech but I did read this post from Dennis Cozzalio over at his site that includes some commentary on Hooper’s choices and highlights his favorite use of direction, even though he goes out of his way to note how simple most of the direction is.
I was pulling for Aronofsky, Fincher, or the Coens (in that order) but I rarely get what I want out of these things.
At least the Oscar race got interesting again for about a week. Now it’s back to being boring.
Joel, that’s a fascinating article from Cozzalio, and well argued, but it’s notable that he had to watch a screener to confirm that the camerawork wasn’t the product of a bad projector. If the style is intentional, it shouldn’t make anyone think it’s the act of faulty equipment.
And I’ll echo my previous opinions: that camerawork was extremely jarring to me; even in the trailer, I noticed it and wondered why that was what Hooper wanted to do. The argument Cozzalio posits is certainly compelling, but more academic than what Hooper actually achieves, I think.
Josh, fair enough. When I sense there is some kind of bewilderment or incredulity with a specific film being honored, I use the critics card, not to assert ‘fact’ as such but to establish that there is solid opinion. But I am the last person to make such an analogy to be honest, as I disliked Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, The Fighter and many others that had the 90% of more. But your wonderful sportsmanship all around is much appreciated.
As far as the awards being boring, well, at least we had the excitement of the old switcheroo. For a few months boredom was setting in when all involved realized SOCIAL NETWORK was in. Suddenly and almost without clue or warning the tables have reversed, and that event has given many quite a thrill.
The Oscars can never be taken too seriously, but they are still fun, especially when the annointed choice is a film you really like. With me THE KING’S SPEECH is one of the years best films (it was my #8) so a big win is most welcome.
Yes, Sam, it got interesting for a couple days there but now TKS is winning everything with no regard for anything else, which makes it boring again. Sorry, just how I feel.
I’m with Joel here. While TKS has only dominated for about a week, it’s dominated where it matters. If anything, this year proves once more, to a surprising number of people who have apparently ignored it, that critics don’t vote for Oscars. I hold out a sliver of hope for a surprise, but more than in previous years, I’m confident that I can announce to my wife before anyone opens an envelope who or what is going to win. I wish I wasn’t. (And I hope I’m wrong.)
Is it true that the real drama last night apparently happened when Fincher walked out after losing? (or so says the rumor mill)
Dorothy, I read the blogger Steve Pond tweeted that Fincher left the room when Hooper’s name was announced. That could be interpreted in many ways. I mean, given the fact that the ceremony lasted for hours, maybe he just really had to go to the restroom or something.
Regarding the TKS controversy as to quality: I really liked the film and thought it was well done for what it is. Problem for me is that it tends to view the British monarchy — whose continuing existence is controversial — through rose-colored glasses. I believe this is due primarily to David Seidler’s screenplay. I think the film’s success reflects a desire during uncertain, difficult times to look to the past for security and reassurance, even if that nostalgic glance is as much fantasy as reality. (This factor I think had a lot to do with Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy to power in the USA.)
I also believe that the success of TKS involves sentiment over changes afoot in how British productions in the future will come to fruition in a different way. That is to say, the UK Film Council, which funded TKS, was recently abolished. So political sentment is afoot regarding funding of the arts — always a hot-button issue. In addition, the film is a personal achievement for Geoffrey Rush, who had a lot to do with getting it made, and this factor may add steam to his Oscar prospects.
As far as Hooper’s DGA win goes, my assessment is that the person in the driver’s seat of a successful production gets rewarded. The man (or woman) behind the wheel takes the blame if things don’t work and, if they do work, he/she gets the credit. The film does come together beautifully, and a director who’s good with actors — which seems to be the case with Hooper in the past as well as here — stands out from those who aren’t.
Alison, you’re right though I wouldn’t compare King’s Speech to Greatest Show. As I just finished saying in the Watercooler, I fear TKS is going to be dismissed as some kind of lightweight that stole the award from some kind of cinematic titan. The truth for me is that TKS is a much better movie than that and The Social Network is wildly overrated by critical group-think. I don’t believe it’s the movie of a generation and I don’t think it was ever meant to be. It’s an entertaining drama with great performances and sharp Sorkin-style patter. I think it’s importance is being greatly overstated by people who just happen to love it and there is apparently an equally large (or larger) group of people who love TKS. Me? My tastes swing toward TSN, but I don’t think either film is really one for the ages.
I agree with Dorothy and Josh though in that I think Fincher and Aronofsky both did a more distinctive job. Especially Aronofsky. Hooper… I don’t know without seeing behind the scenes of the production, but who couldn’t have made the same movie with the same cast and script? That’s not fair, like I said before people underestimate the director’s job in the literal directing of actors and no one would say Hooper did a bad job of that.
Also, Dorothy, I hadn’t heard about Fincher, but that kind of thing (same charges were leveled at Murphy and Murray) doesn’t hold a lot of interest to me.
And don’t worry Josh, you don’t sound jerky. You weren’t crazy about the movie and here it is winning everything in sight. Everyone knows how that feels.
I don’t know, Joel. Cozallio says it would be boorish to discount a film like Speech for not being flashier or more innovative because of the kind of film it is, but I think the problem for a lot of people is exactly the kind of film it is. Of course it was mounted a certain way, but that’s exactly why it isn’t all that interesting to some folks.
Springing off Pierre’s issue about the treatment of the Monarchy, I also find I have little interest in the phenomenon and it impacted my response to the movie. Yes, you can argue that the struggles and the male bonding are universal, but if you ignore the fact that the movie tried to squeeze significant mileage out of the fact that Rush was a commoner and George was a royal, you’re not paying attention. That bit instead of adding an extra layer of complexity, was for me added a veneer of disinterest.
And I still think they spent WAY too much time trying to make Wallis Simpson look like an evil bitch. I’m honestly surprised that more Americans weren’t turned off by that.
I guess the point is how much pressure was on George to step up because his brother and sister in law were unfit, but…. eh.
As a note, I read yesterday that Fincher had a 6:00 A.M. call time for Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, so that’s the most likely reason for him leaving.
Ahh, see? There’s always a rational explanation.
And even if there isn’t, who cares? It’s a little rude, but we’re not talking about something that actually matters, right?
Who cares why or when Fincher left? Did he flip them the bird when he walked out?
I hear he grabbed his junk and shouted “Suck on this, Hooper.”
Agreed that it’s not a good comparison, Craig. The King’s Speech is a much better movie than Greatest Show on Earth. As I said, it’s an extreme example and that was really really political. But I couldn’t think of a better example, other than Crash versus Brokeback Mountain.
Your main point is correct Alison and I wasn’t criticizing it or you. I just wanted to stand up for TKS a bit.
There IS a sense among people who don’t like the movie and who adore TSN that it’s exactly that kind of fluff though
:-)
I didn’t think you were criticizing me.
As I’ve said, I enjoyed The King’s Speech. It was a wonderful movie about friendship and there were many other things in the movie that resonated strongly for me. Was it an earth-shattering film or a film that broke boundaries? No. And there are certainly specific things to criticize about it. Still, overall I liked it. If it wins Best Picture I won’t be upset. But it won’t be the same as a movie of the calibre of No Country for Old Men winning. And I can see where people will be disappointed because they view it as “lightweight” or “overhyped” at this point.
Quite a terrific thread here!
Josh and Joel, one question:
When last did we really have any kind of a ‘surprise’ with Oscar since that debacle when Brokeback lost to Crash?
This show is predictable year in and year out, so why was this year gonna change?
I’ve ruled out ‘surprise’ among the modest pleasures to be had with the progression of the Academy Awards to be honest.
Hooper makes a very smart case for his DGA win:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/race/5-secrets-kings-speech-dga-94729
It ties in to what I’ve said here and elsewhere about the importance of guiding the actors. The guy obviously gave it a great deal of intelligent thought and it paid off.
Sam, I don’t remember it well enough to be certain, but was The Departed as much a shoo-in as TKS is? I remember Little Miss Sunshine winning at the PGA and SAG awards, and that didn’t pan out for it at the Oscars. Also, the narrative last year was that it was Hurt Locker vs. Avatar, and the latter had a strong push behind it.
The Hooper article is interesting, but when you have Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, and Guy Pearce in your cast, I’d argue that you have to be a know-nothing to get bad performances from them.
Sam, I think you’re forgetting that every year I back the wrong horse in the Oscar game and so for me, anything this certain is a wash.
Hahaha, but seriously, even if Best Picture/Actor/Actress are a certainty by December, usually there’s something interesting going on in the minor categories or Best Director is a horse race. But not this year.
I’m just going to have to get jazzed for Best Documentary and Best Foreign Film, two categories that always throw curves, and go to bed early this year.
Josh: Actually THE DEPARTED was a heavy favorite weeks before the show, as Awards Daily had delineated in various forums. True what you say about LMS winning two of three, but it was the general concensus that it was Scorsese’s year. THE HURT LOCKER did emerge as the favorite as well, but I hear what you are saying. Joel frames it well, with his rightful claim that some of the other categories always offer some surprises.
Hahaha Joel, I hear ya! I agree with you too that those are indeed the categories that offer the curves. This year will be no different either.
But please AMPAS, no DOGTOOTH, please!
Yeah, I really don’t remember The Departed being that much of a favorite, as compared with Scorsese (I agree that everyone assumed it was his year, but the movie itself, I don’t remember). If we look at the amount of nominations it got, five isn’t that impressive, especially when you consider that of the great cast, only Mark Wahlberg got nominated. I’m not saying it wasn’t a favorite, but Little Miss Sunshine and Babel seemed like equally powerful rivals.
They were, but Sasha Stone, Tom O’Neil and many of the pre-Oscar prognosticators brought forth very persuasive arguments in the weeks leading up to the big event, that this was a rare instance where the Director would carry in the film short of a clear favorite. Nobody ever saw BABEL at any stage in the race as a threat to win the prize, but LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE was the certainly the dark horse. Close monitoring of the awards process that year recealed a subtle shift in THE DEPARTED’s direction, which manifested itself in a clear front-running status two weeks before the show.
But you have countered my original contention that everything is clear year in and year out quite well here, as the race was very close almost to the very end.
Babel was a contender for the win for winning the Golden Globes and being the sort of weighty, star-studded drama that Oscar has anointed in the past. There was serious buzz surrounding Little Miss Sunshine, especially after the cast won the SAG award and film got the PGA. The only real clear vote for The Departed was Scorsese winning the DGA.
Maybe I just remember it differently, but that was certainly more of a horse race although I agree that Babel was less likely than LMS to beat Departed.
Joel, I agree that that year made some flips and turns before THE DEPARTED asserted itself near the end of the race.
I was rooting for BABEL, but that film didn’t work for a number of people.