How do we judge a director's individual performance apart from the film he directed?
HOW do you judge a director's PERFORMANCE apart from the film he directed? WHAT CRITERIA do you have to judge it?
In the 70s Jaws was nominated for best picture and Steven wasn't nominated for Best Director. HOW does that make any sense? This is not like acting where you can pick an individual component out of the film, like a great performance in a good film, or a DP who did great work on an ok film, a director's performance is judged on the ENTIRE FILM. The Best Director award is a relic of the late 1920s when the producer was the creative head of a picture (ala Irving Thalberg, David O Selznick) and should be abolished. Best Picture should go to the director AND the producer.
While this doesn't answer your question, Jorge, here's a little blurb I saw on Slate the other day: ... What are the odds that a movie that is not nominated for Best Director will win Best Picture? Very, very low. Only three films in the Oscar’s past 84 ceremonies have won Best Picture without having been nominated for Best Director as well. The last time this happened was in 1990, when Driving Miss Daisy won the big prize even though Bruce Beresford was not honored at all for his directorial work. For the other two examples, you have to go back a full 70 years: Wings won Best Picture at the first Academy Awards in 1929, though William A. Wellman was passed over in the directing category, and Grand Hotel won in 1932, though director Edmund Goulding was not nominated. Garnering a Best Picture nomination without a directing nod is fairly common—especially so in the last few years, as the former category has expanded to include up to 10 candidates, while the latter has stayed at the standard five. But so far the winners in the former category continue to be the ones that show up in the latter as well. Source - http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/10/oscars_2013_b...
But the fact that any discrepancy at all occurs shows a fundamental flaw with the way the awards are structured. And no awards are perfect. The Golden Globes, for example, have a much smaller member size than the academy.
That's a great question. I'll think on it a bit. Tough to see one without the other. I guess the first thing I can think of is - that a film with great direction, might still not be the best picture. I'm no expert on the subject, and I certainly don't understand the mechanics behind the awards themselves... but I can see how you could pull director out as a part, and best picture be judged on the sum of its parts.
But what part can you pull out of a film that you can say was great direction? How do you judge a director's work APART from the fact he's the creative head of every other part of the picture, from the acting to the cinematographer.
I've always wondered this, too. Sometimes I think that best pic is the Academy's choice for best overall movie, and best director is some kind of insider pat on the back. From what Wikipedia says, the whole Academy can vote for best director of the named nominees, but the nominations are made by the Directors' section of the academy.
I think you're assuming that he/she is the total and complete creative head of the picture, when in fact, many of them are not. What if a film had great direction, but a terrible soundtrack? What if a film had great direction, but terrible set design or art direction? I agree with you that it is difficult to separate the two, but I think you still can.
>What if a film had great direction, but a terrible soundtrack?
>What if a film had great direction, but terrible set design or art direction? Then the film didn't have great direction. It's impossible to seperate the two. Every director works differently, but the entire film is the director's responsibility. He's the one big picture person on the project. In the late 20s when the academy was invented, through, the producer was the creative head of the picture, and the director's award made more sense.
I'm not in the industry. I don't fully understand the academy. However, I think I understand it well enough to know that while directors may have creative control, it is not absolute. Producers and Executive Producers overrule them on stuff all the time. Things that directors want, end up on the floor. Look up Alan Smithee. As I understand it - very few directors are given complete artistic control.
But for years, between the 40s and the 2000s, it was 5 for 5.
You're right. I was being a bit facetious. I think the Academy must feel that a director has to leave his or her mark on the film to be nominated. For example, in Lincoln Spielberg was involved in nearly every piece of the film making process. He is even the one who tapped Lewis to play the lead. I can't say that is the case for every film. Also, certain directors, like say Nolan, are known for having a very distinct vision and guiding their films in ways where others may fail. I can say this is also the case for Ang Lee, where he really tries to push the envelope with the movies he directs. I don't think that a director should necessarily be given credit for every facet of filmmaking. There are many instances where 1 specific acting performance has carried a film, and there are cases where maybe the writing was terrific, but that director was completely separate from the writing process. It's difficult to really get inside the mind of each Academy member, but it certainly would be interesting to get a member's take on this issue.