Oscar Experts Typing: Analyzing the terribly vexing Best Director race
Welcome to Oscar Experts Typing, a weekly column in which Gold Derby editors and Experts Joyce Eng and Christopher Rosen discuss the Oscar race — via Slack, of course. This week, we discuss the wide open Best Director race, where only two people feel somewhat secure.
Christopher Rosen: Hello, Joyce! Our weekly conversations have finally landed on what might be my favorite category of this entire race: Best Director. To be honest, I’m terribly vexed about the whole field — and not just because we got to see “Gladiator II” aka “Glad II ator” on Monday. Before we get to this year’s “Top Gun: Maverick,” let’s start at the top: According to the odds and most experts, “Anora” director Sean Baker and “The Brutalist” filmmaker Brady Corbet are the most likely to receive nominations in this category next year. I certainly believe it: Both films feel undeniable and both filmmakers feel like they will successfully make the leap despite not finding favor with the directors branch previously. In a similar spot is Jacques Audiard. The “maverick” French filmmaker — at least according to the Netflix marketing machine — is third in the odds and seems likely to land a nomination on the back of love for “Emilia Pérez.” Here’s where I zag away from the consensus. While the odds have Denis Villeneuve for “Dune: Part Two” and Edward Berger for this week’s new release “Conclave,” I’m going big (and maybe going home). After we saw “Gladiator II,” I jumped Ridley Scott right to the top of my predictions — this despite his failure to connect with Academy voters. He wasn’t nominated for “The Martian” and the Academy has been very comfortable ignoring him and his movies over the last several years. But if there were ever a year where Sir Ridley could make it in, it’s now or never. No disrespect meant to Villeneuve, who could claim this title, but in my estimation, this field is seriously lacking a titan of the industry — there’s no Martin Scorsese, no Christopher Nolan, no Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Scott, almost by default, is the biggest name here — and maybe that wouldn’t matter were “Gladiator II” not a total blast. This movie isn’t the highest art — and I doubt even those elitist cinephiles who enjoy the adrenaline rush it provides for 150 minutes will give it all that much credit — but it succeeds in the same way “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Barbie” succeeded, and while both of those films failed to convert a Best Picture nomination into a corresponding Best Director nomination, I think this year is less competitive than 2023 and 2022. That is to say: If “Gladiator II” came out last year, I don’t think Sir Ridley would be in my picks. This year, I think he can get in and then win in the style of Scorsese for “The Departed.” For my last spot, rather than Villeneuve and/or Berger, two directors who missed with their previous Oscar films — and who maybe have tougher roads ahead this time around — I put in Pedro Almodóvar. Sony Pictures Classics is high on this one and its Venice Golden Lion win suggests to me that it will be the international pick du jour. Joyce, what do you think about this race right now, and is it as wide open as it seems? (To give a sense of how wacky it feels, at least one top pundit already dropped Baker from his picks. Yikes but maybe?)
joyceeng: Excuse you, Audiard is a “renegade auteur.” Gosh. What has he abandoned? Unclear. Like I’ve said, Corbet and Baker feel like the only relatively safe picks at this stage. “Glad II ator” absolutely eats and is the most unserious movie (complimentary) this side of “Conclave,” but Scott’s candidacy is such a conundrum. We agree that the movie will get good but not great reviews, so I think his viability will ride a lot on “Gladiator II” being a box office juggernaut, which is entirely possible. But even that doesn’t guarantee anything. You keep mentioning “Top Gun: Maverick.” We all knew back then that Joseph Kosinski was not getting in at the Oscars and would be the classic DGA snubbee. Joseph Kosinski is obviously not Ridley Scott, and while I think Scott is admired by the industry as a whole, it feels like he’s 1) taken for granted (the man is turning 87 in five weeks!), and 2) his style just doesn’t vibe with the current tastes of the directing branch. His last directing nomination was 23 years ago for “Black Hawk Down,” which did not make Best Picture. Part of that was probably the “Gladiator” afterglow, but it’s hard to imagine him having that kind of pull now to make the cut without a corresponding Best Picture nomination. I have “Gladiator II” in Best Picture, but it could also be like “Avatar: The Way of Water,” a huge Best Picture-nominated sequel that failed to bag a nom for its big-name director. As for Almodóvar, I look forward to you dropping him after you talk to different studio head. In all seriousness, “The Room Next Door” has all the trappings of a highbrow nominee across the board and is a very good film, and I would hardly be shocked if he got in, but it feels a little too withdrawn and steely to fully connect with voters. Villeneuve could certainly miss again and Berger as well, but I don’t hold Berger’s previous snub against him since “All Quiet on the Western Front” was such a late breaker. Steve McQueen and RaMell Ross are seventh and eighth, respectively, in the odds, but we all know Ross has a better shot of making it for his experimental first-person POV style in “Nickel Boys.” He’ll certainly have the support of critics. I know some people have dropped “Nickel Boys” from their Best Picture lineups, but I think it can still grab the No. 1s to get in, especially in this field. However, “Nickel Boys” is also the type of film that could hit Best Director without Best Picture.
SEE Experts slugfest: ‘Gladiator II’ reactions, ‘Conclave’s’ Oscar hopes, and ‘The Substance’ in comedy
Christopher Rosen: I’m one of those people who dropped “Nickel Boys” from Best Picture. It feels way too alienating and too “American” to break into the field with the current tastes of the Academy. But I do think Ross is a legit threat for Best Director because it’s so clearly the work of an auteur. One person we haven’t mentioned yet is Coralie Fargeat. I had her in here before I swapped for Almodóvar. “The Substance” has Got It. That movie has officially broken through — when People magazine is covering a body horror movie that concludes with a third act of blood and exploding body parts, that feels significant. I could see the directors branch appreciating the swing there and maybe Fargeat gets in with a tough satire? She’d be unlike any nominee in recent memory, however, so it kind of gives me pause. As for Sir Ridley as a comp to James Cameron and Kosinski — my rose-colored take is that Cameron felt been there, done that and Kosinski didn’t get the credit for making the movie that Tom Cruise did. Maybe then Scott is a host unto himself and the branch will go for him. It’s tough predicting snubs right now, especially in a field so unusual and in flux, but if you had to yank one of the top three from your list, who would go?
joyceeng: People magazine has been covering “The Substance” since the teaser dropped in July, so it’s really not significant. It’s covered it more than we have, lol. This week was just the first time it’s covered something awards-related with it after the news of the film going comedy/musical at the Golden Globes and the uproar it sparked. “The Substance” is definitely building momentum, but I’ve only talked to one person IRL who has heard of it and seen it (I talked to two normies this week who were like, “What’s that?”). This obviously doesn’t matter as long as Mubi gets the film in front of the right people, but I’m just saying it’s still mostly an online thing, and the internet is not real life. Mubi has done a good job with the campaign so far and the film hitting the streaming service next week will set off a new cycle of discovery and tweets and memes. Not that I would’ve showered him nominations over the past two decades, but it’s hard to call Scott a host unto himself when he couldn’t get in nine years ago for his highest-grossing film. We could’ve said this after his “Black Hawk Down” nomination but not now. I think everyone would need to be intoxicated with “Gladiator II,” which, again, certainly possible, but I wouldn’t bet the house on him right now. If he does get in, Paramount needs to go HAM on the “overdue” narrative, especially if he’s facing four first-time nominees. Like I said, Corbet and Baker feel the safest, so you do the math. I think Audiard is nearly there and he’s got people like Greta Gerwig and Guillermo del Toro stumping for “Emilia Pérez.” One person I wanna mention is Greg Kwedar, who’s dropped to 11th place. There are some folks who are out on “Sing Sing,” but it was almost universally accepted three months ago when “Sing Sing” was first in Best Picture (it’s now sixth) that Kwedar would not would not win if the film did. And even with him now an ostensible long shot, a lot of people believe there’ll still be a BP/BD split, though it’s not reflected in the odds yet. I have “Anora” in first in Best Picture and Corbet in first in Best Director. Will there be a split or will one film pull through in the end to take both?
Christopher Rosen: This feels like a year where a split will happen — which is also why I’m bullish on Scott if he makes it through. So I’d bet on that happening, but I don’t know where that shakes out. I’ve got “Emilia Pérez” in first because of vibes and Corbet as the directing winner. That feels right. But the funnier split would be if Scott wins director and “Gladiator II” fails to win on the other side — leaving “Emilia Pérez” or “Anora” to win Best Picture. Hey, if that happens, at least the “Gladiator” franchise has the compete set.
joyceeng: If Scott wins Best Director, “Gladiator II” might as well win Best Picture (not against it) since that’s not really the type of split directing win the Academy goes for. And then it’d be like “The Godfather: Part II”… mayhaps down to a supporting actor victory.