Best Director 2012: Spielberg Vs. Affleck

Two years ago, Tom Hooper won Best Director for The King's Speech, thanks to Harvey Weinstein. It was a sour moment for many fans of The Social Network in what was possibly a 50/50 race. David Fincher, the motion picture veteran of the two, had logged in nearly two decades as a consistent, if less traditional, director of many hits and was gradually accumulating critical accolades. Hooper, who had one major minor feature underneath his belt, was best known for his cable telefilms. He was just getting started and already handed the crown. However, Speech was a hit which audiences and critics alike embraced, so who am I to say anything? That all being said, I doubt no matter how amazing Hooper's upcoming Les Misérables may be, will people be clamoring for his second directing Oscar in only two years.  Egg on my face if he gets it.

The list of directors winning two or more Oscars is composed of eighteen men, two of whom won three (William Wyler, Frank Capra), and one who won four (John Ford). The chances of a director getting ReOscared are 25%--much greater than in the acting categories. However, it should be said, that after about the mid-60s (in a list that included Robert Wise, David Lean, Fred Zinnemann, George Stevens, Josephs L. Mankiewicz, Billy Wilder, Elia Kazan, Frank Lloyd, Leo McCarey, Lewis Milestone, Frank Borzage), the practice of rerecognizing a director dropped precipitously. Since Fred Zinnemann, only Milos Forman, Oliver Stone, Clint Eastwood, and the golden child Steven Spielberg have won two directing Oscars. Forman and Stone don't produce the same quality of output they once did, but Eastwood and Spielberg are both considered Hollywood titans. Amongst his own generation, Spielberg grew to become the rule by which mainstream and (later) awards success was measured, especially when he began tackling more adult subject matter like Schindler's List (apparently, many didn't consider The Color Purple mature enough).

The idea of Spielberg winning a third Oscar isn't unheard of, and, frankly, quite expected, IMO. It's a matter of timing and film, really. While I lost faith in Streep winning at the last moment last year, in hindsight, her win was never in doubt. While the AMPAS could have made history with Viola Davis, Streep, after seventeen nominations, had finally topped herself. Maybe not in performance, but, by the very fact that she was depicting a 20th-century icon gave her a leg up in a way she didn't have before.  Margaret Thatcher was one of the most famous women of her time and Streep had just portrayed her quite convincingly (in an otherwise lackluster film).  And she was on her 17th nomination!  For the same reason, along with the Time Magazine cover (although I'm sure it doesn't carry the weight it once used to) and the long-running perception that he is the greatest working actor, I believe Daniel Day-Lewis has his third Oscar clinched by having played one of the most famous people in history and doing so quite well (not because of my personal bias, but what the tea leaves are saying). Even though his second win was only five years ago and he hardly ever puts out a film, he's not exactly a spring chicken.  And, imagine it'll be Streep handing him that Oscar.  Talk about a photo opportunity.  

While The Iron Lady was a mess of a film, Lincoln achieves what it sets out to do. It tells the story of the 16th U.S. president's (and country's) greatest achievements: ending slavery while also The Civil War. Spielberg has captured this milestone on film and done so with great commercial and critical success. While I found the film plodding, which may be in due part to the subject matter, its Importance and mildly self-congratulatory nature may go off very well with The Academy.  Lincoln's success at the Oscars will go beyond Day-Lewis, but, just how far, is difficult to predict right now. First on the list just may well be Spielberg, who tried 19th-century history before with Amistad and fell comparatively short.  And if Spielberg makes it, the Best Picture honor will also be his (I imagine screenplay, makeup, score, at the very least, will follow suit).  What gives me pause is his latest movie is so sobering and less manipulative than his usual fare.  Schindler's List milked the emotional factor to the hilt and Saving Private Ryan was part-action film while it doled out its history.  Make no mistake, Spielberg's trademark schmaltz is there, albeit in very subtle and sparse amounts.  Lincoln requires an investment from an audience not normally asked of them.  

The only upset Spielberg has to worry about is Ben Affleck, who, up until now, was the frontrunner and had campaigned HARD. The former Oscar winner (for screenwriting) is playing the mild-mannered, amiable, and dutiful husband and father in front of the paparazzi. He wants that directing Oscar for his crowd-pleasing action-drama Argo (with a Hollywood bent), also depicting another time in U.S. history. The setting is closer to the present and the events aren't as lofty compared to Lincoln (the future of a country on the brink of collapse that may determine the future of Western Civilization verses a diplomatic nightmare set in the Middle East). Movie-stars turned directors have won for less and, in another year, Affleck's chances would be a slam dunk. Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Eastwood, even TV icon Ron Howard, have all won directing Oscars. In fact, if ReOscaring directors was a thing of mid-20th-century, Oscaring movie stars was a thing of the late 20th-century. It has been years since Gibson, Howard, or even Eastwood won. Affleck would like to think that it is his time. Is it? He has impressed audiences and critics with his first two features. The aforementioned movie stars all won and/or were nominated for their first or second films. Indeed, Affleck has a shot, but luck and timing may have Spielberg eclipsing his chances.  The race boils down to those two.  

Or, am I just speaking too much in the moment?  Lincoln is still fresh.  Ago has been out for over a month now and enjoyed its time in the sun.  Could the pendulum swing back in its direction?  Perhaps the race is between the old guard (Lincoln) verses the new (Argo).  But, we know how that has panned out the last few years, don't we?  

And while we can't finalize the likely nominees, the final five is starting to firm up.

1. Steven Spielberg, Lincoln (for the win)
2. Ben Affleck, Argo
3. Ang Lee, Life of Pi
4. David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
5. Tom Hooper, Les Misérables

If Les Mis doesn't pan out, the fifth slot could go to an early favorite that has since lost momentum, Paul Thomas Anderson, (The Master) or Michael Haneke (Amour), who has yet to open his film to American audiences. Unless Zero Dark Thirty and/or Django Unchained blow everybody away, I'm not sure previous winner Kathryn Bigelow (who may be under her own shadow of being over-rewarded recently) and Quentin Tarantino will figure into the race.  There are a couple of other possibilities I threw in only because I haven't seen the films yet.  Silver Linings may also peter out, but I doubt that will figure in if Harvey puts all of his weight behind it.

6. Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master

7. Juan Antonio Bayona, The Impossible
8. Michael Haneke, Amour

9. Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

10. Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty

11. Gus Van Sant, Promised Land

What do you think?  Is The Master finished?  Or does Anderson have enough good-will with the AMPAS for them to sneak in his box-office underperformer ala The Tree of Life?