Sam Mendes wins DGA again, 20 years later
Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 8:13AM by Nathaniel R
Sam Mendes was an acclaimed theater director when American Beauty hit the scene in 1999 asking audiences to "look closer" in its promotional material. They did. The film went on to become a sleeper hit and then a very big one and eventually win the Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director among others. Mendes is likely to repeat that trick at this year's Oscars 20 years later even though his film career in the interim hasn't been noteworthy enough to scream "2 time director winner!" But then Hilary Swank has two Oscars and Renee Zellweger is likely to join her while Close, Bening, Pfeiffer, Weaver, Garland, Stanwyck, Dunne, and many other genius actresses from Hollywood history have none so this is the way it goes sometimes...
Sadly, the DGA victory for Mendes, and thus his one shot cinematic trick 1917, is likely to spell the end of the tension around what might win a formerly very hard to predict race for the top Oscar. It would take a herculean stroke of luck (or campaign effort) for Parasite or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to now pull a Moonlight and manage a surprise win at the Oscars, even though they're both superior films to 1917. Like 1917 they're intense feats of directorial precision but they're not quite as "look at me!" showy about that and are thus easier to dismiss if people don't 'look closer'.
Though we like 1917 just fine, it's not half as likely to be remembered in 50 years time since the other films presumed to have an actual shot at Best Picture are such individualistic triumphs from famed auteurs rather than another gorgeously executed example of a genre (the war film) that regular wins praise and awards but doesn't cling to the collective imagination. In short: there will definitely be another beautifully executed war drama winning prizes in another 10 years (if not much sooner) but there won't be another Parasite or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ever again.
But let's not get too defeatist about it.
Taiki Waititi lost but always gives good photo-op
Ava DuVernay and Bong Joon Ho both lost but they're in very good company!
Mendes is a good director and 1917 is a neat trick and our favourite thing about the Directors Guild Awards is that the program actually celebrates all the nominees since they get plaques, podium time, and photo ops.
Plus Mendes wasn't the only winner of the DGA. Here's the complete list and we're happy to see Nicole Kassell and Alma Har'el in the list:
Sam Mendes with his leading men
Alma Har'el with Catherine Hardwicke
Director, Theatrical Motion Picture - Sam Mendes, 1917
First Time Feature Director - Alma Har'el, Honey Boy
Director, Dramatic Series - Nicole Kassell, Watchmen "It's Summer and We're Running out of Ice"
Stephen Williams and Nicole Kassell were both nominated for directing episodes of Watchmen. Kassell triumphed.
Director, Comedy Series - Bill Hader, Barry "ronny/lily"
Director, TV Miniseries - Johan Renck, Chernobyl
Director, VarietyTalk/News Special - James Burrows and Andy Fisher All in the Family The Jeffersons: Live in Front of A Studio Audience
Director, Documentary - Steven Bognar & Julia Reichert, American Factory
Reader Comments (30)
1917 is winning best picture and director for sure. It’s now the at the top of the leaderboard
wow, you are a bitter man
Given the unusual number of recent directing Oscars that honored great technical achievements (e.g. Life of Pi, Gravity, The Revenant) while AMPAS gave their "best picture" award to something else they liked, I still think a film other than 1917 might win "best picture" even if Sam Mendes is a lock for direction. If Parasite doesn't break the foreignness barrier, then I suspect Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will get "best picture". Its loss of the SAG ensemble award does give one pause, but I suspect the actors branch of AMPAS skews older and may be less inclined to "make a statement" as SAG is supposed to have done by honoring Parasite. Then too, OUATIH not only portrays a time and place with which AMPAS members are familiar (some of them directly), it valorizes the Hollywood players of its era. Not that Tarantino intended to flatter Oscar voters with his film, but if it wins the big prize then this effect will have had a big part in it. We'll see....
I would much rather have 1917 walk off w/ BD & BP trophies than (shudder) Joker, but I see your point. The Academy rarely seems to go for the singular and wholly unique, they tend to go fairly mainstream. 1917 is a good movie and is well-directed so if it gets both awards those would be honorable choices. But imho Parasite would be a really fabulous choice for both.Likely not going to happen but that's the Oscars for you.
It's been said many many times before but all these precursor awards have all but eliminated the suspense in the major categories, but there's still the occasional Moonlight or Olivia Coleman to shake things up. We shall see.
An entertaining video game, a gimmick certainly done well. Boring, expected and mark my words the Academy will regret awarding 1917 as it will fall to the bottom tier of best Pic winners. Don’t worry Sammy, we won’t hold the whole Kevin Spacey against you as they’re hypnotized by what comes out last, not by What’s truly an artistic achievement. They Shall Not Grow Old moved me more than 1917, truly an incel gamer’s wet dream.
It’s gonna be close but I’m predicting Parasite for Picture, Original Screenplay, International Film, maybe editing but Irishman needs a bone thrown to it somewhere too.
Recent Oscar patterns are screenplay driven best pictures that say something about goodness and humanity and picture/director splits based on technical achievement.
1917 is technical achievement and will win director but has no SAG support. Late breaker or not. It still made Golden Globes. Does have screenplay nod. Film about peace. Seeing the other as yourself - the pilot, the soldiers on the truck, the woman and the baby.
Parasite could win screenplay, has SAG support and though dark has a sentimental ending. Not sure if that’s feel good enough next to 1917’s peace/seeing other as yourself. Like 3 Billboards’ characters were darker than Shape of Water’s love/diversity angle. Strike against Parasite is voters have the international film category to give it its award. But Roma didn’t have SAG support (despite two Oscar acting nods - one a big surprise) and feel goodness overcoming racism that Green Book did.
Once Upon A Time has screenplay and SAG support and if it isn’t about humanity - Oscar’s other best picture flavour is about itself. However Argo, Birdman, Artist all swept their seasons by guild time. Hollywood is not. So that’s its major strike.
How are the odds off a picture/diretor split?
Am I the only one who would eat Taika Waititi's babies?
It's so AMPAS to give a second Oscar to Sam Mendes when he's competing with legends Scorsese who only has one, Tarantino who has never won for directing, and the great Oscar-less Bong Joon-ho. (I don't even like Tarantino or OUATIH, but the man deserves a Best Director Oscar, for pete's sake.)
@ jules
No, he doesn’t.
I'll check the internet to make sure Dern didn't get snubbed. Otherwise, this year's Oscars holds no surprises or treats in store.
Alma Har’el SNAPPED!
The large influx of foreign AMPAS members over the past few years makes me cautiously optimistic that Parasite still could prevail in both Picture and Director. Though a win for Mendes in directing wouldn't bother me that much: it is a great feat of directing, much more so than for example Joker, OUATIH and Irishman.
Doheny -- LOL. I mentioned I liked 1917 twice in this article and called it "gorgeously executed" so i guess we have different definitions of "bitter". I would define bitter as the people who ruthlessly attack good movies solely because they are going to beat movies they like better. I'm not going to pretend 1917 isn't good just because it doesn't deserve to win ;)
Dieter -- i prefer Mendes direction to Phillips and Scorsese this year as well, but I dont understand roping Tarantino in there. Like Hitchcock before him (though Hitchcock was far more prolific and with more classics) history is going to loook embarrassing on Oscar if they never give Tarantino an Oscar for directing.
PP -- wut
I agree - deeply
Wonder if the increase in woman in the academy will hold a surprise (not voting for 1917) ... ?
@Nathaniel R-You know what I mean
i'm feeling a split, with 1917 winning BP but Bong winning BD. that would be super fun.
OUATIH is a wonderful movie and Tarantino is so f-ing talented, but he's such a gross person when he does an acceptance speech. so i'm hoping he doesn't win Best Screenplay and that it goes to the even-more-deserving Parasite.
So much bitterness over 1917. And it’s more than okay if we don’t get another OUAT in Hollywood ever again, a movie nobody will remember in 50 years, especially if there are at least 6 or 7 better movies from this same director.
Very bitter. Why the hamfisted dig at Swank and Zellweger? They had two great individual achievements that Oscar voters liked best. You can have a completely mediocre career, but if you’re exceptional twice in your career I say get the trophies. I thought you would be above overdue awarding and the endless cycle of unfairness that can cause.
Juan -- i guess the difference is i don't believe Zellweger OR Mendes deserved the Oscar either of the times! So for me it's not remotely an issue of giving it to the "best" I think renee is only about 8th or 9th best this year among lading actresses so to see her win a second is going to be painful when her first was for such an awful performance.
as for Hilary, at least she deserved it the first time.
Mafer -- that's not how it works with super famous auteurs (or famous movie stars for that matter). Their whole filmographies tend to last. People are still discussing minor Hitchcocks after all these years and minor Scorsese and minor whomevers. If you only make one or two great films there's no natural hook for people to remember them unless they take on a life of their own in the culture. And wildly acclaimed war films have a LOT of competition in being remembered by virtue of there being so many of them made all the time.
a) Nathaniel, one thing you mentioned in your post 2017-Oscars podcast is how the oscars/oscar race engenders the idea of "competitive hate." It's something I've tried to be conscious of myself because you see it happen so often, particularly with dominant winners (sweeping the precursors, particularly the televised ones) or heavily sweeping films (I love Slumdog Millionaire, but you could just feel the backlash as the oscar ceremony progressed). It becomes really easy for the film to end up in secondary to it's oscar chances and films/performances become "rivals" for no real reason.
b) Full disclosure: unless an achievement is undeniably great, I've got no issues with other factors weighing in. Yeah, I think Hilary Swank deserved the oscar for Boys Don't Cry, but would have had no issues with Janet McTeer winning. Or Reese Witherspoon. Or Kate Winslet (my personal choice). There are very few years for me, personally, where only one person is worthy of an Oscar. I can be a bit promiscuous that way, admittedly. So why not spread the wealth a little? Imagine, instead of John Ford (an undeniably great director) winning four times, he won twice and the other two oscars went to Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles. And frankly, I think Ford's Grapes of Wrath is better than Hitchcock's Rebecca.
c) That said, Zellweger is going to easily win two oscars for performances that didn't make my top three of that ballot. Mendes was my favourite nominee in 1999 and a respectable choice this year.
Mendes, yes, but I remain unsold on 1917 as our Best Picture winner...
Just got around to seeing 1917. To me, it dragged at times......I almost wished the soldier would find his War Horse and the movie would end.
Guess I needed more war--I did love the random fright that would occur at times (like at night when chased through a destroyed village by another soldier). But overall..I was good, but..guess I'm still hungry.
From a political point of view, a Parasite win would be so awesome. A Korean movie getting the biggest American award in the movie industry. Sounds like a great day to me
People: 1917 shouldn’t win because it’s just another war movie.
Same people: Gerwig was snubbed; she should have been recognised for directing the 137th remake of Little Women.
1917 will 100% be remembered over Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood. 1917 is a definitively better film.
Also, Sam Mendes made Road To Perdition and Jarhead. I think you liked them both but didn't love either. But both are great films.
Sam Mendes is a great director. Time will be on his side.
I don't see "Parasite" winning both Foreign and Best Picture Oscars.
This is ridiculous. Sam Mendes has had an outstanding career in film and theatre. He may not be your choice this year but please do not succumb to the politics of unfairly bashing one person to boost the profile of others.
Yup Jonathan, there are just as many wonderful female driven films that have won Oscars as there are Oscar winning war movies.
Oh yeah and tell me how many great parts there were for women in 1917?
Sam Mendes is great. Love love Road to Perdition.
1917 was wonderful and VERY well directed. He should stay away from the bond films which make up two if his 7 films since American beauty.
Re: once upon a time being better - I disagree. I enjoyed oncebut it is definitely a lesser Tarantino picture. People will remember it because Tarantino made it and not necessarily because it's a better film.