The Film Experience

The Oscar Volleys are back! Tonight, it's time for Cláudio Alves Eric Blume to discuss the Best Director race...

ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER, Paul Thomas Anderson | © Warner Bros.

CLÁUDIO: This early in the season, every race is somewhat volatile, prone to radical changes down the road to Oscar. However, I think that Best Director feels especially mercurial as far as nominations are concerned, though not for a lack of contenders - quite the opposite! Voters are spoiled for choice from a roster of strong candidates, all with mighty campaigns behind them, sterling reviews and eye-catching narratives. So much so that only PTA feels secure in his nomination bid, all but locked for the honor unless AMPAS pulls a 2012 on us.

Personally, I can't complain, even if he has been way more worthy of these plaudits in the past and should have already won a couple of Oscars - There Will Be Blood and Phantom Thread come to mind. Of course, One Battle After Another is excellent, not some mediocrity destined to win apologies in the form of unwarranted trophies. The "River of Hills" chase sequence alone will surely be played in all tributes to PTA's career in a couple of decades. And yet, my mind can't help but wander to The Departed when pondering OBAA at the Oscars...

ERIC: I agree with you across the board on all things PTA, especially that he has done even better work in the past, but that OBAA is also a completely worthy film to finally get him his Oscar. We're not settling, which we did for The Departed, which isn't even in my top 15 Scorsese films! While we still have months for things to play out, I don't see a scenario where anybody pulls in front of him for the win, so the fun part this year is who else will be nominated alongside him?

I love talking about the Best Director race because the voting body is particular and has very specific criteria and taste. They are probably the "least afraid" group of nominators. They really vote for passion and for people who have not been included in every precursor race. In the last few years, they've given us Coralie Fargeat, Justine Triet, Jonathan Glazer, Ruben Östlund, Ryusuke Hamaguchi, Thomas Vinterberg, Lee Isaac Chung - all artists who delivered on a singular, personal vision. It's a fact I think most can agree on, regardless of whether you actually liked the films or not. I remember back in 2012 (the surprise year you mention) when they nominated Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild. I really disliked that film, but couldn't be too angry about his acknowledgement because it was a singular vision film, even if the vision didn't work for me.

For this reason, I feel that Joachim Trier and Jafar Panahi, one or both, WILL be nominated, and... hot take here... Ryan Coogler will not.

SINNERS, Ryan Coogler | © Warner Bros.

Before we get to the foreign titles, can we discuss Ryan Coogler? Because I know I am a minority on this. While I agree Sinners will make it into Best Picture, because it does indeed have its very passionate fans even beyond Film Twitter, I do not think the majority of the directors branch is in that passionate group. Just a hunch. It's still a very, very commercial picture, and there will be some directors voting who feel, as I do, that Coogler's attempts at lyricism (like the dance sequence) are, in fact, flat-footed and clunky. I'll try for some generosity with Coogler and say that he knows how to drive a narrative, and has fun with the genre mashup, delivering an entertaining crowd-pleaser.

I don't even dislike Sinners. It's goofy, overheated fun with a few interesting ideas laced through it. But it's an astonishingly literal-minded movie that works best when Coogler keeps one eye on the audience's satisfaction, but falls flat when it tries to soar toward something more ambitious. You can almost feel his strain when aiming for some more poetic effect.

Am I crazy to say the branch will pass on Coogler, mainly because he's not "arthouse enough"? I will admit to being shocked that they went for James Mangold last year, which I also never thought they'd do.

CLÁUDIO: Look, I'm not a fan of Coogler's work in Sinners, though I like it more than you do - every stab at musicality worked for me, to the point that I wish it had been an outright musical. However, I feel you're letting your feelings of dissatisfaction toward the film get in the way of punditry. Because, as adventurous as they might be, the director's branch isn't immune to popular art or even works that seemingly lack an iconoclastic directorial intent behind them. You mention Mangold last year, but there's also McDonagh, Branagh, McKay, and a litany of others. Moreover, I'd argue that there is a strong vision within Sinners.

Consider the musicality I mentioned, the appeals to Black American Christian tradition to question its impact and hegemony. Or even Coogler's flirtation with various genres, like horror, without fully committing to their more perverse pleasures, so it can continue moving freely through them. I don't like that last tidbit. Indeed, it frustrates me a great deal, but it's a clear part of the director's genre-hopping design. The way it has persevered in the popular imagination, its iconography and pop cultural ideas and music, so far into the season despite an early release, speaks to that.

In terms of present likelihood, I'd probably rank Coogler just below PTA, and fully expect Sinners to make a big splash with the guilds on its way to Oscar glory.

FRANKENSTEIN, Guillermo del Toro | © Netflix

And anyway, if we're going to get a piece of wannabe Gothic horror in the run for Best Director, I'd rather it be Sinners than Frankenstein. I love Guillermo del Toro - the man is difficult to dislike due to his utter charm and enthusiasm - but this Mary Shelley adaptation is the closest he's ever come to an outright flotsam failure in my eyes. It's ugly as sin, laboriously paced, literal-minded in ways that would make Coogler blush, and did I mention it's ugly? How can one conscionably waste such beautiful design elements, ruining them with murky lighting and a weightless camera, wide angles galore, no compositional rigor whatsoever, and color timing from hell? My pessimist ass can't help but feel that AMPAS will gobble up the drudgery on display.

Now that Frankenstein seems to have turned the tide post-festivals, could it become Netflix's top priority and crash this party? Or will Baumbach monopolize the streamer's attention as far as celebrated auteurs are concerned? Maybe neither of them makes it.

ERIC: I could debate Coogler forever (the thought of him making a musical, which requires a director who knows how to move people through time and space through music, something almost nobody can do, certainly not him, makes me cringe). And I hear you that my dislike for the film may be interfering with my punditry. I concede he may likely make it, but I won't be surprised if he doesn't.

We also disagree on del Toro's Frankenstein, which I was mesmerized by, and while I don't think the man will make the final cut, I similarly wouldn't be surprised if he DOES! It is very much a director's film, with del Toro's particular brand of deep love for the outsider, which so many people responded to in The Shape of Water. I agree the film gets a little soggy in the middle of the Oscar Isaac half, but the second part, in my opinion, breezed by and kept getting weirder and sadder in a way that touched me. A lot of that was Jacob Elordi's performance, which we discussed in our last volley. But again, he is a very "singular vision" director who fellow colleagues respond passionately to. Still, my guess is that, although the film will do well on Oscar nomination morning, the director branch will consider that del Toro has been amply rewarded for this sort of thing before.

HAMNET, Chloé Zhao | © Focus Features

I think Chloé Zhao is behind PTA in the running. Hamnet is the film that voters will have the warmest and most emotional response to against more "aggressive" movies like the PTA, Marty Supreme, etc. I don't see how she misses.

Third is Joachim Trier, following in the exact path of Thomas Vinterberg for Another Round a few years back, a small, personal Scandinavian drama about people who make a small but powerful modicum of change in the way real people do. He directs the quartet of actors strikingly, getting specific flavors from each of them to bring beautiful balance to the film, and the way he effortlessly goes back and forth through time in ways that eschew the corniness of the usual flashback won't go unnoticed. Plus, at the heart of Sentimental Value is the story of an old man looking back at his life with regret and fear and tenderness: that's who the directors branch is... a bunch of old men always looking back. I think it will really get at them emotionally, and Trier's talent at being sort of a "light Ingmar Bergman" honors old grand filmmaking tradition.

What do you think of Zhao and Trier's chances? Who do you feel is next in line?

CLÁUDIO: Part of what makes me unsure about Zhao is the same reason you're doubting del Toro's competitiveness in this particular race - she's been rewarded already, and even more recently than the Frankenstein auteur. Not to mention that her filmography is significantly smaller, and she's still making a comeback from an outright disaster that was rejected by the trifecta of critics, audiences, and the industry. On the other hand, Hamnet has been internationally embraced, winning audience awards left and right since its premiere at Telluride. The film feels poised to be One Battle After Another's most significant obstacle on the road to the Best Picture Oscar, but pieces like what Joe Reid wrote for Vulture about awards season villains make me wary. Will there be a tide turn against it? Is it already in motion?

As someone who thinks Hamnet is Zhao's best work as a director yet, I hope that backlash doesn't materialize. There's a welcome discipline to the way she stages the period drama, with long takes often deployed in conjunction with compositions that privilege wides over constant close-ups, and a respect for stillness that I wasn't expecting from the helmer of the steadycam and tracking shot heavy Nomadland. Her nomination would be a first for the Academy, too, as none of the three women who have won Best Director were nominated again in that category.

SENTIMENTAL VALUE, Joachim Trier | © Neon

However, since I regard my affection for a contender as a kiss of death for their chances, I must believe her below Trier. If you'd told me a couple of years ago that I'd be rooting against his consagration on the Oscar stage, I'd have called you a lunatic, but every day that passes since I last watched Sentimental Value in its entirety - I've since revisited parts through screeners - the least impressive it feels to me. You describe it as "light Ingmar Bergman," when, to me, derivative would be a better way to put it. Not just of the Swedish master but of himself, with various passages in this Cannes Grand Prix winner coming across as wan retreads of what he did to greater effect in the past - the comparison between the long takes at the end of Sentimental Value and Oslo, August 31 is hard to resist, and it does the newer work no favors.

Interestingly, Trier's most significant competition comes from his own distributor/team - NEON. Not to be monstrously cynical, but Jafar Panahi arrives in the season with a narrative that's hard to beat.

ERIC: Jafar Panahi stands a great shot, but then again, I felt confident last year that Mohammed Rasoulof would score a nomination for The Seed of the Sacred Fig and couldn't have been more wrong (sadly). I loathe grouping these two films, but since they are both small, intense, burrowing dramas from Iranian directors, here we are. I think Panahi does a spectacular job with that script and his small ensemble of actors, continually finding different ways to ignite the friction between rage and doubt, and maintaining a pulse and variations on theme for over 90 minutes. I want to say he's going to make it, but if Rasoulof couldn't for an even greater film, it's more hopeful than likely.

Is Josh Safdie the safer pick to include in the final five? I have no comment yet, but his work tends to give me a headache. And I don't feel Yorgos Lanthimos has the juice behind his film to make it into the race this year for Bugonia. He has the solace of being one of the greatest living filmmakers, though, so there's that.

Then we have those two other international potentials: Park Chan-Wook and Kleber Mendonça Filho. While they're unlikely at this point, there is a possibility that if either breaks out with significant critics awards, one could go the distance? Nobody was predicting Ryusuke Hamaguchi in the November talks that year either. While Park is the more well-known of the two, I think Mendonça may have the benefit of a Best Actor frontrunner to his benefit. It could all go either way or no way.

The other major names in the conversation are Kathryn Bigelow, Clint Bentley, Mona Fastvold, James Cameron, Noah Baumbach, and Richard Linklater. Any thoughts on that group?

IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT, Jafar Panahi | © Neon

CLÁUDIO: Well... Rasoulof did lose the Palme, getting only a consolation prize at Cannes, and was very handily dumped by Neon as soon as the season started proper. That's not the case for Panahi. I understand your comparison, but it's an imperfect analogy, especially given the different reputations of these two directors. As much as I admire Rasoulof, it's fair to say that Panahi is on a whole other level. I bet many more people know of him, if nothing else, because of all the press he got for becoming one of the few filmmakers to win the European film festival trifecta earlier this year. I sure know a lot of folks, in the art world and otherwise, who have been familiar with Panahi's name for years, but only tuned into Rasoulof with The Seed of the Sacred Fig.

But I admit that I may be moved by hope rather than reason. It Was Just An Accident is such a beautiful directorial effort, full of studiously choreographed long takes that don't call attention to themselves yet feel essential to Panahi's tone-shifting gambits. The unexpected surges of screwball escalation or about-face jokes, the patient unraveling at the end, the command of the ensemble - all superlative in my eyes, some of the best work of the year.

It's hard to say much about Safdie without seeing Marty Supreme or reading any full reviews, since the embargo still hasn't lifted. He feels in the top ten, right now, but I won't risk predicting him as part of the final quintet yet. I'm trying very hard not to comment too much on Lanthimos or the monstrously overrated Bugonia. Sure hope he hasn't the juice, this time, as you put it.

Park and Mendonça are in similar positions, though the Brazilian auteur might have the advantage here. I say this because we have already seen this new Academy reject Decision to Leave a few years ago, and No Other Choice's broad comedy feels like a harder sell with that crowd. Again, this might be hope rather than reason speaking, but The Secret Agent feels, to me, like cinephile catnip. At times, it's like the whole of cinema fits within its bounds, every formalist flourish or even genre, from political drama to goofy horror, from tragedy to essay, and all very emotionally moving. That always helps. Like you, I feel a lot will depend on the major critics groups - NYFCC, LAFCA, NBR, NSFC, and the Globes - and that Neon will probably take it from there, as far as campaign priorities go.

Regarding that final group, Bigelow is done unless she pulls off a surprise DGA nod. Bentley and Fastvold will depend on how their films are received outside the festival circuit and limited markets. I really have no idea how folks will react to The Testament of Ann Lee, even though I like it a lot myself. Baumbach could bounce back with Jay Kelly, but that's a big mystery right now and, if Linklater were to make it, I feel it's for Nouvelle Vague rather than Blue Moon - just a hunch.

Cameron is another enigma. It all depends on how well Avatar: Fire & Ash is received and if the industry prefers another blockbuster to get their more populist vote this season. Could it be our Canadian wunderkind with three Oscars already on his mantle? Or Jon M. Chu? I figure the rightfully tepid review Wicked: For Good has been receiving put an end to that dream, but I'm still traumatized by that egregious CCA victory last year.

ERIC: Nobody will ever convince me that this directors branch would vote for Jon M. Chu. I pretty much agree with you across the board with all your thoughts on the broader group of contenders. Baumbach feels the most likely to break in if Jay Kelly takes off over the holidays, but I don't think that's likely either. Agreed that Bentley and Fastvold hold the cards for niche-indie-that-might-break-out, but that Bigelow won't make the cut. Even if Fire & Ash delivers, there's still enough of a feeling of "enough already with that world" that it would be tough for Cameron to pull through. And Nouvelle Vague is such insider baseball that I'd be surprised if Linklater could get in either.

So, where do you net out with predictions? For now, I'll go with:

Paul Thomas Anderson (lock)
Chloé Zhao (highly likely)
Joachim Trier (likely)
Josh Safdie (likely)
Ryan Coogler (maybe)

I'll concede for Coogler, but again, I won't be surprised if he's replaced by one of the international directors. As you mentioned, my passion for the underdogs is also usually the kiss of death for them, but one must always keep a dash of wishful thinking in the predictions, right? And you?

CLÁUDIO: As ever, with these volleys, talking over the race with you has made me reconsider some things, predictions-wise. Your faith in a Zhao nomination is especially persuasive, though, and it's making me reconsider my pessimistic doubts about her chances.

So, with that in mind, these are my predicted five:

Paul Thomas Anderson (lock)
Ryan Coogler (highly likely)
Jafar Panahi (likely)
Chloé Zhao (I want to believe)
Joachim Trier (pessimism take the wheel)

Kleber Mendonça Filho is on the threshold, a sixth placer I could easily see jumping over Zhao and Trier. Josh Safdie remains an enigma, but I'll be cautious and say he's seventh in the running, right now. Next come the beloved del Toro, Park, and Bentley if Netflix switches gears and Train Dreams catches on.

All this being said, it's very fun to speculate so early in the season, and I'd be immensely pleased if a lot of what we believe in, at the moment, turned out to be wrong. The story of the 2025/6 race for Oscar gold is still so young that anything can happen, and we love surprises. At least, I do. Unless it's Chu winning Best Director, though I feel we're safe on that account.

Other Oscar Volleys: