Director ≠ Picture. (And Other Theories)

One of the things that's most bothersome during awards season is the persistent notion that Best Direction must = Best Picture. There's a healthy bit of correlation of course but this is not how I view film so it's different for my own awardage. All of the top 24 films I covered in my year end review have have strong direction of course. But Direction, like acting or writing or editing or whatnot is not always the most important element, auteur theory be damned. Some films achieve greatness through a consistent cumulation of "good" efforts across the board, others through one or two specific "Great" elements, some through strength of story, theme and plotting.

Other times the director is the principle reason that a movie is great and the auteur theory works just fine. Two examples this year: David O. Russell (The Fighter) and Jacques Audiard (Un Prophete) are both working in excessively familiar genres yet they're finding fresh new pockets of life. They have such great eyes and formidable guiding visions. So I compose my directorial list each year separate from my Best Picture list and though there's a healthy bit of correlation (7/10) the order is definitely different and these would be my top ten players (alpha order)

• Andrea Arnold for Fish Tank
• Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan
• Jacques Audiard for Un Prophete
• David Fincher for The Social Network
• Luca Guadagnino for I Am Love
• Bong Joon-Ho for Mother
• David Michôd for Animal Kingdom 
• Roman Polanski for The Ghost Writer
• David O. Russell for The Fighter
• Lee Unkrich for Toy Story 3

So here's my nominees!

I've also posted my Screenplay choices. I was torn as to what to do with Toy Story 3. I don't really think of sequels as  adapted despite the trending and campaigning that way with Oscars. If sequels are adapted than aren't all original screenplays that are inspired by true stories or real life characters or that riff on other stories adapted? I considered letting it slide since Toy Story 3 needs the other two films to exist. It's not really a stand-alone. But then that we be true of all sequels and all movies based on true stories or inspired by actual characters and so on and, well, it's a slippery slope and virtually 85%-90% of movies become "adapted". So I've stuck to the original definition. Adapted meaning based on previously published work