2013 Best Director

[Ceumar Pee]

The Academy Award for Best Director (officially known as the Academy Award of Merit for Directing) is an award presented annually by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). It is given in honor of a film director who has exhibited outstanding directing while working in the film industry.

The 1st Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1929 with the award being split into "Dramatic" and "Comedy" categories; Frank Borzage and Lewis Milestone won for 7th Heaven and Two Arabian Knights, respectively.[1] However, these categories were merged for all subsequent ceremonies.[2] Nominees are determined by single transferable vote within the directors branch of AMPAS; winners are selected by a plurality vote from the entire eligible voting members of the academy.[3][4][5]

For the first eleven years of the Academy Awards, directors were allowed to be nominated for multiple films in the same year. However, after the nomination of Michael Curtiz for two films, Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters, at the 11th Academy Awards, the rules were revised so that an individual could only be nominated for one film at each ceremony.[6] That rule has since been amended, although the only director who has received multiple nominations in the same year was Steven Soderbergh for Erin Brockovich and Traffic in 2000, winning the award for the latter. The Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Picture have been very closely linked throughout their history. Of the 89 films that won Best Picture and were also nominated for Best Director, 68 won the award.[7][8]

Since its inception, the award has been given to 75 directors or directing teams. As of the 96th Academy Awards ceremony, British-American filmmaker Christopher Nolan is the most recent winner in this category for his work on Oppenheimer.

In the following table, the years are listed as per Academy convention, and generally correspond to the year of film release in Los Angeles County, California; the ceremonies are always held the following year.[9] For the first five ceremonies, the eligibility period spanned twelve months from August 1 to July 31.[10] For the 6th ceremony held in 1934, the eligibility period lasted from August 1, 1932, to December 31, 1933.[10] Since the 7th ceremony held in 1935, the period of eligibility became the full previous calendar year from January 1 to December 31.[10]

I think Kubrick deserves to be considered the greatest of all time because he has filmed movies of all genres and they have all been authentic works of art. There is no other person who has achieved this and therefore I think this list should be rewritten to place Stanley Kubrick in first place without hesitation.
Greetings from Spain

Kubrick is my favorite director of all time but just because a director makes different movies throughout his career doesnt make him any less great than someone who makes the same kind of film. Ozu made similar films. Scorsese made similar films throughout his career too. Both are in my top 5

What movie do you think has the best set design of all time? I ask the question here because Kubrick could be the single master of production design, with perfect spaceships, war trenches, haunted hotels, European palaces, political conference rooms and so much more. But the question is impossible for me because so many people do it so well in a bunch of films: Kubrick of course, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Coppola, Cuaron, and Anderson (both but especially Wes).

@drake and @zane thanks for replying .
I dont think any other director that i mentioned (except Scorsese or maybe Malick) are any close to Kubrick as an overall director. Kubrick is a true master. What i meant is directors like WWK, Wes Anderson and Malick are as good stylist as Kubrick .

The Shining has one of the most incredible opening scenes with the panoramic shots of the car traveling along the Rocky Mountains. These incredible images combined with the haunting, ominous score perfectly sets up the films atmosphere.
What are some other films that effectively set up atmosphere in the opening shots?
For me:
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)

@Pedro- Thank you for the comment. I am not as married to it as a masterpiece as I once was. I will say that it has been working its way down the best films of 1964. It was at #6 on the top 10 when I did the 1964 page and even now- if I were to rerack it and improve the pack. At least one more film (Charulata) would be ahead of it. So you might be correct here.

Though I regard Kubrick as the greatest film artist in history, I would feel comfortable lumping him in the same top tier of geniuses, alongside Welles and Hitchcock. I think there is clear separation between those three and the next tier of twenty or so masters who follow, namely: Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Ford, Dreyer, Bresson, Mizoguchi, Rossellini, Chaplin, Renoir, Hawks, Godard, Lang, Kurosawa, Ozu, Murnau, Bergman, Fellini, Keaton, Powell/Pressburger, and Wilder. And I would be remiss not to pay special homage to Jean-Pierre Melville, whose reputation as a master seems grossly undervalued by the film community.

With Kubrick, everything from The Killing (hands down his most underrated film) to his swansong, Eyes Wide Shut, is a contender (except for Spartacus). And these are the opinions of prominent filmmakers and historians, let alone cinephiles the world over. Heck, I would wager that Spartacus may even be his most popular film among casual moviegoers, but I digress.

Kubrick obviously had a very distinct visual style and approach to actors and acting, and when it found the right material it led to masterpieces, when it did not, I feel his weaknesses became apparent.

I also think this might be the most fascinating Kubrick film along with The Shining and 2001 regards to its themes and interpretations. These elements of film are certainly more subjective and I do not normally delve into fan theories (though they can be great fun) but this is definitely a film that rewards repeat viewings even more than usual. I agree that more emphasis on the Pollack character, Victor Ziegler, would hurt the film overall even if it would be fascinating on a character level.

@James Trapp- you are completely right on the `how fascinating the film is` front, it might be his most enigmatic and un-readable work. I wrote at the end of might notes It is the perfect mystery to end his career on, as it will captivate/enigmatize cinephiles forever.

I was thinking a lot about the formal correspondence between these two immaculate party set-pieces, and your explanation seems to be the most likely- there is a lot of that two sides of the same coin idea going throughout the film. It is also interesting to think about these two set-pieces as separate crescendos in their own right as one is the formal high-water for the Christmas lighting motif that persists through the film, and the other is the formal pay-off for the sexual motifs that persist through the film. I think that Kubrick is all about this contrast, even if I have no good ideas about what he is actually trying to say.

You say that Cruise mentioning he is a doctor even when it is irrevelent is hilarious, I actually think the entire film is a kind of a big joke of sorts, not just a satire, but a comedy. I would like to watch it again with this mindset to be sure, but the facts that nothing actually changes or that there are these unexplainable quirks (like the Costume Seller and his Daughter bizarre situation) or the deadpan atmosphere or the fact that it might all be a weird dream, and most importantly, the film ends with Kidman saying the F bomb.

While this is certainly not a major Kubrick work it is actually more impressive than I remembered. There are some great shots including two that are similar to shots from The Graduate (1967) including a variation of the fishbowl shot. There are some nice shots utilizing mirrors and a great POV shot of Davey looking up at ref after being knocked to the canvass during a boxing match. The lighting during the ballet flashback is really impressive.

67 minute runtime is unusual as seems too short to be feature film and too long to be a short, the story is simple enough with noir staples such as silhouette images, back alley fights, use of shadows

Visual storytelling as there is limited dialogue in many of the scenes, this was partly due to a limited budget. Several great overhead and high angle shots, used for much of the chase sequences as well as a couple of long shots and deep focus shots

A formal strength of this film is that the enemy is never actually shown, this is WW1 so the enemy of the French army would be the Germans, but they are never shown and rarely mentioned at all other than abstractly. The nature of war and specifically the politics of war are the real antagonists

One of the great endings in my opinion. The men yelling and leering like animals at the sight of the first and only female character, go silent as she starts to sing. The camera captures close ups on several men tearing up just seconds after their rowdy behavior.

Kubrick directs an epic film though it does not feel like a typical Kubrick film since unlike all his future films he had limited creative control here. This may or may not be the case of Lolita as well, I am not sure but will be watching that one next. Regardless, starting with Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had complete creative control. In fact, with this film, he was not even initially supposed to direct it; Anthony Mann was hired to direct, and he actually did direct the opening of the film before being fired resulting in Kubrick taking over

Kubrick hated this film apparently and essentially disowned it which is why I had somewhat low expectations for this but was pleasantly surprised. It is not at the level of his future films but given that all his films following this (except for Lolita) are MP level that is hardly an insult

c80f0f1006