Advertisement
The biggest shock in the Oscar nominations this year was certainly Jason Reitman’s bid for Best Director. In fact, it’s such a given that the Juno helmer won’t win the Academy Award that even the kids know it. One brave brat from the Santa Barbara Middle School Teen Press even tells Reitman to his face that he has no chance, in this slightly amusing video that’s circulating the interweb. Many are suggesting the clip was actually set up by Reitman himself, though the fact that he posted the video on both his Myspace and YouTube pages only makes it clear that he’s probably responsible for the thing showing up on the net at all. Either way, he at least has a good sense of humor regarding everyone’s doubts that he deserved the nod.
My favorite question, and one that I wish he had a better answer to, asks what his actual role was as director. That’s something I’d actually like to know. The acknowledgment of Juno having first and foremost a great script and great actors seems to indicate this is indeed an inside joke, but at least the question is a bit better when asked a second time: “but what did you do?” Anyway, the reference to the director’s father, Ghostbusters helmer Ivan Reitman is a bit sloppily handled by the kids — the fact that they are aware of Papa Reitman but don’t know Jason Reitman didn’t write the Juno script is further evidence that this is all a pre-written gag by someone other than middle schoolers. And meanwhile I still don’t really know what kind of great, Oscar-worthy contribution Reitman really made to the film.
Steven Boone
Felon Fest: The Sounds in Our Pretty...
Kevin Buist
Happy-Go-Lucky Review and Interview
Christopher Campbell
Twilight Suddenly Looks Awesome. Clip...
Brandon Harris
Eleonore Hendricks: The Media Diet
Kevin Kelly
City of Ember Review
Karina Longworth
YEAST and NIGHTS & WEEKENDS: Greta...
Paul Moore
Revanche Review, Telluride 2008
Chris Thilk
What to watch and where to watch it
Lauren Wissot
WALL STREET and Wall Street: The...
FilmCouch #91: City of Ember and Body of Lies
CITY OF EMBER and BODY OF LIES, which one is subversive and which one is fluff? The answer may surprise you.
This always gets me mad. Most people, even most people in the movie business, don’t really know what a director does. Now, I happen to think that Juno is not a great movie at all, but do you have any idea how bad this script would have been wrecked by a terrible director? A director’s first, and hardest, job is to get everyone to be making the same movie. As bad as I think Juno is, I think that job was done.
I suppose you think that because Juno doesn’t have “cool shots” that it didn’t have an oscar worthy director at its helm. Because “cool shots” are the sign of a good director. I assume you feel that the directors of Little Miss Sunshine also did nothing? that their oscar non-nomonation was justified? Even though they were nomonated for a DGA award. Perhaps I am presuming too much about you, and if so, I challenge you to tell us all what you think makes a great director.
Peter, I know more than most people what a director does, though it must be noted that directors do not always have the same duties or specialties on the set as do other directors on other sets. Or in the grand scheme of their own films, even.
Personally, I do think Juno is a pretty good film, more than many other bloggers (especially my colleague on this site), but I can’t figure out if the parts I do love about it are more Diablo Cody’s writing or Reitman’s handling of her script. Some of my favor regards certain aspects of tone and theme that could very well have been in the script, or it could have worked because of the performances, or how well Reitman directed that writing and/or those performances.
I couldn’t care less about “cool shots” — I haven’t cared about them since I did my own back in film production class long ago. Many of the directors who I think deserve more credit are those who do not have a particularly recognizable visual style (or even non-stylish “cool shots”).
But I still don’t see where Reitman’s directing is Oscar-worthy, and I wish that he could defend his contribution better here. I think that he intentionally is defending badly in order to make fun of himself and his reception as an Oscar-nominated director. Still, I want to know, because as far as the big picture is concerned, a lot of what seems to be his contribution is in the vein of many other modern comedy filmmakers. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn’t prove him to be the one deserving of this recognition.
Thank you for getting mad, though, Peter. We all need to defend ourselves sometimes. Here’s my attempt.
Well said. My fear that i assumed too much about you was correct. I jumped the gun and i am actually sorry about that. I very much agree with what you are saying here. Reitman’s insecurities perhaps are well founded. And that is why he feels the need to joke about it.
The director’s job is so elusive and almost subjective that it can cause the strange kind of discussion we are having here. No other job can cause anything like this.
Cassavetes (whom i consider the greatest director we have known) absolutely refused (most of the time) to help the actors with their roles in any way we think a director should help an actor. John Ford never looked in the camera. Welles has said, without trying to be funny, that the director is the least important person on the set.
It almost seems like whatever we think a director should do, there is evidence somewhere of an indisputably great director NOT doing that.
Even though i agree that Reitman does not deserve the nomination, I argued because i thought your reasons for also thinking this were the wrong reasons. Now, after reading your second posting, I see that we are in agreement. But I, for fun, would like to play devils advocate here and say that maybe simply because Reitman didn’t mess it up (meaning the “great” script and the “great” performance by Page and others) that perhaps this is why he deserves the nomination. Maybe being a great director is found in the art of getting out of the way.
I do agree that many other directors could have screwed Juno up really bad. Cody’s script has its strengths and its weaknesses, I think, and Reitman seems to have done a good job making the former stand out more than the latter (even if the weaknesses are still what many people focus on).
Anyway, the best thing I’ve ever read about the mystery of the job of directing is the chapter titled The Alchemists in Peter Bart and Peter Guber’s book Shoot Out. Check it out if you haven’t already.
Yeah, dude… you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about if you think Reitman was not essential to Juno being what Juno is, regardless of what you feel it is…
I absolutely agree that in some other directors’ hands, JUNO would not be the film it is (whether you think that would be a good thing is up to your personal taste, I happen to love the film).
The best decision Reitman made as a director was to have Cody closely involved in the production process from start-to-finish. She was on the set regularly, consulted on everything from tweaking dialog to set design to costuming, because Reitman felt that this script was so much Cody’s that she had to be involved.
A lot of directors would have shut the screenwriter out and made something completely different out of it; Reitman loved the script and he wanted to keep that vision intact, and while some folks love to hate on JUNO, it’s certainly resonated for a lot of people.
One contribution Reitman did make that shifted things (for the better, IMO) was the arc of Jason Bateman’s character, who was not originally conceived to be quite as much of a choad.
That flip in Juno realizing that Mark’s “coolness” is really just an inability (or lack of any desire) to grow up, and that Vanessa perhaps isn’t quite the uptight bitch she’d perceived her to be, is one of the best parts of the storyline.
what does “choad” mean?