Oscar Analysis: Director

For the record -- if Scorcese gets beaten by Eastwood for a second time, I'm going to laugh my ass off. Not 'cause I hate Scorcese, but just to listen to the fanboys whine and moan.

1. Martin Scorcese, The Departed

Oscar History: Hey, have you heard that Scorcese has never won an Oscar? He’s been nominated seven times – five for directing (Raging Bull; The Last Temptation of Christ; Goodfellas; Gangs of New York; The Aviator) and twice for writing (The Age of Innocence; Goodfellas.)

Awards: Plenty – the biggies include the Directors Guild, the Golden Globe and the National Board of Review.

Praise: “…the film shows the legendary director dropping the bids for industry respectability that have preoccupied him over the past decade and doing what he does best.” – Boston Globe

Pros: It’s been a year of firsts for Marty – first Golden Globe win, first Directors Guild win…the Oscar should follow suit, right?

Cons: The man’s been overdue more times than a library book – remember when he was a shoo-in for The Aviator?

Odds: A semi-cautious lock.

2. Clint Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima

Oscar History: Eastwood’s got two Oscars for directing (Unforgiven; Million Dollar Baby) one nomination for directing (Mystic River) and two nominations for acting (Unforgiven; Million Dollar Baby.)

Awards: Surprisingly none.

Praise: “One may argue with Eastwood's filmmaking strategies but the general just gravitates toward blazing new movie trails; it's in his genetic makeup as much as in his ammo belt.” – Cinema Signals

Pros: Eastwood is Eastwood – you know the Academy loves him. Directing two movies on the same subject in the same year (at age seventy-freakin’-six!) is no small feat, and the Academy loves rewarding feats (like Peter Jackson’s win for the LOTR trilogy, or Steven Soderbergh’s directing Traffic and Erin Brockovich in the same year.)

Cons: He just won two years ago, beating Scorcese and incurring the wrath of filmgeeks everywhere. Plus, Letters didn’t turn into the big film some thought it would.

Odds: He’s the only one with a shot to topple Marty, but I’m not feeling it.

3. Paul Greengrass, United 93

Oscar History: First nomination for Greengrass

Awards: British Academy Award winner; Los Angeles, London, San Francisco, Kansas City and the National Society of Film Critics winner.

Praise: “Paul Greengrass has taken the all-too-familiar events of 9/11 and has created an emotionally charged human drama without stooping to melodramatics or sensationalizing.” – Journal and Courier

Pros: The Los Angeles and BAFTA wins shouldn’t be taken lightly – he’s nominated because he’s got some avid supporters…

Cons: …but does he have enough to overcome the big two in front of him? And did enough Academy voters see United 93 to vote for it?

Odds: He should win, but he’s not going to.

4. Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu, Babel

Oscar History: First nomination for Iñárritu.

Awards: Cannes

Praise: “Iñárritu is an exceptionally gifted director who makes each individual scene in Babel work beautifully.” – KPBS.org

Pros: Babel has still got a shot at Best Picture, which keeps Iñárritu safely in play.

Cons: Even if Babel wins BP, you got to think either Scorcese or Eastwood would top Iñárritu here.

Odds: He’ll be back.

5. Stephen Frears, The Queen

Oscar History: Previously nominated in 1990 for The Grifters.

Awards: Toronto Film Critics.

Praise: “Frears' masterstroke is making it a thoroughly sympathetic portrait of Elizabeth, Charles and the entire concept of the monarchy.” – Las Vegas Weekly

Pros: 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes – there’s a lot of love (and little hate) for this movie…

Cons: …but is that love for Frears or Mirren? I’m thinking Mirren.

Odds: Not this year.