The Directors Guild of America has announced its five nominees for best director of the year, and along with expected nominees David Fincher (The Social Network), Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech), Christopher Nolan (Inception), and Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), The Fighter‘s David O. Russell edged out Joel and Ethan Coen of True Grit for the final spot. Last year the DGA matched the eventual Oscar nominees for Best Director 5-for-5, so today’s news is a great sign for Russell and the overall chances for The Fighter, which has only grossed half as much as True Grit at the box office so far. It’ll be a tight battle between Russell and the Coens for that fifth Best Director slot at the Oscars.
Latest News
- 'Revenge': Gabriel Mann live chat tonight!
- 'Snow White': 'The Huntsman' has his say
- Phillip Phillips: Post-'Idol' surgery?
- 'Hunger Games': Watch Blu-ray/DVD trailer
- TV in 2011-12: Let's assess
- Jim Parsons comes out in news article
- 'DWTS': Donald Driver wins season 14
- Adam Lambert's 'Trespassing' is No. 1
Find Movies and Showtimes
Powered by MovieTickets.com
Choose Your Movie
All movies
Coens should have gotten in ahead of Nolan, I’m guessing the fact that Grit’s a remake slightly have hurt their chances throughout awards season.
That and the fact that it’s their worst film since Intolerable Cruelty.
Exactly. “True Grit” wasn’t that great of a film, and that will be shown when it gets subbed for every major award this year.
I agree I think it should and will be snubbed in a few big categories.
No, that would be “Burn After Reading.”
PRAISE THE LORD! All of the buzz for True Grit baffles me. A remake – really?!? Thrilled that the DGA threw its support to The Fighter and has made it a legitimate player in the Oscar derby. I hope that Grit fades more with each passing week.
Amen! I thought True Grit was so uninspired. After recent westerns like “The Assassination of Jesse James…” and “There Will Be Blood,” it seemed so outdated. “The Fighter” was ten times better.
Thank goodness I am not the only person! And you are absolutely right RayT there have been some wonderful westerns in the past few years (I also very much enjoyed 3:10 to Yuma- even though it was a remake, I thought it was very entertaining).
Also in agreement about True Grit, professionally made, but not very inspired. As a fan of the Coens I was disappointed, many of their films are much better.
The Coens directed a remake before True Grit: The Ladykillers.
Yeah and that was even worse than True Grit.
OMG!! I am SOOO glad Aronofsky got in…I cant believe he is going to get an Oscar nod!! THANK GOD!!! I wrote in EW last issue about how talented he is and how much I have loved his work….Its a race for that fifth slot still, esp with True Grit gaining momentum into the final week of Oscar nom voting
As much as I love The Fighter, I think the Coens did a better job of directing True Grit than Russell did on his film. Both are great movies, though.
Of all the criticisms you can level at the Coen’s “True Grit,” calling it “a remake” is the least accurate. It is, unlike the Disneyfied John Wayne, a thoughtful adaptation of the book.
I’m with you Larry–”True Grit” was most definitely an adaptation of the Portis novel, not a remake of the John Wayne movie. Get over it, people! When the new version of “Jane Eyre” comes out this spring are you going to call it a “remake” of the umpteen earlier TV and movie versions or what it is: an adaptation of a book.
With True Grit’s stronger performance at the box office (over $100M and counting), it would be hard for the Academy to ignore the Coen brothers for a Best Direction nom. I won’t be surprised if the Coen brothers get the nomination for Best Direction instead of David Russell who has a prickly reputation (see his much publicized blow-up vs Lily Tomlin on YouTube).
Pretty amazing. I guess the DGA thought Hailee Steinfeld did it all on her own.
Amen.
Well how did you think Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo did it?
Amen
Amen to this. Just because True Grit has been winning at the box-office lately does not mean it suddenly deserves Oscar nominations. It’s a decent movie, but if it had been released in July, I’d wager it would barely be a contender at this point.
I agree. Except for Hailee and maybe screenplay, I doubt it would be honored with much attention if it was 6 months old.
Maybe if the Coens directed an ORIGINAL movie, they would’ve gotten a nomination. What do you think they’ll ripoff next? “Chinatown”? “The French Connection”? I’m sure there’s another award winning movie they can redo for people who’ve forgotten the original.
That’s a pretty unfair charge to level at a film-making team that’s created some of the most original movies of the last 25 years. You make it sound like that’s all the do when it’s, in fact, their first re-imagining of an existing film. Why shouldn’t top directors try their hands at putting their own personal spin on existing movies.
Ladykillers
Uh…The Ladykillers??
Exactly. Isn’t this their first remake – EVER?
Agreed. They’ve worked their creative asses off so much lately, they deserve a break.
Oops, sorry! I guess it’s because it’s the only one they made that I didn’t see. Maybe it’s better left forgotten. ;o)
Where did my comment go????
AMEN, Go Russell good for you. Choen brothers so much buzz every time they do a movie for what?! I don’t understand. True Grit was painful to watch, boring uninspired, predictable, remake or not they don’t deserve it.
I saw both True Grit and the Fighter within a week of each other, and I’m with the DGA on this one. True Grit was enjoyable, no doubt. I have no memory of the original version, so it stands on it’s own merit for me. But I had forgotten about it before I hit the theater parking lot. The Fighter, on the other hand, stayed with me for days. I already knew the outcome, and I was still on the edge of my seat. Although I will say that what made it rivoting for me was the stellar performance of Christian Bale. If that guy doesn’t get an oscar for this performance, there’s no justice. Bale was so emersed and believable that I forgot all about the actor within the first few minutes, and I only saw the character. Great performance, great movie.
Though I loved True Grit, it wasn’t the Coens’ best film. Though with the extremely short shooting schedule of the Fighter, I wonder how involved Russell really was and how much of that amazing film was his calls. My personal choice for number 5 would have been Danny Boyle for 127 hours. Boyle’s style really shined in that movie whereas I felt the Coens could have made True Grit even better than it already was.
I worked on The Fighter from Beginning of Pre production to shooting wrap and I can guarantee you it was 100% a David Russell film, including his enormous butuncredited rewrite of the script.
Absolutely agree with you on Boyle. 127 Hours was even better than Slumdog Millionaire (which I believe he did deserve the Oscar for) – it’s a shame he probably won’t get credit for what might be his finest work yet (except maybe Sunshine.) I’d say he deserves the nod over the Coens (not their best movie) and Nolan (who is a much better writer than director in my opinion.) Very disappointing that it seems he won’t get it.
I think it’s silly that the best pic noms have 10 but the director category stays at 5. Why they need 10 best pics I still don’t understand but how can a movie be considered for Best Pic but the director doesn’t get any recognition. Lame.
It does seem odd, doesn’t it? Makes it obvious what the front-runners are by which directors get nominated. Of course, back in the 30s and 40s when there were 10 best picture nominations, there was still only 5 best director slots.
I agree with dan, I think Danny Boyle should get in before both of them, he did an amazing job with 127 hours.
But he just won for Slumdog Millionaire, and 127 hours did pretty bad at the box office.
His work on 127 Hours was better than his work on Slumdog, though. He easily beats half the other guys getting consideration. He doesn’t have to win, but he deserves the nomination.
When it says “edged out for the 5th slot,” what does that mean? Are the DGA tallies public? I know that they’re not for the Oscars. Or is it just that the others are “obviously” in? Because I’d have put David O. Russell as “obviously” in, and the Coens “obviously” not. Not that I’m in the DGA, but do you see what I’m saying? There’s no way that the DGA would see True Grit in the same league as No Country for Old Men, so why nominate them this time over fresher faces with better work? So, why think of Russell as sneaking in or something?
Good question as I wondered that too once I read that part in the article. Maybe someone else (Chodolenko, Affleck, Scorsese, Polanski) were close than the Coen’s…unles of course the results were public.