When Picture and Director Split: An Oscar Divided Often Stands

The Graduate won director for Mike Nichols. But picture went to In the Heat of the Night. The Godfather obviously won picture -- but many forget Bob Fosse took director for Cabaret. Then there was a streak of Picture and Director going hand in hand. Right through the entire 70s where American Auteurs seemed at their peak. Every one of those "lunatics running the asylum" took home picture and director.

The next split -- which will obviously get its own paragraph -- was in 1981 when Warren Beatty (ahem) won director and picture went to (the absolutely not boring in the least) Chariots of Fire.

And we seemed to be back in a land of picture and director alignment. But there have been notable splits since -- with increasing frequency.

1989 - Driving Miss Daisy takes picture, Oliver Stone takes director for Born on the Fourth of July.

1998 - Shakespeare in Love shockingly takes picture away from director winner Steven Spielberg

2000 - Ridley Scott's Gladiator wins, but the seasoned Brit remains Oscar-less when Soderbergh wins director for Traffic.


2002 - Chicago is all the rage, but Martin Scorsese isn't the Rob Marshall upset, it's Mr. Exile himself, Roman Polanski who takes the cake for The Pianist.


2006 - Ang Lee's director win for Brokeback Mountain didn't mean there would be a gay best picture, certainly not when there's a Hollywood ensemble piece like Crash in the mix. And it seems Focus can get you a script or directing Oscar. I have much love for this mini-major. But delivering picture seems a game their not willing to play.

And here we are -- Award Year 2010 -- with the King nipping at The Network's heels. So far, no one has called Fincher's directing victory into question. His success seems completely inevitable. He's the Eastwood, he's the Spielberg, he's the Ang Lee in this scenario.

The Social Network's grip on best picture seems to have grown shaky -- at least in the trades and among those of us who like to walk into the 4 hour Oscar telecast pretending something incredibly dramatic is going to happen -- and who walk out of the Oscar telecast completely pissed off when it does.  Unless, of course, it's Roman Polanski winning over Gangs of New York -- my apologies to the genius that is Martin Scorsese but that film was a mess and the idea that Miramax would back the director of a flop film over their own director of the film that had a lock on picture made Rob Marshall's chances a non-issue and Polanski's win something that got the room on its feet -- at least the room I was in.

I might add -- this was also presented by Harrison Ford -- the Shakespeare in Lover himself! What gives, Mr. McBeal?!

Miramax is obviously todt, kaput, deadski. But Harvey is up to his old Oscar tricks -- mini-documentaries airing during the day about the joyous journey that is The King's Speech. And have you seen the ad with the blue-collar audience member -- that lunch-bucket Dem -- talking about how he never thought a movie about a king would speak to him, but boy was he wrong? The HW knows no shame. As well he shouldn't. It looks like he's pulling it off.

And yet as much as Messers Firth and Rush gush over director Tom Hooper,  as much as Helena Bonham Carter talks about his guiding hand -- how vital it was to have him behind the camera, Hooper doesn't seem to have a Marshall's chance in hell.

Thus, the split question is not from the side Harvey would prefer. It's not "Will The King's Speech sweep?" The question is: will voters vote for King's Speech after having voted for David Fincher?

The odds of split seem pretty dang good, though, don't they?

I'm hoping for a Fincher hold -- and I think that hope is a safe bet.

Frankly, if there's a different film to take it, we know I want it to be Inception -- at this point it seems as out there as my (partially) genuine belief (read: "psychotic break") that The Piano could best Schindler's List. 


- Matthew J. McCue