RoyalTea

Looking back at the last 40 years of Academy awards (46th to 85th), the same film won the Best Picture award and the Best Director Award. 5 times, there was a split (Crash/Brokeback, Chicago/Pianist, Gladiator/Traffic, Shakespeare/Private Ryan, Chariots/Reds) where both movies were both nominees in the other category. There have been 2 films that won Best Picture and weren't even nominated for Best Director (Argo, Driving Miss Daisy). In the past 40 years, there haven't been any films where the winner for Best Director wasn't a nominee for Best Picture (has it ever happened?).

I don't think I've ever seen a movie and said "That movie was great, but the director really blew it." And I've definitely never said, "That guy directed the shit out of that shitty movie."

So, what are the voters specifically looking for that would cause them to split their votes?

RichC2

A powerful story can overcome solid-though-not-great direction. To be a complete package.

Excellent direction can overcome an average screenplay (ie: Gravity).

It just depends on the movie, Ang Lee has twice won Best Director and never won Best Picture. It isn't because his movies are mediocre, there simply tends to be movies that are a more complete package to voters.

Solid Snake

Sometimes it's not the direct power of the director that makes the film as great as it is? Some films have great direction but the film may not be great. We've seen many of those.

RoyalTea

But at least in the past 40 years, every film that won Best Director was also nominated for Best Picture.

What's an example of a movie with amazing direction, but the movie itself was garbage?

PhantomStranger

I've certainly seen beautifully directed movies that aren't great movies by any stretch. It tends to happen with the stylish directors handling material that lacks substance.

It's hard to say any great movie had poor direction, though I think most educated viewers assign some percentage of internal responsibility to a movie's success due to its direction. Memento is a good example. It's a great movie that would have turned out as a lesser film with a different director than Christopher Nolan. Some great movies would have turned out awesome directed by almost anybody.

Many consider Chinatown's script one of the best ever written. With that cast, almost any competent director could have made a great movie from it.

MoviePage

"I like that guy, he was nice at the banquet."

RichC2

Great directing can salvage a weak screenplay (again, look at Gravity), but I haven't seen a well directed movie that I would consider complete garbage. Unless we're talking about the content itself, like Irreversible (which isn't garbage, but can understandably turn people away). Oh and a couple pieces of Malick's work. I'm just not a big fan of the guys "Direction above all else" stance with butchering solid stories to fit what he's feeling despite the individual scenes being well directed.

inri222

IMO most of Ridley Scott's filmography.

Depending on who you think should get the blame for the shitty scripts. Scott or the producers.

Ash Ketchum

A lot of John Woo and Walter Hill movies, but none were ever nominated for anything.

JumpCutz

Shush! You mentioned Ang Lee...keep it down in here! Supermallet will hear you and be along any minute to rip Ang a new one.

Defiant1

When there is a Picture/Director split, I chalk it up to the Picture winner getting overall solid scores for its direction, acting, writing, and overall production but the Director winner having a superior direction score but inferior in other aspects.

Count Dooku

One way to think about it is when the director has brought a unique vision to the presentation of the story that (it is perceived) could not have been duplicated by another director.

Given the same cast, screenplay, and producers, could another director have been in charge of 12 Years A Slave and still delivered a great and powerful drama? I think so.

Gravity's greatness is wholly dependent on the astounding visual presentation of that (rather pedestrian) story. True or not, conventional wisdom is that no one but Cuaron could have made Gravity.

I think that thinking definitely applies to the Shakespeare / Private Ryan split, and probably to the Crash / Brokeback split as well.

Driving Miss Daisy was already an acclaimed Pulitzer Prize winning play. The film's script was adapted by the playwright. Morgan Freeman was reprising the role he originated on the stage. Jessica Tandy was an acting legend. The perception was that anyone who knew where to point the camera could have made that movie.

The Gladiator / Traffic split was absolutely the result of Soderbergh getting the Oscar for having directed both Traffic and Erin Brokovich in the same year.

Rypro 525

exactly, Picture the same crew/effects people/actors ect for Gravity, but Michael Bay as the director. There'd be sound in space, and lots of explosions and quick cutting. Movie probably wouldn't work as well and wouldn't nearly be as acclaimed

Supermallet

You have repeated this twice, but I know for a fact that David Lynch was nominated for best director for Mulholland Drive while the film itself was not nominated for best picture.

Count Dooku

WON for Best Director

Drexl

Yeah, in the days when Best Picture nominees were limited to 5, it wasn't uncommon for there to be a Directing nominee whose film didn't make the cut for BP. Kieslowski's Red, Atom Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter, and Pedro Almodovar's Talk to Her are examples of films nominated for Directing but not BP.

I think acting can be a big factor. Some of the split BP winners have been stronger in the acting department (in terms of nominees/winners) than the competition. Shakespeare in Love was no doubt helped by getting 3 acting noms and 2 winners compared to Saving Private Ryan's lone acting nod. Tonight, 12YAS's 3 nominations and 1 win trumped Gravity's 1 nom. Gladiator got one more acting nom than Traffic, and won in the lead category.

Supermallet

Apologies, I did in fact read it wrong.