MovieChat Forums > Life of Pi (2012) Discussion > How Did This Win Best Director????

How Did This Win Best Director????


From time to time, the Academy likes to dole out Oscars to make up for past mistakes. Think about it. George Roy Hill won in 1974 for a strictly serviceable 'The Sting' when he actually deserved it back in 1970 for 'Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kind'. Then, in 2007, Martin Scorsese won the Oscar but that was fully deserved... 'The Departed' is one of his best films...whatever anyone might say. And finally, there was 'Life Of Pi' fetching Ang Lee an Oscar once again. Simply giving away a film that had some great 3D effects but practically was hardly a contender.
Others were far better last year- Spielberg, Tarantino (not even nominated), Bigelow (not nominated either) etc etc. Did this film really deserve an Oscar for Direction...i am not sure

reply

I found Life of Pi to be the superior film that year. Spielberg's Lincoln was awful and dragged on way too long. It felt like it should've been a TV series. Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty was pretty terrible and a far cry from Hurt Locker, which was a fairly decent movie. Tarantino should've been nominated, but predictably wasn't, knowing the Academy's taste.

reply

Life Of Pi was regarded as an unfilmable book. Of course, having seen the film, it's difficult to imagine how it could be unfilmable, given that the film exists, and makes sense. However, I think that only highlights the director's skill. This may seem like an obvious adaption, but it was pretty far from it IMO.

reply

Exactly right. Ang Lee deserves a ton of credit for making this story work on film. It wasn't an easy thing to do.

reply

I agree with OP, this film was awful and the director could not pull a convincing performance from any of the actors.

reply

seems to me you have to be in the good ol boys club with clooney/damon and that other clown affleck

reply

I think Ang Lee deserved the Oscar for this film. He managed to make a masterpiece out a story that would be hard to adapt into a film. Most of the film is spent showing the struggles of a teenage kid with a tiger on a boat in the middle of the ocean. How many directors can make a similar story appeal to the public?

reply

I feel like the whole "hard to adapt into a film" aspect really relies on the screenplay. Given the fact that 90% of the direction on this movie was doing everything in post with all of the CGI. I think Ang Lee is a great director, 'Crouching Tiger' and 'Brokeback Mountain' were fantastic...but I did not enjoy this one. Felt it was overly in love with itself and was SO reliant on the awful CGI as spectacle to entertain us. Boring.

I don't think this really deserves the awards it won, most notably Director & Cinematography. 'Skyfall' easily had the best cinematography all year, but it being done by Roger Deakins, there's no way the Academy would have given to him (doesn't help it happened to be a James Bond film). The guy has 12 nominations and no wins. As for director, the only real choice that year wasn't even nominated. Kathryn Bigelow directed one of the best sequences all year with the last 30 minutes of 'Zero Dark Thirty.' The rest of the movie is fantastic, but there have been very few times in the theater that I was as tense as I was during the end of that movie...and EVERYONE knew the outcome!

------

reply

I think he got it for making a serviceable film from an hard to adapt novel.

It's that man again!!

reply

This film should have won Best Picture.

reply

The real reason this won Best Director? Because Affleck wasn't nominated for 'Argo'

reply

LOL the direction in is Life of Pi is way better than anything Ben has ever done and I am a big Affleck fan.

This award was a no brainer in my eyes and this remains the greatest directorial effort of the past 10 years.

reply