What Makes a Filmmaker Great: Awards vs. Talent

With the 86^th Annual Academy Awards ceremony occurring last Sunday, March 2, Hollywood has been buzzing about those who won, the outstanding talent that was on display, and the exciting things that these filmmakers will go on to do. That said, as in all facets of the entertainment industry, awards shows like these truly are a politics game. I recently stumbled upon a post on one of my favorite sources for news in the film world (IndieWire) entitled “20 Celebrated Filmmakers Who Never Won A BestDirecting Oscar.” Being one with a great love of both film and the Oscars, this caught my attention.

According to a survey conducted by AMC, the top 10 greatest directors of all time are:

1.    Alfred Hitchcock  

*Names in bold have received an Oscar for Best Director

2.    Stanley Kubrick

3.     Steven Spielberg* 

4.    Charlie Chaplin

5.    Quentin Tarantino

6.    Orson Welles

7.     Martin Scorsese *

8.     Clint Eastwood* 

9.     David Lean* 

10. Ridley Scott

Now, here comes the shocker: of these 10 directors, only FOUR have won the Academy Award for Best Director. If you are anything like me, I am sure you are wondering, “Well, then who in the world is winning all of the Oscars?” How is it that Orson Welles, the man who directed Citizen Kane - also known as the best film ever made – never won an Oscar for Best Director? Moreover, how is it that Alfred Hitchcock, who is undoubtedly referred to as an absolute cinematic genius, never won an Academy Award for Best Director for one of his 53 feature films? Huffington Post writer John W. Whitehead put it nicely when he said, “As curious as this seems, it is not all that surprising. The Academy Awards have always been drenched in political wrangling where the factors of who and what film receives an award often seem inconsequential. After all, what does being a ‘sentimental favorite’ have to do with judging talent?”

 This same sentiment rings true within film festivals on a global scale – young filmmakers, some who show great levels of talent and potential, are being turned away on a daily basis due to festival politics. This is a problem. The next generation of filmmakers are working to gain experience, to hone their craft, and refine the art of storytelling, but they are being rejected from festival after festival. So, why is this a problem? Of course, every single submission sent to a festival should not be admitted - a society where everyone gets a trophy is a whole different kind of problem. However, as I have learned time and time again: people crave recognition - perhaps filmmakers most of all. It is not that they each want a banquet thrown in their honor to recognize their talent, but the excitement that is brought by adding a laurel to your film’s poster, the sheer joy that someone, somewhere watched your film and they connected with it.

     

There is no greater vulnerability than that an artist faces in displaying their work for all to see. No artist wants to feel rejection – we make art because we have to. We make art to connect with others. We make art to impact the world we live within.  In 1968, Alfred Hitchcock finally did receive an Oscar. It was the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award "for the most consistent high level of production achievement by an individual producer," however this was simply the consolation prize for years of being given the short end of the stick. In accepting the award, Alfred Hitchcock was short, sweet, and gave an acceptance laced with the slightest tinge of contempt.

 Let us all take note from these filmmaking greats, those who have paved the way for the motion picture industry as we have known it: it is not the award or the title that makes a filmmaker great, it is their love for story, their passion, and their talent. At the end of the day, an award is simply something that will sit on a shelf collecting dust, but an exquisite film will transcend time and impact generation after generation.