Film Features

Why Tom Hooper Is the Defining Director of the 2010s

Love him or hate him, he is THE director of our generation.

Tom Hooper

Photo by Kristina Bumphrey/StarPix/Shutterstock

"Find you a man who can do both."

A bit of advice that began life as a meme, became general relationship advice, and finally settled in the culture as an identifier of any multi-talented individual. "A man who can do both" is what this generation demands of its lovers and heroes alike. It is the embodying cry of a generation that was forced via technology to adapt to multiple circumstances, to code-switch at will between professional and text speak, to lead a meaningful life in the midst of unavoidably-publicized global crises and catastrophe. We "do both" by necessity. We have built our culture around "doing both." This duality is what made Tom Hooper the perfect director for these times.

While Tom Hooper's name isn't exactly among household names like Steven Spielberg, Greta Gerwig, or Quentin Tarantino, he has been putting out critically and commercially acclaimed work for the last decade, enough to vault him into the same category as the aforementioned by any metric. His 2010 film, The King's Speech, cleaned up at the Oscars. Nominated for an astounding 12 awards, it won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Colin Firth) and Best Screenplay. He followed that up in 2012 with the best version of Les Miserables ever put to film, an enormously expensive production in which the actors sung live during each take, something that was previously unheard of for a movie musical. He finished his winning streak with The Danish Girl in 2015, a tragically under-seen powerhouse film that showcased two little-known actors who would go on to win Oscars: Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander, the latter of whom won for Danish Girl.

Hooper became known in film circles for the performances he drew from his actors, his sweeping wide shots, his careful shot construction, and his intensely-purposeful plotting. He became quickly associated with other contemporary masters like Paul Thomas Anderson and David Fincher. After three consecutive films that garnered rave critical reviews and made their budgets back at the box office (Les Miserables made almost $500 million worldwide), the world waited with bated breath to see what Tom Hooper's next move would be. If you still hadn't heard of him after Danish Girl came out, you can be forgiven for your ignorance, because Hooper went into hibernation for the next four years. He emerged after all that time for one final masterwork, the film he is now most famous for, and the one he will undoubtedly be remembered for:

Cats!

In an unbelievable turn of events, Tom Hooper, who a decade earlier owned the Oscars, tried his hand again at making musicals, adapting Andrew Lloyd Webber's surrealist broadway smash-hit for the screen. It did not turn out well.

Cats!, released just last December, was an expensive disaster for a multitude of reasons. It was critically panned. It lost $25 million dollars on an estimated $100 million-dollar budget, much of which was invested in special-effects like "Digital Fur Technology" (i.e. digitally covering every actor in fur so they appeared more convincingly like anthropomorphic cats than if they were to wear costumes). Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian Mckellen, British thespians of the highest-degree, shared scenes with Jason Derulo and Taylor Swift. But weird sometimes works. It just didn't work here.

At least during its wide release, it didn't. Although still under a year old, Cats is gaining new life in a cult-film scene that includes movies such as The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Room. There is a growing contingent of the population interested in watching and re-watching the objectively awful CatsCatsfor the sake of its unintended hilarity and for how well it mixes with drugs or alcohol. This is the great coup of Tom Hooper. This is why he embodies this generation's defining decade better than any other director: he can do both.

Tom Hooper spent the better part of the 2010s proving he was a director of the highest caliber, who could create compelling films with varied budgets, varied casts, and in varied genres. Tom Hooper also spent the final month of the 2010s proving he could screw up almost every part of a film and still find success in it. There is an unprecedented and exciting element in his career. While it's not at all uncommon for acclaimed directors to make career missteps, none of his caliber has ever made such an appalling dud of a film after such a profound string of successes. Regardless of where his movies will eventually settle in cinematographic academia or how they will age, you can't look away from them. What does it say about his work that Cats is probably his best known film? But watch any of his three earlier hits, and one can see they're obvious masterpieces, smart and funny and often heartbreaking, well-acted and well-shot and well-written.

Defining this decade of film is a really heartening endeavor. Careers like Greta Gerwig's (Lady Bird, Little Women) and Ari Aster's (Hereditary, Midsommar) and Damian Chazelle's (Whiplash, La La Land) thundered to life. The masters like Tarantino (Django Unchained, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) and Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman, The Revenant) made some of their best work. Female directors were criminally under-utilized and under-recognized (only Gerwig was even nominated for Best Director this decade, joining only five women, ever), and perhaps that is the defining story of the decade.

But the defining director still must be decided, and Tom Hooper is the one with the most range, who created a classic Oscar darling, revolutionized movie-musicals, and crafted the next great midnight cult film. The defining director of the decade is the one who can and did do both. Tom Hooper may not be the best director, but his whiplashing career reflects the chaos of the 2010s, and the generation of millennials who claimed it as their own.

Allison Janney wins Best Supporting Actress | 90th Oscars (2018)

A question for the producers of this year's Oscars ceremony: how dare you?

Keep ReadingShow less
FILM & TV

Lady Bird wins big at the Golden Globes - but it still deserved "Best Director"

Despite its two wins, Greta Gerwig is still missing one important title.

Lady Bird | Official Trailer HD | A24

It's been quite a year for female-empowering movements, and at the Golden Globes it was no different, with the touching story of "Lady Bird" sweeping up awards for Best Musical or Comedy and Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy.

The Greta Gerwig-directed film (her first, in fact) has been making rounds for it's vulnerabilities and heartbreaking sincerity when it comes to a mother's love for her daughter - and the very real fact that she, as all daughters do, must leave home to find her own. It's been so widely critically-acclaimed, in fact, that it became the first film to achieve (and maintain) a perfect 100 score on the film critic website, Rotten Tomatoes. It stars Saoirse Ronan, who longs to break free from the confines of her hometown of Sacramento, California (the same place Gerwig calls home). "I think that it's inevitable that those stories won't get told if you don't have female creators," Gerwig told CNN earlier this year. "But I do think that it's important to tell these stories because on a very basic level, as Virginia Woolf said, 'Men don't know what women do when they're not there.' So we need to tell the stories of what we're doing when they're not there. Otherwise, they will go completely undocumented."

Gerwig was notably shut out of the Best Director category - and everybody knew it. Actress and presenter Natalie Portman was quick to note, "here are the all-male nominees." In a world where Film Critics Society named "Lady Bird" best picture, and the National Society of Film Critics dubbed it the best film of 2017, it seems almost impossible that Gerwig did not at least receive a nomination for her first big-time director role. In a world where the majority of the Golden Globes room praised the Times Up movement, it's abundantly clear that the same energy of supporting women does not, in fact, apply to the nominations themselves.

The Sacramento-born director was not the only woman who was snubbed for the category. "Mudbound", the film that's been as widely-praised as the rest of the Best Picture nominees, was directed by Dee Rees, who was also snubbed by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Barry Jenkins, before directing "Moonlight", stated this to IndieWire a while back: "I'm probably going to get in trouble for saying this, but I've always felt like I can tell the difference when I'm watching a film directed by a woman," said Jenkins. "I just feel like the metaphors are more eloquent, by which I mean they don't shout as much. Even for myself, when I try to make a movie with a message, it's clear I'm trying to make a movie with a message, whereas when I watch a Lynne Ramsay film or a Claire Denis film, it's the metaphors you can feel — Lucrecia Martel, especially."

While I don't necessarily agree that there are differences in directing based on gender, Jenkins statement highlights the work of women who manage to put something more than personal on the big screen. Gerwig's work deserves to be recognized, and when it comes to those who are not taking women seriously into the conversation - like the Hollywood Foreign Press Association - it's time to say, time's up.

Keep ReadingShow less