Well, I actually like Satyricon, Suspicion and Stage Fright quite a bit.
One of the big tenets of the Cahiers du Cinema auteur theory was that a great auteur could never make a bad film, because his mark was on it somewhere. In fact, bad films by great auteurs were how they proved their auteur theory — if you could find some redeeming style or vision, then it shows the handiwork of the auteur.
Having said that, I wonder what was going through Sam Fuller’s mind when he made “Shark!” with Burt Reynolds in the mid-70s. Dirt budget, amateurish camerawork, wooden performances, horrible script — and yet not without the occasional whiff of vintage Fuller cigar smoke here and there.
Abel Ferrara’s The Blackout, a very turgid, tedious psychodrama that can’t even be salvaged by Dennis Hopper’s demented cameo.
Before he found his true niche in Hollywood making glossy soaps with an acid edge, Sirk got himself involved with a young Lucille Ball and an ageing Boris Karloff, to make Lured, a comedy-thriller that’s neither funny nor suspenseful.
My man Fassbinder starred in a sci-fi spy movie right before he died, called Kamikaze ‘89. He didn’t direct it, so he can’t be blamed too much. But watching him sweat profusely as he tries to run around in a leopard fur jacket, or play horsey with a dominatrix, is fairly painful to watch.
Philip Kaufman-Twisted
John Huston-Annie
John Ford-Mogambo, Donovan’s Reef
Alfred Hitchcock-Topaz, Marnie
Rodney-I actually enjoy Fellini Satyricon and Hitchcock’s Suspicion.
Oh, I forgot Fassbinder. I think about every other film of his was bad, but I tend to forgive him because he was just testing his limits.
Sounds like the Cahierists were laying the framework to keep their own future work criticism-free, because every New Waver made bad films somewhere down the line.
Moderated
@RODNEY: Nooo I have to disagree …. R.W. Fassbinder never made a single bad film (well, except Niklaushausen Journey maybe)
Grey Daisies-But he sure starred in a turkey-Kamikaze 89.
Moderated
I actually sat through “The Niklaushausen Journey” twice, mainly because I just didn’t understand what was going on. The Hans Boehm story isn’t one we know here in the States. At some level, it was a weirdly fascinating slice of revolutionary cinema.
But “Satan’s Brew,” “Whity,” “Rio das Mortes” — these all rather tested my patience and charity.
i think anyone as prolific as a Fassbinder or a Godard should be allotted a few missteps along the way.
I always think of Hal Ashby and The Slugger’s Wife, oh so terribly bad.
NEH — I think that was the game plan: just keep moving. Keep getting up off the mat after you’re knocked down, and get up quickly, show how well you recover. I think the public and critics were caught off guard that way; no sooner had they reacted to one film than they were blindsided by another.
Peckinpah-Convoy
John Frankenheimer 1978-2002
I’ve never seen a Fassbinder film that didn’t fill me with clarity, purpose and strength. I was thinking about this just the other day, how I feel that much more invincible having re-watched Berlin Alexanderplatz recently. It’s ironic, because so often his films are about fatalistic “losers,” but he always motivates me to a new understanding and new plans of action. He really knew what he ws doing. And I love Niklashausen Journey — come on, the senile queen flashing her underwear as she slouches on her throne; the burning at the stake in the middle of an autombile junkyard; the priceless scene where Fassbinder and his crew are lying on the floor yawning and falling asleep while Amon Duul II play at stun volume. So much wit and energy there.
Neh, in terms of intended or unintended self-parody, that was part of auteurism, I believe. The Cahiers critics had their culs well covered. If you made a bad film, but they could find just one thing in it that was yours, then the auteur wins. If you made a great film, the auteur wins again. Anyway that’s my understanding of it. But they were trying to pierce the Hollywood veil, trying to reclaim some measure of artistic independence for guys like Ford, Mann, Fuller, Ray, who worked within the studio system and had to work around certain production constraints. By the way I would never consider Lola Montez to be parody of any kind — I think it’s a beautiful masterpiece, and highly representative of Ophuls at his confectionery best.
Here’s a Criterion, and don’t know if I’m alone with this one: The Last Emperor. As I love Bertolucci – love him madly – this film just doesn’t fit, and has something of a mendacious air about it. As sometimes happens, here the DP (Storaro) makes the show.
Ditto with Coppola’s Cotton Club, in so many places an awkward and even stupid film: DP Stephen Goldblatt, always great, makes the show (along with the Hines Brothers, etc).
Slumdog Millionaire, without a doubt. I would never have attributed that crap film to Danny Boyle, without knowing who’d made it.
Peter Greenaway’s The Pillow Book. – Just godawful.
Woody Allen’s Manhattan Murder Mystery (a huge disappointment, considering that this was at last a re-teaming with Marshall Brickman).
Tarentino’s Death Proof: Pure shit. (Does contain, however, what must be one of the best/most realistically violent and quick car crashes ever included in a feature film.)
Fassbinder used to be kind of an idol of mine before I saw a lot of his work. I respect the best of it, but even then it can seem slack, rushed, hasty, like it needed a little more thought. Of course, that’s also what people love about him, too; his spontaneity, and the energy with which he threw himself into his work. People are very sympathetic to what he’s trying to do. He’s the penniless director who by hook or crook manages to crank out films that all, like them or not, have a very personal stamp. It’s not hard to love the idea of Fassbinder, but you have to be a real diehard to love all of his work.
Not a diehard. Just someone on the same wavelength as he was. He confirms my essentially pessimistic view of the world, and yet he affirms that live and love really are worth fighting for.
I agree with Justin on Fassbinder. As a whole, the only film I haven’t connected with is The Niklaushausen Journey, but it still has its moments. I’m continually drawn back to his work..
Aronofsky – The Fountain
The only Fassbinder film I didn’t like was Querelle, but maybe that’s because I’m not gay.
i agree that with the politique des auteurs, the cahier kids were essentially just covering their ass and setting up an artistically appreciative audience for their future works, however, in its wake, the theory has spawned the idea of a “self stylized auteur” and these are the types that can usually fall into a “paint by numbers” form of self parody…wes anderson, as talented as he is, seems to me an example of this phenomena.
Terry Gilliam’s The Brothers Grimm. I love Gillaim 99% of the time, but that movie was horrible on Van Helsing levels.
“The Fountain” is brilliant! I can’t wait until a decade passes and people watch that movie again, then they will see how timeless it is.
For me, it would have to be “Indiana Jones: KOTCS”. I was looking forward to it very much and was profoundly disappointed in it. Everybody knows Spielberg is great, and considering how much money the movie made you could say I’m in the minority. But still.
Chaplin and A Countess from Hong Kong or Scorcese’s Gangs of New York, anyone?
Just a few… anyways, I may be wrong but what do I know?
ANTONIONI – Beyond the Clouds
HITCHCOCK – Marnie
FASSBINDER – Satan’s Brew
PECKINPAH – Killer Elite
GODARD – Les Carabiniers; British Sounds
FRANKENHEIMER – Year of the Gun
KUROSAWA – The Idiot – I only saw this on a really terrible PAL-transfer many years ago, so I might give it another shot.
Bob-I agree on Chaplin-embarrasingly bad. Altho Gangs isn’t Scorcese’s best film by far I still find it very watchable with some great performances(Day-Lewis,Gleeson).
Ryan-Have to disagree on The Fountain-I found it almost impossible to sit thru.
Godard-Pierrot le Fou
Moderated
Satyricon is a great film! Kiss my ass if you dont like it. Hitchcocks Marnie is also a very good film, maybe not one of his best but still a very good film.
Zabriskie Point, another great film.
hmmm
Franis Ford Coppla: Jack
Steven Spielberg: Hook
That is really all I can think of. I can find something enjoyable in every Hitchcock film I have seen (I actually liked Marnie a lot). Also is there anything good about A Countess from Hong Kong? I’m watching it this weekend just so I can have seen every Chaplin directed film. I liked A King in New York and that is often considered a misstep so is there any chance I will enjoy Countess?
Rodney Welch
Name a film genius, and the chances are excellent he has several stinkers to his credit.
For Luis Bunuel, there’s “A Woman Without Love.”.
For Fellini, there’s “Satyricon.”
For Robert Altman, there’s “O.C. and Stiggs” and “Pret a Porter.”
For Coppola, there’s “Jack.”
In another thread, I listed my Bottom Five Hitchcocks: “Family Plot,” The Secret Agent," “Jamaica Inn,” “Suspicion” and “Stage Fright.”
What are some works by great film directors you’d just as soon never see again?