Might want to read the OP, Stephen.
I know he didn’t want to mention Uwe Boll, but he basically made a list of some of the great directors who had a slump or dry period. I believe Boll should be on the list because not one of his films is significant to the progression of cinema. Half of his list is comprised of directors who have made significant contributions, he either doesn’t like them or wanted to gain attention by listing their not-so bright moments.
To be honest, I don’t see one director that was listed who hurt cinema other than Brett Ratner and even he had one film that contributed.
Prokow, this thread is… is… is… FOR THE CHILDREN!!!
…coz’ they are the future, y’know
…and have to be protected from the evil directors who hide their evilness in a prestigious package. This thread is for heroes.
Cinema has really gone downhill since the millennium. The 80’s were bad, but the 90’s made up for it with directors involving their own uniqueness again, and the independent movement which really led to people that love to make films. In the 00’s you get these generic directors who resort back to the idea of making everything a blockbuster action flick just so they can make some money. There are very few filmmakers (especially mainstream) left that actually do it for the love of cinema and making pictures. People can talk all they want about QT stealing from other films but at least he does it extremely well and has a passion for classical cinema. These Michael Bay’s or whoever directed Christmas with the Cranks just do it for the money. These films may be entertaining to some, but you can also make something artistically entertaining.
I preach this same thing basically everyday in film class, and there are very few pictures coming out within the next year that I’m looking forward to.
Watch some films from countries other than America. The 00s have been extraordinary.
Agreed. And actually American films weren’t too shabby either. Just get out of the mainstream!
Done and done, there are maybe a few exceptional films but nothing compared to the 50’s. Nobody seems to care about developing new ways of storytelling or new techniques. They pretty much stay to the standard, conventional stuff. Which even independent and foreign films have been doing. Sure you can list 20 films that were great last year but is one truly exceptional, and longstanding as The Seven Samurai or Psycho.
For example, John Woo’s new masterpiece Red Cliff is one of the best in 2008 and same with Let the Right One In. Both were breathtaking and breathe of fresh air, but when you compare them to the films I listed above you feel like they’re missing certain ingredients. Maybe it is because I have an extreme hard on for older pictures (non-literal expression). I don’t know.
Prowkow: it would be easy to list the directors of the latest seagal movies or Paul Anderson (alien vs predator) but those people never had much potential as far as I can see. QT did hurt cinema. He backed a lot of bad directors and got films made on his recommendation that were awful, plus he inspired a score of imitators that were awful as well. Speilberg made a film that is considered the definite holocaust film to be shown in schools, but it is a poor film that outshines much better ones on the topic. Plus with jaws he ushered in the age of the bad summer blockbuster plus he has produced Transformers 1 and 2 and hurt Kubrick’s rep a bit with AI . Walter Lang percipitated the decline of Shirley Temple. And Cecil B Demile took four hours to tell 2hr stories.
“Nobody seems to care about developing new ways of storytelling or new techniques.”
Well, let´s rather state that few care about those directors who do. There´s not much doubt that films like Weerasethakul´s “Mysterious Object at Noon”, Martel´s “The Headless Woman”, Costa´s “Colossal Youth”, Hong´s “Turning Gate”, Singh´s “The Name of a River” or Kore-eda´s “Distance” are as revolutionary in terms of storytelling and techniques as important films from the 60´s, but those contemporary directors unfortunately won´t achieve the same prominence as Resnais, Godard or Antonioni did. To condemn contemporary cinema and state that filmmakers make only conventional stuff doesn´t make sense to me, but if you like you can condemn the modern-day audience for the ignorance of these important works.
QT was like the grunge music of the 90’s. You either love him or hate him. But beyond the obvious references to other films and supposed copying, his films made an impact. He certainly knows how to make a good film and he’s shown it on multiple occasions. He basically teaches the audience of the older films which I think that’s what it is more than ‘stealing’. Every director takes material from another. Kurosawa’s screenplays were based on lots of what Shakespeare wrote so he’s stealing right? I think both are celebrating and paying homage to some of the best writers and filmmakers of all time. He didn’t hurt cinema but basically made everyone forget the horrid films of the 80’s, but maybe the people who wanted to be him did hurt cinema.
Spielberg kind of did hurt cinema in a way, but not with anything you mentioned. He’s been on a downhill track in the last decade, but he’s put out some pretty significant pictures that made a staple in cinema. I don’t know what’s wrong with Jaws and The Sugarland Express, I think those are some of his best films. Jaws may have started a blockbuster trend but you need to position yourself back in the 70’s before all of these summer blockbuster’s came out. Jaws celebrated a new chapter in cinema, Spielberg didn’t destroy or hurt anything cinematic, but the directors who now constantly put out blockbuster after blockbuster hurt why Jaws is such a significant film. Plus his obstacles of making the picture were beyond remarkable, I thought hardly showing the shark because of the technical problems was one of the best things he could have done. And I don’t think he hurt Kubrick’s rep at all. Kubrick wanted him to make A.I. Kubrick is one of the best filmmakers because of his artistic perfection and consistency. How did Spielberg hurt Kubrick’s reputation? Spielberg will never be Kubrick if that means anything. Also, I agree with 1971, but to be honest, that film really wasn’t any big hit on such a large subject such as cinema.
I don’t know much about Walter Lang or Shirley Temple, other than the latter was a popular American icon that my grandmother loves. I think cinema that far back should be celebrated more so than broken apart. Fritz Lang, Jean Renoir, Howard Hawks were the big names you hear in film classes about cinema in the 1930’s, so I feel drawing older decades to the cinema of today is almost irrelevant other than the techniques that were produced.
Cecil B. DeMille may have been going through a slump. I have not seen either picture you mentioned, but Cleopatra (1934) starring Claudette Colbert is a film that is highly significant for its use of risque imagery and nudity when the Hays Code was brought into effect. I certainly don’t consider him one of the greatest filmmakers, but he did have some revolutionary cinematic moments. I don’t think his films in anyway hurt cinema of the 50’s. I know you think this is obvious, but Ed Wood did that, which is probably why it is obvious.
There´s not much doubt that films like Weerasethakul´s “Mysterious Object at Noon”, Martel´s “The Headless Woman”, Costa´s “Colossal Youth”, Hong´s “Turning Gate”, Singh´s “The Name of a River” or Kore-eda´s “Distance” are as revolutionary in terms of storytelling and techniques as important films from the 60´s, but those contemporary directors unfortunately won´t achieve the same prominence as Resnais, Godard or Antonioni did."
but Marc,as long as Lists exist and Academia by Gringo Tex and David Ehrenstein (who probably is a fan-boy himself) these films you mentioned (and plenty of others as well) will never achieve that prominence because of prejudice.
and prejudiced “critics” are the most when it comes to cinema,more so than any other Art.
“Cinema has really gone downhill since the millennium. The 80’s were bad, but the 90’s made up for it with directors involving their own uniqueness again, and the independent movement”
look outside the box,look outside America for a second and you’ll see that these quotes about minor decades are worthless.
I would throw Clint Eastwood into the mix.
Ed Wood wasnt popular enough to hurt anything at the time. I dont mind that QT had taken things from other directors was talking more about copycat films inspired by him like Things to do in Denver when youre dead and films he produced like the garbage from Robert Rodreguiz (not spelled right). Demile was an epic filmmaker long on bathos and that is never good. I think the good directors are very aware of older cinema and it is never irrelevant but thats me. You are right saying he hurt Kubricks rep is silly but he did make an unwatchable film out of something Kubrick could have hit out of the park. And Spielberg produces many of those blockbusters so he is part of the problem.
I don’t honestly know if Kubrick could have made A.I. any better than Spielberg. Apparently Spielberg stayed true to the Kubrick script treatment, but he is lacking the Kubrick visuals. I think the film would have been a lot different visually, but Spielberg did basically everything right that Kubrick was having problems with (which was one of the reasons he handed it over). I thought Osment was an excellent choice for David when Kubrick very well stated that he thought no actor of that age could play the part. I’m a huge fan of Kubrick, I think he’s the best consistent director and one of the best overall, but even the best can’t do everything and have trouble. I wish that Kubrick was alive to make another picture and if that would have been A.I. than great, but unfortunately the Spielberg A.I. is the one that was made and I don’t think it was bad. I do feel, however, that the living up to Kubrick task, and people saying that Kubrick’s version would have been better has put a downfall of Spielberg’s film-making. The only film I moderately cared for after he made A.I. was Munich. Other than that, I think Spielberg needs to go back to the way he used to make pictures before he started fooling around with CGI and other modern technology to make more money.
And by irrelevant, I meant the ‘hurting’ effect of those pictures on cinema today. I think they are extremely relevant learning and entertainment tools.
I know I’m probably the minority here, but I think Spielberg did some of his best work this decade. Or at least, much better work than he did in the 90s. A.I, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, and Munich > Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, Hook,. I think he found more sophisticated ways to blend his popcorn techniques with his prestige film ambitions this decade, as opposed to the one way or another style he used throughout the 90’s.
Lots of hating here. What have YOU directed? I think I’d appreciate a Michael Bay burp than any post in this stinkin’ thread.
@Gringo Tex Let me be more direct: Irreversible is an adolescent male fantasy about how the rape of a female threatens your masculinity. You think you’ve been given a get-out-of-jail-free card because they bash the wrong guy’s head in at the beginning. It’s a special effects coup d’etat right up there with Independence Day.
@Eisenstein proposed a system of ‘attractions’ – aggressive actions in the presentation of a theatrical work – that subjected the audience to emotional or psychological influence… calculated to produce specific emotional shocks in the spectator. These shocks were intended to undermine the absorption of the spectator into the narrative and to keep the spectator thinking objectively about what they were watching being performed on the stage
….because they bash the wrong guy’s head in at the beginning. = completely false
Dude, you have no idea what the film was about.
Either that, or he prefers provoking people with false statements to having serious discussions on here.
Dunno, but he is definitely overexcited about it & to claim that something in film is not “real” is……….
Here’s the thread where this was all hashed out:IRREVERSIBLE
Eisenstein’s “Montage of Attractions” was a specifically ideological and political commitment. Eisenstein made propaganda films. The application to Noe is specious.
And the passage you clipped was written by Matt Bailey.
I watched the ending over & over to see if it was him – I came to the conclusion it was, but it is certainly not clear.
Robert, your story seems to be changing chronologically.
“Sure you can list 20 films that were great last year but is one truly exceptional, and longstanding as The Seven Samurai or Psycho.”
anyone who thinks otherwise is stuck to his/her academic bullshit and the same happened with poetry and classical music all those centuries.
be open-minded,don’t believe the film-school/Sight and Sound/Criterion hype!!!!
“Done and done, there are maybe a few exceptional films but nothing compared to the 50’s. Nobody seems to care about developing new ways of storytelling or new techniques. They pretty much stay to the standard, conventional stuff. Which even independent and foreign films have been doing. Sure you can list 20 films that were great last year but is one truly exceptional, and longstanding as The Seven Samurai or Psycho.
For example, John Woo’s new masterpiece Red Cliff is one of the best in 2008 and same with Let the Right One In. Both were breathtaking and breathe of fresh air, but when you compare them to the films I listed above you feel like they’re missing certain ingredients. Maybe it is because I have an extreme hard on for older pictures (non-literal expression). I don’t know."
Hello. You have not been seeing enough films from outside the Academy-approved canon. Prescription: Weerasethakul, Hong Sang-soo, Jia Zhangke etcetera. Thank you.
Weerasethakul was the kind of director I had in mind, not John Woo (thought I admittedly have not seen Red Cliff), nor Thomas Alfresson (though I liked LtROI ).
WORSTS: Spike Jonze, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel and Ethan Coen, Chan-Wook Park, Michael Haneke, Terrence Malick, Andrew Dominick, David Fincher, Michel Gondry, David Cronenberg, Todd Field, Edward Yang, Steven Soderbergh, Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Wong Kar-wai, Martin Scorsese, Abbas Kiarostami, Hayao Miyazaki, Pixar Directors (Lassetter, Stanton, Bird, etc.), Lukas Moodysson, Todd Haynes, Pedro Almodovar, Alexander Payne, Jia Zhangke, Takeshi Kitano, Lars von Trier, Gus Van Sant
BESTS: Brett Ratner, Tommy Wiseau, Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer, Andrew Bujalski, Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, Christine Hardwicke
^ Accident, or attempt at humor through irony?
Anybody mentioned Noe yet? Too obvious?
Fincher would have to be my pick. I don’t hate the guy, but he’s made absolutely nothing interesting.