I, like all you film fans out there, hope a level of courtesy and respect towards each other will prevail. Nonsense by the way of personal insults, attacks and character assassination in place of healthy discourse….for movies about movies.
Share your opinions, respect the next.
This forum, and the entire Auteurs concept is too precious to be diluted by the infantile voices of non sense.
Enjoy it. This, by the way, is not a declaration…but a wishful thinking.
Kubrick. 2001. The scene where Hal reads the crew’s lips. Spectacular framing, also when Bowman disconnects Hal. Intent is magical.
Recently, Children of Men. It killed me when the infamous scenes of prolonged takes played for story, and the camera was at the right place at the right time, at the right element for a masterpiece.
Also, I would have to agree with Mr E 2 Me: Irreversible is spectacular from a camerawork point of view, and not just because of prolonged takes. The camera in that film is a spectator, never being intrusive while letting the story unfold…while small gaps of thematic focus reinforce the motif. The fire extinguisher scene needs mention. Digital zooms.
So would it be unjust that Children of men lost out the cinematography Oscar to Pan’s Labyrinth? interesting to discuss…
I did not enjoy be kind rewind, yet respect Gondry for all his unchecked excess. His problem is that his imagination, and the technical means to realize it, is constricted by the voices his characters populate. The movie Eternal Sunshine From The Spotless Mind, and even the underrated Human Nature benefit tremendously from strong characterization and screenplays. For all the wonder to work, the backbone is the script and that is my disappointment with Be Kind. Focus is key to making anything worthwhile, and good dialogue helps. I know it’s off topic, sorry. But to answer the question the brilliance on display in Eternal Sunshine is one to behold. By far the truest, saddest movie about love and it’s discontents…
This is a wide raging one, and my favorite. Editing is invicible when it’s good, poignant when it’s effective, and distracting when it’s bad.
Master Editors include Walter Murch (needs no introduction), Michael Kahn, Thelma Schoonmaker, Verna Fields, Jerry Greenberg, Stewart Baird, the list goes on and on. I really love strong editing, and really believe it is the editor who creates the magic moments not the director. This is up to debate, but the editor’s role should never be diminished to the success (or failure) or a motion picture. It’s more than just pacing, it’s the assemblage of what the story’s universe is supposed to be, how the story is told by the careful relation of sound and image.
To me what exemplifies good editing is the scene in Goodfellas where Ray Liotta goes out high paranoid the helicopter is out to get him. The entire sequence captures the downward spiral of the character and frames the narrative to it’s thematic means, and it’s all due to the way Thelma Schoonmaker cut that scene. I never felt like a criminal till I watched it, it really brings you into this man’s world and onto his point of view. Magnificent.
See moments in every Kubrick film for further examination…
The Dark Knight had a great edit, I’m amazed at how that movie didn’t fall apart because of it. The editing was superlative, this and Wall – E represent hallmarks in film editing this year. You are correct David Lee, it is one of the few categories the academy gets right. Let’s see it nominate these two.
This is a forum for Scott fans. I happen to be a huge Scott fan, as some of you probably are. Depending on your point of view, it’s as valid a post or the worse post in the history of the Auteurs.
The question in question is, did he peak early? This specifically goes to his back to back masterpieces: Alien and Blade Runner.
The visual density, control, and handling of those films have seldom been equaled in his filmography, this could be attributed to his evolution as a filmmaker. His work post Legend and 1492 (the last of his films to populate that “dense” look) expanded on his diversity, and arguably became more workman-like. Thelma and Luise feels like a proper Scott film, Gladiator, while well staged, didn’t have that “wow” Alien or Blade Runner had. Am I being impartial?
I hate to see what he’s doing now, because I feel he’s gone into safe mode, and stopped challenging himself. I’d like to see he tackles something as complex and ambitious as his early pictures. He is probably our outmost visual stylist, no one can deny the man knows how to create striking images, but the brilliance of his early pictures can also be a result of the time and stage Scott was on his career when he made them. Please discuss, god knows I’m not saying that I’m right.
Best female directors: Catherine Breillat,
Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion. Julie Taymor.
Most influential (arguably): Maya Deren, Penny Marshall.
Now, let’s talk about an area where females have REALLY made an impact: Editing.
It’s well documented that film editing started traditionally employing women, as the basis of the craft was viewed by studio execs akin to knitting. The studio system of the 20’s and down to the 40’s supplied women with great opportunities behind the scenes, as it was women who took up a significant portion of the editorial staff, handling film seemed a logical extension of a woman’s sensibilities…along with organization. Traditionally, jobs that required these skills made women well suited for such tasks.
Generations later, women rose up the ranks to become some of the most regarded in the field of film editing. Legends like Verna Fields (Jaws!!!) Anne V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia!) and Thelma Schoonmaker are synonymous with the art form, for their innovations brought those pictures a studious concentration and skill that’s helped them achieve such iconic status. It was Spielberg’s direction that made Jaws memorable, but it was Verna Field’s editing that frightened audiences the world over and made the monster work.
Undoubtly, a paltry 16% of women are film editors these days, a diminishing number far from the studio days. More women edit on television, but the giants are still working. Schoonmaker continues to edit Scorssese’s films, and Anne Coates is still operational.
Much can be learned about women’s contribution to filmmaking, it’s just so sad not many means are to achieve it. Maybe I should write a book about it…
Best female directors: Catherine Breillat,
Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion.
Most visionary: Julie Taymor, Bigelow.
Names forgotten in the comments section: Mimi Leder, catherine hardwike, Lexi Alexander, Karyn Kusama, Julia Loktev, Jennifer Lynch (David’s daughter), Lucile Hadzihalilovic, Marina Abramovic, even Isabella Rossellini has dabbled with directing.
Most influential (arguably): Maya Deren, Penny Marshall.
Must never be allowed near a film camera (behind it, through some apparently have): Scarlett Johanson, Natalie Portman, any actress who isn’t worth her salt (I wanna direct!) knows directing is an acquired sense. Stay away, and let professionals (gasp) do their job.
Now, let’s talk about an area where females have REALLY made an impact: Editing.
It’s well documented that film editing started traditionally employing women, as the basis of the craft was viewed by studio execs akin to knitting. The studio system of the 20’s and down to the 40’s supplied women with great opportunities behind the scenes, as it was women who took up a significant portion of the editorial staff, handling film seemed a logical extension of a woman’s sensibilities…along with organization. Traditionally, jobs that required these skills made women well suited for such tasks.
Generations later, women rose up the ranks to become some of the most regarded in the field of film editing. Legends like Verna Fields (Jaws!!!) Anne V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia!) and Thelma Schoonmaker are synonymous with the art form, for their innovations brought those pictures a studious concentration and skill that’s helped them achieve such iconic status. It was Spielberg’s direction that made Jaws memorable, but it was Verna Field’s editing that frightened audiences the world over and made the monster work.
Undoubtly, a paltry 16% of women are film editors these days, a diminishing number far from the studio days. More women edit on television, but the giants are still working. Schoonmaker continues to edit Scorssese’s films, and Anne Coates is still operational.
Much can be learned about women’s contribution to filmmaking, it’s just so sad not many means are to achieve it. Maybe I should write a book about the subject…
The 80’s leaves a legacy in film most of us may love or hate, either way lots of really impressive films where made during that period until formula took over.
What is the best film of the 80’s in your opinion? I gather Blue Velvet was perhaps the best of the decade, coupled with Blade Runner it’s a toss up. What are your thoughts? thanks for sharing friends.
DC dreams, great reply. I totally agree Raging Bull is a tie in with the best film of the 80’s. I’m still amazed at that film’s complete deviation of formula, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing brought something to film that is still in practice, and continues to be imitaded.
Here we go again, I’ll try to be fair but the truth is I am not impressed with Marc Forster.
His treatment of Bond left me (and other fans) completely cold, and sucked out of the movie. That seems to be the response I get everytime I watch any Marc Forster film.
He’s an electric diverse (never makes the same film twice) and his films feature interesting moments. The problem is they don’t move and have that directorial stamp his contemporaries do. Maybe that’s the whole point? anti auteur? unlike the classical profile of an auteur, there isn’t a style or a running theme among his works, just straight up dullness. Lots of it. Stranger than fiction was a good premise delivered in a standard, prosaic fashion. Kite Runner felt like a book with the pages thrown out, and Bond well, I think that did it for me. Monster’s Ball was saved by Heath Ledger’s scene, and wished the entire film was about him and the relationship to his dad instead of Halle Berry’s display of “look, I’m acting” hysteria.
Forster is critically acclaimed, for Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, but if you like rewatching movies as I do, would you go back and watch those again? I doubt it.
I’ve written a blog or two on the choices him and his team made to the Bond franchise, they turned it into a Bourne movie. I could not appreciate anything that was happening, as it was mounted with a level of disrespect for the character that Casino Royale the DVD was my salvation out of witnessing that mess. Art house directors can make a good transition to big budget films, look at what David Gordon Green brought to Pineapple Express for example. In interviews for Bond, the man sounds utterly professed on what he set out to accomplish, yet when you watch the movie NONE of them are evident. A lack of experience handling action scenes is one thing, his editors simply put the film in a grinder and hoped something comes out.
So, Marc Forster is overrated, a director whose films leave a residue of dryness, lack of momentum, and other attributes lesser minds can accept. I know there will be fans who think highly of his brilliance, just explain it to me. Hollywood promotes directors up the ranks for mysteries unknown, could be a hit movie could be awards, rarely is it both. I’m a viewer who enjoys the intricate making of good storytelling, and don’t see what’s so great about the guy.
Sorry to be heavy handed, would love to know what you folks think about his films.
Paul Thomas Anderson, you’re next (but only for TWBB). Darren Aronofsky (for The Fountain). Acclaimed directors have made questionable movies, no doubt about it. Some of those movies are highly regarded, and the director is held in high regard for them. It’s a topic worthy of discussion, at a later date. I’d like to also add Ron Howard to the list.
Crimes of passion by Ken Russell. Terrific script, direction, and fearless performances by Anthony Perkins, Kathleen Turner. One of the best of the 80’s.
Perhaps it sounds far fetched, but it has validity at it’s point. The films of the decade far for worse have declined in quality, but have picked up in other areas. The packaging of cinematic ideas has been diluted by commercial requirements and narrative and story conventions, only directors with an established pedigree can turn out good work, few legends are still around. Formula rules the marketplace, while indie is no longer synonymous with edgy. Freshness comes once in between, usually in the repackaging of the familiar by a person whose seen one too many films. Youtube be dammed.
It the above sounds prophetically bleak, consider the last and memorable year filmmaking was electric and (arguably relevant): 1999.
Being John Malcovich, Fight Club, Magnolia, The Matrix. Many films released that year broke the mold and carried cinematic ideas best anticipated by a new century, a decade in feels like it never came. Still early to tell, but film has indeed become watered down by conditions that are part of the trends the business follows. Formula and celebrity culture took a big chunk out of what is interesting about film culture, and that is the movies. Everyone became a filmmaker, film schools opened up their branches and DIY became exciting, and where does that leave film’s progression?
The only film I’ve seen since the year 2000 that feels like it couldn’t be done any other time was…Children of men. The fusion of technology and vision reaches a synthesis I’ve never seen before. Babel is another film that brings to mind our relevancy to modern events, a juxtaposition of the problems facing a global humanity. Those films couldn’t be done in the 90’s, our world has changed. Technology has accelerated, HD widely adopted, yet the very technique that a medium is chosen for often is used to emulate the medium IT’S NOT supposed be. Film is film, HD is another medium. Call me a purist, both have their strenghts.
Film in the 21st century truly needs to get past the transitional stage, and start merging forward to the exploration of ideas that time ago were not possible. I speak not only of language, but how stories are told, and how far and interesting can they be. Perhaps I ask too much out of film, and sound like a spoiled idiot. I’m underwhelmed by the turn of events past 1999, and saw the gradual change films have taken for the worse. What has changed for the better, is the internet’s unity of film culture as something shared by us all, and that’s a beautiful thing. We can come to the auteurs and discuss our passions, and somewhere out there someone will respond.
The comfort of knowing a DVD is readily available for something you love is a benefit of the times, Criterion keeps the flame alive. Experiencing what you want any given time is glorious to behold.
It will be 2009 soon, and a decade will pass from the year that made films relevant again. Let us hope for surprises along the way. There is still hope film can surprise us, the kind we’ve never seen before ever again.
Agreed. It’s a matter of perspective, as movie culture is cyclical. Innovation to me is just as important as the story, because it’s what pushes the medium in unexpected territories. There are infinite possibilities on how to tell a story, yet only certain directors have visionary status. Films are expensive, but that’s another subject. Now about Zodiac and TWBB…I’ll get back to you on that one.
Here we go again, this is sure to be highly debated.
Two films singled out by a colleage brought to mind this post: Zodiac and There Will Be Blood. Thanks, Shotzi.
Those two films are considered breakthroughs by critics, establishing a change of pace for David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson. They expanded on what they establised in their earlier work, and both films took a slower paced approach to telling their stories.
In fact, that’s the main problem for both. those two films left me cold, wondered what went on. I love long films more than the next guy, I love both director’s works, and I’m puzzled by the choices they made on those two films.
Zodiac is a complete bore, a movie that chronicles on obsessive fixation to a story that is anti climactic. Perhaps Fincher knew this, and concentrated on the procedural aspects and refused to cut it. TWBB is masterfully told, and a logical progression of Anderson’s talents.
Without the central performance, the film would not be what it is, the incidental details and secondary characters aren’t developed long enough for much bite past the initial conceit, and the film suffers at the end during the infamous climax. The staging, momentum, and narrative gear established for nearly three hours brought to an ending best divided by some. This is the element felt bothered the most out a great film.
So what does all this have to do with the filmmakers? it establishes a change of pace, something Fincher is tackling with dramatic chops with Benjamin Button, and PTA did with TWBB. These men are supreme technicians, and these films put them in a crossroads of expansion. That to me is good, as great directors expand their visions.
However…I did not like the films that brought them there. Thanks to Shotzi for gestating the idea to write the post.
Pablo Hutardo has a good point. Gems do exist, but our values are changing. Film culture is at a crossroads. It’s a cyclical process, something new comes out between the cracks.
Once, I went to see Showgirls while still in high school. I got a fake ID, and sat at lincoln square to see the sleaze. As the movie progressed, there would be sights of men looking at each other, embarrased at what we where watching. It was a classic night, and an example of how movies can make you feel in a dark theater full of people.
The next must be Batman. Summer of 89 was magical, we waited a long line across Loews 84th st. Once the Batman theme came on it was a great memory of my childhood.
The third had to be The Dark Knight. Amazing movie, the audience was floored.
Please, please let's not turn this forum into another IMDB. over 3 years ago
I, like all you film fans out there, hope a level of courtesy and respect towards each other will prevail. Nonsense by the way of personal insults, attacks and character assassination in place of healthy discourse….for movies about movies.
Share your opinions, respect the next.
This forum, and the entire Auteurs concept is too precious to be diluted by the infantile voices of non sense.
Enjoy it. This, by the way, is not a declaration…but a wishful thinking.
-Yours truly,
Criterion.
Go to Comment
Best camerawork in a movie...handheld or otherwise. Or best use of the camera to convey the scene's intention. over 3 years ago
Kubrick. 2001. The scene where Hal reads the crew’s lips. Spectacular framing, also when Bowman disconnects Hal. Intent is magical.
Recently, Children of Men. It killed me when the infamous scenes of prolonged takes played for story, and the camera was at the right place at the right time, at the right element for a masterpiece.
Also, I would have to agree with Mr E 2 Me: Irreversible is spectacular from a camerawork point of view, and not just because of prolonged takes. The camera in that film is a spectator, never being intrusive while letting the story unfold…while small gaps of thematic focus reinforce the motif. The fire extinguisher scene needs mention. Digital zooms.
So would it be unjust that Children of men lost out the cinematography Oscar to Pan’s Labyrinth? interesting to discuss…
Go to Comment
When I say "A Perfect Film", What One Film Pops Into Your Head First? over 3 years ago
ROBOCOP.
Go to Comment
Your Favorite Michel Gondry Film? over 3 years ago
I did not enjoy be kind rewind, yet respect Gondry for all his unchecked excess. His problem is that his imagination, and the technical means to realize it, is constricted by the voices his characters populate. The movie Eternal Sunshine From The Spotless Mind, and even the underrated Human Nature benefit tremendously from strong characterization and screenplays. For all the wonder to work, the backbone is the script and that is my disappointment with Be Kind. Focus is key to making anything worthwhile, and good dialogue helps. I know it’s off topic, sorry. But to answer the question the brilliance on display in Eternal Sunshine is one to behold. By far the truest, saddest movie about love and it’s discontents…
Go to Comment
Best British Film over 3 years ago
Dr No. The best James Bond movie, and the one that started it all.
Go to Comment
Best editing in a motion picture. Or editing that captures the essence of the story. over 3 years ago
This is a wide raging one, and my favorite. Editing is invicible when it’s good, poignant when it’s effective, and distracting when it’s bad.
Master Editors include Walter Murch (needs no introduction), Michael Kahn, Thelma Schoonmaker, Verna Fields, Jerry Greenberg, Stewart Baird, the list goes on and on. I really love strong editing, and really believe it is the editor who creates the magic moments not the director. This is up to debate, but the editor’s role should never be diminished to the success (or failure) or a motion picture. It’s more than just pacing, it’s the assemblage of what the story’s universe is supposed to be, how the story is told by the careful relation of sound and image.
To me what exemplifies good editing is the scene in Goodfellas where Ray Liotta goes out high paranoid the helicopter is out to get him. The entire sequence captures the downward spiral of the character and frames the narrative to it’s thematic means, and it’s all due to the way Thelma Schoonmaker cut that scene. I never felt like a criminal till I watched it, it really brings you into this man’s world and onto his point of view. Magnificent.
See moments in every Kubrick film for further examination…
Go to Comment
Best editing in a motion picture. Or editing that captures the essence of the story. over 3 years ago
The Dark Knight had a great edit, I’m amazed at how that movie didn’t fall apart because of it. The editing was superlative, this and Wall – E represent hallmarks in film editing this year. You are correct David Lee, it is one of the few categories the academy gets right. Let’s see it nominate these two.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
Oh goodness The Devils. The Devils. Why isn’t anyone listening?
Go to Comment
Harvey weinstein, friend or foe? over 3 years ago
Discuss.
Go to Comment
Favorite Cinematographer over 3 years ago
Wally Pfister: His work on The Prestige and Dark Knight are hallmarks of exemplary cinematography.
Jordan Cronenweth – Blade Runner.
Emmanuel Lubezki: Children of men is the most innovative movie of the last five years.
Geoffrey Unsworth: Then shot BOTH Superman AND 2001. Genius.
Roger Deakins: Last of the masters still alive.
Janusz Kaminski: No one does it like he does.
Robert Richardson is often imitaded, never equaled.
Last but not least Darius Khondji: Master of bold, dutch style. Also, use of ENR (Bleach Bypass) in films.
Mention also Maleek Sayeed (great DP) and Henri Decae (Army of Shadows, Le Samurai).
The list will keep going…
Go to Comment
Ridley Scott: Peaked early? over 3 years ago
This is a forum for Scott fans. I happen to be a huge Scott fan, as some of you probably are. Depending on your point of view, it’s as valid a post or the worse post in the history of the Auteurs.
The question in question is, did he peak early? This specifically goes to his back to back masterpieces: Alien and Blade Runner.
The visual density, control, and handling of those films have seldom been equaled in his filmography, this could be attributed to his evolution as a filmmaker. His work post Legend and 1492 (the last of his films to populate that “dense” look) expanded on his diversity, and arguably became more workman-like. Thelma and Luise feels like a proper Scott film, Gladiator, while well staged, didn’t have that “wow” Alien or Blade Runner had. Am I being impartial?
I hate to see what he’s doing now, because I feel he’s gone into safe mode, and stopped challenging himself. I’d like to see he tackles something as complex and ambitious as his early pictures. He is probably our outmost visual stylist, no one can deny the man knows how to create striking images, but the brilliance of his early pictures can also be a result of the time and stage Scott was on his career when he made them. Please discuss, god knows I’m not saying that I’m right.
Go to Comment
Female Directors — How many can you name? over 3 years ago
Let’s talk a little about about…
Sticking to the point.
Best female directors: Catherine Breillat,
Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion. Julie Taymor.
Most influential (arguably): Maya Deren, Penny Marshall.
Now, let’s talk about an area where females have REALLY made an impact: Editing.
It’s well documented that film editing started traditionally employing women, as the basis of the craft was viewed by studio execs akin to knitting. The studio system of the 20’s and down to the 40’s supplied women with great opportunities behind the scenes, as it was women who took up a significant portion of the editorial staff, handling film seemed a logical extension of a woman’s sensibilities…along with organization. Traditionally, jobs that required these skills made women well suited for such tasks.
Generations later, women rose up the ranks to become some of the most regarded in the field of film editing. Legends like Verna Fields (Jaws!!!) Anne V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia!) and Thelma Schoonmaker are synonymous with the art form, for their innovations brought those pictures a studious concentration and skill that’s helped them achieve such iconic status. It was Spielberg’s direction that made Jaws memorable, but it was Verna Field’s editing that frightened audiences the world over and made the monster work.
Undoubtly, a paltry 16% of women are film editors these days, a diminishing number far from the studio days. More women edit on television, but the giants are still working. Schoonmaker continues to edit Scorssese’s films, and Anne Coates is still operational.
Much can be learned about women’s contribution to filmmaking, it’s just so sad not many means are to achieve it. Maybe I should write a book about it…
Go to Comment
Female Directors — How many can you name? over 3 years ago
Let’s talk a little about about…
Sticking to the point.
Best female directors: Catherine Breillat,
Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion.
Most visionary: Julie Taymor, Bigelow.
Names forgotten in the comments section: Mimi Leder, catherine hardwike, Lexi Alexander, Karyn Kusama, Julia Loktev, Jennifer Lynch (David’s daughter), Lucile Hadzihalilovic, Marina Abramovic, even Isabella Rossellini has dabbled with directing.
Most influential (arguably): Maya Deren, Penny Marshall.
Must never be allowed near a film camera (behind it, through some apparently have): Scarlett Johanson, Natalie Portman, any actress who isn’t worth her salt (I wanna direct!) knows directing is an acquired sense. Stay away, and let professionals (gasp) do their job.
Now, let’s talk about an area where females have REALLY made an impact: Editing.
It’s well documented that film editing started traditionally employing women, as the basis of the craft was viewed by studio execs akin to knitting. The studio system of the 20’s and down to the 40’s supplied women with great opportunities behind the scenes, as it was women who took up a significant portion of the editorial staff, handling film seemed a logical extension of a woman’s sensibilities…along with organization. Traditionally, jobs that required these skills made women well suited for such tasks.
Generations later, women rose up the ranks to become some of the most regarded in the field of film editing. Legends like Verna Fields (Jaws!!!) Anne V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia!) and Thelma Schoonmaker are synonymous with the art form, for their innovations brought those pictures a studious concentration and skill that’s helped them achieve such iconic status. It was Spielberg’s direction that made Jaws memorable, but it was Verna Field’s editing that frightened audiences the world over and made the monster work.
Undoubtly, a paltry 16% of women are film editors these days, a diminishing number far from the studio days. More women edit on television, but the giants are still working. Schoonmaker continues to edit Scorssese’s films, and Anne Coates is still operational.
Much can be learned about women’s contribution to filmmaking, it’s just so sad not many means are to achieve it. Maybe I should write a book about the subject…
Go to Comment
Famous Caucasian Men -- How Many Can You Name? over 3 years ago
Denzel Washington…Dudley Moore, the guy from the pepsi commercials, Sting, Djimon Honsou and Ving Rhames.
Go to Comment
WALL-E over 3 years ago
It’s the best film I’ve seen all year, pure magic.
It transcends the medium and becomes one of it’s own, I loved it.
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
The 80’s leaves a legacy in film most of us may love or hate, either way lots of really impressive films where made during that period until formula took over.
What is the best film of the 80’s in your opinion? I gather Blue Velvet was perhaps the best of the decade, coupled with Blade Runner it’s a toss up. What are your thoughts? thanks for sharing friends.
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
Oh goodness…I forgot to include Do The Right Thing and Raging Bull. How could I!
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
Marc Forster is the most overrated director of the last 5 years. So is Paul Thomas Anderson.
Robert Altman gets respect, but is not to my liking.
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
Throw in a little Wong Kar Wai as well. Probably the most overrated of the overrated directors of all time.
Go to Comment
French Film over 3 years ago
I took a class on the birth of pretention and came away really impressed.
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
Also, crimes of passion should be added to the list. Sadly forgotten, it deserves reappraisal/
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
DC dreams, great reply. I totally agree Raging Bull is a tie in with the best film of the 80’s. I’m still amazed at that film’s complete deviation of formula, Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing brought something to film that is still in practice, and continues to be imitaded.
Go to Comment
Marc Forster, what's the big deal? over 3 years ago
Here we go again, I’ll try to be fair but the truth is I am not impressed with Marc Forster.
His treatment of Bond left me (and other fans) completely cold, and sucked out of the movie. That seems to be the response I get everytime I watch any Marc Forster film.
He’s an electric diverse (never makes the same film twice) and his films feature interesting moments. The problem is they don’t move and have that directorial stamp his contemporaries do. Maybe that’s the whole point? anti auteur? unlike the classical profile of an auteur, there isn’t a style or a running theme among his works, just straight up dullness. Lots of it. Stranger than fiction was a good premise delivered in a standard, prosaic fashion. Kite Runner felt like a book with the pages thrown out, and Bond well, I think that did it for me. Monster’s Ball was saved by Heath Ledger’s scene, and wished the entire film was about him and the relationship to his dad instead of Halle Berry’s display of “look, I’m acting” hysteria.
Forster is critically acclaimed, for Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland, but if you like rewatching movies as I do, would you go back and watch those again? I doubt it.
I’ve written a blog or two on the choices him and his team made to the Bond franchise, they turned it into a Bourne movie. I could not appreciate anything that was happening, as it was mounted with a level of disrespect for the character that Casino Royale the DVD was my salvation out of witnessing that mess. Art house directors can make a good transition to big budget films, look at what David Gordon Green brought to Pineapple Express for example. In interviews for Bond, the man sounds utterly professed on what he set out to accomplish, yet when you watch the movie NONE of them are evident. A lack of experience handling action scenes is one thing, his editors simply put the film in a grinder and hoped something comes out.
So, Marc Forster is overrated, a director whose films leave a residue of dryness, lack of momentum, and other attributes lesser minds can accept. I know there will be fans who think highly of his brilliance, just explain it to me. Hollywood promotes directors up the ranks for mysteries unknown, could be a hit movie could be awards, rarely is it both. I’m a viewer who enjoys the intricate making of good storytelling, and don’t see what’s so great about the guy.
Sorry to be heavy handed, would love to know what you folks think about his films.
Paul Thomas Anderson, you’re next (but only for TWBB). Darren Aronofsky (for The Fountain). Acclaimed directors have made questionable movies, no doubt about it. Some of those movies are highly regarded, and the director is held in high regard for them. It’s a topic worthy of discussion, at a later date. I’d like to also add Ron Howard to the list.
Go to Comment
Best film of the 80's? over 3 years ago
Crimes of passion by Ken Russell. Terrific script, direction, and fearless performances by Anthony Perkins, Kathleen Turner. One of the best of the 80’s.
Go to Comment
Heist Films over 3 years ago
The heist film begins and ends with Le Cercle Rogue.
Go to Comment
Why aren't films as good as they used to? over 3 years ago
Perhaps it sounds far fetched, but it has validity at it’s point. The films of the decade far for worse have declined in quality, but have picked up in other areas. The packaging of cinematic ideas has been diluted by commercial requirements and narrative and story conventions, only directors with an established pedigree can turn out good work, few legends are still around. Formula rules the marketplace, while indie is no longer synonymous with edgy. Freshness comes once in between, usually in the repackaging of the familiar by a person whose seen one too many films. Youtube be dammed.
It the above sounds prophetically bleak, consider the last and memorable year filmmaking was electric and (arguably relevant): 1999.
Being John Malcovich, Fight Club, Magnolia, The Matrix. Many films released that year broke the mold and carried cinematic ideas best anticipated by a new century, a decade in feels like it never came. Still early to tell, but film has indeed become watered down by conditions that are part of the trends the business follows. Formula and celebrity culture took a big chunk out of what is interesting about film culture, and that is the movies. Everyone became a filmmaker, film schools opened up their branches and DIY became exciting, and where does that leave film’s progression?
The only film I’ve seen since the year 2000 that feels like it couldn’t be done any other time was…Children of men. The fusion of technology and vision reaches a synthesis I’ve never seen before. Babel is another film that brings to mind our relevancy to modern events, a juxtaposition of the problems facing a global humanity. Those films couldn’t be done in the 90’s, our world has changed. Technology has accelerated, HD widely adopted, yet the very technique that a medium is chosen for often is used to emulate the medium IT’S NOT supposed be. Film is film, HD is another medium. Call me a purist, both have their strenghts.Film in the 21st century truly needs to get past the transitional stage, and start merging forward to the exploration of ideas that time ago were not possible. I speak not only of language, but how stories are told, and how far and interesting can they be. Perhaps I ask too much out of film, and sound like a spoiled idiot. I’m underwhelmed by the turn of events past 1999, and saw the gradual change films have taken for the worse. What has changed for the better, is the internet’s unity of film culture as something shared by us all, and that’s a beautiful thing. We can come to the auteurs and discuss our passions, and somewhere out there someone will respond.
The comfort of knowing a DVD is readily available for something you love is a benefit of the times, Criterion keeps the flame alive. Experiencing what you want any given time is glorious to behold.
It will be 2009 soon, and a decade will pass from the year that made films relevant again. Let us hope for surprises along the way. There is still hope film can surprise us, the kind we’ve never seen before ever again.
Go to Comment
Why aren't films as good as they used to? over 3 years ago
Agreed. It’s a matter of perspective, as movie culture is cyclical. Innovation to me is just as important as the story, because it’s what pushes the medium in unexpected territories. There are infinite possibilities on how to tell a story, yet only certain directors have visionary status. Films are expensive, but that’s another subject. Now about Zodiac and TWBB…I’ll get back to you on that one.
Go to Comment
Directors at a change of pace...for better or for worse. over 3 years ago
Here we go again, this is sure to be highly debated.
Two films singled out by a colleage brought to mind this post: Zodiac and There Will Be Blood. Thanks, Shotzi.
Those two films are considered breakthroughs by critics, establishing a change of pace for David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson. They expanded on what they establised in their earlier work, and both films took a slower paced approach to telling their stories.
In fact, that’s the main problem for both. those two films left me cold, wondered what went on. I love long films more than the next guy, I love both director’s works, and I’m puzzled by the choices they made on those two films.
Zodiac is a complete bore, a movie that chronicles on obsessive fixation to a story that is anti climactic. Perhaps Fincher knew this, and concentrated on the procedural aspects and refused to cut it. TWBB is masterfully told, and a logical progression of Anderson’s talents.
Without the central performance, the film would not be what it is, the incidental details and secondary characters aren’t developed long enough for much bite past the initial conceit, and the film suffers at the end during the infamous climax. The staging, momentum, and narrative gear established for nearly three hours brought to an ending best divided by some. This is the element felt bothered the most out a great film.
So what does all this have to do with the filmmakers? it establishes a change of pace, something Fincher is tackling with dramatic chops with Benjamin Button, and PTA did with TWBB. These men are supreme technicians, and these films put them in a crossroads of expansion. That to me is good, as great directors expand their visions.
However…I did not like the films that brought them there. Thanks to Shotzi for gestating the idea to write the post.
Go to Comment
Why aren't films as good as they used to? over 3 years ago
Pablo Hutardo has a good point. Gems do exist, but our values are changing. Film culture is at a crossroads. It’s a cyclical process, something new comes out between the cracks.
Go to Comment
What is your most memorable film going experience? (Only one per post please!) over 3 years ago
I’ve had three.
Once, I went to see Showgirls while still in high school. I got a fake ID, and sat at lincoln square to see the sleaze. As the movie progressed, there would be sights of men looking at each other, embarrased at what we where watching. It was a classic night, and an example of how movies can make you feel in a dark theater full of people.
The next must be Batman. Summer of 89 was magical, we waited a long line across Loews 84th st. Once the Batman theme came on it was a great memory of my childhood.
The third had to be The Dark Knight. Amazing movie, the audience was floored.
Go to Comment