 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Nothing against entertainment posted by mvwine on November 27, 2002 at 07:10:42:
I guess it depends upon your definition of "great director." He is a great director on several levels. He knows how to tell an entertaining story, his camera work is very good, and he (mostly) picks good scripts to direct. Is he a "great art film" director? No, because he's not making art films.There is one scene in "Jaws" that always gets me. It's just a little camera move that is subtle but interesting in concept. Roy Scheider is sitting in the beach chair and the kid is thrashing around in the water, which get's Scheider's attention. The camera is pointed directly at his face and then dollies back and the lens is pushed (zoomed in) to final framing. It gives a terrific dynamic to what should be a standard "reaction shot."
He also has fun with a lot of his films, which is something I like to see. In "Close Encounters," the scene with Richard Dryfuss in his bathrobe throwing shrubs through the kitchen window is priceless.
Yeah, he does "product," but it's mostly a quality product with a pretty good entertainment value. Within a certain genre (entertainment films) he is certainly one of the best.
I'd like to have you give me some of the directors who make "art" so that I can get an idea of who you like and consider a great director and more importantly, why?
??The whole sled, just the word - or both??
Follow Ups:
on my chest, the sled goes elsewhere.Jaws - my favorite is when Scheider first sees the shark, and says "Your gonna need a bigger boat" - classic. And "Jaws" on the whole was a decent film. But the audience was wowed not by the story, but by the mechanical shark. So it's like Spielberg, along with the rest of Hollywood said "AH! That's what will sell movies - big special effects and action sequences" - and the rest is history.
See the thread below about "great American directors", and add the usual suspects from the international ranks - Fellini, Bergman, Kurosowa, etc. and you'll have a good idea of what I consider "art". But I admit some ignorance of foreign directors - especially recent ones. Victor and Patrick are a much better source.
I gave at the office!
Does one great film make a great director? Or, does the director need to do more than one film of a certain "art" stature before he (or she) is considered "great"? (Orson Welles certainly peaked and/or flamed out right after "Citizen Kane," for example.)You see, here's my problem with the entire premise of a director making "art." Movies (and therefore the directors who make them) fall into different categories as to why the movie is considered a classic or great movie.
1. Films that have broken technological ground and have had an undeniable influence (both positive and negative) on altering or advancing the development of cinema.
2. Films that have special qualities of excellence in acting, directing, script or story writing, scoring, or production that have blended together to create a critically-acclaimed "great film."
3. Films that have won major recognition with film awards and other honors from annual film award organizations
4. Films that have a legendary, satisfying, never-fading appeal.
5. Films that represent the peak of achievement for a screen performer or director.
6. Films that are the best and primary examples within a film genre.
People seem to want to limit consideration of a film being "great art" to category #2, and then specifically limit their considerations only to directing, script or story writing.
My question is why?
For example, while Billy Wilder made many classic movies, you never see him thought of as a director of "art" films along with Bergman, et al.
How about "Double Indemnity" (1944)? It was nomnated for seven Academy Awards. Wilder wrote the script, and directed the movie (nominated for both). That was his fourth Acadamy Award nomination for writing and his first nomination for best director (his third movie).
"Double Indeminity" defines the film noir style. So, is Wilder considered a director of an "art" film? Probably not, because "Double Indemnity" was a commercial success, which seems by "art film" definition, to disqualify both the film and director.
Doesn't have the "arty cachet" of a money loser, under-appreciated, great script, film, director - whatever. This is one of main reasons the film snobs depricate Spielberg's films - he has the temerity to actually make films that are popular and make money.
such as "pop art", "folk art", etc. - But what they all do is reflect and communicate the individual artist's interface with reality. In film, this does not need to be limited to one genre - the so-called "art film". A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.You can have an action/adventure, a comedy, a drama, a sci-fi movie, and they can all be "art".
Also, a lot of the great classic films DID make money in their day. The problem is that today's audience wants the movie equivalent of fast food.
I gave at the office!
A film like "Saving Private Ryan" could have been art - if Spielberg would have drawn on his personal emotions or experiences and show us (through the performance of an actor, dialogue, lighting, cinematography, whatever) those emotions or experiences.It's too much to define what art is. A film like Saving Private Ryan, IMO, demands the director to be as objective as possible. Spieldberg clearly has enough crafts and skills to be qualified as an artist. But it's not about the knowledge but the choices that he makes. It appears his recent films are always made in a "timely" fashion with respect to current politics and culture to satisfy popular demands. If that has always been his intention, then the film values won't last very long as politics as well as culture change.
OTH, there's no reason for an artist not to make a little cash once in a while. Deniro did it; Brando did it, perhaps ahead of his time.
mvwine, you seem very attached to this idea of "personal connection" in art. i think you need to consider that a little more.does it matter if i told you that michelangelo's greatest work was commissioned by someone who wanted him to decorate their ceiling with a certain theme in mind? or that a painting of leonardo da vinci's was paid for by a rich man who told him what he wanted in the painting?
the art that we find in these things is the application of technique.
contrast this with stephen king, who probably writes horror because that's what he's personally most into, and who's rich enough that he can write whatever he wants without thinking about how much it'll sell.
so it all goes back to my question to you, which is, "what's the value of making these distinctions?"
the fact that something made money, or was comissioned does not necessarily preclude it from being art. The definition of art is that it reflects something personal.And the importance of making these distinction is, well, personal.
I gave at the office!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
