 
|
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 |
O.K., I know both are lacking. But which one is the worst?
What got me to thinking was actors like Al Pacino. He has had some fine performances but he also has a tendency to overact, examples - Scent of A Woman, Heat, Devil's Advocate. I know this is not news to anyone, but is Pacino a hit and miss actor, or are there just not enough good directors out there to know how to get the most out of him?My thinking is that it must be directors. Directors are measured by boxoffice gross, not artistic acheivment.
Any other opinions?
Follow Ups:
The problem is there are tooooo many directors...and most of them mediocre. Having a DGA card these days is like having a penny in your pocket...there isn't one around when you really need it.The cinema schools have cranked them out like link sausages, coupled with this and the fact, that studios can throw a pencil and find a cheap director that will work for scale, so their overhead is very low and the money can go to the actors, but most likely to pay for the high cost of music rights, which is probably the most single important production element, aside for the stars!
There are very, very few directors who command high salaries, like there were in the old days...but very many directors, that are more journeyman technicians, that literally have no trackrecords to speak of. It's to the advantage of producers like Joe Roth, Jerry Bruckheimer, where they can just find a good technician "director", really cheap. I don't even think you can call them directors in the classic sense...they are nothing but glorified traffic cops.
Hollywood is an exceptionally well-run factory.You say Al Pacino overacting? I'd say just the right amount to guarantee the commercial success - that is why he is hired. Scent of a Woman was another American feel-good joke, that with the 'blind race' scene - VERY very American. If you have not seen the original film with Vittorio Gassman (same title) - the Italian one, it had none of that Hollywood crap and was much more involving, not too good or strong, but certainly none of that southern CA stench.
So you need to blame the viewers first. Sure, Hollywood sets the tone, but it also constantly checks the reaction. People run in droves to see another Titanic - and another Titanic they get. People pay to see Julia Roberts and George Clooney - and guess who's gonna be in the next film?
If no one went to see the next piece of trash, then Hollywood would turn around quickly. Its directors are professional, editors and cameramen first rate, there are many fine actors, I doubt there is any shortage of original scripts.
So what's missing from that equation?
Right... the viewers.
Vittorio Gassman...delicious,in The Scent..
Every film with him was an event. Man was born to play the Roman Emperors.
Yes..Nothing to do with the over cooked Italo / Americans actors a la De Niro or Pacino.. The olders they get the more they become caricaturals of themselfs..brrr...terrible.
I think you hit it squarely on. It is probably true of many actors who are not too deep - as their success goes into their heads. I think neither of those two guys have made a decent film in 20 years, but they have REPUTATION.De Niro? Give me a break. What good actor would drop to that Meet the Parents crap?
I stongly avoid them...since...twenty years.
Some good points. However, I think it's unfortunately part of a bigger phenomenon. Sub-mediocre works are increasingly apparent in many areas, some of which used to be serious disciplines, as a result of the diversity and inclusivity that are fashionably forced upon them. Superficial judgements are inevitable once one has too many to absorb. And this results in the culture of celebrity that creates the fantacy, the illusion that as long as you make a movie, write a book, publish an article, or appear in public light, then you are automatically somebody.This massitivity fortunately also produces finer products or at least recognitions of substandard ones. For example, 'Freddy Got Fingers' received multiple-category nominations for the worst movie of the year, and deservedly so. It is actually more interesting to be an observing participant as it requires working a little harder to distinguish the finer pieces.
As far as movies are concerned, I think today we have very fine actors and directors. And we do see occasionally exceptional works.
Hollywood just follow where the money is. If viewer are asking for s... Hollywood is going to give them some s... in return for their $$$.As movie lover myself, I certainly feel lonely in some way, nobody knows most of the movies I'm talking about.
It all comes down to "Lowest Common Denominator". Mass-market stuff always becomes crap, even if it didn't start out that way. But American blockbusters usually do well abroad also, do they not? So this must not be a strictly American phonomena. Maybe Hollywood turns out so much crap that it sates the world's appetite for crap, so non-American filmmakers can concentrate on more quality work.Of course, I'm not trying to say American film is NEVER good, or Non-American film is ALWAYS good, it just seems to be the trend.
Another thing that made me think of this Actor/Director thing was an interview with Woody in which he said he would love to have big-name actors such as Cruise, Harrison Ford, et al in his movies, he just couldn't afford them. That surprised me.
The phenomenon is not strictly American, but with twist.In most countries around the world anythng American is treated in a special way. Sometimes with disgust, but always with strong interest. That is why, for instance, the French will pay for those films.
For that reason any new highly acclaimed piece of Hollywood is accepted in those countries.
By comparisson, very few foreign movies make it here, none of them has great commercial success, so the exchange is highly lopsided.
We saturate their markets with substandard but highly viewed production, they respond with miniscule stream of mostly good films.
BUT, in addition they moan and bitch about US destroying their subtle viewership with all that crap, while in fact they too, have nobody else to blame...
"BUT, in addition they moan and bitch about US destroying their subtle viewership with all that crap, while in fact they too, have nobody else to blame..."Reminds me of the complaints about McDonalds. If no one ate there, they'd close down.
So, what you're saying (if I understand) is that there is somewhat of a xenophobia (God, I sound like Rob) when it comes to the American viewing public. They could care less for most foreign films. While the opposite is true in other countries. They readily accept American films. I know I would probably have to tie my wife down to watch a subtitled film, although she has reasonably good taste in American films, and other areas as well. An interesting cultural phenomenon.
The principal reason in France (and maybe elsewhere) that junk US films are foisted on the public is the monopoly of the huge multi-complexs run by companies like Gaumont & UGC, who've driven the independant cinema out of town. But I do agree that that's also a large diet of the public.
Prime example is the movie "Gladiator"; the medium and era has changed, but the audience hasn't. "Let them eat cake..."
Eric
Tokyo*
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 ]
