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??
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Nothing against entertainment - Fang 09:16:00 11/27/02 (6)
- He, he ... just the word - mvwine 09:44:30 11/27/02 (5)
- let me ask a few questions... - Fang 10:45:41 11/27/02 (4)
- Different kinds of art - mvwine 11:15:01 11/27/02 (3)
- Re: Different kinds of art - caa 15:17:35 11/28/02 (0)
- Re: Different kinds of art - TA 12:27:15 11/27/02 (1)
- And again, - mvwine 12:51:50 11/27/02 (0)