Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 11:31
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Man, whats with all the rage and if you'll read my post again you'll see I said Scotts films are soul-less
to me so I'm quite aware that others milage may vary. Also what the fuck is with all these comparisons to Spielberg and talk of smashing hits neither of which I have been talking about? Great characterisation for me is the work of Leigh, Scorsese, Weir, the Coens, Allen, Kieślowski and I certainly don't measure the 'art' value of film by how much of a hit it was. I also think Spielberg does much better work with actors and characters than he is usually given credit for and your criticism is more than a little hyperbolic.
I do agree that Scott has a similar approach to Kubrick but I think he often chooses projects ill-suited to that. That is why I said I would be interested if he did something a little less standard in it's story telling and more abstract like Kubrick did. Let his meticulous craftmanship shine without getting held back by a conventional narrative with flat characters. Ridley Scotts films are also mainly mainstream blockbuster type films. While not of the 'tent-pole' variety they are certainly big ticket films. Not that that matters in the slightest but you seemed to making some implication on Spielbergs work based on them being blockbusters.
What rage? It's PASSION! :D
Well yes, they are soulless to you, that's why I question your sensibilities as a viewer. Why so defensive all of a sudden?
First, I was curous about your standards by which you chose your favs and put them in the list. I took Spielberg for comparison, because what he's best at are fantastic films, and so is Scott. We know we aren't talking about Bergman or Pasolini or Lynch class here, right. In fact, I was thinking about your list as a soup of several director of various classes and styles of work... that's why I got the idea "if he can and he can... why not also Scott?"
In reply to 242, you point out that your selected directors have many hits a nd your reason to include Spielberg is that he made "many of absolute or near classics that it would be crazy not to include him."
I don't really criticize petting with actors (what is Spielberg's way as you point out), I wanted to emphasize that there are different approach to director's work and that Kubrick's and Scott's apporach is fully equal to 'petting with actors' apprach. Just because one director is more preoccupied with picture and art direction doesn't make him less artist, don't you think... It's just a
different way...
Characterization is mostly responsibility of the script. Some scripts do offer in-depth characterization of the roles and some don't, and if they don't, then it's mainly on shoulders of the director and actor to invent an interesting character - but ultimately it's actor's skill which makes character vibrate on the screen or if the actor behaves just like a bored random bystander.
I agree that Scott could have had better idea what to do in recent years and I don't really believe he wasn't offered some really original stuff... I remember him saying few years back that he didn't do another sci-fi or horror, because he had no luck for material which interested him enough. But curiously - he is not a particular science fiction enthusiast. Then it's even more curious, how come he does sci-fi so well...
Morte : I see... Well, whatever was going on in the studios between them, Scott is known to hold the opinion that nowadays the audience is used to faster pacing and he likes to trim this and trim that, even though it's an interesting material - but not necessarily important for development of the story, as he sees it. Sometimes compromises like this are result of mutual misunderstanding in the production team and everyone shares his part of guilt. But as I haven't seen either version of the film, I can't make 'competent' judgement...
Thirith on 17/4/2009 at 11:36
I think we had this discussion before, RogueKeeper; while I agree that good actors can do a good job without a director's input, I also think that it's extremely difficult for a *cast of actors* to do a consistent, coherent job without a director's help. And this doesn't in any way have to mean palling around with the actors - sometimes being an ass to them or reverse psychology can lead to extremely good results. Leaving them to their own devices all too often can lead to performances that are good if seen in a vacuum but that do not cohere with the other performances and with the rest of the movie in a way that strengthens the entire film.
Edit: You can't argue that Kubrick spent a lot of time working with Shelley Duvall when he did The Shining. His approach wasn't really friendly or co-operative, but he definitely didn't leave her to her own devices - and the performance is pretty strong as a result. (Mind you, from an ethical point of view I have problems with what Kubrick did.) On the other hand, the human actors in 2001 are colourless and dull. Some of that may have been a conscious decision, obviously. Ridley Scott has made films where the acting is absolutely forgettable, and the films are weaker for it.
Angel Dust on 17/4/2009 at 12:02
I wholeheartedly argee Thirith. The director has a big hand in the performances and that's why you can get certain directors who can pull out great performances from unlikely actors. Characterization starts at the script stage for sure but it's the collaboration between the actor and director that fleshes it out. The actors work is what you see but the director is the one who chooses what to show you.
Quote:
Just because one director is more preoccupied with picture and art direction doesn't make him less artist.
When did I say that? Once again what makes Scott less of a director than he could be to me is that the projects he selects don't play to his strengths. Also I still don't know where you got this idea of 'hits' from since Scotts films out gross most of the directors on that list. Or are you taking some other meaning of 'hit', like say high critical acclaim? The quote regading Spielberg was in reference to his highly acclaimed films like
Jaws not say
Jurassic Park. And once again that list is not a list of my personal favs, even though I do love some of and like most of those directors, you crazy bastard :D!
Anyhoo I must remember to get
Kingdom of Heaven out this weekend. I feel like I could be in the mood for a visually sumptous epic. I'm guessing that I should stay well clear of any version that isn't the directors cut (In case my local DVD shop doesn't have that version.)?
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 12:04
Fine, but then the actors also can't always excuse their bland performances with "ohh my, the director didn't talk to me enough!" That wouldn't be very professional, because as every experienced actor should know, a director has a lot on his mind when he makes a picture.
In the end, director is the one who takes all bashes, but when you perceive film as a collective effort, it puts the film into different light. A director who is focused more on art direction should know how to choose his leads (and people from casting should know even better and be ready to advise him), who are known to be in accord with similar style of director's work and can think for themselves, under condition that the script and environment created. Because there ARE many actors who enjoy high level of freedom for development of their characters and who by experience know what type of director they are working with, and can adapt. Even production executives can give actors a helpful hand if the director is busy with art direction.
Thirith on 17/4/2009 at 12:13
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
Fine, but then the actors also can't always excuse their bland performances with "ohh my, the director didn't talk to me enough!" That wouldn't be very professional, because as every experienced actor should know, a director has a lot on his mind when he makes a picture.
In the end, director is the one who takes all bashes, but when you perceive film as a collective effort, it puts the film into different light. A director who is focused more on art direction should know how to choose his leads (and people from casting should know even better and be ready to advise him), who are known to be in accord with similar style of director's work and can think for themselves, under condition that the script and environment created. Because there ARE many actors who enjoy high level of freedom for development of their characters and who by experience know what type of director they are working with, and can adapt. Even production executives can give actors a helpful hand if the director is busy with art direction.
It *is* a director's job to co-ordinate everything and to make sure that the single elements cohere into a whole. Alternatively, a director might just say, "I don't have to bother with the look of the film, that's what I've got my DP for!" or "I don't have to worry about whether the narrative comes across as coherent - that's the job of the scriptwriter and the editor!" Taking your argument further, there would be no need for a director, because there are specialists who are responsible for every single aspect of a movie production.
Obviously a director chooses to work with people who don't need to be micro-managed, whether this is the cast or the crew - but he's still the one who has to make everything cohere in the end. If an actor gives a performance that is out of place, any director worth his money (with the necessary clout, of course) will stop this in its tracks. If he doesn't, he's not doing his job. Same with the DP, same with the composer, same with the editor etc. etc. You cannot expect any of the individual cast and crew members to look after a film's overall coherence
because that is not their job.
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 12:26
Director's job is also to say "Don't rationalize with me. Just do it."
Morte on 17/4/2009 at 12:30
Quote Posted by Angel Dust
Anyhoo I must remember to get
Kingdom of Heaven out this weekend. I feel like I could be in the mood for a visually sumptous epic. I'm guessing that I should stay well clear of any version that isn't the directors cut (In case my local DVD shop doesn't have that version.)?
Definitely, the director's cut is superior in every way. The main character is significantly more fleshed out*, and Eva Green's character is not a complete cipher, for instance.
*Still played by Orloondo Bland though, but you can't have everything.
Thirith on 17/4/2009 at 12:35
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
Director's job is also to say "Don't rationalize with me. Just do it."
that gets the necessary results. If it doesn't, then it's the director's job to do something different.
(P.S.: Not completely sure what you mean by "rationalise" up there.)
Rogue Keeper on 17/4/2009 at 12:49
Simply the fact that he's not supposed to explain his intentions why he does this or doesn't do that. Unless he speaks with the suits.
Good thing you mentioned DoP though... some directors love to be their own camera operators and would love to spend as much time behind camera as they can. Again, Scott belongs to this school. But if you compose the picture from behind the camera and not from a chair next to it and are preoccupied with camera setups and lighting and reflection and fog and this sort of technical thing - logically you have less time to pet with the actors. Unless you clone yourself. You can direct them from behind the camera, but setting up a scene takes much time before shooting.
In fact, many of responsibilities for performance of the crew fall on shoulders of the production executives. But production executives and screenwriters and DoPs aren't obvious and attractive targets for many reviewers, who regretfully often don't understand what is whose responsibility on the set. If you are ambitious to make an in-depth analytical review of a film, you can't just say "Director botched this and director botched that" because it implies lack of knowledge about film making process.
Scots Taffer on 17/4/2009 at 13:17
Okay, let's agree.
One or two movies does not equal a good track record, Ridley mostly comes across as a hack.
Also, Stan "the Man" Kubrick's record is equally fucking patchy, but I need to give most of his movies a working over with an adult eye. The first time through I thought The Shining was compellingly freaky but boring, I fell asleep during 2001 no less than three times on three viewings, Eyes Wide Shut had Nicole's ass at least, Full Metal Jacket was (and hopefully still is) the fucking bomb, Dr Strangelove was hilarious but culturally distant to me, and fuck the rest. Oh wait, Clockwork Orange... I still don't know if I have made my mind up on that one, probably need to see it again too.
