Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:02 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Are there any directors left? 
Author Message
Post Are there any directors left?
My question is are there any directors left that are not beholden to the Hollywood machine? I get the sense there are very few who are in the craft for the love of the craft. So many movies these days I can see are directed on the idea of money in wallets, not on talent, not on who could direct it best, just money. Also when big names started tainting the theaters with their 're-imaginings', or whatever perfume you want to cover those pigs in, I sensed a sad change emerging.

What happened to the Romeros of the world? Seems the only real maverick left is Robert Rodriguez. Even Tarantino has fallen in with the money machine...started with Kill Bill being two films instead of one. Isn't there any pride any more? John Waters doesn't count, he has never been known as a big name director. And while I have seen big lines to some of his films...he is not counted among the heavyweights...which is good.

You used to hear stories about how Romero drove around with NOTLD in his trunk trying to get it shown in theaters. How Hitchcock gave the finger to the studios when they wouldn't let him shoot Psycho in color due to the cost and the idea it wouldn't make money. Kevin Smith and the story we all know about how he got Clerks made. What happened?

My opinion is the hunger and need faded. Like bands and actors, once you get your hits and name made you just start making money. No product, no desire...just tripe and filler. We go from Spielberg making things like Saving Private Ryan to remaking War of the Worlds? How much pretentiousness do you need to have to do that? Lucas raped everyone with the last three first three Star Wars films...then kicked us all in the marbles by doing multiple releases of the same films when it was fans that made that b-movie work in the first place. It is happening all over the place. Throw a stone and you will hit a named director making something sub-par banking on namesake alone and public ignorance to drive sales.

Seems directors have become corporate America. We the consumer are the workers putting the cogs into their widgets so they can make money but are the first to suffer after the money has been made. Somewhere in that sentence is an analogy! lol And I do blame them, in the end they are the ones that decide 'Ok, I will sign on for that'. I realize you have a bigger machine running behind them, producers, film companies...but in the end it is their lack of respect for their profession, or in the sense of the remake, a lack of respect for fellow directors that guides them to abandon what it was that brought them into this medium in the first place. Someone take me back to the 70s I guess and before...

Don't get me started on actors...

What do you guys and gals think?


Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:02 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
My personal sense is that film studios are much more political than they make out to be. A young director that encounters success does get led by ambition into this "corporate machine" so to speak and being stuck within must overule the idea of not making films period. I would like to give them a bit more credit though. Just because a good movie makes a killing at the box office doesn't neccesarily mean it was made for those ends alone.
Looking at Kevin Smith, higher exposure and more financial backing allowed him to make 'Chasing Amy' which is considered his best work. The most recent release in the Askewniverse, Clerks 2, definetely measures up (if not trumps) the original!


Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:27 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
euphoric_daedalus wrote:
My personal sense is that film studios are much more political than they make out to be. A young director that encounters success does get led by ambition into this "corporate machine" so to speak and being stuck within must overule the idea of not making films period. I would like to give them a bit more credit though. Just because a good movie makes a killing at the box office doesn't neccesarily mean it was made for those ends alone.
Looking at Kevin Smith, higher exposure and more financial backing allowed him to make 'Chasing Amy' which is considered his best work. The most recent release in the Askewniverse, Clerks 2, definetely measures up (if not trumps) the original!


Ah, like the 'change the world' lawyers. I can see that...

I do not see Clerks 2 as the best Askewniverse has to offer though! lol It seemed forced to me. Had he dropped that right around or after Chasing Amy I think it would have been better...and he did make Jersey Girl and lobbied too hard and too earnestly for Affleck in Daredevil to the point I thought maybe the new BenJen was paying him somehow.

That being said, he is willing to speak his mind and damn the torpedoes and that still makes him relevant and worthwhile in my book. Sometimes he just really amazes me, but I'd like to see him go off in a new direction. I think he is far too intelligent and sharp film wise to just keep churning out comedies. As you mentioned Chasing Amy was brilliant!


Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:23 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
This idea that Hollywood is just starting to become less based on making good movies and more based on financial gain is false. That's been the definition of Hollywood since its inception.

There is no way Tarantino could have gotten Kill Bill released as one movie. He tried, and he failed. And did you see Death Proof? And what about that Inglorious Basterds movie coming out? He's not a part of the machine. He is very much making the kinds of films he wants to. If, in light of his other recent projects, your only critique is that Kill Bill was released as two films, it's really not something you can level on him as much as his distributors.

Hitchcock wanted to shoot Psycho in black and white. His idea was to make a great film for under a million. And Kevin Smith? Let's be honest, as knowledgeable as he is, he doesn't know how to make things that aren't raw, raunchy comedies, and he's admitted it, and that's okay. Sometimes great directors have their genres (Ford had westerns, Hitchcock had thrillers), and there's no shame in that.

What does pretentiousness have to do with making a mindless Hollywood adventure movie? Spielberg made his name with blockbuster fantasies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. I'm not saying War of the Worlds was good. Also, that film wasn't a "remake" - it was an adaptation of the original H.G. Welles novel. And what about Munich? Lucas had one great movie in him to direct; it's not fair to say he had a period where he was a great director beyond the first Star Wars.



Quote:
Throw a stone and you will hit a named director making something sub-par banking on namesake alone and public ignorance to drive sales.


Uhh... Scorsese? Polanski? Herzog? Lynch?

And as far as directors in general who aren't beholden to Hollywood... what about Darren Aronofsky? Alexander Payne? Wes Anderson? Christopher Nolan (even if you want to say the Batman movies were sellouts, The Prestige wasn't exactly a formula for a hit)? Guy Maddin? Gus Van Sant? Ang Lee? Paul Greengrass (United 93 wasn't exactly the type of content Hollywood was chomping at the bit to produce)? David Fincher? Alejandro González Iñárritu? Alfonso Cuarón? David Cronenberg (even if I'm not fond of his work, there's no doubt he doesn't direct commercial fare)? Lars von Trier? Tony Gilroy? Danny Boyle? I don't know whether you were counting foreign products or not, but Wong Kar-Wai, Pedro Almodóvar and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck have all made product that even in their regional cinemas have dealt with uncomfortable and uncommercial subjects and filmmaking styles. Certainly all of those directors are more "maverick" than Robert Rodriguez; half of his films have been sequels to his most financially lucrative work.

There is no "sad change emerging". The 2000s have been a great decade for film and the emergence and maturation of great auteurs. You're just not watching the right movies.


Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:16 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
I'm probably a bigger Smith fan than all of you (for better or worse), and he's really a better filmmaker than he gives himself credit for. Although raunchy comedies may be his forte, he's mentioned on a number of occasions that he wants to try different things. He's got a horror film and superhero movie coming up, which are way out of left field for him. I'll be surprised if he can make the horror film, too, because he's never once said that the thing's commercially viable. But there's a filmmaker who's doing something he wants to do, not for the money.

You know, there are a filmmakers who only make stuff to pay their mortgage, but I have to say that most of them are not like that. Some have less power and end up being controlled more by the studio's intentions and less by theirs, and then there are people like George Lucas. As something of a filmmaker myself, I get it. Money matters. Marketing matters. If you want proof of that, see how Zack and Miri Make a Porno did at the box office compared to Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Role Models. That movie deserved to succeed as much as the other two because Smith made the exact movie he wanted to make (and I laughed), but it barely made its budget back due to The Weinstein Company. (They were probably too busy stuffing The Reader down voters' throats.) Honestly, writers and directors have the best of intentions. You can definitely argue there are hacks in Hollywood, but they are few and far between. Even Spielberg's a bad example; who thinks Lincoln is going to turn out like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? It'll probably be closer to a Munich-like effort.


Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:37 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
worstofreel wrote:
There is no "sad change emerging". The 2000s have been a great decade for film and the emergence and maturation of great auteurs. You're just not watching the right movies.


Yep..that must be it. My lack of knowledge and what I watch. And the Hitchcock story I have always heard is it was studio pressure to not make it and he ran with the lower cost stock. But I guess I was wrong. As for anyone not being able to control anything, I have to say I doubt that these big names have so little say. Tarantino could have got Kill Bill as one movie and using Grindhouse as an example of how that wouldn't work doesn't wash. It didn't work because the public was too dumb to realize it was a double feature and meant as such, plain and simple.

I respect all that you wrote, but saying I have no basis due to a lack of watching the 'right' movies doesn't hold up. What are the right movies pray tell? So I may redeem myself and watch them?


Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:07 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Pedro wrote:
I'm probably a bigger Smith fan than all of you (for better or worse), and he's really a better filmmaker than he gives himself credit for. Although raunchy comedies may be his forte, he's mentioned on a number of occasions that he wants to try different things. He's got a horror film and superhero movie coming up, which are way out of left field for him. I'll be surprised if he can make the horror film, too, because he's never once said that the thing's commercially viable. But there's a filmmaker who's doing something he wants to do, not for the money.

You know, there are a filmmakers who only make stuff to pay their mortgage, but I have to say that most of them are not like that. Some have less power and end up being controlled more by the studio's intentions and less by theirs, and then there are people like George Lucas. As something of a filmmaker myself, I get it. Money matters. Marketing matters. If you want proof of that, see how Zack and Miri Make a Porno did at the box office compared to Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Role Models. That movie deserved to succeed as much as the other two because Smith made the exact movie he wanted to make (and I laughed), but it barely made its budget back due to The Weinstein Company. (They were probably too busy stuffing The Reader down voters' throats.) Honestly, writers and directors have the best of intentions. You can definitely argue there are hacks in Hollywood, but they are few and far between. Even Spielberg's a bad example; who thinks Lincoln is going to turn out like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? It'll probably be closer to a Munich-like effort.


I understand that a movie has to make money to be worthwhile, I mean that is the nature of any business. If you make something and it doesn't make money, well that makes no sense either. I am meaning that there seems to be a lack of desire to make a good movie over a desire to make something that will be a lesser offering but will make money anyway. I guess I just get boggled how you can get Reservoir Dogs one day and Kill Bill the next from the same mind. Or Schindler's List and War of the Worlds. I don't think these guys are hacks, I just wonder how they lost the thing that drove them to be who they are. I hate to say it but that last thing that impressed me, right or wrong, was Robert Rodriguez forfeiting his Guild card so that Frank Miller could receive proper credit. I have a hard time thinking the big names in their current persona's would do that. I don't think the argument 'But they have more to lose' stands. He had just as much to lose and any of them regardless of how much work they have done, and it didn't hurt him any that I can see.

Maybe I am lost in my own point though too...sometimes it is hard to articulate accurately in text what one thinks. I still respect anyone who is willing to work hard to get things to the audience but I at times question the motivation of some of that work in light of how much just average product has been put out. You expect more I from the Scorceses, Spielbergs, etc. and when that isn't delivered you feel slighted I suppose. It's like this: If a teenager pulls a stupid stunt you kind of expect that. If the same stunt is pulled by say...a Supreme Court judge you tend to think it out of character and you expected more from them. Only the teen is lower ranked directors and the judge is guys like your Polanskis [though not recently] Cronenbergs [only recently a somewhat Hollywood marketable guy] and 'Insert Big Name Here' type.

For the record, I don't 'skip' a beloved director's work because it may seem bad, but I will criticize it if it is...Ninth Gate anyone?


Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:33 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Sci Fi Wasabi wrote:
Yep..that must be it. My lack of knowledge and what I watch. And the Hitchcock story I have always heard is it was studio pressure to not make it and he ran with the lower cost stock. But I guess I was wrong. As for anyone not being able to control anything, I have to say I doubt that these big names have so little say. Tarantino could have got Kill Bill as one movie and using Grindhouse as an example of how that wouldn't work doesn't wash. It didn't work because the public was too dumb to realize it was a double feature and meant as such, plain and simple.

I respect all that you wrote, but saying I have no basis due to a lack of watching the 'right' movies doesn't hold up. What are the right movies pray tell? So I may redeem myself and watch them?


Tarantino got more clout to have Grindhouse as a double feature because of the financial success of both Kill Bill volumes. He's a big name, but before Kill Bill he didn't have the combination of consistent mega-hit movies and overwhelming name notoriety to release a film that long into theaters. And I'm pretty sure Grindhouse didn't work simply because those kinds of self-aware exploitation satires just don't appeal to the public at large.

It's really easy for myths about directors and their classics to get widely circulated (e.g. "Hitchcock didn't direct the shower scene, Saul Bass did"), so I don't blame you for the misconception with Psycho's budget.

As far as what movies you should watch? I'd recommend looking up the best acclaimed recent works of all the directors I listed up there. I think it'll really change your mind about there being no more mavericks left if you just watch films from five of those directors, let alone all of them.


Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Hmmm

I'm not sure I agree with this argument... sorry

The whole world of independent cinema is full of people who are working for their dreams. One of my favorite movies in years was American Movie. Two guys make a doc about making a horror movie. It is priceless.

Now Michael Bay is corporate but the studios are giving him hundreds of millions of dollars

But Clint Eastwood is not
Woody Allen is not
Martin Scorsese?
Werner Herzog?
I could go on

Rob


Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:55 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Somehow either my translation from mind to page got muddled, or I need to define certain things more clearly I don't know. I keep seeing a lot of names being tossed to me that I guess I am supposed to be in awe of...

Let me start by explaining my idea of what a maverick is. Someone who makes a movie out of belief and love of their art is becoming the maverick. Getting things done off name clout doesn't impress me. And what I have seen in the name dropping is not evidence of being a maverick. What is the studio going to do really, pass them up? Actually maybe I misspoke by using that word at all. My intent was to bring in focus the perception that there has been a marketed shift in quality of some of the...heavy hitters that has left me feeling ripped off. The maverick idea I think was the length anyone would go to get their vision out for all to see. I don't think most would drop their DG card so that someone can be named properly for the work they did on a movie. I'd love to hear someone slapping an actor to get a specific reaction out of them for a scene. I don't think many people outside of the guys scraping funding together are in it anymore for the game.

So I am re-sculpting my original inquiry and making it more clear [maybe] my point. An example of turning out whatever works for a check lies within Wes Craven. How does a guy go from delivering us Last House on the Left to having his name attached to and being involved with garbage like Scream2-4, Dracula 2000, or Wishmaster? He's an easy one to target because it has been really blatant.

But of the names obligatorily tossed at me, some of these are guilty of it too. And not just the old Wile E. Coyote line of 'Even a genius can have an off day'. I am talking weak product that sold nonetheless because so many people go just on name attachment, and repeat offenses. The man who made Munich, Schindler's List, and Amistad shouldn't be involved with tripe like his portion of A.I., nor things like War of the Worlds, Minority Report, The Terminal or the awful final chapter in the Indiana Jones saga. I keep seeing Woody Allen's name. Ok, this guy has been off for a few movies. But because he is Woody Allen, everyone forgets releases like Curse of the Jade Scorpion or Scoop. Perhaps that is unfair as I generally think Allen is a lot less talented than people are willing to admit. Except with Match Point. I was impressed by that one. As for others...well let's see who has be thrust at me. Some I cannot find a lot of fault with outside of that I just don't see the fuss everyone else heaps on them. Herzog is one of them. He makes a decent film, but I wonder if it is his talent or the fact that he ran with such a wild character as Kinski? Decent or no, Rescue Dawn stunk. I cared more about Chuck Norris' POW in Missing in Action 2 than Deiter. A rare miss but a miss nonetheless. Lynch...being confusing and oblique does not talent make. As for Alejandro González Iñárritu, not enough work for me to consider in this style of argument. Lars von Trier may not be Hollywood per se but he is not exactly a known name outside of art house viewers. The argument about whether or not anything made was made for art or money is a bit moot...after all Waterworld was a financial success...but there are some differences; Memento vs. The Prestige. The former was for certain for love of the game, maybe both. But look at the difference in who headlined. Guy Pearce vs. the fresh faces of Bale and Jackman? Not really the same. I have yet to hear of a financial failure involving ANY of the names I know that were tossed about but I have seen absolute shit work from some of them.

I won't go on because it is pointless. By turns I am either just wrong, or not educated enough of film to warrant an opinion. All I have seen really in responses has been blind fealty. Almost a religiosity feel. I think that is in part a portion of my point. Are these guys really good, really outside the norm, or is it blind devotion? As for my validity in movies and judging works of film...one need not be a gourmet chef to realize when food tastes like crap. Conversely reading a Chiltons manual doesn't make you a mechanic either. I need not know the entire works of Allen, Scorcese, Herzog, Lynch, Lee, Spielberg, Polanski, etc. though to know when they have dropped the ball. Receipts or not. That is not to say I do not think the opinions expressed are invalid or without merit, just that I don't see it the same way. I must be the only one though...

Maybe from my standpoint I haven't really been all that impressed yet and notice when a misstep is released more than most. But I think this mule has reached its limit as far as posts go.


Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:22 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
You sound like you live in an ivory tower where everything you've ever done is correct and perfect.

Everybody makes mistakes. It would be silly to throw away an entire body of work because the artist made a misstep. It's very possible to love a director, and ignore his lesser works. It works the same in music, books, and every other medium.

By your definition, an artist can only be truly known as a "Maverick" if they work for themselves their entire lives, never making a mistake, or a less than perfect movie. They have to toil away for half their lives securing financing for their films not based on their name recognition, but based entirely on the merits of the film alone.

Bills need to be paid, mouths need to be fed, and bodies need to be housed. If this was a utopia where everyone could sit around crafting art everyday, your vision might be possible. It's not even plausible in reality.

Stop hating, it's bad for your skin.


Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:23 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
[quote="Sci Fi Wasabi"]Somehow either my translation from mind to page got muddled, or I need to define certain things more clearly I don't know. I keep seeing a lot of names being tossed to me that I guess I am supposed to be in awe of...

<snip >


Hi there, SCW

Wow, this is cleary an issue . I'll try and ofer some feedback.

Steven Spielberg is a commercial film maker who also delivers very personal movies. He is allowed the enormous budgets and freedom because of his vast commercial successes for the studios. AI was a failure (IMHO) but was not 'tripe". He made the film because of his relationship with Stanley Kubrick. I think Minority Report is simply outstanding on all levels. In fact i think James gave it 4*. I liked War of the Worlds as interesting . The reality is that if a film maker works for 30 years every effort will not be great. Anyone going to see IJ4 thinking it a personal work from a maverick was deluded.

Werner Herzog is one of our greatest living directors - no arguments there i think? I really liked Rescue Dawn and was very intrigued to see Herzog making a drama out of his previous documentary. it was not great (3* for me) but it did not stink! I'm sorry, but his breadth of work over 30 years makes the comment about Kinski hard to understand. Have you seen Grizzly Man? No Klaus in sight. He's also one of the most interesting human beings.

Wes Craven - he's made some great horror movies. However, I really think you fail to understand a bigger picture than movies. These guys have to eat. He needs to pay the bills, so he needs to make movies. It's hard to do nothing for ten years while waiting around for another masterpiece. Trust me, as i've been involved in the creative process. You don't start out intending to make a bad or even average movie.

The truth amidst all of this is that very great director will make some masterpieces, some very good and some weaker movies. However, even within the weaker works there is often more to be enjoyed than the paint by numbers typical studio output from film makers who never could get there.

So let's finally return to Werner Herzog. Have you seen last year's "Encounters at the End of the World"? it is not one of his great works (3*). However, there is enough within it to make we remember it with deep affection. Anyone who has followed his work closely will see touches of his genius sprinkled across the snow that he is filming. Most directors would kill to have made that film.

SFW - you're not wrong at all. We just have a different opinion.

My mule would say to your mule. "Now go and rent "Au Hasard Balthasar" and then let's talk some more :-)

all the best
Rob


Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:38 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Quote:
Sci Fi Wasabi wrote: Let me start by explaining my idea of what a maverick is. Someone who makes a movie out of belief and love of their art is becoming the maverick. Getting things done off name clout doesn't impress me. And what I have seen in the name dropping is not evidence of being a maverick. What is the studio going to do really, pass them up? Actually maybe I misspoke by using that word at all. My intent was to bring in focus the perception that there has been a marketed shift in quality of some of the...heavy hitters that has left me feeling ripped off. The maverick idea I think was the length anyone would go to get their vision out for all to see. I don't think most would drop their DG card so that someone can be named properly for the work they did on a movie. I'd love to hear someone slapping an actor to get a specific reaction out of them for a scene. I don't think many people outside of the guys scraping funding together are in it anymore for the game.


Let's take James Cameron for example. He has long had the reputation of doing EVERYTHING his way. He will shoot a scene 100 times over just to get proper eyebrow placement. I'm pretty sure maverick is in his blood. Hell he has had to wait since 1995 to develop new technology just to be able to film Avatar the way HE wants. And even though Cameron I believe is one of the few billionaires in hollywood, he is still showing determination and patience for ,what seems like to me, the quality of his work coming first.


Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:16 am
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
I think there are a number of directors who are making exactly the movies they want to make that I wouldn't consider part of the Hollywood system.

David Fincher
M. Night Shyamalan
Martin Scorsese
Paul Thomas Anderson
Clint Eastwood
Mel Gibson


Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:30 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
At the moment, I'm very much into Shane Meadows. He made one film that the studio took over and what ended up on screen was basically not his own vision, so he went back to the drawing board and has come away, I think, a better director and writer. His early work is more introspective.

Also worth mentioning is Paddy Considine. I managed to see his first film, Dog Altogether and it was excellent.

The Coen brothers are too leftfield I think to sell out to the Hollywood system, unlike Tarantino who is now too mainstream compared to where he was with his earlier, and best films. On the flipside, Christopher Nolan, although now one of the most recognised directors, still sticks close to his indie roots with films like The Prestige.


Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:28 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Sci Fi Wasabi wrote:
My opinion is the hunger and need faded. Like bands and actors, once you get your hits and name made you just start making money. No product, no desire...just tripe and filler. We go from Spielberg making things like Saving Private Ryan to remaking War of the Worlds? How much pretentiousness do you need to have to do that?


First, I have to task if you're aware of Spielberg's catalog of work. 'Saving Private Ryan' is an anomaly, dating all the way back to Jaws. With a few notable exceptions, Spielberg's a commercial director. If you don't like his commercial work, that's fine (I like some of it--I personally thought 'War of the Worlds' was a good flick), but he's always been a commercial director.

In fact, even in his less commercial stuff, he has trouble not being cute. Think back to 'Saving Private Ryan.' Remember the scene where Tom Hanks' character is wounded, we know the end is near, and the tank is approaching? He pulls out his sidearm and fires in defiance at the tank, only to have it explode.

But then . . . wait, it wasn't his bullet after all, it was a P-51. Oh, that Spielberg, he tricked us.

That was an Indiana Jones moment in what should have been (and, for the most part, was) a serious film about a serious subject.

In short, people are who they are. I personally think a lot of the so-called maverick directors aren't nearly as maverick as they seem--they make unusual films early in their careers because they have small budgets. Give a guy a ton of money to make a movie and you'll see who he is. Are there exceptions? Sure. Is that cynical? Yeah.

Still, I have respect for a guy like Spielberg not because he's about great art (let's face it, anyone who saw the last Indiana Jones knows he ain't about art), but because he's an oftentimes entertaining popcorn director who occasionally shoots for something more.

I think there are many directors working who fit that mold.


Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:44 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
I think that most, if not all filmmakers truly love to do what they do. I think that when you see a "crappy' horror flick that comes out, which appears to be just like everything else in the genre, it is because of pressure from the studio. I think that your anger should be directed at the studios, who are the real bullies of the system, at least IMO.

In fact, I think that the directors are probably the most passionate people working for a movie. Think of it like this: the director is the artist, who comes up with the artistic idea, and who's job it is to mold that idea into something entertaining, and something heartfelt for an audience to see. The audience is the paying customers who rummage about in the museum, taking in the different paintings. The actors are the materials. That is, the easel, the paints, the brush. They all use their skills to help the director to craft his vision into a motion picture.

And the studios? Well, they are the museum. They do not care so much about the artwork itself, but they care for how it will attract customers. They wonder where they should place it, so that they can get more observers(marketing). They figure out how to make it appeal to the paying customers, who want to see an ultimately great product.

So, that's my analogy for the day.


Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:50 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
etifupleez wrote:
In fact, I think that the directors are probably the most passionate people working for a movie. Think of it like this: the director is the artist, who comes up with the artistic idea, and who's job it is to mold that idea into something entertaining, and something heartfelt for an audience to see. The audience is the paying customers who rummage about in the museum, taking in the different paintings. The actors are the materials. That is, the easel, the paints, the brush. They all use their skills to help the director to craft his vision into a motion picture.

What about the screenwriters?


Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:06 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
mailedbypostman wrote:
etifupleez wrote:
In fact, I think that the directors are probably the most passionate people working for a movie. Think of it like this: the director is the artist, who comes up with the artistic idea, and who's job it is to mold that idea into something entertaining, and something heartfelt for an audience to see. The audience is the paying customers who rummage about in the museum, taking in the different paintings. The actors are the materials. That is, the easel, the paints, the brush. They all use their skills to help the director to craft his vision into a motion picture.

What about the screenwriters?


I meant (or at least tried to mean) the actual production of the film, while the film is physically being produced in other words. If I were including the screenwriters, there is no doubt that they would be at the top of the list, but I was trying to prove a point that directors have boatloads of talent.


Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:15 pm
Post Re: Are there any directors left?
Martin Scorsese


Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:28 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr