Claire Panke
Second Unit
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
- Messages
- 412
Ron Howard is a good craftsman - unlike a true commercial hack e.g. Chris Columbus - and thankfully, he doesn't always go for the lowest common denominator.
However, that doesn't mean I think much of the dumbed down A Beautiful Mind or its lame script by Akiva Goldsman. It is, however, a well crafted film with some terrific performances. Howard and his DP made some interesting choices and in the early scenes strikingly portrayed the POV of the main character. If only it had been in aid of a better movie.
So while I'll allow that Howard is a good craftsman (heck, I enjoyed Apollo 13 & The Paper) I disagree with Andrew that he always holds down the "sacharine" content - Cocoon & Backdraft reek of it - personally I find them unwatchable. Directing is, to a large extent, about choices, and although Howard tries hard, his sensibility and instincts often lead him toward the safe and/or easy cliche. (While I thought it was a wrongheaded mess, at least The Missing showed Opie attempting to take some risks and dig deeper.) You may want to blame the screenwriters for Howard's banalities, but they appear in his films too often for that - he either doesn't see them as cliches or doesn't have the cujones to reshape the material.
Howard is a reliable, polished, competent director but I don't look to him to stir my soul. Of course, he's much more valuable to Hollywood than a Martin Scorsese, because his films generally are consistent, safe commercial bets. But just because he's got a gold statue doesn't mean Opie is in the same artistic league as Marty.
Hehehe...BTW, if you're still reading, you should know that I'm a former student of Stan Brakhage, and believe it or not, Mr. Brakhage did watch and like "commercial" movies. Of course, most of them were made before 1960!
As to the original question: my answer is "yes", good directors are distinctive. Keeping in mind that film is a collaborative medium, the best directors shape material with their personal vision, whether directing for hire (The Aviator) or developing the material completely themselves (Maria Full Of Grace). A director's visual style might not be the same from film to film, but the "distinctive" director makes a choice (be it bold or be it subtle) specifically to tell the story in a specific way - flash for flash's sake, without meaning, is just visual wanking (this means you, Mr. Tarantino). Just because a director has many different colors on his/her palette doesn't mean he/she has to use ALL of them at once.
Film has its own language, a cinematic one. Yet the great directors understand that technique, important as it is, should serve the film, not the other way 'round. It's the marriage of quality material with a personal vision that makes memorable motion pictures. For me personally, directors that can bring strong visual chops to their projects, be they Zhang Yimou or David Lynch, are the most compelling.
(And BTW, if anyone thinks Woody Allen or Clint Eastwood are not visual storytellers, look again.)
However, that doesn't mean I think much of the dumbed down A Beautiful Mind or its lame script by Akiva Goldsman. It is, however, a well crafted film with some terrific performances. Howard and his DP made some interesting choices and in the early scenes strikingly portrayed the POV of the main character. If only it had been in aid of a better movie.
So while I'll allow that Howard is a good craftsman (heck, I enjoyed Apollo 13 & The Paper) I disagree with Andrew that he always holds down the "sacharine" content - Cocoon & Backdraft reek of it - personally I find them unwatchable. Directing is, to a large extent, about choices, and although Howard tries hard, his sensibility and instincts often lead him toward the safe and/or easy cliche. (While I thought it was a wrongheaded mess, at least The Missing showed Opie attempting to take some risks and dig deeper.) You may want to blame the screenwriters for Howard's banalities, but they appear in his films too often for that - he either doesn't see them as cliches or doesn't have the cujones to reshape the material.
Howard is a reliable, polished, competent director but I don't look to him to stir my soul. Of course, he's much more valuable to Hollywood than a Martin Scorsese, because his films generally are consistent, safe commercial bets. But just because he's got a gold statue doesn't mean Opie is in the same artistic league as Marty.
Hehehe...BTW, if you're still reading, you should know that I'm a former student of Stan Brakhage, and believe it or not, Mr. Brakhage did watch and like "commercial" movies. Of course, most of them were made before 1960!
As to the original question: my answer is "yes", good directors are distinctive. Keeping in mind that film is a collaborative medium, the best directors shape material with their personal vision, whether directing for hire (The Aviator) or developing the material completely themselves (Maria Full Of Grace). A director's visual style might not be the same from film to film, but the "distinctive" director makes a choice (be it bold or be it subtle) specifically to tell the story in a specific way - flash for flash's sake, without meaning, is just visual wanking (this means you, Mr. Tarantino). Just because a director has many different colors on his/her palette doesn't mean he/she has to use ALL of them at once.
Film has its own language, a cinematic one. Yet the great directors understand that technique, important as it is, should serve the film, not the other way 'round. It's the marriage of quality material with a personal vision that makes memorable motion pictures. For me personally, directors that can bring strong visual chops to their projects, be they Zhang Yimou or David Lynch, are the most compelling.
(And BTW, if anyone thinks Woody Allen or Clint Eastwood are not visual storytellers, look again.)
