The Greatest American Director Working Today (1 Viewer)

[Nathan V]

Totally forgot about Lynch and the Coens.

After seeing Mulholland Drive, I am in absolute awe of David Lynch. His best work, in my opinion; a rare case of a director's latest being his best. Blue Velvet and Eraserhead were very good; Wild at Heart was good/interesting; haven't seen Lost Highway yet (we know why ).

I like the Coens. I would not, however, place them in the category of the greats. Their work is consistently very good, minus a few hiccups, but I don't see why everybody loves them so damn much. Their work is very well thought-out, often hilarious, usually quite engaging, but not, in my eyes, 'great.' Of course, its been quite a while since I've seen one of their classics, so maybe it's time for a reevaluation.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"The rainstorm T-rex attack is note perfect..."

Well, except for that moment where a cliff face suddenly appears where once stood a T-Rex feeding pen. You have to watch the animatics for that to make sense - there was a planned shot where the T-Rex grabbed the jeep and drug it further down the road. In the final film, there is no explanation how in one minute there is a T-Rex pen next to road, and then in the next, a sudden drop. JP is a fun film, but one marred with all sorts of little editorial oopsies.

This isn't even the worst of the bunch - the worst cut in the film is Malcolm sitting in the jeep, resting his broken leg, looking down as a puddle begins to vibrate. "It's an impact tremor - I'm fairly alarmed here." Then, Spielberg cuts off-axis to a shot off to the rear of the jeep, with Malcolm gesturing wildly, "Come on! Come on! Come on!" There is either a scene missing there, or the Malcolm-puddle scene was supposed to appear earlier. Daily Variety mentioned obliquely that there were cuts in the film not worthy of a filmmaker of Spielberg's caliber, and such things fueled rumours that Spielberg had neglected the dino film in a rush to get to Poland to prep Schindler's List. JP is a fun film, and as it turned out, an important one as well, but I personally can't call it a great film.

 

[Brian W.]

Such as Guy Richie? I hated "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" worse than any film I've seen in the past decade.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Steve Spielberg would run a close second for me."

Were you aware that nobody calls Mr. Spielberg "Steve"? Just one of the things you're warned about if you're crewing a Spielberg shoot. Steven, yes. Steve, no.

"His style is radically different from Marty's, he is certainly not as skilled technically"

Spielberg's primary influences are Frank Capra, Alfred Hitchcock, William Wyler, and Walt Disney. The directors he claims to admire most are people like Wyler and Victor Fleming, who could tackle multiple genres. Spielberg's career is amazingly diverse, with true-life crime stories, sea adventures, Dickensian tales of abuse and struggle in the Old South, science fiction, science fantasy, war dramas, legal dramas, fantasy adventure, family films...the only things we're missing from him are gangster films, a musical or two, and maybe a western.

Is he as skilled technically as Martin Scorsese? Spielberg is a gear head and is always on top of the latest in film technology. Ditto Scorsese, however they use film language in radically different ways. Spielberg is an instinctual director, Scorsese is more cerebral. Spielberg shoots from his heart, looking for moments of great emotional power. Scorsese shoots from his head, and uses his camera to mimic the slow contemplation of human memory and the quick immediacy of human eyesight. Scorsese has tremendous taste -- the late Victor Argo once told me Spielberg had enormous respect for Scorsese's knowledge of film and his taste in film. Spielberg walks the tightrope, looking for those emotional moments - sometimes he slips. But when he's on, he is something to see.

The only reason I haven't selected Spielberg as my choice for "Greatest Living American Director" is because his story isn't written yet. Eastwood, I fear, has just hit his zenith with Mystic River, and if you look at his quirky, personal body of work, it is a marvelous collection of Americana. From Jazz to Westerns, to conflicted modern sexual politics to the disease of violence, hell, even the Space Program shows up. This will strike some as sacrilege, but if you take the five best Eastwood films - Unforgiven, Mystic River, A Perfect World, Bird, and Josey Wales, and toss in Bridges and Honkytonk Man as alternates, and then rank them against Spielberg's top five or Scorsese's top five, yes -- a strong case can be argued for Eastwood. At the risk of being brash, I suspect that those who believe that Eastwood simply shows up and "shoots the script" have been fooled by his restraint. No actor in a Spielberg film has ever won an acting Oscar for a Spielberg film. Eastwood's reputation as an "actor's director" proceeds him, and I can name three actors who have won Oscars working under Eastwood's guidance, others who have landed nominations, and one much-criticized actor in particular - Kevin Costner - who has never turned in a better performance than he did in Eastwood's Perfect World.

"Steve always has a supremely affecting story, I am not one to complain at his happy endings, actually I find them refreshing, as most other great directors avoid upbeat endings altogether (for good reason)."

There is no "good reason" to avoid uplifting films -- but films that do not earn their happy endings should be avoided. That was a trick Chaplin, Capra and Disney knew well -- for every smile, you must also have some tears. Spielberg's ending for The Color Purple is the only film that has ever made me do both at the same time.

"There's something about the way his characters are that I cannot describe, except to call 'Spielbergian,' that is really quite fascinating. A certain similar humanity in all his characters, which I am sure is a reflection of Steven's own attitudes."

You're touching on something I've written about at length - how Spielberg always finds a way to humanize his antagonists. Other than the Indiana Jones films, Spielberg always shows you the human side of his protgaonists - From Sugarland Express all the way up to Catch Me If You Can, it has become a hallmark of his work.

The lighting in Minority Report literally blew me away.

I was more impressed by the acting in Minority Report. My comment that Eastwood has a gift with actors while no actor in a Spielberg film has ever won -- well, multiple actors have been nominated for their work in Spielberg's films, they just haven't picked up a trophy yet. Spielberg's work with Samantha Morton and Tom Cruise and Max Von Sydow was the most impressive feature of that film for me, other than the script.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Such as Guy Richie?"

No, and I'm not telling.

 

[Haggai]

He could probably do a very entertaining old-style musical, given the right material to work with. One of the few parts of Temple of Doom that I genuinely admire is the great opening number, with Anything Goes in Chinese!

 

[Ernest Rister]

Hook has some musical moments, or moments that feel they came right out of a musical. I know of one extended song that was cut from the film -- a ten minute pirate number that took place right after Peter fell into the ocean (the shots of the Mermaids saving Peter with "air kisses" and taking him to that giant shell were interspersed throughout the song). You can tell there is something missing, the cuts are too abrupt, especially the final cuts as we follow Peter hoisted up to the Lost Boys' lair by the "shell-evator". The sound guys even have to fade out one music queue and fade in another.

Only one overt song remains in Hook - the little girl singing the oscar-nominated, "When You're Alone". John Williams' score, though, is heavy with melody, and it's not hard to imagine you're hearing a score for a musical, only with all the songs cut out of it.

If Spielberg were to direct a musical today, he's got the perfect vehicle in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty -- a film he has been attatched to for a while now. New songs would have to be written for it, but what better way to include musical moments in a film than taking audiences into the fantasy life of your main character? Too bad Chicago beat Spielberg to the punch, but if he was going to do a musical, Walter Mitty would be the way to go (I understand Jim Carrey is attatched to it).

 

[Haggai]

Oh yeah, Hook, I'd forgot about that one...what a surprise.

Walter Mitty with Jim Carrey sounds interesting, but you're right that it would seem like a knock-off of the Marshall/Condon approach to Chicago.

 

[Malcolm R]

Technically, the JP series was created by Michael Crichton upon whose novels the first two films were based. Spielberg was merely directing adaptations.

I agree that Spielberg is today's GAD. He's the only director whose name will get me into the theater regardless of what I think of the film's trailer (I'm only lukewarm on "The Terminal" but will see it regardless). Scorsese is talented, but I've never understood all the bowing and scraping at his feet. And I haven't cared for many of Eastwood's films. Everyone rates "Mysic River" as one of his best, which I found only mediocre.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Once again though, he was directing (or at least prepping) two films at once, so he was probably focused on SPR over TLW."

More like Amistad and SPR -- Spielberg even let David Koepp direct some scenes in Lost World: JP. He didn't take it too seriously, and that sort of thing bugs me about Spielberg. He learned somewhere along the line that he could coast and still get away with it -- probably round about the time he made Empire of the Sun and Last Crusade. His brilliant Empire of the Sun sails over the heads of critics and audiences and flops, while Last Crusade (which - in my opinion - is the laziest, most disinterested "performance" Spielberg has ever given us as a director) wins huge box office and even critical acclaim! No wonder he admitted that, by the late 80's and early 90's, he was in a bit of a funk, and thought of himself as little more than a cinema fry cook, serving up hamburgers cause that's what people ordered. I think the failure of Empire - which is an extraordinary achievement - had hit him hard. He follows the failure of that film with Last Crusade, Always, and Hook. I don't know what snapped him out of it, but 1993 was a re-birth for him, and he made his best film since Jaws -- Schindler's List.

Spielberg is like an incredibly gifted student or athlete who only "turns it on" when he's challenged by something. When he's making sequels, he's bored and it shows (although I think there was a real passion - however misguided - to try and top the thrills of Raiders with Temple of Doom). I think his two worst films - purely from a directing standpoint - aren't Hook or 1941 -- I think they are Last Crusade and Lost World.

 

[ZacharyTait]

I edited my original post to include Steven Soderbergh. Man, I feel like an idiot for forgetting him.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Tarantino will become either the next Kubrick or the next Leone."

Tarantino is too much of a hedonist to become either. One of these days I'm going to turn on my TV to learn that Tarantino has died from a drug overdose in Amsterdam or has died in a durnken car accident speeding home from Vegas. Jay Leno openly asked Tarantino, "Are you drunk?" on the Tonight Show when Tarantino was trying to pitch Kill Bill Vol. I. Tarantino boasted about the drugs he took in China while making Kill Bill, talked about getting high at a rave party next to the Great Wall.

Kubrick directed wildly different types of films, from gladiator epics, to science fiction, to period costume dramas, to war films, to black comedies, heist films, films of sexual repression, etc.

Tarantino has directed three post-modern modern crime films notable mainly for their dialogue and violence, and a post-modern gore-sokaed kung fu movie. He has blazed his own trail, which is why it is so profoundly sad watching people try to imitate him -- there is only one Tarantino. But I will not be surprised to wake up one day to learn that Tarantino the trail blazer has gone up in flames of his own design.

 

[Nathan V]

Ernest Rister,

The language used in your post responding to mine seems to indicate that I have some contempt for Mr. Spielberg, or that I like him for the wrong reasons.

Let me restate the fact that I believe Mr. Spielberg to be the second greatest living director, American or not. This means that I have great respect for the man and his work. It does not mean I find his work second-rate; it means I find his work to be among the best ever created in cinema.

Allow me also to apologize to you personally for referring to Mr. Spielberg as 'Steve.' As I have not crewed any shoots for Mr. Spielberg, I was not aware that he prefers the name of "Steven" over the shorter "Steve," or that the use of this nickname would arouse from you a reprimand that can only be called "blunt." Again, my apologies.

Your take on Spielberg's skills as a cinematic technician are interesting. I had not previously entertained the concept that both Mr. Spielberg and Marty (who, by the way, has no qualms about being called such, at least when I spoke with him) were equally skilled technically. When I'm contemplating Mr. Spielberg's films, I most remember the 'moments of great emotional power,' as you so eloquently put it, that pepper his films. When I think of technical prowess, I do not think of moments of great emotional power. I think of cool camera shots and nifty sound editing (which, incidentally, are also abundant in Mr. Spielberg's ouvre). When discussing Mr. Spielberg, the things that immediately jump to my mind is the content of his work. The characters. Then I think about his style/form. With Scorsese, it's the other way around. When somebody mentions him, I always, without fail, start thinking about his style. His stylistics are very in-your-face, or in-my-face, at least; the accelerated, perfectly timed cuts; the impeccable shot choices, and of course, the very 'Scorsese-esque' music usage. That's what leaps to my mind first about Marty- his style. This is why I indicated that he was more skilled than Mr. Spielberg. Of course, the point could be made that Mr. Spielberg's form is so skilled, so flawless, that I don't even notice it; certainly this point is valid to an extent, but the showman in me loves the showiness of Scorsese. The two have their separate strengths. Marty knows no equal when it comes to examining conflicted, stressed-out people, from Jake LaMotta to Jesus. And nobody can top Mr. Spielberg at eliciting real emotion from an audience. His integration of CGI is certainly worth pointing out, and is, in my opinion, unparalleled.

As for Eastwood, yes, the acting in his films is terrific. He selects excellent actors for his movies. Actors love him because he is so relaxed; he literally lets them do their thing. Could you provide some examples, aside from Costner, of Eastwood eliciting great performances from shoddy actors, a la Sharon Stone in Casino & Winona Ryder in Age of Innocence, and all the kids in Spielberg's movies? I think that's the mark of a truly great 'actor's director.'

Then again, I have only seen 3 of Eastwood's efforts (Unforgiven, Mystic, Josey), so I am in no place to judge him. I'll try to check out some more of his stuff. From what you said, it sounds like A Perfect World is a good place to start. How about Bird, is that worth a blind buy? (I'm a big jazz enthusiast)

I understand the power of restraint (the difference between early Oliver Stone and later Oliver Stone). Please do not tell me that I don't. As I indicated earlier, I just have a weakness for flashy direction.

There is definitely good reason to avoid making films uplifting. You can make your point substantially stronger. Pinocchio is a great example. Easily the darkest Disney movie I've seen, it succeeds in making its point by being dark. Seeing Pinocchio actually 'go bad,' actually begin becoming an animal, has substantially more impact than if he made all the right choices. Seeing him make all the wrong choices is not only far more interesting, it carries a much stronger impact on the audience. If a film's subject matter is dark, the film should be dark. Happy endings should not be tacked on simply so the audience can feel better. Then you lose meaning. I felt the one great flaw in Burgess' novel 'A Clockwork Orange,' was that in the last chapter, the Alex character suddenly became a good person. Everyone lived happily ever after. I thought this was counterproductive to the novel's question- whether or not the importance of free will eclipsed the importance of society's safety. Kubrick inadvertantly left out this laft chapter in his adaptation of the book, which was an unplanned masterstroke. I am confident that he would have cut out the last chapter anyway if he had known about it, as it dilutes the enormous impact of the book/film's ending. Happy films should have appropriately happy endings. Dark, mature, brooding films shouldn't suddenly have schmaltzy endings- a lot of people misinterpreted A.I. as having just such an ending; as you demonstrated in your A.I. analysis (which was brilliant, btw), you're not one of those people.

You being impressed with the acting in Minorty Report while I was busy being flabbergasted by the lighting is yet another example of how the same film can mean so many different things to different people. I, the photographer, can't help paying more attention to Kaminski's first rate cinematography. Which brings up an interesting point- how much of Spielberg's visuals are really his, and how much are Kaminski's? I need to rewatch some early non-Kamiski Spielbergs, it's been a while since I've seen any. I know Kamiski did Jerry Maguire, whose visuals were far from Spielbergian. It'd be interesting to examine that in detail.

As for Tarantino, my ernest hope is that he will mature as a person, although he shows little signs of doing so. I compared him to Kubrick because their career paths, already detailed by Seth, are rather similar. Hopefully Tarantino will follow in Kubrick's footsteps.

I compared him to Leone because of how similar their actual films are. I see TGTBATU as the Kill Bill of the 60s. Both directors have made wildly inventive, highly entertaining, very violent, funny, and original films. The question is, does Tarantino have Once Upon a Time in America in him? I sure hope so. Who knows. I sure as hell wouldn't have predicted Leone to make it, if I was around in the 60s.

Please do not read this post as being a confrontational one. I'm simply elaborating on the points I already made, or tried to make , in the hopes that you will better understand my view. It's a pleasure to be able to discuss cinema with people who are equally as knowledgable and passionate about it as I.

Regards,

 

[Ernest Rister]

"As I have not crewed any shoots for Mr. Spielberg, I was not aware that he prefers the name of "Steven" over the shorter "Steve," or that the use of this nickname would arouse from you a reprimand that can only be called blunt."

I must need sensitivity training, because at no point at all was I trying to be blunt, or harsh. I was just relating a fact. Perhaps I need to preface my words in a more gentle way, or maybe I just need a swift kick to the head.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"There is definitely good reason to avoid making films uplifting. You can make your point substantially stronger. Pinocchio is a great example. Easily the darkest Disney movie I've seen, it succeeds in making its point by being dark. Seeing Pinocchio actually 'go bad,' actually begin becoming an animal, has substantially more impact than if he made all the right choices."

What is inherently more intersting is the fact that in the first two acts, Pinocchio never does "go bad", he merely imitates the behaviour of his role models, be they the Fox, or Lampwick, or Jiminy. The reason Pinocchio becomes a great movie and a great character is the third act, where Pinocchio defies everyone and acts on his own moral conscience to go out on his own and save his father. Jiminy actually tries to talk him out of it!

Pinocchio is the darkest Disney animated film because it presents the bleakest view of morality -- there are no J. Worhtington Foulfellows marching up and down the street searching for kids they can "turn to good". They're loking for kids they can exploit.

There are no Coachmen waiting and willing to take you to the Island of Absolution -- only to corrpution.

Seeing Pinocchio follow the role models who lead him to make all the wrong choices is not only interesting, these moments carry a much stronger impact when Pinocchio makes the RIGHT choices in the third act and even DEFIES the advice of his conscience. When Pinocchio decides to not listen to a Fox or Coachman or kid or cricket, but only to his own heart -- he has taken a giant step towards becoming human. When he defies all common sense, and embarks on a mission to save his father, a mission he achieves at the cost of his own life - Pinocchio achieves redemption.

The Pinocchio fable is a question, the film asked, "What does it mean to be human?" Disney answered by saying a true human being was one who was brave, honest, and more caring of others than himself. That's what the third act of Pinocchio was about - the redemption. That is incredibly uplifting for kids and has been such for decades. Kids always believe they're going to get into trouble. They're too easily led into it. The Pinocchio fable is one of HOPE -- that no matter how bad things get, your dad is still going to love you, and you can redeem yourself by proving yourself brave, honest, and loyal to your family.

That's Disney's Pinocchio. My choice for Disney's greatest film.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Oops - I've gone and done it. I've up and killed another thread.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ernest, I don't see the point of bringing up Tarantino's non-professional behaviour. So he likes the chemicals and fun. Maybe he doesn't do it more than others, maybe he just admits to it while others don't. I'm sure Oliver Stone has done his fair share, and he's still going strong. If Keith Richards and Ozzy are still around, you can't write anyone off.

Tarantino is no Kubrick, not even close. Kubrick's films succeed because they work on a psychological level. They're profoundly intuitive and subtle, even during the wildest moments. They're subversive in the strongest way- it's not obvious.

The Leone comparison is more valid. Both are heavily stylised, visual directors who embrace pop culture imagery, wear their influences on their sleeves, childishly worship other cultures, and have a pulp (no pun intended) quality to their films.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I believe there were originally raptors on the boat that killed everyone, but they were quickly killed when they got onto the mainland.

This was later edited from the film.

 

[Brian W.]

I was thinking about this yesterday -- not about this thread in particular, but perhaps this could apply to this thread:

What directors are bona fide household names? I don't mean ones that we on HTF would know -- I mean directors that EVERYBODY knows, or knew in their heyday.

There have been very, very few in American history. I could only think of five directors that are or have been true household names:

Steven Spielberg
Woody Allen
Alfred Hitchcock
Cecil B. DeMille
Charlie Chaplin

I'm tempted to say Walt Disney, but he wasn't a director. Might add D. W. Griffith to the list... he was incredibly famous in his day.

Scorcese... no way, not a household name. I know people who don't even know who he is, though if you mention his movies, they've seen or heard of them. Same with Kubrick. Tarantino... mmm, not quite well-known enough. He may be someday, but he hasn't made enough films.

Any others?

 

[Ernest Rister]

Walt Disney directed a few shorts in the silent era, and even intended to pursure a career in direction, but life took him on a different path. Walt also directed the Silly Symphony short, "The Golden Touch". Fantasia and Snow White both bear his personal mark, as he was instrumental in plotting out the action in both. Most of the gags in the "Dance of the Hours" sequence of Fantasia come from a single story meeting, right out of Walt's own mouth.