Joe Karlosi
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 6,008
I don't always think they are, though there are exceptions (Hitchcock, Welles, Kubrick...)
Many film fans tend to refer to a film as the directors' own baby with regard to virtually ANY movie. For example, they'll say: "Franklin Schaffner's PLANET OF THE APES," or "Roy William Neill's SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON". But just how much has to do with the director?
To me, it's always seemed that the only real way a director would have such a complete claim on the movie is when he is director, writer, and editor combined. Sure, directors put their own individual "stamp" on a project, but is JAWS (for instance) totally Spielberg's creation when he didn't write it, and when Verna Fields was the editor (presuming Spielberg was not present consistently through every phase of the editing process)? And would it have been as effective if, say, Robert Redford had played Quint instead of Robert Shaw - even though Spielberg was still the man doing the directing?
It just seems that if a director was the sole person truly responsible for the entire appeal (or unappeal) of a given film, then his results would have to remain the same from film to film. In other words, I love "DePalma's" DRESSED TO KILL and also CARLITO'S WAY .... but yet I have no use for "his" PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE! If I "loved Brian DePalma films," wouldn't PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE have to appeal to me too?
I'm of the belief that it's usually a whole combination of factors -- the script, the actors, the subject matter...
Many film fans tend to refer to a film as the directors' own baby with regard to virtually ANY movie. For example, they'll say: "Franklin Schaffner's PLANET OF THE APES," or "Roy William Neill's SHERLOCK HOLMES IN WASHINGTON". But just how much has to do with the director?
To me, it's always seemed that the only real way a director would have such a complete claim on the movie is when he is director, writer, and editor combined. Sure, directors put their own individual "stamp" on a project, but is JAWS (for instance) totally Spielberg's creation when he didn't write it, and when Verna Fields was the editor (presuming Spielberg was not present consistently through every phase of the editing process)? And would it have been as effective if, say, Robert Redford had played Quint instead of Robert Shaw - even though Spielberg was still the man doing the directing?
It just seems that if a director was the sole person truly responsible for the entire appeal (or unappeal) of a given film, then his results would have to remain the same from film to film. In other words, I love "DePalma's" DRESSED TO KILL and also CARLITO'S WAY .... but yet I have no use for "his" PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE! If I "loved Brian DePalma films," wouldn't PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE have to appeal to me too?
I'm of the belief that it's usually a whole combination of factors -- the script, the actors, the subject matter...