Red Tails (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

It all depends who they line up in his stead. There are a lot of terrible directors out there — and few visionaries on the level of George Lucas — but there are plenty of contemporary directors that could pull off something really interesting with this material.

Troubled first half and bad acting aside, Revenge of the Sith convinced me that no one makes a film like George Lucas. Good or bad, they're always unique. There are few directors you can say that about any more.

 

[Matthew_Def]

This is certainly true. For creating six films in a series he never made them simple remakes, with a new coat of paint, like so many other series. He kept the storylines unique and, like any great storyteller, used mirror events instead of just repeating.

The final product is of course debateable in quality, but I admire his passion and desire for something different.

I am still looking forward to this film, and whatever the next film he winds up directing.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Adam, the more movies I watch, the more I learn that there are quite a few unique directors out there. While I was a big fan of the direction in ROTS, I was just the opposite on the previous two SW films. I'd be perfectly happy to see a Lucas-directed non-SW film, but I doubt that's going to happen. I have no problems with him not directing this. He brings substantial value as a producer (and I don't mean ILM). I am more concerned about the idea of making this an "adventure" film.

 

[TravisR]

Keep in mind that McCallum was saying that in a SW magazine so no matter they intend to make, he would probably try to make it sound like they're making a 'historical' movie that is closer to Raiders Of The Lost Ark than a documentary.

 

[Joe_G]

I'm disappointed as well. I've been looking forward to the days of seeing a film directed by Lucas other than SW. I was hoping he would get in the director's chair on this one since he's been working on the development of this film for well over a decade. It looks like we're waiting even longer.:frowning:

It would've been interesting how/what he did with something more serious and historical in nature, especially since he wasn't able to direct Apocolypse Now.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There have been well done historical adventure pictures in the past. As long as it respects the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen, I have no qualms about them avoiding the docudrama route. We've seen pretty much every variation on the "... overcoming adversity" storyline anyway. An adventure story frees the characters from being mouthpieces for history.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Really?

Michael Mann
David Fincher
Terrence Malick
Ridley Scott
Coen Brothers
Jim Cameron (he used to be)
Tony Scott
P.T. Anderson
Alfonso Cuaron
Guillermo del Toro
Michael Bay (I don't like his films that much, but you always know you are watching a Michael Bay film)
Ang Lee

I guess I could go on and on, but I don't think there is a director in America more noticeable than Malick or Mann. Granted, Malick is also a writer, but no one, no one, no one, can shoot like he does.

---

Pearl Harbor is an action movie of an historical event, but I felt it completely failed the material. Having an entertaining film do justice to a historical event is quite a difficult balance (Spielberg, Cameron and Ridley Scott have done it). I like GL, but he's never done that. I'd still prefer to see him direct this, because I do think he's worth watching. But it's a hard balancing act.

I agree that TPM and AOTC were unique, but unique doesn't always mean good. I can point out a lot of unique films that get one or two things right, and still aren't worth the two hours it took to watch them. I am interested in what direction you feel separates PT films from other directors?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Pearl Harbor is a bad movie, even taking out the Pearl Harbor angle. Poorly acted, edited, paced. For a good dramatic interpretation of those events, turn to Tora! Tora! Tora!.
However there is a whole genre of historical adventure films that do succeed. Sands of Iwo Jima, The Longest Day, The Great Escape, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Patton, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and Saving Private Ryan are among them.
Not all of these examples are "fun" pictures, but there's no reason to believe Red Tails would be either. What McCallum means, I think, is that Lucas is going for a visceral film rather than a political film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think Fincher is as distinctive as ever...Zodiac was a masterpiece, and watching it you knew it was Fincher (though a bit restrained).

I think Scott has gotten a bit more like Spielberg...always so technically proficient, he's less reliant on certain staples. When he wants to be distinctive he can be, though I agree he's rounding out a bit. As much as I love the others, I still think Mann is probably the most undeniable. Weaker directors can approximate Malick with a few shots (though none can replicate what he achieves with them), but no one can do what Mann does.

Again, I'd like to see GL direct something else. Anything. I'll see his next film, subject matter irrelevant. He is a special director. Tweak what you got there at the end, Adam, because I am interested in the answer

 

[Holadem]

Yes, lots. I've not seen ID4 in a while, but I don't remember tons of dramatic sunsets shots, slow motions shots of people or things over equally dramatic backgrounds, violent contrasts, or shots where the camera does a 180 or even 360 around the character(s). And let's not get into the frantic editing. Bay tries very hard to be pretty, but comes off as mostly shallow. Still, he is instantly recognizable, which is the point here.

As for GL being distinctive... I dunno. There are those wipes I guess... With the disclaimer that I watched TPM a couple of times and Eps 2 & 3 exactly once, it seems to me that Ep 3 worked better precisely because the direction relied more on standard devices and got out of the way enough for the power of the story to come thru, unhindered by the amateurish awkwardness of the previous installments. In that regard, the direction in Ep I and II is not so distinctive as simply... bad. But then again there is only so much one can do with those awful scripts and at some point it becomes hard to separate the two.

Good discussion. I always find the topic of directorial style engrossing. A lot of this also depends on how much one subscribes to auteur theory. For instance, how much of the Bay look can be attributed to Bruckheimer? (look at CSI).

--
H

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Mainly what Matt said — the way he uses the same scenes and dialogue to play entirely different beats and emotions, but also in the intangibles. So much of the worlds are digital, but they never have that claustrophobic, soundstage-y feel that most fantasy films are burdened with.
Even the negatives — dialogue, performances — operate at a recognizable rhythm; when you fall into the flow the problems are almost beside the point. It's not that random and sporadic disappointment of lesser directors: he gets consistent performances that veer off from the way real people act, saying things that real people wouldn't say.
Both fall into an evocative universe that feels all at once different from and familiar to our own. This isn't our world with scifi trappings tacked on. This is something else entirely.
Each movie has moments that you wouldn't get from any one else. In the Phantom Menace movie, even a complete novice to the series would understand that Palpatine is a bad guy, even though nothing in the film shows him to be lines like him watching Anakin's career with great interest work for people who've seen the original trilogy, but I bet they'd set off warning lights for the newbies too. It's in the editing, the way shots of Palpatine play off other shots. The funeral scene laying out the theory of two for the Sith, as an example, plays off a shot not of Sidious as would be intuitive but of Palpatine instead.
Attack of the Clones, even with some of the glaring flaws of the three, plays out the best for me. It comes the closest of the six to fulfulling the energetic promise of the adventure serial. The unique, standout moment for me in this film was the Kamino sequence. It's an absolutely beautiful world, simple rather than merely stark, and yet it's probably the most quietly unnerving moment of the series outside ROTS. The way the fetuses move in the glass canisters, so much of life and yet apart from life. Even the Kaminoans are as non-threatening as an alien species could possibly be: slow, soft-spoken, all pleasant curves, and graceful movements. Still completely disturbing. The tour-de-force cumulates with the reveal of the army which is instantly terrifying for every single person in the theater even though they're the "good guys". For those who know what's to come, the fact that they are the "good guys" is perhaps even more terrifying. The general consensus going into the PT was that Palpatine would conquer the Old Republic. Instead Lucas had him merely keep changing it until it was no longer the Republic.
As for Revenge of the Sith, the first hour is the least distinguished of the entirely six movies — the only time when I felt I was watching FX for the sake of FX. Everything from the opera scene on is the mark of a higher caliber visionary. It's got a terrifying inevitability that picks up momentum like a boulder rolling down a mountain. If I had to isolate one sequence as particularly unique, however, it'd be the towers scene. Padmé stands in her apartment and Anakin paces the council chamber, but no two characters share a more potent moment in the entire series. It's full to the brim with meaning and consequence, played exactly the right length of time, without a single word of dialogue being shared. It's a moment that made me believe the rumors that Lucas cut together the baptism sequence in The Godfather. His cuts and juxtaposition speak in a way his dialogue has never been able to.

 

[Chris Atkins]

To add to what Adam is saying, Lucas has a very unique style of shooting a movie. It's a documentary style that lets the performances, visuals, and music illicit emotions from the viewer. He doesn't use much camera movement, hardly any closeups, and the result for the viewer is immersion and transportation to another world. Now, viewers don't always like what they find there, but his style certainly is unique.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Also, relatively few cuts for a modern director. He lets the shots play out. That with everything Chris has mentioned, lends a more "classic" cinematic style to his pictures. I feel like I'm traveling back in time, even when the movie features spaceships and cutting edge effects.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Tuskegee Airmen to be subject of George Lucas film - Los Angeles Times


Thompson On Hollywood: Lucas is Not Returning to Directing with Red Tails