Would film critics make good Directors? (1 Viewer)

[Stevan Lay]

I ask this hypothetical question in response to some of the recent and archived movie reviews I've been reading up on. Those renown critics such as Ebert, Travis, Maltin, Berardinelli, and the likes seems to know that makes a good film or a particular scenes great so this got me thinking if whether they had the ingenuity to translate that creativity into film direction. How hypocritical would they be? Are some cliches unavaoidable? How would they have told it differently? Who would they cast?

In contrast, we have some of the most talented and respected directors who are great exponents of film and film-making. Some were film students while others were students of film who would often deliver their critiques. For example, Spielberg, Tarantino, Scorsese, Stone, & Aronofsky.

So given the situation (good script), would film critics make good directors? If so, who?

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's a completely different set of skills. Film criticism usually involves writing of some sort, and writing is a solitary activity. Film direction involves interacting with, steering, managing, cajoling a great number of people, which is why it's frequently been a great subject for comedy (most recent example: State and Main). Good directors and good critics probably share a common appreciation for what makes a good film, but I doubt most of them could do each other's jobs.

M.

 

[Brook K]

The Cahier boys all were film critics and then became good-to-great directors: Eric Rohmer, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, Claude Chabrol, etc, but this critic-to-director phenomenon seems to have only happened in France.

 

[Eric M Jones]

I believe Rob Lurie director of The Contender and The Last Castle was a film critic prior to becoming a director. He's done alright for himself.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I was thinking of Lurie when I said "most". From what I've read about him, I suspect he'd be the first to confirm that the skill sets are very different.
The Cahiers crowd was an interesting anomaly. I can't think of any other occasion when publishing a critical journal served as the launching pad for so many careers as filmmakers. (Not only did it happen only in France, but it also only happened once. ) If I remember correctly, most of that group always wanted to direct, but founded Cahiers because they couldn't (or didn't want to) participate in the existing French film industry. If I'm remembering this wrong -- it's been a long time -- I'm sure someone will correct me.
M.

 

[Bill McA]

Actually, the French Cahiers example was not an isolated incident.
In 1950/1960s England, several writers created their own magazine of film theory and criticism called "Sequence".
These writers then went on to become famous and influential film directors, creating films of social consciousness commonly known as "British kitchen-sink dramas".
These directors included:
Lindsay Anderson (...If, O Lucky Man!, Britannia Hospital, This Sporting Life)
Karel Reisz (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Morgan, The French Lietenant's Woman)
Tony Richardson (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer, A Taste of Honey, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Tom Jones)
Their influence on British (and International) cinema was just as important as those of the French Cahiers writers.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think that Directors and Critics have different POVs on filmmaking.

Directors have to look at the big picture: will the public like it, can it be marketed, can I appease the actors, etc.

Critics care only about the artistic quality: was the acting good, was it well written, was it in good taste, etc.

Critics would make amazing movies if they really tried and had good source material, but they wouldn't be that popular because they would see them more as pieces of art than films for the public.

So would they make good directors? Probably.

 

[Michael Reuben]

In 1950/1960s England, several writers created their own magazine of film theory and criticism called "Sequence".

Interesting piece of history. I wasn't aware of that example. What happened to the publication after its founders moved on to directing? Does it still exist?

M.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I'd still go back to what Michael Reuben said:

Critics care only about the artistic quality: was the acting good, was it well written, was it in good taste, etc.

That's all well and good but:
1. Do you think most directors don't care about this?
2. Does caring about it translate into making something worthwhile?
Production, be it film or television, is a collaborative effort, and there are so many things that can go wrong in the process. At one time I bought into auteur theory, but the more I see and learn, the less I agree with it in the majority of cases. (There are some exceptions, but they are few and far between.) Plus, a great script doesn't necessarily equal a great film.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

1. Do you think most directors don't care about this?
2. Does caring about it translate into making something worthwhile?

Most directors do care about these things, but they also have a wider scope. Instead of just maintaining artistic integrity, directors of some films have to look at merchandising, flashy special effects, and things like that. If someone was making a movie simply for artistic integrity, they will either have a huge actor in the movie, or it won't get a large release.

Mulholland Dr. (I saw this recently, thats why I'm using it as an example) was very deep and complex, had some amazing acting, had some very subtle clues about what it all meant in the movie, and was overall very enjoyable. Had someone who didn't care that much about movies seen it (aka, a typical teenager) they wouldn't have gotten it at all and would have considered it a bad movie because it was too confusing to enjoy. I, also a teenager, appreciate film, so I can watch it, think about it, discuss it with others, and eventually understand what the director was doing, thus being able to appreciate it. The fact that the typical teenager, who is very much like most of America, didn't care to think about the meaning of the film shows why a director would have to think about things beyond artistic integrity, while a critic would be simply looking at the art.

 

[Mark Palermo]

I've always wanted to make films (probably since before I ever saw one), and at age 19 lucked into getting a job reviewing films for an alternative paper. It was never my intention to be a critic, but now that I'm 23 it's still what I'm doing. Though I agree that the talents of recognizing and creating aren't one and the same, I feel that having spent the past three years evaluating film art has given me a better sense of what things to focus on once I finally get the director's ball rolling.

Mark

 

[Brian Lawrence]

I belive Dario Argento, was also a film critic before he became a writer, then director.

 

[Bill McA]

What happened to the publication after its founders moved on to directing? Does it still exist?

I don't believe so and I'm not sure when it ceased (a little before my time).
Sight & Sound is the primary British publication for film theory and criticism today...and the previously mentioned directors also contributed to that publication in its early days.

 

[Stevan Lay]

For example, being able to read a book and determine if it's good doesn't mean one can write a great novel.

Mark, I was going to submit that same example but much like how movie interpretations are sometimes so different to the written source that I had reversed my thinking on that notion.
As Michael had suggested that it is a different skill set though nevertheless I could not help to come to the thought of how improved or contrasting the vision would be since occassionally they rightfully highlight the common pitfalls and shortcomings of a film. Hence, this hypothetical question.
Incidently, I recently saw The Contender by Lurie and later found out that he was a film critic (thanks for the memory jog). It seemed to me that he made a conscientious decision to aviod the many cliches, a film for the critics if you will

 

[Michael Reuben]

I was reminded of this thread today, as I watched Woody Allen's film crew take over my neighborhood. A shop around the corner is being used for a scene in his latest film (title undisclosed as always). My block and several others have effectively been turned into parking lots for the caravan of production vehicle, and a small army of assistants with walkie-talkies is patrolling the blocks above and below the shop in question, holding back pedestrians as necessary, relocating onlookers from spots that may be in-shot, and generally chattering back and forth.

Meanwhile, there are two camera rigs with their attendant crews, a craft services set-up, and a wide assortment of what I assume are lighting technicians, grips, etc. etc.

I caught a glimpse of Allen in the distance, but no one else that I could recognize. (I've been much closer to Allen when he's not directing; he and Soon-Yi live about 15 blocks north of me, and I used to pass them walking their baby on a regular basis.) But I tried to imagine what it must feel like to be in charge of what had to be at least 70 people, all of them on the clock and all of them needing to be coordinated to get a single shot that will probably last no more than 30 seconds on the screen.

If I have time tomorrow, I can head a short distance north and try to catch a glimpse of Boaz Yakin (Remember the Titans) directing a new movie with Brittany Murphy and Dakota Fanning. They're using one of the museums, and there are signs all over the neighborhood warning residents.

M.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Stevan, I hate to quote myself (especially since the sentence is awkwardly written now that I look at it), but I also said:

Perhaps a more apt example is identifying a good television program doesn't mean one can make one.

I wouldn't expect a TV critic to be able to make a good show, especially direct one.

Could we be looking at the wrong position? Critics might make good producers, where their skills would be utilized in evaluating scripts, casting, etc. without having to manage directorial duties.

Also, remember that Ebert does have some experience making movies, having written a Russ Meyer film.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Could we be looking at the wrong position? Critics might make good producers, where their skills would be utilized in evaluating scripts, casting, etc. without having to manage directorial duties.

Well, it also includes negotiating contracts with actors' agents, securing locations, etc.

To be honest, I think most critics could write a movie, but who knows about the rest. We've been conditioned over the past few decades to think of the director as the guy who "makes the movie", but in truth, it takes a small army of people. Both directing and producing are, in addition to artistic jobs, management positions, and I'm not sure how well that skillset overlaps with writing criticism.

Which is even before you consider that evaluating and creating are very different activities. A critic may be very good at taking things apart, but that doesn't mean he can put raw materials together with the same skill.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

We've been conditioned over the past few decades to think of the director as the guy who "makes the movie", but in truth, it takes a small army of people.

That's why I mentioned above that auteur theory doesn't hold for me. I'm probably just as guilty of assigning it as anyone, but directors often do receive an inordinate amount of praise and blame for what is in their films. (I'm reminded of the terrific commentary track on The Limey where Lem Dobbs gripes how critics gave Soderbergh all sorts of credit for a violent scene where the camera stays outside. He remarks that it was written that way in the script.)
Critics might be able to write a script, but after it gets through all of the rewrites, etc., who knows if it will still look the same.
So essentially we can boil this down to "making movies is hard".

 

[Jon D]

Personally, I'd love to see either Roeper or Mr. Cranky make a movie

 

[Rich Malloy]

I'd like to see Roeper sell real estate.