Directors who fell from grace

indough · 23-02-2012 8:11pm

whether or not you like them scorsese is still making great movies. ridiculous to suggest his name in a discussion like this to be honest

Kinski · 23-02-2012 8:22pm

indough wrote: »

whether or not you like them scorsese is still making great movies. ridiculous to suggest his name in a discussion like this to be honest

In other words, whether I think they're good or not, Scorsese is still making good movies; therefore it's ridiculous for me to argue that his movies aren't good anymore. Makes sense.

pixelburp · 23-02-2012 8:38pm

Kinski wrote: »

I'm arguing that Martin Scorsese is a spent force as a filmmaker - someone who makes feature-length motion pictures. I neither know nor care what Boardwalk Empire is like, nor what contribution he made to it. He may very well, for all I know, have done sterling work on it, but it's not that relevant to the argument I'm making, other than possibly showing that he may still be able to do it. But television drama is a very different medium from cinema, so I wouldn't really count it as compelling evidence.

With respect, the way serial television has gone in the last 10 years, I don't think you can entirely dismiss it as evidence. HBO et al have brought a cinematic quality to television that easily rivals the kind of mid-range productions you see at the movies. So for me, Scorsese's work on Boardwalk Empire is fair game & had you watched it, you would have seen the mark of a man clearly still full of passion & vigor for his craft. In fact, watch any of the subsequent, non-Scorsese episodes & the difference is like day & night.

Besides, surely his involvement in an area that would be traditionally outside his perceived comfort zone would argue that if anything, the man's still trying new things and new ideas. A spent force would stick to the familiar, not constantly try to do new things; be it a family-friendly production shot in 3D, a musical documentary or the aforementioned TV drama.

Well, they might be better than Color of Money or After Hours, but I didn't care for either. As a piece of filmmaking, I'll concede that Hugo is highly-accomplished, but as a piece of drama, I thought it was weak.

I'm confused: from what your'e saying here, it sounds like the blame should be on the shoulders of John Logan - the guy who wrote Hugo - rather than Scorcese who by your own words did a good / accomplished job?

My own personal view is that some of his work is highly overrated, but watching interviews with the man, he clearly still bubbles with ideas and creativity. His resume is certainly more varied than most directors would dream of.

indough · 23-02-2012 8:42pm

Kinski wrote: »

In other words, whether I think they're good or not, Scorsese is still making good movies; therefore it's ridiculous for me to argue that his movies aren't good anymore. Makes sense.

yes it does make sense. there are plenty of great movies that i just dont like because they arent to my taste. shouldnt really be too difficult a concept to grasp

if you can outline what is technically wrong with his recent movies then fire away by all means

johnny_ultimate · 23-02-2012 9:07pm

I'm far from a Scorcese enthusiast, in stark contrast to the supposed 'film forum mod Scorcese conspiracy' that has been suggested in the past. Indeed, I'd personally hold Takeshi Kitano up as the undisputed champion of the gangster film before Scorcese. But in fairness I do think most of his recent films are at least interesting if not always entirely successful. I'd put him far above Clint Eastwood anyway, as I feel CE has just fallen back on making bland, conservative films that lack insight or force. The Aviator, The Departed, Hugo and Shutter Island may not be 'great' films in the hyperbolic sense, but they have much going for them at the same time.

I'd even defend The Departed which - while being an over-stretching of a much leaner, tighter original in narrative terms - does have a lot of energy and life. Hugo certainly lacks dramatic momentum but makes up for it as a passionate sonnet to the birth of cinema. The Aviator is a stylistically successful and inventive biopic, while Shutter Island is an atmospheric and well considered thriller that only really suffers from a few weaknesses inherited from the source material.

The only major negative I'd level towards 'late Scorcese' is an over-reliance on adaptations over new ideas. But of the handful of active filmmakers from the 70s innovators - Woody Allen, Coppolla, Eastwood etc... - I'd put Scorcese as having more successes than the others.

Kinski wrote: »

Drifting a little OT, but does anyone (outside the pages of Empire magazine) really think Spielberg has made any of "the greatest films ever"?

I kind of agree with you there. I think Spielberg has made some of the best blockbusters to emerge from Hollywood, without a doubt. But I'd consider his 'worthier' films overrated at best. He has a penchant for cheap storytelling cheats - graveside memorials, soaring strings, over-sentimentality - that just doesn't appeal to me. His films are often A-Grade spectacles: even the so-so War Horse was a beautifully composed film. As a storyteller, though, he lacks subtlety. Which is fine for many, but usually not for me.

That said, of all his films, I think Jurassic Park is the one I'd hold up as one of the best of its type. I still think it's too hollow and disposable to be considered one of cinema's greatest achievements, but as pure entertainment, it's possibly up there with the best Hollywood has ever produced.

Kinski · 23-02-2012 11:08pm

pixelburp wrote: »

With respect, the way serial television has gone in the last 10 years, I don't think you can entirely dismiss it as evidence. HBO et al have brought a cinematic quality to television that easily rivals the kind of mid-range productions you see at the movies. So for me, Scorsese's work on Boardwalk Empire is fair game & had you watched it, you would have seen the mark of a man clearly still full of passion & vigor for his craft. In fact, watch any of the subsequent, non-Scorsese episodes & the difference is like day & night.

I take your point, but obviously I'm not in a position to get into a debate about Boardwalk Empire, or the documentaries (which I haven't seen either).

Besides, surely his involvement in an area that would be traditionally outside his perceived comfort zone would argue that if anything, the man's still trying new things and new ideas. A spent force would stick to the familiar, not constantly try to do new things; be it a family-friendly production shot in 3D, a musical documentary or the aforementioned TV drama.

Not necessarily. For one thing making documentaries and concert films is nothing new for Scorsese. Also, while this may be an unfair comparison, Coppola (who I think everyone can agree was a spent force by the mid-80's, if not earlier) has flitted from one thing to another in his late career, trying his hand at horror, comedy, and various other projects best forgotten. So it can just as easily be a sign that someone is out of ideas as it can be that they're still full of them.

I'm confused: from what your'e saying here, it sounds like the blame should be on the shoulders of John Logan - the guy who wrote Hugo - rather than Scorcese who by your own words did a good / accomplished job?

Okay, let me rephrase. I found Hugo to be, at times, an accomplished spectacle. There were problems with the script, sure, but there was also plenty wrong with the pacing, the performances (which the director has to take some responsibility for), and the overall conception of the movie. Anyhow, when the film wasn't hurtling along train platforms or recreating silent classics, it bored the arse off me.

And I thought The Departed (sorry to bang on about it!) was a quite poorly-directed film.

indough wrote: »

yes it does make sense. there are plenty of great movies that i just dont like because they arent to my taste. shouldnt really be too difficult a concept to grasp

That's not my position. I'm not saying The Departed or The Aviator were "not my cup of tea"; I'm saying I think they're bad films. Anyhow, I think great films are ones which transcend personal tastes in genre and the like; I'm not even sure I think there's such a thing as a film which I consider good but don't like. That just doesn't make sense to me.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

the supposed 'film forum mod Scorcese conspiracy' that has been suggested in the past.

There's a conspiracy?:eek:

I kind of agree with you there. I think Spielberg has made some of the best blockbusters to emerge from Hollywood, without a doubt. But I'd consider his 'worthier' films overrated at best. He has a penchant for cheap storytelling cheats - graveside memorials, soaring strings, over-sentimentality - that just doesn't appeal to me. His films are often A-Grade spectacles: even the so-so War Horse was a beautifully composed film. As a storyteller, though, he lacks subtlety. Which is fine for many, but usually not for me.

That said, of all his films, I think Jurassic Park is the one I'd hold up as one of the best of its type. I still think it's too hollow and disposable to be considered one of cinema's greatest achievements, but as pure entertainment, it's possibly up there with the best Hollywood has ever produced.

Exactly. When it comes to pure entertainment, there's probably been no director better. I really like Raiders, Jaws, and Jurassic Park. But they're fairly light fare - not great art or anything (not that films need be). And when he turns his hand to more serious subjects and makes supposedly worthy films, he tends to trivialize things by using all the same tools and tricks that serve him so well in his action/adventure flicks. He's a very talented filmmaker, but I don't think he's a particularly intelligent one.

SirDelboy18 · 23-02-2012 11:09pm

I think Spielberg is without doubt one of the best directors of all time who produced some of the finest movies of all time. His versatility is unparalleled, as he is able to pull off thriller, drama, horror

Jaws will always be one of the most influential movies around.
E.T is one of the most beautifully made films of the past 30 years.
Schindlers List is without question one of the best movies of all time.
Saving Private Ryan, is undoubtedly brilliant, and that landing scene at the beginning is one of the most powerful in recent memory.
(Those four alone are worth recognising him as one of the greats)

Then you have the likes of Munich, Catch me if you can, Minority Report, Indy which are all fantastic movies.

Renn · 23-02-2012 11:30pm

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

pixelburp · 23-02-2012 11:45pm

Renn wrote: »

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

I would definitely see Jaws; in many ways it's a movie whose myth & legend (not to mention it's ass-clenchingly bad sequels) get in the way of appreciating what is, in effect, a fantastic thriller. And like all the great movies, its production is as fascinating as the film itself.

SirDelboy18 · 24-02-2012 12:13am

Kevin Smith once looked like a director with promise but no longer.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:17am

Renn wrote: »

Loving the inclusion of 'without question' and 'undoubtedly brilliant'

Haven't seen Jaws but have seen a good few of his other ones. Overly-sentimental tripe most of the time.

Not been smart but how did you manage that! Thought it was the one film that everyone on Earth with an interest in cinema would have seen, would you consider yourself a huge film fan or just have a casual interest in cinema?

Renn · 24-02-2012 12:19am

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:20am

Kinski wrote: »

I'm arguing that Martin Scorsese is a spent force as a filmmaker -

I think the only two great films he has made are Goodfellows and Raging Bull, the rest go from fairly good to awful, he still might pull something out of the hat though.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 12:21am

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:24am

Renn wrote: »

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

I'd say its one if the few films that unite every film fan from those interested in mainly obscure art-house to people who just watch action flicks, he manages to rack up the tension as good as Hitchcock even after 10 viewings it still works, couldn't recommend it enough.

pixelburp · 24-02-2012 12:26am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Jaws is worth it just for Robert Shaw alone though. Plus I think once you move it out of the "big monster attacks" genre and view it as a thriller, of the serial-killer type, the film shines a bit brighter. I love its structure & arc too, it just all seems to sit so well as a story.

</unapologetic Jaws fanboy>

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:26am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

Would you not say that as a textbook example of a truly brilliant high concept movie that it should be required viewing from an early age?

Technocentral · 24-02-2012 12:31am

pixelburp wrote: »

Jaws is worth it just for Robert Shaw alone though. Plus I think once you move it out of the "big monster attacks" genre and view it as a thriller, of the serial-killer type, the film shines a bit brighter. I love its structure & arc too, it just all seems to sit so well as a story.

</unapologetic Jaws fanboy>

I view it absolutely as a thriller plus the interplay between Shaw and Dreyfuss is fantastic.

Sad Professor · 24-02-2012 12:43am

Renn wrote: »

Massive film fan but just haven't seen that. I've obviously seen bits and pieces of it, and know the story/seen references etc, but the film never really appealed to me. It's on my list to watch some day but there's about 1000 films above it currently.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fairness, there are a small tonne of films I'd put on a much watch film before Jaws. Not that it isn't thoroughly enjoyable and well developed.

There are films one should watch before Jaws? You're crazy, both of ya! Jaws is something you have to experience at a young age or it will be ruined due to seeing to many parodies/rip-offs of it.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 2:41am

I'm not saying Jaws is a bad film - it's a very very good film. It's just to me far more disposable than countless other 'great' films. Yes, I'd much rather people be introduced to it a young age when compared to the nonsense that passes for blockbusters these days. But I'd still rather if they watched Studio Ghibli films first.

And Jurassic Park is more fun anyway

(I'm aware this is a slightly silly argument, but I don't consider Jaws a film I'd describe with superlatives)

FlashD · 24-02-2012 6:55am

This threads a joke now.

Whether you like their films or not Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 10:43am

FlashD wrote: »

Whether you like their films or not Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business, to say otherwise is simply ridiculous.

No, it's giving an opinion. As I said, I'll somewhat defend Scorcese but even on his own terms it's been a long time since Spielberg made a film of note. Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and Munich were his only really good films during the 2000s, and there were far more duds than that - The Terminal, A.I., War of the Worlds, Indy 4 (which I still think is decent fun at times but utterly throwaway) etc... Some of those were interesting (if often unsuccessful) films, but none could be considered as anything remarkable.

No-one's denying he's made some important and excellent film in his time, and he at least plays by his own game which is admirable. But nor should he be immune to criticism just because he's Steven Spielberg.

Zubeneschamali · 24-02-2012 10:46am

FlashD wrote: »

Speilberg and Scorsese are consistantly at the top of their game since they started in the business

And Lucas didn't fall, he was always useless.

Mickeroo · 24-02-2012 10:47am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, it's giving an opinion. As I said, I'll somewhat defend Scorcese but even on his own terms it's been a long time since Spielberg made a film of note. Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and Munich were his only really good films during the 2000s, and there were far more duds than that - The Terminal, A.I., War of the Worlds, Indy 4 (which I still think is decent fun at times but utterly throwaway) etc... Some of those were interesting (if often unsuccessful) films, but none could be considered as anything remarkable.

No-one's denying he's made some important and excellent film in his time, and he at least plays by his own game which is admirable. But nor should he be immune to criticism just because he's Steven Spielberg.

Both Tintin and War Horse were pretty good, a return to form of sorts I thought. I don't think he's ever made an out and out awful film, Indy 4 is the closest probably but it was still ok(only ok).

johnny_ultimate · 24-02-2012 10:55am

Mickeroo wrote: »

Both Tintin and War Horse were pretty good, a return to form of sorts I thought. I don't think he's ever made an out and out awful film, Indy 4 is the closest probably but it was still ok(only ok).

I don't know - there's Always, Hook, A.I., The Lost World and The Terminal amongst others.... He's a director who has kind of hit all bases: from bad to mediocre to great. Mostly, I find he tends to fall between the latter two.

I'm not saying Spielberg has 'fallen from grace', I think you'll find I've purposefully avoided that phrase

But he's just had very mixed successes over the years IMO (indeed, I'd put War Horse as a film that has both very poorly and very well considered bits to create a mixed whole). Although he almost single-handedly changed the way Hollywood works, and has been at some level involved in many of the big budget greats of the past few decades, not all of his influence has been positive.

Sad Professor · 24-02-2012 11:28am

Spielberg is greatly under appreciated if you ask me, similar to how Hitchcock probably was in the latter stages of his career, taken for granted with some of his best films overlooked or even outright dismissed. Even though I would have prefered that Kubrick had lived to make it, I'd still consider A.I. something of a flawed masterpiece, and I'd have no hesitation listing Catch Me If You Can among Spielberg's best films.

FlashD · 24-02-2012 5:30pm

Well to be honest I thought this thread was directors who have fallen from grace in the eyes of the public, Speilberg and Scorsese certainly haven't.

If its all just a matter of opinion and individual taste then every director is fair game to having directed a few stinkers....personally I think Christopher Nolan is on the way up but to someone who thinks his last few films are rubbish and he sold out for the big time, well he has fallen from grace.

Anyway, pity about Peter Jackson then...the Lovely Bones and that overbloated nonsence that was King Kong :pac:

Kinski · 24-02-2012 5:57pm

FlashD wrote: »

If its all just a matter of opinion and individual taste then every director is fair game to having directed a few stinkers....personally I think Christopher Nolan is on the way up but to someone who thinks his last few films are rubbish and he sold out for the big time, well he has fallen from grace.

I disagree with you about that. People sometimes invoke the "taste is entirely subjective" argument in debates over the merits of films, as if it were all just a matter of "different strokes for different folks." IMO, that's not how it is.

When you say that you like a film, clearly you're saying something about your personal subjective reaction to it. But when you say a film is good, bad, great, abysmal, then you're saying something about the film itself.

Of course, we all have to work from our own subjective positions, but forming an intelligent, informed opinion on a movie involves attributing qualities to the object itself. I think it's possible to construct arguments about the merits of a film, arguments which at least gesture toward an objective assessment of it (even if a purely objective assessment is impossible).

To take your example of Nolan, someone who wanted to argue that he hasn't lived up to his potential (which is a little different to "falling from grace") would have to build a case that The Dark Knight etc aren't as good as Memento, one which cites evidence from the films themselves - otherwise, their argument couldn't carry any weight, and it would just be a personal, subjective reaction, unlikely to persuade anyone.

bnt · 10-03-2012 12:31am

If Clint Eastwood hasn't already fallen from grace, his next film should seal the deal. He's directing a remake of A Star Is Born, a film already made many times before. Starring Beyoncé Knowles and possibly Tom Cruise. :eek:

mike65 · 10-03-2012 12:44am

Eastwoods music and romantic films have been rather good.

Directors who fell from grace

Comments