Why has the quality of mainstream film and music taken a nosedive since the 70's?

sxt

Compare the top rated albums of 1979,joy division,pink floyd, the clash ,talking heads ,michael jackson ,ac/dc ,fleetwood mac etc) All made by main stream musicianshttps://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1979

Who are mainstream today? ed sheeran ,adele? Taylor swift? kathy perry. none of these artists have made an album that will be listened to in 50 years time



Take the oscar winning movies of the 70s vs today. Every single one of those movies is a bonified cinematic classic!

1979 - "The Deer Hunter"
1978 - "Annie Hall"
1977 - "Rocky"
1976 - "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1975 - "The Godfather Part II"
1974 - "The Sting"
1973 - "The Godfather"
1972 - "The French Connection"
1971 - "Patton"
1970 - "Midnight Cowboy"

So many average movies winning oscars these days like argo,slumdog millionaire, chicago ,kings speech etc


it seems to be the late 1990s was where the steepest nosedive took place, in films anyway, thats when dreadful movies like titanic and shakespear in love started winning oscars

That correlates with the start of the Internet? Did the Internet kill creavity in the mainstream?

In the music industry, image overtook talent.

Your Face

Pink Floyd are the most overrated jizz-receptacles that ever vomited onto studio tape.

The Rape of Lucretia

I see no evidence that it has for mainstream music. It is all of of an equally low level, with little merit that will sustain interest in it in the long term.

Mainstream popular music is throwaway stuff, meaning something to those for whom it ties a time, place, era, stage in their lives, and the maturing of teens and twenty somethings. As they die out, others will have little interest in it, as the emotional life-soundtrack element is lacking, and they see it for the low grade music it is. The same effect happens for those comparing the music of a few decades earlier, with contemporary mainstream music. They are not of an age to have it engage them in those non musical ways, and so similarly, they see it, as you are in your examples, as fundamentally musically uninteresting.

Because you got older

it hasnt

Harry Palmr

Film scores have certainly got worse. Once they were sparce and atmospheric now it's non stop bombast in mainstream audience pleasers.

sxt

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I see no evidence that it has for mainstream music. It is all of of an equally low level, with little merit that will sustain interest in it in the long term.

but 50 years later ,people are still listening to those mainstream music albums
that were released in 1979. that is a testament to the quality of the music. all those albums are still classics today

In 2070 , no one will have heard of Adele or ed sheehan, let alone their albums? All their albums would in general get terrible reviews even today

The Rape of Lucretia

sxt wrote: »

but 50 years later ,people are still listening to those mainstream music albums
that were released in 1979. that is a testament to the quality of the music. all those albums are still classics today

In 2070 , no one will have heard of Adele or ed sheehan, let alone their albums?

Come on back to 2019! When we all get there, we will see what people are listening to in 2029.

steddyeddy

Your Face wrote: »

Pink Floyd are the most overrated jizz-receptacles that ever vomited onto studio tape.

Get out........

The Rape of Lucretia

sxt wrote: »

Adele or ed sheehan, let alone their albums? All their albums would in general get terrible reviews even today

Not really the case :

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/jan/20/popandrock.shopping1
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jun/19/ed-sheeran-x-review
https://www.nme.com/reviews/album/ed-sheeran-divide-album-review
https://www.nme.com/news/music/adele-138-1197521

Woke Hogan

Star Wars came out in 1977 and the generations who grew up watching it never graduated to serious films for adults.

A man born in the late 40s would have watched Tarzan films in the cinema when they were kids and mature, thematically more sophisticated films like Annie Hall by the late 70s.

A person born in the late 60s would have watched Star Wars in the late 70s and... another Star Wars films twenty years later in the cinema.

Now we’re at the stage that people in their mid thirties have only watched films for children in the cinema. Superhero films and cartoons for babies.

Mad_maxx

Occasionally watch old TOTP from the 80,s on BBC 4, rarely see a dud in the top 10, couldn't tell you a single top 10 hit today

Hal3000

Music has to evolve or else it just stays the same. I'm not a fan of any of today's music but at least artists are being brave and trying new things. This constant looking back at the past brings the arts nowhere. There are plenty of excellent modern films being made today also. They're just not mainstream / box office CGI hits.

Woke Hogan

Hal3000 wrote: »

Music has to evolve or else it just stays the same. I'm not a fan of any of today's music but at least artists are being brave and trying new things. This constant looking back at the past brings the arts nowhere. There are plenty of excellent modern films being made today also. They're just not mainstream / box office CGI hits.

Music criticism seems to have been hijacked by auld fellas in their forties and fifties in their soul patches and denim jackets harking back to the old days of pirate radio and Bono’s pals in bands. I’d hate to be a young fella now being forced to listen to that aul ****e.

fryup

a generation of kids playing xbox and playstation instead of learning to play an instrument

Badly Drunk Boy

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Occasionally watch old TOTP from the 80,s on BBC 4, rarely see a dud in the top 10, couldn't tell you a single top 10 hit today

I look at that the odd time. There might be one good song per 30 minutes, 2 or 3 if you're very lucky. Just like first time around, I suppose...

sk8erboii

sxt wrote: »

Compare the top rated albums of 1979,joy division,pink floyd, the clash ,talking heads ,michael jackson ,ac/dc ,fleetwood mac etc) All made by main stream musicianshttps://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1979

Who are mainstream today? ed sheeran ,adele? Taylor swift? kathy perry. none of these artists have made an album that will be listened to in 50 years time



Take the oscar winning movies of the 70s vs today. Every single one of those movies is a bonified cinematic classic!

1979 - "The Deer Hunter"
1978 - "Annie Hall"
1977 - "Rocky"
1976 - "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1975 - "The Godfather Part II"
1974 - "The Sting"
1973 - "The Godfather"
1972 - "The French Connection"
1971 - "Patton"
1970 - "Midnight Cowboy"

So many average movies winning oscars these days like argo,slumdog millionaire, chicago ,kings speech etc


it seems to be the late 1990s was where the steepest nosedive took place, in films anyway, thats when dreadful movies like titanic and shakespear in love started winning oscars

That correlates with the start of the Internet? Did the Internet kill creavity in the mainstream?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Half of those films dont even hold up. Corny and simplistic. Especially the French Connection, most people today agree its average at best. Though i can see how that would appeal to the lowest common denominator audiences. It gives old people a semblance of understanding, in a world thats slowly rejecting them

sk8erboii

sxt wrote: »

but 50 years later ,people are still listening to those mainstream music albums
that were released in 1979. that is a testament to the quality of the music. all those albums are still classics today

In 2070 , no one will have heard of Adele or ed sheehan, let alone their albums? All their albums would in general get terrible reviews even today

Low IQ comparison. There were tens of thousands of artists in the 70s, and only a handful stood out. Without the internet, they could not launch into platforms and fell into obscurity.


Fifty years from now there will always be a niche for contemporary artists due to the internet. Your bias doesnt even compare, you only know of pink floyd because theyre the few lucky ones that endured out of the thousands.

Meanwhile, theres hundreds of wikipedia pages of bands you never heard of


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Musical_groups_established_in_1970



Get your head outta your arse

chrissb8

Why complain about mainstream music when you can just go on youtube or spotify and discover every artist coming out with new music. There are some great artists coming out with music and for me I don't even know who is popular in the mainstream anymore. I mean who even cares anyway you have bluetooth technology everywhere nearly and don't even have to listen to anything you don't want to these days. Especially with shuffle functions giving you new song after new song....

Just be more selective, you have the choice. If you can't go through the effort of what is a pretty much effortless process of finding new good music to your tastes that's on you and not because you don't like what s***e is being spoon fed to you.

I will agree on cinema though. There is just absolute crap coming out in cinema and in general, it is hard to find a good film even for download or streaming. But then again it's all about the quality TV shows coming out as we are now in the golden age of TV.

JupiterKid

sk8erboii wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Half of those films dont even hold up. Corny and simplistic. Especially the French Connection, most people today agree its average at best. Though i can see how that would appeal to the lowest common denominator audiences. It gives old people a semblance of understanding, in a world thats slowly rejecting them

Absolute rubbish. All the films that won Best Picture at the Oscars in the 1970s were classics.

There has definitely been a serious erosion of talent and quality in music and film since the 1990s. I wonder if shows like the X-factor etc are partially to blame.

There is still very good material being made, just not anywhere near as much of it was there was 20, 30, 40+ years ago.

sk8erboii

JupiterKid wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. All the films that won Best Picture at the Oscars in the 1970s were classics.

There has definitely been a serious erosion of talent and quality in music and film since the 1990s. I wonder if shows like the X-factor etc are partially to blame.

There is still very good material being made, just not anywhere near as much of it was there was 20, 30, 40+ years ago.

Ah yes the ‘classics’ aka the non-quantifiable certification of movies that are simply OLD.

Mate i love some old movies, since they display innovation that simply wasnt done before. But if those same movies aired today they’d be lost in a dime a dozen police serial/slow burn artschool noir that now populate indie filmmaking scene.

Oh yeah those types of movies are still around, even better than ever. Except mainstream now means comicbook movies.

To to back to the french connection, where Hackman mumbles his way inbetween relentlessly static shots (technical limitation due to the nature of 35mm film cameras) Refn copies this style. Except now its nearly comedy because it turns out having slow, mumbling people bounce around long shots just give off the vibe of autism.

Drive (2011) is the prime example of this. If released in the 70s it would have been a ‘classic’ Instead of the unintended comedy that it actually is.

Movies like chinatown and its sequels are also like this. (((Classics))) with bad acting that is really only held together by innovation and good aesthetics

Wanderer78

Corporate music rocks, or kinna doesn't

Arghus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Ah yes the ‘classics’ aka the non-quantifiable certification of movies that are simply OLD.

Mate i love some old movies, since they display innovation that simply wasnt done before. But if those same movies aired today they’d be lost in a dime a dozen police serial/slow burn artschool noir that now populate indie filmmaking scene.

Oh yeah those types of movies are still around, even better than ever. Except mainstream now means comicbook movies.

To to back to the french connection, where Hackman mumbles his way inbetween relentlessly static shots (technical limitation due to the nature of 35mm film cameras) Refn copies this style. Except now its nearly comedy because it turns out having slow, mumbling people bounce around long shots just give off the vibe of autism.

Drive (2011) is the prime example of this. If released in the 70s it would have been a ‘classic’ Instead of the unintended comedy that it actually is.

Movies like chinatown and its sequels are also like this. (((Classics))) with bad acting that is really only held together by innovation and good aesthetics

You're spoofing hard kid.

Yermande

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Film scores have certainly got worse. Once they were sparce and atmospheric now it's non stop bombast in mainstream audience pleasers.

The Black Panther score excepted, recent Oscar winners have been very atmospheric and well judged. It's a category that the Academy voters frequently get 'right'.

Yermande

If anyone has a problem with mainstream cinema then take a trip to your nearest independent theatre, or subscribe to MUBI or BFI, or Curzon Home Cinema. Just do something instead of complaining. The mainstream marketplace is not yours to control but you can decide to support independent and foreign language film.

I simply cannot keep up with the sheer volume of outstanding films that are released each year. For me it involves putting my money where my mouth is by importing Blurays or trekking to Dublin for a cinema day, but it's worth it.

I enjoy a big-budget release as much as anyone else and I'll be first in line for the new Avengers flick this week, but my taste in art isn't determined by whatever Odeon have decided to screen in my area.

Pick up a copy of Sight and Sound and just look at the variety of films that are being released or that are currently in production. Cinema is alive and well.

Ash.J.Williams

Your Face wrote: »

Pink Floyd are the most overrated jizz-receptacles that ever vomited onto studio tape.

No they're not they're quite amazing

Wanderer78

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

No they're not they're quite amazing

all art is highly subjective, all people should be allowed to express their opinion on it, whether its positive or negative, its perfectly fine for somebody to completely disagree with you. went through a floyd phase, some of it is great, some of it is dreadful, but sure isnt most art, but i do think we kinna get carried away with ourselves with placing some artists on a peddle still

Ash.J.Williams

Wanderer78 wrote: »

all art is highly subjective, all people should be allowed to express their opinion on it, whether its positive or negative, its perfectly fine for somebody to completely disagree with you. went through a floyd phase, some of it is great, some of it is dreadful, but sure isnt most art, but i do think we kinna get carried away with ourselves with placing some artists on a peddle still

That was a waste of a paragraph

Yermande

sxt wrote: »

Take the oscar winning movies of the 70s vs today. Every single one of those movies is a bonified cinematic classic!

1979 - "The Deer Hunter"
1978 - "Annie Hall"
1977 - "Rocky"
1976 - "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1975 - "The Godfather Part II"
1974 - "The Sting"
1973 - "The Godfather"
1972 - "The French Connection"
1971 - "Patton"
1970 - "Midnight Cowboy"

So many average movies winning oscars these days like argo,slumdog millionaire, chicago ,kings speech etc.

I don't think a simple list like the above tells the full story. Yes, The Godfather triumphed in 1973 and its 10 nominations was matched by Cabaret (which went on to win 8), but the other multiple-award nominees included The Poseidon Adventure, Lady Sings the Blues, The Emigrants, Sleuth, Sounder, Travels with My Aunt and Butterflies are Free. It wasn't a particularly outstanding year for potential Oscar winners.

Compare that to this year's ceremony. Green Book was a bland Best Picture winner, but my personal favourites include Roma, The Favourite, BlacKkKlansman, If Beale Street Could Talk and Cold War. We can debate about what lasting appeal they might have but I personally think think that this years' crop, taken as a whole, is a stronger list of films.

And then there's the variety. Take Roma and Cold War, for example. Two black and white, foreign-language films (the latter in 4:3 aspect ratio no less) going head to head for Best Director at an awards ceremony traditionally dominated by English-language film. Then there's Isle of Dogs and Into the Spider-Verse, animated films from completely different ends of the spectrum, and both really pushing the envelope of their respective traditions, further proof that we're living in a golden age of animation.

We might not have had a Godfather in 2019 but I think that this year's Oscars, for what they're worth, are indicative of the quality and variety that still breaks through each year.

Wanderer78

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That was a waste of a paragraph

ah sure, life sucks

castletownman

I genuinely find it ironic that as technology has grown and CGI has advanced, that at the same time the quality of screen writing has diminshed.

Just look at the top 10 highest grossing films every year for the last few years. They are generally remakes, sequels or the latest iteration of the 'Marvel Universe'. Probably visually awesome to look at it in terms of 'action', but lacking in any sort of substance otherwise.

Now I know that highest grossing doesn't equate to best movies of the year, but it certainly is a valid point.

Sonics2k

This entire thread can be summed up with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0wTtiJygY

Censored11

I've thought for a long time now that all the good sh!t has already been done. Music & film have had its best times, it's as simple as that imo.
The sweetest melodies have been played and the greatest stories have been told...

AAAAAAAAA

You know why we don't see any music like Pink Floyd or the Beatles now? Because those things were already done.

Genres that didn't even exist in the 1970s are having their 10/10 albums being made today. You don't hear them because you're old and not continuing to try them. You're already caught in the lazy headspace of "the 70s were the best, nothing will ever be better".

Ri_Nollaig

I dunno about music as I am sure the same will be said in 20-30 years time. There is a lot of crap around today but there was plenty crap before too, its easy to look back and only pick the better songs.

As for movies! I definitely agree with you!
I think movies in the past ~10 years have definitely dropped in quality.
Nothing but endless super hero movies...
Really can't think of anything that stands up or is even worth a second watch. Bar the now very odd few like Mad Max Fury Road.

Meanwhile TV has exploded, used to be where washed up actors went now it seems to be where you find the best.

sk8erboii

Arghus wrote: »

You're spoofing hard kid.

Nah mate you know its true. Your ‘classics’ are just childhood movies youve latched on to

Yermande

castletownman wrote: »

I genuinely find it ironic that as technology has grown and CGI has advanced, that at the same time the quality of screen writing has diminshed.

Just look at the top 10 highest grossing films every year for the last few years. They are generally remakes, sequels or the latest iteration of the 'Marvel Universe'. Probably visually awesome to look at it in terms of 'action', but lacking in any sort of substance otherwise.

Now I know that highest grossing doesn't equate to best movies of the year, but it certainly is a valid point.

I'm loath to make simple year-by-year comparisons because there's all sort of demographic shifts and commercial factors at play, but looking at the top grossing films from the 1970s versus the current decade makes for grim reading, and I say that as someone who enjoys the Marvel Universe films.

It brings to mind something the author Will Self once said about Saturday night television. When he tuned into Parkinson as a kid he might see a novelist or a playwright being interviewed on prime time television and that that instilled in him the belief that becoming a writer was the ultimate cultural goal that a young man of his background could have. Can you imagine anyone, even a young middle-class British child, saying that in 2019?

I'm a firm believer that talent will break through and that high-quality literature and film, to quote Jeff Goldbum in Jurassic Park, "will find a way". But it does seem that my generation (I'm 34) has to dig a bit deeper for it and that a certain superficiality or weightlessness is what dominates the mainstream.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

Low IQ comparison. There were tens of thousands of artists in the 70s, and only a handful stood out. Without the internet, they could not launch into platforms and fell into obscurity.


Fifty years from now there will always be a niche for contemporary artists due to the internet. Your bias doesnt even compare, you only know of pink floyd because theyre the few lucky ones that endured out of the thousands.

Meanwhile, theres hundreds of wikipedia pages of bands you never heard of


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Musical_groups_established_in_1970



Get your head outta your arse

Bands nobody ever heard about now are not going to be remembered in the future.

sk8erboii

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

I dunno about music as I am sure the same will be said in 20-30 years time. There is a lot of crap around today but there was plenty crap before too, its easy to look back and only pick the better songs.

As for movies! I definitely agree with you!
I think movies in the past ~10 years have definitely dropped in quality.
Nothing but endless super hero movies...
Really can't think of anything that stands up or is even worth a second watch. Bar the now very odd few like Mad Max Fury Road.

Meanwhile TV has exploded, used to be where washed up actors went now it seems to be where you find the best.

Nah lad, you just havent seen enough movies. If you want the *CLASSIC* aesthetic and narrative beats go check out Taylor Sheridan, Saulnier, Villeneuve, Nicolas Refn, Pizzolatto, Fukunaga, Gaspar Noe ETC ETC ETC

Mate good movies never went away, they just went indie.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

Ah yes the ‘classics’ aka the non-quantifiable certification of movies that are simply OLD.

Mate i love some old movies, since they display innovation that simply wasnt done before. But if those same movies aired today they’d be lost in a dime a dozen police serial/slow burn artschool noir that now populate indie filmmaking scene.

Oh yeah those types of movies are still around, even better than ever. Except mainstream now means comicbook movies.

To to back to the french connection, where Hackman mumbles his way inbetween relentlessly static shots (technical limitation due to the nature of 35mm film cameras) Refn copies this style. Except now its nearly comedy because it turns out having slow, mumbling people bounce around long shots just give off the vibe of autism.

Drive (2011) is the prime example of this. If released in the 70s it would have been a ‘classic’ Instead of the unintended comedy that it actually is.

Movies like chinatown and its sequels are also like this. (((Classics))) with bad acting that is really only held together by innovation and good aesthetics

Chinatown has bad acting? Maybe you should stick to guardians of the galaxy or the latest Spider-Man.

You’re an odd fish - very defensive of your generation’s ability (although of ourselves the makers and actors in modern movies are middle aged).

If it makes you feel any better TV is in a golden age now.

the_syco

sxt wrote: »

but 50 years later ,people are still listening to those mainstream music albums
that were released in 1979. that is a testament to the quality of the music. all those albums are still classics today

If you go Bach far enough, you'll wonder if music started going bad in the 1700's :pac:

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Chinatown has bad acting? Maybe you should stick to guardians of the galaxy or the latest Spider-Man.

You’re an odd fish - very defensive of your generation’s ability (although of ourselves the makers and actors in modern movies are middle aged).

If it makes you feel any better TV is in a golden age now.

Im not defensive. Im merely pointing out the stupid assertion that older = better. Its pretty pathetic that you even have to mention marvel movies.

Its not about generations either, i never mentioned this. It seems YOURE the defensive one.

Chinatown and its sequels have bad acting. The first one was saved by its editing and strong visual aesthetic,


https://youtu.be/_7Y_OCGOKTk

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bands nobody ever heard about now are not going to be remembered in the future.

Mainstream =\= no ones heard of

You realize theres hundreds of artists on YouTube who are indie but still has hundreds of millions of views?

Yermande

sk8erboii wrote: »

Im not defensive. Im merely pointing out the stupid assertion that older = better. Its pretty pathetic that you even have to mention marvel movies.

Its not about generations either, i never mentioned this. It seems YOURE the defensive one.

Chinatown and its sequels have bad acting. The first one was saved by its editing and strong visual aesthetic,


https://youtu.be/_7Y_OCGOKTk

What's the second sequel to Chinatown?

Also, what exactly about the editing saved the film?

sk8erboii

Yermande wrote: »

What's the second sequel to Chinatown?

Also, what exactly about the editing saved the film?

Mistype

Also read

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Roman polanski’s direction carried the movie. His european style of focusing on landscape, lighting and dynamic camera that changes POV to objects to convey emotion.

Meanwhile the sequel is american in its direction, focusing on characters actions and reactions. Unfortunately this only highlights the poor acting

Sleeper12

sxt wrote:

Who are mainstream today? ed sheeran ,adele? Taylor swift? kathy perry. none of these artists have made an album that will be listened to in 50 years time

sxt wrote:

Compare the top rated albums of 1979,joy division,pink floyd, the clash ,talking heads ,michael jackson ,ac/dc ,fleetwood mac etc) All made by main stream musicians

There were many people who heard the bands you mentioned above at the time & compared them to Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley etc and claimed no one would listen to them in 50 years

Yermande

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mistype

Also read

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Roman polanski’s direction carried the movie.

Explain what it was about the editing that saved the film. I personally only notice bad editing. I don't have an eye for identifying when editing carries a film. The film critic Mark Kermode once said the same thing about George Lucas' American Grafiti. He said it wasn't directed very well, it was just brilliantly edited. I don't understand that. You evidently do. If you have the time please gives us a brief tutorial, to accompany the philosophy tutorial material you've shared above.

sk8erboii

Yermande wrote: »

Explain what it was about the editing that saved the film. I personally only notice bad editing. I don't have an eye for identifying when editing carries a film. The film critic Mark Kermode once said the same thing about George Lucas' American Grafiti. He said it wasn't directed very well, it was just brilliantly edited. I don't understand that. You evidently do. If you have the time please gives us a brief tutorial, to accompany the philosophy tutorial material you've shared above.

Aside from what i already wrote, Polanski uses strong visuals to hide bad acting. Rosemary’s Baby has the leading lady screaming in bed and were it not for the POV jump cut to a demons face it wouldve been comical.

Likewise in Chinatown, the strong visual motif of the gritty urban noir hides the poor acting. Notice during heightened scenes the camera cuts and focuses on OBJECTS rather than the actors. Because said objects conveyed abstract emotions more effectively than bad acting

Someone else might be able to give a detailed analysis, im just a casual watcher with no formal education on the subject

Gimme A Pound

Deleted User wrote: »

it hasnt

Mainstream music absolutely has.

And Hollywood is churning out superhero franchises and remakes at a rate of knots for a reason also (anything else too risky).

There is still plenty of brilliant stuff of course, but it's the mainstream being referred to here.

Yermande

sk8erboii wrote: »

im just a casual watcher

That's why I'm interested. I rarely, if ever, hear anyone casually refer to editing.

You were talking about Polanski's choice of shots and his overall approach to conveying emotion. But where does his visual style end and the final edit begin? I mean he didn't edit Chinatown. There are many auteur directors who don't edit their films. It's a relationship I don't really understand and I find it difficult to see where good direction ends and good editing begins. I'm sure there's huge overlap, but then again there are many celebrated editors so it must be a significant creative element in its own right.

You seem to be speaking about Polanski's overall direction, not the editing specifically. But as you say, you're just a casual observer. Cool. So am I.