(Top: Spielberg, Scorsese, De Palma, Lucas, and Coppola, 1994. Bottom: Hooper, Russel, Aronofsy, Nolan, and Fincher, 2010)
Last year’s slate of Best Directors was one of the most impressive lineups ever. Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher, Joel and Ethan Coen, David O. Russell and of course, the winner, Tom Hooper. I’m not going to go over this each and every time I write about the Oscars this year, but you have to know that in the 13 years I’ve been doing this I’ve never seen a less experienced, out of nowhere winner like Tom Hooper beat someone like Fincher, who not only has built an esteemed career, who not only won every critics award he came up for (more than any director in awards history, recent or not), but was a homegrown director our film industry here in America should celebrate up one side and down the other. Some films have tremendous power to move us and The King’s Speech was one of those. It was like Slumdog Millionaire (minus Danny Boyle’s brilliant career behind it), or Million Dollar Baby (minus Clint Eastwood’s brilliant career behind it). And so, we are forgetting (as we pause to remember!) and moving forward with the notion that the Academy — and we can throw in the DGA now — will never vote for a movie that pundits and critics are telling them they SHOULD vote for if they didn’t “like” that movie as much as they liked the one that moved them.
Give Oscar voters a choice, most of the time they will go with the admirable character over the darker one. That was why, believe it or not, when No Country for Old Men came out, there was doubt it would even get nominated, doubt it could even win – why, because it was too dark and it had an ambiguous (albeit brilliant) ending. Back then, no one ever thought the Academy could take their swinging balls and make a brave choice like that. Now, of course, it seems silly that anyone ever imagined any other film winning that year. The same sort of scenario played out with The Departed. When The Hurt Locker came around, there was some similar discussion, but since we’d already seen films with darker themes winning, the question revolved around box-office clout, of which the Hurt Locker had little.
I asked my twitter followers to pick the best film in five year grouping. And this is how it went down – in a totally non-scientific grouping – with maybe fifteen responders each time, so perhaps it doesn’t tell you much):
First group:
The King’s Speech
The Hurt Locker
Slumdog Millionaire
No Country for Old Men
The Departed
The clear winner was No Country for Old Men, which is such a good movie in retrospect, and was recognized as such, across the board that year, it could probably be in the running for best Best Picture winner of the last twenty years. The Departed and The Hurt Locker wrestled for second. Not a lot of love for the two heartlight pics, Slumdog and The King’s Speech – that’s because those kinds of movies can sometimes last (It’s a Wonderful Life) but most of the time do not. And that’s because the people that write about films, and those who immerse themselves in film history, aren’t necessarily the kinds of people who appreciate those kinds of movies. But ask any Joe Schmoe on the street and they will always pick the films that moved them most.
Next group:
Crash
Million Dollar Baby
Return of the King
Chicago
A Beautiful Mind
This was an easy call – the answers came back Return of the King by a long way. That’s a film that probably anyone would say was the best of those five. It was not only a monumental achievement in and of itself but it capped off that exceptional trilogy. No other film got a mention except Crash, which one person tweeted was their favorite.
Final Group:
Gladiator
American Beauty
Shakespeare in Love
Titanic
The English Patient
This was slightly more divided, with the winner coming out as American Beauty, followed by The English Patient, weirdly enough. If we’re talking about films that have staying power, Titanic certainly fits that bill. Ask the majority of Americans which of these five is best and they’d come back with Titanic.
These selections of years for Oscar represent the time I’ve spent watching the race. I remember each and every one of these years and I’ve seen the Oscar race go from being a representation of films the public liked to being a much more insular representation of artful films the critics, and occasionally the public, liked. The King’s Speech, The Departed and Slumdog Millionaire are films beloved by both the public and the critics. With No Country for Old Men and The Departed we start to see a much narrower sampling of people who appreciate them.
The Academy has mostly mirrored the public’s attitude over the cinephiles except that they’ve had a harder and harder time doing so, what with the big studios opting for films aimed at 13 year-old boys: sequels, comic book movies, remakes — rinse, repeat. The changes have resulted in lower ratings for the Oscar telecast and a general disconnect between the AMPAS and the public.
But when the Oscars honor mainstream big studio films (as they might have done last year with The Social Network or True Grit, despite the undeniable popularity of The King’s Speech and Black Swan) that in turn motivates the big studios to continue to put out better and better films. And they do that by fortifying their great directors while also taking chances on new blood.
Up until last year, it could be safely argued that the director was the star of the Best Picture race. Career span mattered. Their ability to stretch as artists mattered. Their prestige within the industry mattered. But last year wiped that slate clean. The upside of Hooper’s win is that it showed that if a movie is good enough even a mostly unknown director can still take home the Best Director Oscar, even up against the most brilliant directors working in the industry, up against Joel and Ethan Coen for goddsakes.
Sure, we’ve seen virtual unknowns (usually British) win before, but somehow it seemed like a pattern was being set with Scorsese, the Coens, Boyle and Bigelow. That pattern was shattered last year – in a good way and in a not so good way: last year rendered the unanimous opinion of critics irrelevant when it comes to the Oscars. Some might say The King’s Speech was going to win no matter what kind of forces opposed it. Others say that the unanimous pressure by the critics turned voters off. But you won’t find many who would not be bothered by the way the Best Director race turned out. On the other hand, with Hooper’s win, it gives hope to newbies that they too can win among such heavyweights.
To that end, this year, we can still celebrate the visionaries, the veterans and the breakthrough directors who, on the upside, should have hope that they too can win an Oscar coming out of nowhere (but it helps if they are British).
The All Stars
*Won at least one Oscar for directing
Martin Scorsese for Hugo*
Clint Eastwood for J Edgar*
Steven Spielberg for War Horse*
Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris*
Steven Soderbergh for Contagion*
Alexander Payne for The Descendants
David Fincher for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Terrence Malick for Tree of Life
Cameron Crowe for We Bought a Zoo
David Cronenberg for A Dangerous Method
Roman Polanski for Carnage*
The Reliables / They Elevate the Genre
Stephen Daldry for Extremely Loud, Incredibly Close
JJ Abrams for Super 8
Bennett Miller for Moneyball
Bill Condon, Twilight Breaking Dawn
David Yates, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone Deathly Hallows, Pt 2
Rupert Wyatt, Rise of the Planet of the Apes
The Outsider Wunderkinds / Auteurs
Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist
Steve McQueen for Shame
Thomas Alfredson for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
Lars Von Trier for Melancholia
Lynn Ramsay for We Need to Talk About Kevin
Nicolas Winding Refn for Drive
Oren Moverman for Rampart
Gavin O’Connor for Warrior
Joe Cornish for Attack the Block
Rordrigo Garcia for Albert Nobbs
Anrea Arnold for Wuthering Heights
The Tom Hooper model/out of nowheres
Tate Taylor for The Help
Simon Curtis for My Week with Marilyn
Actors/musicians-turned-directors
Proven:
George Clooney for The Ides of March (working his way up to All Stars)
Sarah Polley for Take This Waltz
Jodie Foster for The Beaver
BETA:
Vera Farmiga for Higher Ground
Angelina Jolie for In The Land of Blood and Honey
Madonna for W.E.
The only reason anyone should care about the Oscars at all – most have long since checked out – is because they’re meant to represent our own highest honor in the Hollywood film industry, which is supposed to give a prize to the best achievement in filmmaking every year. We believe them to take this honor very seriously. But what (some of us, sometimes) forget is that these are not critics voting, despite evidence of great taste in the past few years. They are craftspeople and grandparents. Many are upper middle class retirees just trying to make it to 80. A few of them may be tired. Most of them just want to sit back and let a great movie take them away. That is why, if they love the film, they also love the director most of the time. You have to be good at what you do to make a film that so many people liked. So why not Tom Hooper?
All the same, we can expect our Big Five to be pulled from, I’m going to bet, the All Stars list. One or two might be plucked from the other groups but for the most part, it’s still a game played by the big boys.
We’re also looking at a scenario where there will be five directors chosen for, we have to assume, the five strongest Best Picture candidates. 4 out of 5 directors would likely see their film nominated for Best Picture if there were still only five Best Picture nominees.
Right now, if you don’t count the movies that haven’t yet been seen (which is essentially all of the Big Oscar Movies) Best Director might look something like this:
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, Tree of Life
Nicolas Winding Refn for Drive or Steve McQueen for Shame
But if all goes according to plan, and your Oscar prognosticators would likely choose something more like:
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
David Fincher, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Steven Spielberg, War Horse
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris or Terrence Malick for Tree of Life
But it’s really too soon to say anything for sure. This is spitballing of the highest order. However, it seems safe to say that, right now, the only sure bet is Alexander Payne for The Descendants.
This is the reason we keep coming back for more, we Oscar watchers. The thrill of the chase, the definition of art, the emerging masterpiece, the celebration of cinema. It’s all here, trapped in this hamster wheel, this circus, this treacherous game.
It is still only September. We’ve months yet. And so we wait. We wait.
believe me, Woddy Allen won’t be nominated for best director, perhaps screenplay. and Midnight in Paris won’t be nominated for best pic. believe me 🙂 and the girl with the dragon tattoo doesn’t look like a lock so i don’t understand why you are so strongly rooting for it. regarding out of nowhere newbie directors winner over more established ones, tom hooper is not the firt. i could think of william friedkin for the the french connection who won over the great stanley kubrick as an example. so this “abberant phenomenon” is not new. thanks
believe me, Woddy Allen won’t be nominated for best director, perhaps screenplay. and Midnight in Paris won’t be nominated for best pic. believe me 🙂 and the girl with the dragon tattoo doesn’t look like a lock so i don’t understand why you are so strongly rooting for it. regarding out of nowhere newbie directors winner over more established ones, tom hooper is not the firt. i could think of william friedkin for the the french connection who won over the great stanley kubrick as an example. so this “abberant phenomenon” is not new. thanks
Don’t mean to open the HP can of worms again, but I I’m going to anyway:
I loved Deathly Hallows: Part II, and I think it’s one of the best movies of 2011. In a normal year (a year in which there was a field of 10) this would be lock for its first (and long-awaited) Best Picture nomination. Now, with the rule change of earning 5% of #1 votes, I just don’t see it happening, unless “J Edgar” gets mixed ink from the critics and/or the Brits and the studio pull out all the stops campaigning it, and i’m sure that’s how Sasha and Ryan are viewing it. If you want to bitch to anyone about why HP may not get in this year, tell it to Warner Bros. or to AMPAS, for the unnecessary rule change two years after expanding the BP race to 10.
Don’t mean to open the HP can of worms again, but I I’m going to anyway:
I loved Deathly Hallows: Part II, and I think it’s one of the best movies of 2011. In a normal year (a year in which there was a field of 10) this would be lock for its first (and long-awaited) Best Picture nomination. Now, with the rule change of earning 5% of #1 votes, I just don’t see it happening, unless “J Edgar” gets mixed ink from the critics and/or the Brits and the studio pull out all the stops campaigning it, and i’m sure that’s how Sasha and Ryan are viewing it. If you want to bitch to anyone about why HP may not get in this year, tell it to Warner Bros. or to AMPAS, for the unnecessary rule change two years after expanding the BP race to 10.
Matt, I’m not arguing the usefulness of a theoretic approach. I think it is impossible to separate your theoretical insights from your gut feelings. If you are whole individual, your theoretical and emotional reactions are probably entwined to the point of being un-recognizable from each other. My gut feeling towards an aesthetic object is formed by having spent eight years in university learning stuff! And it is informed with my emotional self in various other ways, that have to do with who I am and how I got to be that way.
To me, you don’t have to resort to a notion of auteur theory or courses on film form in order to feel equipped to talk or write about movies. That is the sole purpose for me of this part of the discussion (the other part being my “heavy-handed opinions” on late-career Scorsese…) Knowledge of films is hardly reducible to a definition that is concerned purely with academic knowledge, is it? Because if it is, we have to sack a hell of a lot of prominent critics!
So what I am resisting is this tendency to bow down to a strictly formal set of criteria for what functions as valid critique. Ok? Otherwise you can always end any discussion with a knowing shrug: well, how many courses have you been assigned to on film theory. And the loser of the discussion will be the one with the fewest or none. There is no need to use it as a trump card. Just use arguments, is all I’m saying. Based on gut feeling or theory, i don’t care. State your case, and let others do the same. That’s called the art of discussion. That’s also something you can do academic courses in, btw.
Matt, I’m not arguing the usefulness of a theoretic approach. I think it is impossible to separate your theoretical insights from your gut feelings. If you are whole individual, your theoretical and emotional reactions are probably entwined to the point of being un-recognizable from each other. My gut feeling towards an aesthetic object is formed by having spent eight years in university learning stuff! And it is informed with my emotional self in various other ways, that have to do with who I am and how I got to be that way.
To me, you don’t have to resort to a notion of auteur theory or courses on film form in order to feel equipped to talk or write about movies. That is the sole purpose for me of this part of the discussion (the other part being my “heavy-handed opinions” on late-career Scorsese…) Knowledge of films is hardly reducible to a definition that is concerned purely with academic knowledge, is it? Because if it is, we have to sack a hell of a lot of prominent critics!
So what I am resisting is this tendency to bow down to a strictly formal set of criteria for what functions as valid critique. Ok? Otherwise you can always end any discussion with a knowing shrug: well, how many courses have you been assigned to on film theory. And the loser of the discussion will be the one with the fewest or none. There is no need to use it as a trump card. Just use arguments, is all I’m saying. Based on gut feeling or theory, i don’t care. State your case, and let others do the same. That’s called the art of discussion. That’s also something you can do academic courses in, btw.
@Julian
You keep seeming to suggest that whenever someone brings up a theoretical framework for evaluating movies (formalism, auteur theory, etc.) that they become slaves to their theory and cut themselves off from some sort of “purer” appreciation of cinema. I’m sorry, but it simply doesn’t work that way. Being aware of these things better equips you to engage with works in a more sophisticated manner. That’s all. There’s still nothing that prevents you from following your instincts. If nothing else, having this background helps you to hone and sharpen those instincts as well as equipping you with a critical vocabulary for the more effective expressing of your opinions.
When someone mentions auteur theory, they are simply looking for points of consistency (aesthetic, thematic, etc.) within a director’s body of work. It doesn’t limit you, to the contrary it gives you tools towards a fuller, more significant appreciation of the artist, and the art.
@Julian
You keep seeming to suggest that whenever someone brings up a theoretical framework for evaluating movies (formalism, auteur theory, etc.) that they become slaves to their theory and cut themselves off from some sort of “purer” appreciation of cinema. I’m sorry, but it simply doesn’t work that way. Being aware of these things better equips you to engage with works in a more sophisticated manner. That’s all. There’s still nothing that prevents you from following your instincts. If nothing else, having this background helps you to hone and sharpen those instincts as well as equipping you with a critical vocabulary for the more effective expressing of your opinions.
When someone mentions auteur theory, they are simply looking for points of consistency (aesthetic, thematic, etc.) within a director’s body of work. It doesn’t limit you, to the contrary it gives you tools towards a fuller, more significant appreciation of the artist, and the art.
Besides, this is a debate forum. We are both shooting from the hips, buddy. Or rather, not just the two of us: all users of this forum! That’s what it’s about, right? We are not in the world of academia, you know.
Besides, this is a debate forum. We are both shooting from the hips, buddy. Or rather, not just the two of us: all users of this forum! That’s what it’s about, right? We are not in the world of academia, you know.
drake, I’m not AGAINST film knowledge, where do you get that from?? I was just saying something obvious: that having been academically schooled in film theory does not equate with being a great critic. And that having that knowledge is not an EXCLUSIVE route to form sound opinions on movies. Ok?
Jesus.
Furthermore, I think that a schooling inside different branches of cultural theory and the arts in general secures a better frame for a fruitful discussion on movies, than for example a narrow “auteur theory” mindset can provide. That is hopefully obvious to you as well…?
drake, I’m not AGAINST film knowledge, where do you get that from?? I was just saying something obvious: that having been academically schooled in film theory does not equate with being a great critic. And that having that knowledge is not an EXCLUSIVE route to form sound opinions on movies. Ok?
Jesus.
Furthermore, I think that a schooling inside different branches of cultural theory and the arts in general secures a better frame for a fruitful discussion on movies, than for example a narrow “auteur theory” mindset can provide. That is hopefully obvious to you as well…?
@ julian
i didn’t mean this “you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide” towards you personally…and i certainly didn’t mean i should be the tour guide… i was just championing having a background knowledge and appreciation of film, film theories, and film history… to me a person who possesses this knowledge should be the tour guide, and not someone who is against film knowledge (how can you be against that?) and prefers to “shoot from the hip”
@ julian
i didn’t mean this “you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide” towards you personally…and i certainly didn’t mean i should be the tour guide… i was just championing having a background knowledge and appreciation of film, film theories, and film history… to me a person who possesses this knowledge should be the tour guide, and not someone who is against film knowledge (how can you be against that?) and prefers to “shoot from the hip”
bryce, to quote your compadre, drake: the “creatively bankrupt” statement was a “heavy-handed opinion” on my behalf and to repeat myself: If I was a professional critic (which, thankfully I’m not, apparently) I would never have used that term. Ok? It was a stretch, for sure.
Ok, good night. See you around…;)
bryce, to quote your compadre, drake: the “creatively bankrupt” statement was a “heavy-handed opinion” on my behalf and to repeat myself: If I was a professional critic (which, thankfully I’m not, apparently) I would never have used that term. Ok? It was a stretch, for sure.
Ok, good night. See you around…;)
drake, all very good. But do you really feel that we would have a better discussion of movies if everybody was due versed in film theory? that is an absurd elitist claim, that has nothing to do with either a appreciation of movies or appreciation of debate and discussion.
“you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide”. That’s downright arrogant, my friend.
But hey, Of course you have a valid point, somehow. For example I would not like to read reviews of movies by “regular Joe’s”, for that professional critics can set a higher bar, that will be helpful in securing a qualified debate on movies.
But I think you are wrong when you assume that you have to read film theory in order to feel like “the tour guide in the museum”. How many great critics have studied film theory, do you think? Have they had the time? Not likely.
A basic schooling in aesthetic philosophy (reading Gadamer is always a good place to start), comparative analysis, phenomenology etc. could be just as helpful. Movies exist within a large cultural frame, you know.
And please consider this (and excuse me for repeating myself from the earlier post): A theory should never be used to form an opinion. It should be the other way around, let your opinion of a film decide how you approach (or confront) the theory.
That’s what I believe, because being a dogmatist is so very boring…
drake, all very good. But do you really feel that we would have a better discussion of movies if everybody was due versed in film theory? that is an absurd elitist claim, that has nothing to do with either a appreciation of movies or appreciation of debate and discussion.
“you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide”. That’s downright arrogant, my friend.
But hey, Of course you have a valid point, somehow. For example I would not like to read reviews of movies by “regular Joe’s”, for that professional critics can set a higher bar, that will be helpful in securing a qualified debate on movies.
But I think you are wrong when you assume that you have to read film theory in order to feel like “the tour guide in the museum”. How many great critics have studied film theory, do you think? Have they had the time? Not likely.
A basic schooling in aesthetic philosophy (reading Gadamer is always a good place to start), comparative analysis, phenomenology etc. could be just as helpful. Movies exist within a large cultural frame, you know.
And please consider this (and excuse me for repeating myself from the earlier post): A theory should never be used to form an opinion. It should be the other way around, let your opinion of a film decide how you approach (or confront) the theory.
That’s what I believe, because being a dogmatist is so very boring…
@the emperor
The difference between you and me is that when I say I don’t love a Scorsese film, it isn’t because I believe he’s creatively bankrupt, it’s because Joe Pesci plays the same character with varying degrees of psycho. Much the same as when I say that I don’t love Punch-Drunk Love because of Adam Sandler’s attachment, yet I can still admire PTA’s vision for the film.
@the emperor
The difference between you and me is that when I say I don’t love a Scorsese film, it isn’t because I believe he’s creatively bankrupt, it’s because Joe Pesci plays the same character with varying degrees of psycho. Much the same as when I say that I don’t love Punch-Drunk Love because of Adam Sandler’s attachment, yet I can still admire PTA’s vision for the film.
julian,
I honestly didn’t mean to condescend. You said to use senses and senses only and i think we can all do better than that (I know i can and have for years). I don’t think there is anything wrong (quite the opposite actually) with being well versed or studied in film, different film theories (film form is a great place to start if you haven’t started), film history, etc. If you don’t have this knowledge, then you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide and frankly you shouldn’t be giving such heavy-handed opinions. These don’t drive my final evaluation of a film but they sure give me some sort of consistency, credibility, and validity to my evaluation. Perhaps this is why we differ so much here. I must, like Matt, conclude you have some sort of biased to these two directors which is detracting you from actual films; which are, at least to those who subscribe to similar background and knowledge of film as myself, good art- that ship has sailed, that consensus has been built and solidified. I’m not saying we can’t agree in areas (we obviously agree on fincher and haneke) and you aren’t entitled to your opinion, you definitely are. But my brother is also entitled to his opinion, and he thinks “Step Brothers” is the best movie of all time… he also uses the “go with your gut” type of evaluation process you go with. I think my opinion on film is worth more than his.
julian,
I honestly didn’t mean to condescend. You said to use senses and senses only and i think we can all do better than that (I know i can and have for years). I don’t think there is anything wrong (quite the opposite actually) with being well versed or studied in film, different film theories (film form is a great place to start if you haven’t started), film history, etc. If you don’t have this knowledge, then you are the tourist in the museum and not the tour guide and frankly you shouldn’t be giving such heavy-handed opinions. These don’t drive my final evaluation of a film but they sure give me some sort of consistency, credibility, and validity to my evaluation. Perhaps this is why we differ so much here. I must, like Matt, conclude you have some sort of biased to these two directors which is detracting you from actual films; which are, at least to those who subscribe to similar background and knowledge of film as myself, good art- that ship has sailed, that consensus has been built and solidified. I’m not saying we can’t agree in areas (we obviously agree on fincher and haneke) and you aren’t entitled to your opinion, you definitely are. But my brother is also entitled to his opinion, and he thinks “Step Brothers” is the best movie of all time… he also uses the “go with your gut” type of evaluation process you go with. I think my opinion on film is worth more than his.
You have an irrational relationship with Joe Pesci, Bryce. Talk to your therapist. That can be cured, I’m sure. Then you won’t have to be a Scorsese-hating troll anymore. You will feel cleansed, trust me.
You have an irrational relationship with Joe Pesci, Bryce. Talk to your therapist. That can be cured, I’m sure. Then you won’t have to be a Scorsese-hating troll anymore. You will feel cleansed, trust me.
Ha! If I meet him I will probably claim to love ALL his work. I easily get starstruck, you know? From one Scorsese-hating troll to another…
Ha! If I meet him I will probably claim to love ALL his work. I easily get starstruck, you know? From one Scorsese-hating troll to another…
GoodFellas is a solid 100 for me in all the parts that don’t have Joe Pesci. And a solid 70 for the parts that do. Pesci almost single-handedly ruined every scene he was in in Raging Bull, GoodFellas, Casino, and Once Upon a Time in America for me, though I don’t deny that they’re all spectacularly well directed/written/photographed/acted pieces of cinema.
GoodFellas is a solid 100 for me in all the parts that don’t have Joe Pesci. And a solid 70 for the parts that do. Pesci almost single-handedly ruined every scene he was in in Raging Bull, GoodFellas, Casino, and Once Upon a Time in America for me, though I don’t deny that they’re all spectacularly well directed/written/photographed/acted pieces of cinema.
“I adore Scorsese. He is a hero of mine. For fuck’s sake.”
Well if you ever meet your hero on the street be sure not to tell him how you think he’s been creatively bankrupt since the early-mid 90s. Sends off a bit of a mixed message.
“I adore Scorsese. He is a hero of mine. For fuck’s sake.”
Well if you ever meet your hero on the street be sure not to tell him how you think he’s been creatively bankrupt since the early-mid 90s. Sends off a bit of a mixed message.
You don’t love Goodfellas, Bryce? My God, you are per definition a Scorsese-hating troll, then! Right?
You don’t love Goodfellas, Bryce? My God, you are per definition a Scorsese-hating troll, then! Right?
@the emperor: If the following aren’t examples of condescension then I don’t know what is…
“Ok, scott, yes, that’s the positive interpretation, that he is merely “diversifying his work”…;) I like that euphemism…”
“Taxi Driver is my favorite American movie of the last 35 years…just goes to show! Diversity, indeed;)”
@the emperor: If the following aren’t examples of condescension then I don’t know what is…
“Ok, scott, yes, that’s the positive interpretation, that he is merely “diversifying his work”…;) I like that euphemism…”
“Taxi Driver is my favorite American movie of the last 35 years…just goes to show! Diversity, indeed;)”
bryce h…”yeah, you pretty much are a scorsese-hating troll relative to what everyone else thinks”…you sure have a twisted mind, dude! This debate is closed, you are not worth it. I adore Scorsese. He is a hero of mine. For fuck’s sake. Besides I find him extremely sympathetic as a human being. I have the highest degree of respect for him in that respect, as well. Go figure.
scott: you should know that the late sixties/start seventies are usually referred to as the second golden age of Hollywood. At least, that’s what I was taught….maybe you have a different definition across the pond, but I doubt it! Well, you despise Taxi Driver, right? Go figure.
bryce h…”yeah, you pretty much are a scorsese-hating troll relative to what everyone else thinks”…you sure have a twisted mind, dude! This debate is closed, you are not worth it. I adore Scorsese. He is a hero of mine. For fuck’s sake. Besides I find him extremely sympathetic as a human being. I have the highest degree of respect for him in that respect, as well. Go figure.
scott: you should know that the late sixties/start seventies are usually referred to as the second golden age of Hollywood. At least, that’s what I was taught….maybe you have a different definition across the pond, but I doubt it! Well, you despise Taxi Driver, right? Go figure.
Wow, Scott. You make me want to agree the emperor. HP7B lovefest in multiple threads that have nothing to do with HP7B and hating on the 70s. And were you the one that was complaining about The Artist being silent and that that must mean film is regressing or something? Apologies if you weren’t, but if you were…wow. I’ll take Leo and Marty bashing any day.
Oh, emperor, I don’t love GoodFellas by the way.
Wow, Scott. You make me want to agree the emperor. HP7B lovefest in multiple threads that have nothing to do with HP7B and hating on the 70s. And were you the one that was complaining about The Artist being silent and that that must mean film is regressing or something? Apologies if you weren’t, but if you were…wow. I’ll take Leo and Marty bashing any day.
Oh, emperor, I don’t love GoodFellas by the way.
Drake, now you are using a different tactic; called condescension, frankly, it doesn’t suit you…you can be absolutely 100 % sure that I meant what I said; of course, it is stupid to assign your feelings about a film to whether it fits into a theory. You sound like a goddamn marxist, for christ’s sake!
Trust your instincts, is all I’m saying. A theory should never be used to form an opinion. It should be the other way around, let your opinion of a film decide how you approach (or confront) the theory.
I would like you to tell me a contemporary, renowned, director, that does nothing for you (either because of your theoretic affiliation or your personal tastes), just so I can get a perspective on where you’re coming from. Or is all directors who have had a critical hit, automatically great according to you?
Drake, now you are using a different tactic; called condescension, frankly, it doesn’t suit you…you can be absolutely 100 % sure that I meant what I said; of course, it is stupid to assign your feelings about a film to whether it fits into a theory. You sound like a goddamn marxist, for christ’s sake!
Trust your instincts, is all I’m saying. A theory should never be used to form an opinion. It should be the other way around, let your opinion of a film decide how you approach (or confront) the theory.
I would like you to tell me a contemporary, renowned, director, that does nothing for you (either because of your theoretic affiliation or your personal tastes), just so I can get a perspective on where you’re coming from. Or is all directors who have had a critical hit, automatically great according to you?
Sorry, the all-caps of the film titles probably gave the impression I was pissed. But yeah, you pretty much are a Scorsese-hating troll relative to what everyone else thinks. And while I agree that there usually are better films outside of America in any given year, I think ’06 was an exception.
But even if there are better foreign films, most of them can’t even be seen by many till the following year and plenty aren’t eligible and it’s rather pointless to bring them up since they’re rarely nominated, are they?
Sorry, the all-caps of the film titles probably gave the impression I was pissed. But yeah, you pretty much are a Scorsese-hating troll relative to what everyone else thinks. And while I agree that there usually are better films outside of America in any given year, I think ’06 was an exception.
But even if there are better foreign films, most of them can’t even be seen by many till the following year and plenty aren’t eligible and it’s rather pointless to bring them up since they’re rarely nominated, are they?
I don’t like Goodfellas.
I don’t like Goodfellas.
@julian
haha i’m getting a kick out of this now. i’m not sure if we’ve moved off this thread, if we have, so be it. but you can’t possibly mean that being aware of or subscribing to the auteur theory is a bad thing? your kidding, right? any hack with control of their faculties can drone into a movie theater with his/her eyes open, ears open, and watch a movie (and even most of them can tell scorsese or eastwood are doing good work still- haha 🙂 ) … excuse me for trying to rise above that. I think if you used more than your senses it may get some more consistency (right on haneke and fincher but missing scorsese and eastwood) and enhance your enjoyment/appreciation.
@julian
haha i’m getting a kick out of this now. i’m not sure if we’ve moved off this thread, if we have, so be it. but you can’t possibly mean that being aware of or subscribing to the auteur theory is a bad thing? your kidding, right? any hack with control of their faculties can drone into a movie theater with his/her eyes open, ears open, and watch a movie (and even most of them can tell scorsese or eastwood are doing good work still- haha 🙂 ) … excuse me for trying to rise above that. I think if you used more than your senses it may get some more consistency (right on haneke and fincher but missing scorsese and eastwood) and enhance your enjoyment/appreciation.
Julian, the Golden Age of Hollywood does not include the 70’s far as I’m aware…and rightly so since it was one of the worst decades. The best were the late 30’s, the 40’s, 50’s and some of the 60’s and that’s what we consider the “Golden Age”
Julian, the Golden Age of Hollywood does not include the 70’s far as I’m aware…and rightly so since it was one of the worst decades. The best were the late 30’s, the 40’s, 50’s and some of the 60’s and that’s what we consider the “Golden Age”
Ok, bryce h, calm down. It’s not like I’m calling your mother a bitch, is it?
Raging Bull, ok, yes, I tend to think of it as 70s film, maybe it’s the greatness of it that makes me link it to the golden age of Hollywood. I’m not too keen about the rest of his 80s stuff, even though I find King Of Comedy interesting and partly engrossing and Last Temptation a flawed, but daring piece of work. I love Goodfellas (who doesn’t?), I think Age of innocence is underrated and Casino, ditto. So to me Scorsese had a good run in the early to mid90s.
And concerning The Departed? It was a fairly ok winner that year, which was a weak one overall (when it comes to Oscar films, there were PLENTY of more deserving films if you look outside of America, I hasten to add). And, of course, it was heartwarming to see Marty go up on that stage and receive that Oscar.
You call me a “Scorsese-hating troll”, based on my actual opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a stretch, huh?
Ok, bryce h, calm down. It’s not like I’m calling your mother a bitch, is it?
Raging Bull, ok, yes, I tend to think of it as 70s film, maybe it’s the greatness of it that makes me link it to the golden age of Hollywood. I’m not too keen about the rest of his 80s stuff, even though I find King Of Comedy interesting and partly engrossing and Last Temptation a flawed, but daring piece of work. I love Goodfellas (who doesn’t?), I think Age of innocence is underrated and Casino, ditto. So to me Scorsese had a good run in the early to mid90s.
And concerning The Departed? It was a fairly ok winner that year, which was a weak one overall (when it comes to Oscar films, there were PLENTY of more deserving films if you look outside of America, I hasten to add). And, of course, it was heartwarming to see Marty go up on that stage and receive that Oscar.
You call me a “Scorsese-hating troll”, based on my actual opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a stretch, huh?
I gotta go back and read everyone else’s comments because I missed all of this. So forgive me if I repeat anything.
I also missed those tweets. What I find interesting is that in every grouping I hate two of them. XD My choices would have been The Departed, Return of the King, and Titanic. That totally makes me seem like a Leo fangirl but I’m not. I gravitate to the epic type classic movies they made back in the day, casts of thousands, big sweeping scenes, unforgettable soundtracks/scores, etc. I usually dislike Scorsese movies.
As far as director go, I don’t know what the Academy is on. My best directors last year were Nolan, Polanski, and Affleck. I wouldn’t have let Tom Hooper direct a duck parade. I had prepared myself for The King’s Speech to win on the back of great performances but unless we were going by “the best directors cast the right actors and let them do their thing” philosophy, I still don’t understand it.
This year? I don’t know. As you say, we can’t count on the body of work meaning anything. And since I’ve seen only a couple of those in the running, I can’t give a good guess.
A question though. What happened to Almodovar? Or is that another one of those foreign deals where it’s the wrong year for director but the right one for picture? I forget how that works.
I gotta go back and read everyone else’s comments because I missed all of this. So forgive me if I repeat anything.
I also missed those tweets. What I find interesting is that in every grouping I hate two of them. XD My choices would have been The Departed, Return of the King, and Titanic. That totally makes me seem like a Leo fangirl but I’m not. I gravitate to the epic type classic movies they made back in the day, casts of thousands, big sweeping scenes, unforgettable soundtracks/scores, etc. I usually dislike Scorsese movies.
As far as director go, I don’t know what the Academy is on. My best directors last year were Nolan, Polanski, and Affleck. I wouldn’t have let Tom Hooper direct a duck parade. I had prepared myself for The King’s Speech to win on the back of great performances but unless we were going by “the best directors cast the right actors and let them do their thing” philosophy, I still don’t understand it.
This year? I don’t know. As you say, we can’t count on the body of work meaning anything. And since I’ve seen only a couple of those in the running, I can’t give a good guess.
A question though. What happened to Almodovar? Or is that another one of those foreign deals where it’s the wrong year for director but the right one for picture? I forget how that works.
“Scorsese, as the most prominent example, will be held in high esteem for his 70s output as well as his early 90s output.”
Really? In. What. World? TAXI DRIVER, hell yes. MEAN STREETS, I’m not particularly fond of it, but I’ll give you that too. But BOXCAR BERTHA? ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE? NEW YORK, NEW YORK? These films, no scratch that, movies, are universally considered worse than THE DEPARTED. Scorsese will not be held in high esteem in 2041 for his 70s work, if anything it will/should be his 80s work: RAGING BULL, KING OF COMEDY, AFTER HOURS, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. THE COLOR OF MONEY and LIFE LESSONS are pretty damn decent too. Early 90s: GOODFELLAS, CAPE FEAR, AGE OF INNOCENCE. I don’t understand how the hell you can be high on CAPE FEAR and not SHUTTER ISLAND: you’re gonna have to explain that line of thinking. And THE AGE OF INNOCENCE is like THE KING OF COMEDY, one of those little gems for those who spend time going through Scorsese’s filmography. Everything after: CASINO, KUNDUN, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR, THE DEPARTED, SHUTTER ISLAND. True, objectively these aren’t masterpieces like Taxi Driver, GoodFellas, and Raging Bull, but they ARE well above what 95% of the output other filmmakers.
“And The Departed will be named solely on the basis of it earning him an Oscar (too little, too late!)… I need a larger frame for discussion and comparative analysis. Let’s wait until the year 2041, perhaps?;)”
COMPARISON TIME: Here, in 2011, we look back 30 years at the BP winner and think, “How the fuck did Raging Bull lose to Ordinary People and Reds to Chariots of Fire?” 30 years after The Departed’s win, people won’t be thinking “Oh, that was just a career achievement award because LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE QUEEN deserved it that year,” they’ll be thinking THE DEPARTED and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA were damn fine films that represented those directors’ late career peaks.
“Scorsese, as the most prominent example, will be held in high esteem for his 70s output as well as his early 90s output.”
Really? In. What. World? TAXI DRIVER, hell yes. MEAN STREETS, I’m not particularly fond of it, but I’ll give you that too. But BOXCAR BERTHA? ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE? NEW YORK, NEW YORK? These films, no scratch that, movies, are universally considered worse than THE DEPARTED. Scorsese will not be held in high esteem in 2041 for his 70s work, if anything it will/should be his 80s work: RAGING BULL, KING OF COMEDY, AFTER HOURS, LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. THE COLOR OF MONEY and LIFE LESSONS are pretty damn decent too. Early 90s: GOODFELLAS, CAPE FEAR, AGE OF INNOCENCE. I don’t understand how the hell you can be high on CAPE FEAR and not SHUTTER ISLAND: you’re gonna have to explain that line of thinking. And THE AGE OF INNOCENCE is like THE KING OF COMEDY, one of those little gems for those who spend time going through Scorsese’s filmography. Everything after: CASINO, KUNDUN, BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE AVIATOR, THE DEPARTED, SHUTTER ISLAND. True, objectively these aren’t masterpieces like Taxi Driver, GoodFellas, and Raging Bull, but they ARE well above what 95% of the output other filmmakers.
“And The Departed will be named solely on the basis of it earning him an Oscar (too little, too late!)… I need a larger frame for discussion and comparative analysis. Let’s wait until the year 2041, perhaps?;)”
COMPARISON TIME: Here, in 2011, we look back 30 years at the BP winner and think, “How the fuck did Raging Bull lose to Ordinary People and Reds to Chariots of Fire?” 30 years after The Departed’s win, people won’t be thinking “Oh, that was just a career achievement award because LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THE QUEEN deserved it that year,” they’ll be thinking THE DEPARTED and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA were damn fine films that represented those directors’ late career peaks.
ha! Bryce h, that tirade of yours was priceless!…
ha! Bryce h, that tirade of yours was priceless!…
Scorsese hasn’t really done anything 100% satisfying since Good Fellas; that, along with Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, are 3 of the best American movies ever made. Patches of GoNY and Shutter Is were interesting, and I enjoyed The Departed, but they didn’t rattle your psyche like those other three did. Here’s hoping he gets a second (third?) wind.
Scorsese hasn’t really done anything 100% satisfying since Good Fellas; that, along with Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, are 3 of the best American movies ever made. Patches of GoNY and Shutter Is were interesting, and I enjoyed The Departed, but they didn’t rattle your psyche like those other three did. Here’s hoping he gets a second (third?) wind.
Wow. Here I was…just letting the others feed the Scorsese-hating troll. WE GET IT: YOU DON’T THINK HE’S AS GOOD AS THE SCORSESE OF OLD.
But this line: “Paul McCartney is one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, but is his present-day incarnation not ‘creatively bankrupt’?”
NO, IT ISN’T.
Anyone that thinks the McCartney of the 70s and 80s is a better incarnation than his present day incarnation hasn’t listened to enough of his Flaming Pie-onwards career. The high points of his 70s and 80s career…namely Band on the Run, feel free to add…fuck, I don’t know Venus and Mars or McCartney I/II…don’t come close to the levels set by Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, Electric Arguments, 1/2 of Flaming Pie, 1/2 of Driving Rain. Get out of the 70s dude: McCartney AND Scorsese are far better now then they were back then.
Wow. Here I was…just letting the others feed the Scorsese-hating troll. WE GET IT: YOU DON’T THINK HE’S AS GOOD AS THE SCORSESE OF OLD.
But this line: “Paul McCartney is one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, but is his present-day incarnation not ‘creatively bankrupt’?”
NO, IT ISN’T.
Anyone that thinks the McCartney of the 70s and 80s is a better incarnation than his present day incarnation hasn’t listened to enough of his Flaming Pie-onwards career. The high points of his 70s and 80s career…namely Band on the Run, feel free to add…fuck, I don’t know Venus and Mars or McCartney I/II…don’t come close to the levels set by Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, Electric Arguments, 1/2 of Flaming Pie, 1/2 of Driving Rain. Get out of the 70s dude: McCartney AND Scorsese are far better now then they were back then.
Taxi Driver is my favorite American movie of the last 35 years…just goes to show! Diversity, indeed;)
Taxi Driver is my favorite American movie of the last 35 years…just goes to show! Diversity, indeed;)
Well personally I much prefer modern day Scorsese. I mean I really despise Taxi Driver for one thing. Thank God he’s taken his films in a new direction since the 70’s.
Well personally I much prefer modern day Scorsese. I mean I really despise Taxi Driver for one thing. Thank God he’s taken his films in a new direction since the 70’s.
Ok, scott, yes, that’s the positive interpretation, that he is merely “diversifying his work”…;) I like that euphemism…
Ok, scott, yes, that’s the positive interpretation, that he is merely “diversifying his work”…;) I like that euphemism…
And actually when it comes to Scorsese I think he’s the very opposite of “creatively bankrupt”…to the contrary he’s branching out and trying to diversify his work. Shutter Island was a new direction for him, Hugo will be a new direction for him, etc
And actually when it comes to Scorsese I think he’s the very opposite of “creatively bankrupt”…to the contrary he’s branching out and trying to diversify his work. Shutter Island was a new direction for him, Hugo will be a new direction for him, etc
With some of your examples Julian I would say it’s not so much “creatively bankrupt” as it is as sign of the times and people having different tastes now…
With some of your examples Julian I would say it’s not so much “creatively bankrupt” as it is as sign of the times and people having different tastes now…
Revered artists can certainly be “creatively bankrupt”! Why not? That only speaks to them once delivering the goods in their glory days, as far as I’m concerned. Paul McCartney is one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, but is his present-day incarnation not “creatively bankrupt”? The same goes with Stevie Wonder or Lou Reed, just to name other popular music icons. Yes, admittedly, it is a harsh judgement, and if I was a professional critic, I would have made a much more subdued statement concerning especially Eastwood (whose Letters from Iwo Jima I actually admire). Ok?
BUT, still, Scorsese these days work within a very schematic, formulaic framework, where he is doing mere genre movies or biopics or children’s movies. Nothing more, nothing less. That is ok with me, but he cannot expect everybody to fall flat on their knees for doing something that certainly looks stunning and brilliant, but is none the less formulaic and stale and lifeless. He has turned into a victim of his own legendary status, where everything has to be big, bold and beautiful (in that order), instead of genuine or gripping or, well, great for being true to its vision.
Revered artists can certainly be “creatively bankrupt”! Why not? That only speaks to them once delivering the goods in their glory days, as far as I’m concerned. Paul McCartney is one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, but is his present-day incarnation not “creatively bankrupt”? The same goes with Stevie Wonder or Lou Reed, just to name other popular music icons. Yes, admittedly, it is a harsh judgement, and if I was a professional critic, I would have made a much more subdued statement concerning especially Eastwood (whose Letters from Iwo Jima I actually admire). Ok?
BUT, still, Scorsese these days work within a very schematic, formulaic framework, where he is doing mere genre movies or biopics or children’s movies. Nothing more, nothing less. That is ok with me, but he cannot expect everybody to fall flat on their knees for doing something that certainly looks stunning and brilliant, but is none the less formulaic and stale and lifeless. He has turned into a victim of his own legendary status, where everything has to be big, bold and beautiful (in that order), instead of genuine or gripping or, well, great for being true to its vision.
You missed my point entirely. It has nothing to do with “conforming” to anything. I am (to a fault) extremely open to taking films on their own terms. Determining what exactly is being attempted, and how, and then evaluating accordingly. You are the one who seems to have some extremely restrictive “schema”… and I’m just trying to come to terms with what it is… because it has nothing to do with artistic merit as far as I can tell and more to do with simply preferring raw, unpolished works. Your preferences are your preferences of course, and you’re welcome to them, but you have to understand that when your preferences fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary, including, yes, “consensus”, then you’re not exactly in a position to be declaring revered artists “creatively bankrupt”.
You missed my point entirely. It has nothing to do with “conforming” to anything. I am (to a fault) extremely open to taking films on their own terms. Determining what exactly is being attempted, and how, and then evaluating accordingly. You are the one who seems to have some extremely restrictive “schema”… and I’m just trying to come to terms with what it is… because it has nothing to do with artistic merit as far as I can tell and more to do with simply preferring raw, unpolished works. Your preferences are your preferences of course, and you’re welcome to them, but you have to understand that when your preferences fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary, including, yes, “consensus”, then you’re not exactly in a position to be declaring revered artists “creatively bankrupt”.
drake, it troubles me that you need to refer to “auteur theory” in order to decide whether or not you like certain movies. Much easier to just use your senses, buddy…!:)
drake, it troubles me that you need to refer to “auteur theory” in order to decide whether or not you like certain movies. Much easier to just use your senses, buddy…!:)
Well, matt, if a movie is good only if it conforms to your “schema”, count me out. I much prefer movies who doesn’t try to emulate any preconceived notion of how to make a story work etc. Scorsese’s late efforts have been painfully lacking in that regard. They are well-produced, slick, beautifully shot etc. etc., but you know what? So is the latest Lady Gaga video…
Well, matt, if a movie is good only if it conforms to your “schema”, count me out. I much prefer movies who doesn’t try to emulate any preconceived notion of how to make a story work etc. Scorsese’s late efforts have been painfully lacking in that regard. They are well-produced, slick, beautifully shot etc. etc., but you know what? So is the latest Lady Gaga video…
The thing is, Julian, the consensus is just evidence, it’s not the ‘proof’. We’re not thought police here. :p
I just struggle to come to terms with any sort of evaluative schema someone could employ that would lead them to your conclusions on Scorsese and Eastwood. It certainly cannot be an aesthetic (formal/stylistic) schema, as all of the films I have mentioned are superlative in that regard. Nor can it be any sort of thematic (relavant to auteur interests) schema, because each artist continues to grapple with the key issues that are at the heart of them as artists.
So yeah, all I can conclude is you’ve got a “I want to be different for the sake of being different” mentality. Towards which I simply shrug and turn away.
The thing is, Julian, the consensus is just evidence, it’s not the ‘proof’. We’re not thought police here. :p
I just struggle to come to terms with any sort of evaluative schema someone could employ that would lead them to your conclusions on Scorsese and Eastwood. It certainly cannot be an aesthetic (formal/stylistic) schema, as all of the films I have mentioned are superlative in that regard. Nor can it be any sort of thematic (relavant to auteur interests) schema, because each artist continues to grapple with the key issues that are at the heart of them as artists.
So yeah, all I can conclude is you’ve got a “I want to be different for the sake of being different” mentality. Towards which I simply shrug and turn away.
If I had to pick five now, I’d have to go with:
Tree of Life- Terrence Malick
Drive- Thomas Winding Refn
J Edgar- Clint Eastwood
War Horse- Steven Spielberg
Carnage- Roman Polanski
My next pick would be Woody Allen!!! Gosh, I hope he gets in this year!! He really deserves it…but I’m not sure if there’s room for him?!
Midnight in Paris is still playing in theatres since May, so it has to be doing well 🙂 We will see in the next few months how the state of the race shapes up. Would love to see Cronenberg make it in there too.
Such a great year for movies!! All the auteurs have come out! Old and new 🙂
If I had to pick five now, I’d have to go with:
Tree of Life- Terrence Malick
Drive- Thomas Winding Refn
J Edgar- Clint Eastwood
War Horse- Steven Spielberg
Carnage- Roman Polanski
My next pick would be Woody Allen!!! Gosh, I hope he gets in this year!! He really deserves it…but I’m not sure if there’s room for him?!
Midnight in Paris is still playing in theatres since May, so it has to be doing well 🙂 We will see in the next few months how the state of the race shapes up. Would love to see Cronenberg make it in there too.
Such a great year for movies!! All the auteurs have come out! Old and new 🙂
@ julian
haha glad we agreed to disagree so peaceably again. I’ll be looking for your name on comments from now on hoping we can find something to agree soon 🙂 If i did say Haneke was overrated (i love him and his work so i’m not) you’d feel frustrated just like Matt and I are with your minority opposition to Eastwood and Scorsese’s 21st century output. i’m sure you’d have steam coming from your ears (and rightly so) if someone insulted haneke’s work and called him “creatively bankrupt” and couldn’t see the clear aesthetic beauty that so many others grasp quite easily. To me its not about “preferences” and “tastes”, its about evaluative skill and knowledge and grasp of film aesthetics, style, form, and appreciation of the auteur theory…. and i think, at least in the case of eastwood and scorsese, you are lacking.
@ julian
haha glad we agreed to disagree so peaceably again. I’ll be looking for your name on comments from now on hoping we can find something to agree soon 🙂 If i did say Haneke was overrated (i love him and his work so i’m not) you’d feel frustrated just like Matt and I are with your minority opposition to Eastwood and Scorsese’s 21st century output. i’m sure you’d have steam coming from your ears (and rightly so) if someone insulted haneke’s work and called him “creatively bankrupt” and couldn’t see the clear aesthetic beauty that so many others grasp quite easily. To me its not about “preferences” and “tastes”, its about evaluative skill and knowledge and grasp of film aesthetics, style, form, and appreciation of the auteur theory…. and i think, at least in the case of eastwood and scorsese, you are lacking.
Sasha, that’s an awesome quote you ended with there. It’s going down as one of my favorites.
Sasha, that’s an awesome quote you ended with there. It’s going down as one of my favorites.
You made my day with that photo, Ryan. Thanks! 😀
You made my day with that photo, Ryan. Thanks! 😀
Well, drake, if you didn’t like Haneke, you would be out of your mind…;)
But again, I don’t care about being in the minority when it comes to movie preferences, why is it necessary to bow down to any form of consensus (outside of the political realm, that is)? I don’t see why, when it comes to aesthetic judgements, I (or anybody else) should be bogged down by consensus. As i have been saying earlier (in a discussion with ryan) Flaubert’s masterpiece, Madame Bovary, was deemed a perverse, tasteless piece of junk when it appeared in 19th century France, but that doesn’t make it junk to you or me or anybody with a contemporary perspective on the history of literature. I’m quite confident that when all is said and done, Scorsese, as the most prominent example, will be held in high esteem for his 70s output as well as his early 90s output. And The Departed will be named solely on the basis of it earning him an Oscar (too little, too late!) The period we are discussing (2000-2010) cannot be regarded exclusively on the basis of how most critics feel in the year 2011, methinks! I need a larger frame for discussion and comparative analysis. Let’s wait until the year 2041, perhaps?;)
Until then, I have to stand by my own opinions, not worrying whether I’m “wrong” in the minds of the majority.
Well, drake, if you didn’t like Haneke, you would be out of your mind…;)
But again, I don’t care about being in the minority when it comes to movie preferences, why is it necessary to bow down to any form of consensus (outside of the political realm, that is)? I don’t see why, when it comes to aesthetic judgements, I (or anybody else) should be bogged down by consensus. As i have been saying earlier (in a discussion with ryan) Flaubert’s masterpiece, Madame Bovary, was deemed a perverse, tasteless piece of junk when it appeared in 19th century France, but that doesn’t make it junk to you or me or anybody with a contemporary perspective on the history of literature. I’m quite confident that when all is said and done, Scorsese, as the most prominent example, will be held in high esteem for his 70s output as well as his early 90s output. And The Departed will be named solely on the basis of it earning him an Oscar (too little, too late!) The period we are discussing (2000-2010) cannot be regarded exclusively on the basis of how most critics feel in the year 2011, methinks! I need a larger frame for discussion and comparative analysis. Let’s wait until the year 2041, perhaps?;)
Until then, I have to stand by my own opinions, not worrying whether I’m “wrong” in the minds of the majority.
Nothing against newcomers. Fresh blood is good. My only problem with Hooper is he winning over Fincher. That is absolutely ridiculous.
@ Sijmen – you’ve said it all, my friend. Ron Howard’s Oscar is as unfair as Gwyneth’s.
I’m not a fan of Ron Howard either but I resisted posting this wider shot of the photo we used to top Sasha’s post because it just felt too cruel to show why everybody else at the table looks like, “who invited this dweeb?“
Nothing against newcomers. Fresh blood is good. My only problem with Hooper is he winning over Fincher. That is absolutely ridiculous.
@ Sijmen – you’ve said it all, my friend. Ron Howard’s Oscar is as unfair as Gwyneth’s.
I’m not a fan of Ron Howard either but I resisted posting this wider shot of the photo we used to top Sasha’s post because it just felt too cruel to show why everybody else at the table looks like, “who invited this dweeb?“
@julian
i can’t wait for a haneke topic to come up on this website so we can agree on something. I’m a huge fan of his work and admit that after “cache” and “the white ribbon” he is at the height of his powers! haha it will be fun to agree on something finally!
as for scorsese and eastwood you are definitely entitled to your opinion… but if i were you it would bug me tremendously that i agree with critics so much on say haneke and fincher but disagree so adamantly with them on eastwood and scorsese… are those same 40 critics all each individually wrong on those two latter directors? or is it you? that is the question i would be asking myself.
everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is art so its not an exact objective science… you are wrong to think consensus doesn’t matter though. You could say Ryan Gosling is a great actor, and i could say that Paul Walker (this is a total joke- i love gosling and hate walker) is a better one. We both have an opinion. I would be wrong in this instance- there is a right and wrong. Its why tours of art museums are given by experts and not dumb tourists (again i don’t mean you here, this is just a drastic example to make a point), the tourist could think the renoir painting is a piece of junk and the expert giving the tour could “know definitively” that it isn’t. They both have an opinion here- they are not equal.
nice to see drake & julian sparring like gentleman
here’s part 1 of a 5-part Eastwood profile that’s launching today
@julian
i can’t wait for a haneke topic to come up on this website so we can agree on something. I’m a huge fan of his work and admit that after “cache” and “the white ribbon” he is at the height of his powers! haha it will be fun to agree on something finally!
as for scorsese and eastwood you are definitely entitled to your opinion… but if i were you it would bug me tremendously that i agree with critics so much on say haneke and fincher but disagree so adamantly with them on eastwood and scorsese… are those same 40 critics all each individually wrong on those two latter directors? or is it you? that is the question i would be asking myself.
everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is art so its not an exact objective science… you are wrong to think consensus doesn’t matter though. You could say Ryan Gosling is a great actor, and i could say that Paul Walker (this is a total joke- i love gosling and hate walker) is a better one. We both have an opinion. I would be wrong in this instance- there is a right and wrong. Its why tours of art museums are given by experts and not dumb tourists (again i don’t mean you here, this is just a drastic example to make a point), the tourist could think the renoir painting is a piece of junk and the expert giving the tour could “know definitively” that it isn’t. They both have an opinion here- they are not equal.
nice to see drake & julian sparring like gentleman
here’s part 1 of a 5-part Eastwood profile that’s launching today