Puhnner
Posts 206
|
11/2/2006 9:48 AM
posted awhile ago
Mann handling Eastwood
Any thoughts on where Michael Mann and Clint Eastwood stand or will stand in the queue into the great Pantheon of directors and if either has or will have any lasting influence or regard???
I enjoyed Miami Vice very much, but not for the story, plot, characters, or actors,( none were very compelling to me ) it was the Florida thunderstorms, Miami, Ocean Blue, and jungle colors and the pure 'visual' and 'kinetic', motion in space; I am thinking of watching it again, but without the sound this time.
I have not seen Flags of our Fathers nor Million Dollar Baby, but enjoyed Mystic River ( but there the story was so compelling, but the book was and like so many films from books, the book was so much better ).
|
|
|
Moose
Posts 8
|
11/2/2006 4:28 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
Eastwood will be remembered first and foremost for his acting career. The films he has directed, however, have been generally impressive, particularly in the last few years. I believe Eastwood has already been acclaimed to the point the he will be remembered and respected.
I don't have a great personal interest in Mann. He's made a few entertaining though unremarkable films, though he has the capability to direct good films, his catalog to date will not stand the test of time. He has yet to make a film that in on par with any of Eastwood greatest accomplishments, though in the future he could.
PS. Does anyone else feel like Eastwood seems older than 76 by now? It feels more like he's pushing 90.
|
|
|
tmoney
Posts 181
|
11/3/2006 8:00 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
Yes, I agree with Moose. Eastwood will be remembered for two periods in his life, his acting and directing periods. Who knows what legacy will be greater. I'm guessing his directing career. Mann, while a good director, I don't believe makes enough of an impact to be remembered for anything besides Heat.
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
12/8/2006 10:04 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
I think Puhnner's question, "Will Clint Eastwood and Michael Mann be remembered as great directors?" is touching on a larger question for U.S. cinema.
Both Eastwood and Mann represent a lot of filmmakers who have saturated their careers with mediocre jobs to have the financial freedom to create a few really visionary films. When you think of Ingmar Bergman or Fellini, there's a bold imprint left by their whole body of work. Great American filmmakers often have a few bold films that rise above the duds they were involved with for financial reasons. Case in point: Terrence Malick is excluded from this group, but he's only made four films in as many decades. For Eastwood, will original works like Honky Tonk Man and Unforgiven overshadow a slew of easy to finance movies like Absolute Power and Blood Work?
So, what's the criteria for a great director? If a filmmaker makes dozens of films, but only fits in one or two really groundbreaking pieces in a career, should they join the ranks of the great directors of the world?
|
|
|
Puhnner
Posts 206
|
12/8/2006 10:58 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
The rhetorical question then becomes perhaps, ' what is the difference/distinction between the artist and the created piece of work? what is the separation between one and the other?'
In my admittedly simplistic ( or compartmentalized ) view, if the artist creates a piece of greatness, that artist deserves the recognition and the remberance for being able to create that single piece of greatness ( even if it is only one, solitary, singular piece ).
My answer to your question
'So, what's the criteria for a great director? If a filmmaker makes dozens of films, but only fits in one or two really groundbreaking pieces in a career, should they join the ranks of the great directors of the world?'
I think that director should and must deserve place in the ranks of the great directors, but the body of work created, would not deserve it.
I would like to mention others, but at this moment I cannot...although I do think of Miike and some of the ghastly stuff he has done, but as a whole body and in individual acts, he is in my list.
Who can you think of to add??? these 2, Mann and Eastwood?
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
12/8/2006 11:26 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
Puhnner, is the question who should be added to the world's great directors? Eastwood and Mann? Anyone else?
Golly that's tough. There are so many under-recognized directors. I'll fall back on the Top 5 format.
Paul's Top 5 directors NOT in the world pantheon of "Great Directors"
(in no particular order)
1 Terry Zwigoff
2 Allan King
3 Wayne Wang
4 Cint Eastwood
5 Steve James
Geez. I'm tempted to throw Kevin Costner on the list and start a riot.
|
|
|
Puhnner
Posts 206
|
12/8/2006 12:21 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
COSTNER!!!
the riot commences with 14 persons of various ages and states of inebriation seen on "Main Street" wearing tee-shirts with the deliberate and provocative incitements 'Waterwold Rucks My Seaworld!' and 'Costner is GillMan' vinyled front and rear!!! Disgruntled Hecklers were spotted nursing their double caff-de-caff hold-the-caff cappuccinos at the 'Seattle's Best' kiosk in the local Raley's supermarket. Sighs and laughter were heard all around.
pandemonium...
Bill Paxton comments at 6; Costner will be Televised.
|
|
|
Rock
Posts 45
|
12/8/2006 1:22 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
 paul:
Paul's Top 5 directors NOT in the world pantheon of "Great Directors"
(in no particular order)
1 Terry Zwigoff
2 Allan King
3 Wayne Wang
4 Cint Eastwood
5 Steve James
Geez. I'm tempted to throw Kevin Costner on the list and start a riot.
Terry makes your top 5? I'm not sure why. Nothing he has done (and so limited) has really stood out in the masses. His films have been more of a novelty and for those limited film buffs. Crumb being a documentary wouldn't receive much a do in the masses. Very few documentaries have done that. Bad Santa....Granted I haven't seen it, but I have no desire to. The previews never grabbed me. The story line doesn't grab me either. So is that a story issue or a director issue? If you cannot grab your audience is that the fault of the writer or the fault of the direct unable to convey the message of the writer?
Interesting mix to say the least. I do agree and see merrit with numbers 3 and 4 of your list.
For me in no particular order
1) Kevin Smith
2) Catherine Hardwicke
3) Michael Mann
4) Clint Eastwood
5) Martin Scorsese
|
|
|
paul
Posts 247
|
12/8/2006 2:02 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
Rock: Terry makes your top 5? I'm not sure why. Nothing he has done (and so limited) has really stood out in the masses. His films have been more of a novelty and for those limited film buffs. Crumb being a documentary wouldn't receive much a do in the masses.
The thread of this discussion I think is not leading to a list directors who have captured mass attention, but directors who's work is all over the place from commercial schlock to really groundbreaking work. So, it's a list of top five directors who may have one or two great films overshadowed by a cloud of other more commercial movies.
Therefore, I included Zwigoff in my list specifically because of Crumb.
|
|
|
Puhnner
Posts 206
|
12/11/2006 10:19 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: Mann handling Eastwood
Paul,
in response to your 'Costner' suggestion, as this post on the www.Overheardinnewyork.com site indicates, he is loved by a large cross-section of humanity:
The Get-Out-of-Jail Free Organ
Guy: I like Kevin Costner.
Girl: Me too, but I have a vagina, which makes it okay.
--54th & 9th
Overheard by: Trying to sleep
|
|
|