Directors

Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Risselada:

I don't know too much about Schumacher, but from everything I've heard from Shaymalan, he thinks pretty highly of himself and his movies.  And I highly doubt if you asked him about The Village that he would say he intended it to be "a stupid movie with little purpose" even if that's really what it is.

Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

indieabby88:

If you need any evidence of how Shyamalan views himself and his work, just watch "Lady in the Water" where he kills off the snobby film critic character, clearly an embodiment of all the folks who (quite rightly) said his post-"Sixth Sense" films were stinkers. That's not passive-agressive. Not at all. Even more frustratingly, it shows that Shyamalan is one of those people who isn't going to try and take his critics' words to heart, thus meaning his films are probably never going to get any better than they are right now.

It's too bad because I think there is some talent there.  I wonder how well he would do at directing someone else's script.

Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Rewatched Faling Down  a few months ago, and I liked it every bit as much as the first time. I searched out a Schumacher interview with a reputable magazine, and the director spoke very astutely about the film.

Somewhat like with authors, we want to categorize directors and make our world neater. But some can be terrible one year and really good not long after.

JIMBELL

Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

indieabby88:

I

If you need any evidence of how Shyamalan views himself and his work, just watch "Lady in the Water" where he kills off the snobby film critic character, clearly an embodiment of all the folks who (quite rightly) said his post-"Sixth Sense" films were stinkers. That's not passive-agressive. Not at all. Even more frustratingly, it shows that Shyamalan is one of those people who isn't going to try and take his critics' words to heart, thus meaning his films are probably never going to get any better than they are right now.

I know I'm in the minority, but I didn't think Lady in the Water was that bad.  In fact, I kind of liked it.  I thought the snobby Bob Balaban character was a book critic?  He was the character you initially thought was going to be the great inspirational leader that would write some sort of treatise and make a delible impression on mankind, only to be thrown that it was actually Shyamalan's character.  In fact, I thought the ego in this film was the fact that Night played the savior (to be).  Unless I'm thinking of the wrong character.

I really feel that none of his films are really that bad.  The fact that they, again, prompt so much controversy is probably worth something in itself.  What is interesting about Shyamalan's movies is that they are never what they seem to be.  I think the Village suffered from the wrong sort of marketing: it was advertised to be a horror tale and ended up being a morality play with spooky elements.  Lady in the Water is as much about a mystical girl washing up in a tenement pool as it is about faith and believing in oneself and believing in possibilities, no matter how outrageous.  It's probably the worst of his flicks, but it beats a goodly number of films available for viewing in the here and now.

And I think Signs is far from a stinker.  I thought it was dumb to show the aliens in the end, since it worked so much better as a suggestion, but it was a very very good movie. 

Maybe Shyamalan is simply too esoteric.  But see, that's probably what he believes himself.  It's his ego and his high estimation of his own talent (propped up by media praise for the Sixth Sense) that probably keeps his movies from being appreciated on a wider scale.

Re:Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

   Ok.   Here I am, late to the party as usuall!   I was pleasantly surprised by this 'Total Films' list.   I was pleased to see ALMOST all of my favorite Horror Movie directors represented!   Carpenter, DePalma, Romero, Kubrick, Raimi, HITCHCOCK, Hawks, Siegel, Tarantino, Freidkin  et al.    I like all the films of Shyamalan, most notably 'Signs', and I think his spot on the list is well deserved.   Most noteably missing are Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper....   but then what else would you expect coming from me? ....  

   Anyhow, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to see Peter Jackson at number 9!     This is a well deserved honor for this underestimated little director from New Zealand!   I thought 'King Kong' was a failure but I saw that coming a mile away!   You can NOT remake a 'masterpiece' and expect it to be better than the original!   When will these guys figure this out?    And if you dismiss his earlier, splattery  'gore-fests', or exploitation fare like 'Heavenly Creatures',  you are left with only one thing...  "The Lord Of The Rings" !    I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to propel  Mr. Jackson  right to the front of my 'favorite directors' list based ONLY on the magnificent job he did of bringing this trilogy to life!

   Also, I was sad to see the 'Italian-Horror' genre all but unmetioned...   I think  Argento could have made the list, at least...

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Dr_Gor:

And if you dismiss his earlier, splattery  'gore-fests', or exploitation fare like 'Heavenly Creatures',  you are left with only one thing...  "The Lord Of The Rings" !    I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to propel  Mr. Jackson  right to the front of my 'favorite directors' list based ONLY on the magnificent job he did of bringing this trilogy to life!

I generally tend to assume however that the larger a movie is in terms of budget and people involved, the less credit you can give towards the director on the film.  Do you think that's true?  It's obviously not a hard rule, but I think in general it's true.  And if you think about the Lord of the Rings movies, have there ever been a series of movies that had more people involved??  Maybe the director is even MORE important in a situation like this though.  Not entirely sure.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

   I can understand your point, Rizzo, in that in some 'epic' movies like this with a lot of money involved the 'producers' can take over the reins from a director and make all the final desicions.   I can assure you that this was not the case with  TLOTR  !    This was Peter Jackson's DREAM since he started making movies!   To either make a 'live action' version of  TLOTR  or a remake of  King Kong !   I can go into detail here, but the bottom line is, at the end of the day it is YOUR name on that movie screen!   The director, at least in this case, is the last person responsible for what you finally see on the screen.   That means that Peter Jackson spent a good 3 years (!) sitting at the editing table to make sure that this trilogy was up to HIS standards!   I think it definately shows!

   Now try to compare that to if you were the director of a 'minimalistic' movie like  Night Of The Living Dead  or  Psycho ...    Who do you think had the more difficult job?            

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Dr_Gor:

Now try to compare that to if you were the director of a 'minimalistic' movie like  Night Of The Living Dead  or  Psycho ...    Who do you think had the more difficult job?

Well probably Jackson's job was more difficult.  Although even that's hard to say though.  He certainly had the resources behind him to make everything happen.  I'm not too certain about the story of Night of the Living Dead, but I know a lot of independent filmmakers have the hardest time because they have few people helping them sometimes.  It's hard to find money and people are always backing out and cutting your budget and telling you how to do it.  Plus you have to do all of the shit work yourself.  No doubt Peter Jackson was able to assign people to do all the different jobs.  He very well may have done many hands on things, but the point is he had all the help if he wanted it.

Now the question about whether or not it was more difficult for one person or another is a different question from how much credit the director deserves for the final project.  Again, with an independent film with a smaller cast, the director probably was responsible for a much higher percentage of what you see.  Just a guess.  Of course they had thousands of people working on the Lord of the Rings movies, but some of them spent years making some model that you probably only see for two seconds.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Total Film's Greatest Directors Ever List

Dr_Gor:

   Anyhow, I was VERY pleasantly surprised to see Peter Jackson at number 9!     This is a well deserved honor for this underestimated little director from New Zealand!   I thought 'King Kong' was a failure but I saw that coming a mile away!   You can NOT remake a 'masterpiece' and expect it to be better than the original!   When will these guys figure this out?    And if you dismiss his earlier, splattery  'gore-fests', or exploitation fare like 'Heavenly Creatures',  you are left with only one thing...  "The Lord Of The Rings" !    I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to propel  Mr. Jackson  right to the front of my 'favorite directors' list based ONLY on the magnificent job he did of bringing this trilogy to life!

Am I the only one who's liked pretty much all of Jackson's body of work? I can't say I enjoyed "Dead Alive" too much...it's hard for me to watch that movie without feeling a little sick. But I loved "Heavenly Creatures," and "King Kong," got a fair amount of enjoyment out of "The Frighteners" and am a huge fan of LOTR. I think he deserved to be on the list as well, but perhaps for more reasons than just the famed trilogy.