Eastwood wasn't smart enough to obtain a good script for "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" and went so far as to alter the actual ending to show only one trial. There was style to the film which made it entertaining to watch but the seams were definitely showing. Good intentions gone awry. We're not talking about great writers or great directors or great actors failing. We're talking about them all succeeding. Any one failure can torpedo a film even though more often than not, the cinematography and/or musical score is more oustanding than anything else in the film. It isn't just the style of the director that shows up on the screen -- it's their style of directing, their leadership behind the camera. It may be their style is direct, unflourished storytelling but there are few directors who aren't tempted to use all the potential of the medium and it can sometimes give the final product a glossy, overbearing pretentiousness. My favorite directors seem to go to the line, just barely avoiding the pretentious -- those who are not my favorites consistently go over the line. Even Sir Oliver Reed made films like "The Agony and the Ecstasy," one of the most prepostrous and pretentious films ever made.
BTW, it's a good point that the director selects the script these days -- they aren't assigned to a bevy of directors like the old studio system. George Cukor may have made a better "Gone With the Wind" except for Clark Cable's obvious homophobia getting him kicked off the film. Would a good artist purposely select poor subject matter? Actually, they do it all the time and we have all the commercial art on the market passed off as fine art.
Hi Lightwizard,
I have changed computers...... Hope your keeping well and all. Miss those great funnies.
algis
script/director: equally split. 38 % It is the writer/ director who has studied film art and has developed a personal vision that has produced the great films, Orson Welles, Kurosawa,Fellini,Chaplin,J. Renoir,.They understand that film is a primarily visual medium . John Huston, Fellini were not only writers but cartoonist. They realized their ideas visually and verbally. There is a unity of thought in their work.Yes, there is a collective effort involved but these directors managed to dominate with their great knowledge and insight into the medium.Since mid-century thoughtful film goers have looked more to who was the writer/director. Good films can be made without good actors. Michael Moore has no acting ability per se.Film shares this with other visual forms , it is the reputation of the writer\director. We look to, Woody Allen has some really good actors, some very good cinemaphotographers. But, it is Woody Allen we primarily go to see.He will promise fun and thought.
Speak for yourself. sodabred. Woody Allen's neurotic Jew schtick has worn pretty thin.
With being prolific over a long period of time every great artist has diluted his talent. It's the name, a brand name if you will, that dictates the value. I won't forget walking into a gallery years ago and seeing a poorly done Picasso ceramic piece at some outrageous price. Few filmmakers have elected to curtail how many films they produce -- Kubrick comes to mind. Allen has churned out an impressive filmlog with mostly great success and he's tried to break the mold several times to actually create masterpieces. His satires are still my favorites for multiple viewings and I share his own favor for such films as "The Purple Rose of Cairo" where the Jewish schtick is at a minimum.
Looks like the writer and the director have now tied! That suggests that when a film is a writer and director of the same person should more often make a great film than not.
The thing that makes Jewish comics great is their self-deprecating humor.Recently, we have seen an outcry from African-American leaders(?) who take slight at any swipe of their personas in the recent "The Barbershop"
In my opinion, Woody Allen perpetuates stereotypical Jewish behavior for yucks and it's insulting. As far as Jesse Jackson's being insulted about what was said concerning him in "Barbershop", well, he should have been. What was said about him in the film was insulting. That's true. But it was personal. Not a slight against an entire race of people.
The quality of a film is inversely proportional to the number of helicopters therein----Barrys Law
Helocopters and vegetable carts (which always get creamed in a car chase).
Jackie Mason is the best of the Jewish comics IMHO -- Woody doesn't always go overboard but his movies are not great because of the Jewish self-deprecating humor. It's kind of a symptom.
