By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
My First Screening Post-Baby – The Ghost Writer
This was an odd weekend to open Polanski’s new film, The Ghost Writer. After all, putting it up against a Scorsese minor-key masterpiece like Shutter Island, which actually feels similar to the creepy discomfort and even story ideas that Polanski is after here, defines the phrase “pale by comparison.” (I haven’t been on top of the Shutter reviews, but I hope there is a lot of discussion of the intentional mismatched shots, POVs from inanimate objects, and other fresh and masterful touches by Scorsese and Schoonmaker.)
The thing about The Ghost Writer that is so frustrating is that you can see that Polanski still has the chops to make a great movie. But besides often feeling like architectural directing, in which Polanski literally sets the film in a modern-living bomb shelter that mimics a post-modern haunted house, the film suffers from a sense that it is saying something profound in its political tale when there is actually more content in any 10 minutes of Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN (which is the network of choice in the film, even if it never looks like CNN, except for the logo).
Seriously… can “Hatherton” ever be quite as scary as Haliburton? And the central surprise of the movie… I think I saw it on a season of “24” between 8:23p and 9:45p.
The casting is fine, though I can’t believe that Ewan McGregor is still willing to accept roles that include women’s panties dropping to the floor on first look at him. The one unaccountable disaster is Kim Cattrall, who is The Sex-cretary, but suffers from trying to work an English accent and is a sore thumb against the subtleties of Olivia Williams. And she still doesn’t offer more that TV skills as an actress… and she never turns up covered in sushi, so I really don’t get the hire when there are so many good Brit actresses who would work with Polanski.
But the reason we all filled the theater tonight was for Polanski. Child rapist that he is, he is still one of the world’s great directors. But this one played more like Coppola doing Jack than as a great little surprising gem. In fact, The Matador was a lot more surprising and memorable, sharing only strong performances by Pierce Brosnan.
All the mood is still there. Polanski knows how to load a still frame with foreboding. But there is no payoff… over and over again… work the audience up… fail to deliver the big bang. Tom Wilkinson and Robert Pugh seem to have the work-three-days-and-steal-a-movie roles and all they end up being is great actors doing okay. Blech.
The filmmaking often reminded me of Polanski’s Death & The Maiden, a tough play made into a movie that allowed strong performances but, for me, just doesn’t work as a film. But this film doesn’t even have those stakes to work with… not even cynicism vs sincerity… just “aha!”s that play like “uh-huh”s.
That said, almost no one is going to walk out of the movie angry that they went… just disappointing. There are worse things they could do.
Sad to hear. BTW, In Ms. Catrell’s defense, she actually IS British and that’s her normal speaking voice — she does an American accent for SATC, which, ironically, makes her one of the few British actors who can convincingly play an American (GERARD BUTLER I’M TALKING TO YOU).
POLANSKI POWER. BROSNAN POWER. McGREGOR POWER.
How come they don’t have some hotter chick like Jessica Biel or McAdams or someone in there?
To be fair, there are some very good reviews out there.
So it really is mixed. Well considering the reviled NINTH GATE is one of the most hypnotic movies I’ve ever seen and a strange pleasure each and every time, I doubt I’ll be deterred by this uneven reaction.
Also, I wonder if anyone has done an informal study yet how many of the people who were turned off by SHUTTER ISLAND enjoyed GHOST and vice-versa. I know you and Wells seem to be polar opposites on the two, which isn’t surprising.
“BTW, In Ms. Catrell’s defense, she actually IS British and that’s her normal speaking voice — she does an American accent for SATC, which, ironically, makes her one of the few British actors who can convincingly play an American (GERARD BUTLER I’M TALKING TO YOU).”
True, Cattrall was born in England, but her family moved to Canada when she was only three months old. She did move back for a few years in her teens, but I’m sure her “normally” accented speaking voice is North American.
I want to hear more about Shutter Island, how is that fucker? Is it good, is it scary? Jeff Wells hated it but he’s essentially a woman so he doesn’t like anything gritty or dirty or creepy or fun.
I don’t know why anyone would hire Cattrall for any role that doesn’t require lots of nudity, she’s not that great. Television was perfect for her.
“The Ghost Writer” will be D.O.A. Pay attention to the online ad if get your showtimes through Fandango:
From the Academy Award Winning director of Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown and The Pianist
If that is how you have to promote a new release by a name director, the motion picture industry deserves to be nuked.
“he’s essentially a woman so he doesn’t like anything gritty or dirty or creepy or fun. ”
Cue leah’s retort… (not that she’s in the wrong)
“BTW, In Ms. Catrell’s defense, she actually IS British and that’s her normal speaking voice — she does an American accent for SATC, which, ironically, makes her one of the few British actors who can convincingly play an American (GERARD BUTLER I’M TALKING TO YOU).”
Why would someone be dumb enough to post this when there are a plethora of interview clips available on YouTube that disprove it?
And the spelling of her name? Not even close.
As for Shutter Island, I don’t know what Wells is smoking, but Glenn Kenny raved it to the high heavens, even comparing it to Vertigo. I’ll be the first one through the door at a matinee tomorrow.
I musta missed Catrall’s Brit accent in PORKY’S.
So far “Ghost Writer” is getting better reviews than “Shutter Island”. Newsflash: hardly anyone sees it as a “minorkey masterpiece” (safe for bonnerheads like Travers). Regardless, the comment about the timing of the release is a really cheap one. Why compare, especially since it’s the Scorsese film that was delayed (and now we probably know why). If anything, it’s the timing of Polanski’s recent troubles that would come to one’s attention first. In any case, bringing up “Shutter Island” like that seems like a very lazy (and yes, poor) form of criticism.
Instead of saying stuff like that, it’s better to acknowledge that the film was released (and finished) at all. And I will see Polanski’s film but not because of anything other than the fact that I liked the trailer. The atmosphere reminded me of “Eyes Wide Shut”, in a good way. And the reviews seem decent enough too. I don’t think Polanski really embarassed himself, even if he, unlike Schoonmaker, had to edit under not very normal circumstances.
And I’m sorry but there is gotta be something wrong with a man who writes trashy lines like “Child rapist that he is, he is still one of the world’s great directors”.
Oy.
Okay a_loco, I must admit you got me there…but of course I don’t mean ALL women are like that. But Wells’ taste is like a reasonably intelligent grandmother. Basically I mean that I don’t see any guy in the world sharing his taste (in that while they may like intelligent stuff they would also like horror movies or action movies), but I could easily see a woman’s taste lining up with Wells perfectly.
Of course the average woman would also be less racist and creepy and whiny.
Gonzo, I also thought that line from DP was unnecessary. Perhaps becoming a father would make one more sensitive to the subject, but you’d think it would instill a little more maturity as well.
“If that is how you have to promote a new release by a name director, the motion picture industry deserves to be nuked.”
Sheer stupidity.
Name director he may be but these days it is mostly due to the fact that he’s in the news for reasons that have nothing to do with directing. Sadly, that’s his current source of fame and ignoring that is just plain dumb.
And nevermind the fact that he haven’t had a box office smash in quite some time (being confined to Europe certainly didn’t help).
There was nothing wrong with prmoting Avatar as coming from the director of Titanic and there is nothing wrong with promoting Ghost Writer as coming from the director of The Pianist. It does not signal the decline of the movie industry.
“But Wells’ taste is like a reasonably intelligent grandmother.”
You left off, “in the throes of dementia.”
Hey Chucky dumbass, name directors are WHY you mention other things they’ve done. I know others point this out to you and you’re such a retard it won’t sink in, but I figured I’d mention it again, and also let you know that you are indeed a retard.
Now when you say retard, are you using it in a satirical manner? I just need to know if your employer should be alerted.
I work with retarded kids, I’m sure my employer doesn’t care. And when I say “work with” I mean “make them shovel coal.”
Sounds like rewarding work. Are you hiring?
Seems like “Ghost Writer” is actually getting a slightly warmer reception than “Shutter Island”…though it seems to me the critics are bringing much higher expectations to Island….
I hear ya, lazarus. I’m beginning to think that having these types of blogs is an unhealthy thing, just in general. Reading them doesn’t really help, either. After a while the style of those you critisize begins to rub off on you.
Curse ye, new media and thou undereducated writers and editors.
BTW…it seems even stranger that not only are Scorsese and Polanski releasing on the same winter weekend…Kevin Smith and Tim Burton over the next two weeks and Paul Greengrass not long after that.
And thank god, because this year has been cinematically terrible so far.
Hey Stella…I’m hiring if you’re a retarded child. Maybe you’re young but you write too well, so I don’t think you qualify.
So is this a great month for horror movies or what? A big major release every week, and none of them are Saw or slasher movies or Michael Bay produced shit. Too bad Wolfman was sort of a dud, but now we have Shutter Island by SCORSESE of all people, and then The Crazies (which has a medium-high potential for sucking, but still).
According to a guy I work with (Ryan over at Shock Till You Drop), buzz on The Crazies is very strong. Promo stuff has been good, not that that proves anything.
To me it looks like one of those slick-but-bland Michael Bay type of movies. But I like hordes of zombies or crazy people running around, so unless I hear it’s shit from everyone I’ll see it.
I was trying to determine the comparison EthanG was making between Tim Burton and Kevin Smith in regard to putting Scorsese and Polanski’s names together as well, and then I realized he was just listing “good” or “important” directors with upcoming releases.
Burton and Smith are a far, far cry from the other two.
Haha yeah I definitely wasn’t making a comparison between two masters…and Burton/Smith or Greengrass…just pointing out that it’s unusual to have so many A-list/talented directors releasing in February/March.
And yeah agree Crazies looks a little too Bayish/Platinum Dunish…but hopefully it’ll surprise/
Im straying off-topic but this year is rife with more releases by respected directors than any year I can think of recently…in addition to those 5…Fincher, Aronofsky, Nolan, Ridley Scott, Gondry, Eastwood, Redford, Soderbergh, Sofia Coppola, Malick, Baumbach, Zwick, Brooks, Yimou, Solondz, Edgar Wright, Egoyan, Winterbottom, Leigh, Inarritu, David O Russell, Taymor, Woody Allen of course..and a bunch Im sure I’m forgetting…
I’d have no problem putting Burton over Polanski.
Burton has fallen a few rungs after defecating all over Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory IMO.
That’s fair, Ethan, but Kevin Smith can hardly be called A-List at this point, especially when his name wasn’t even advertised as being involved with his latest release. He didn’t even write the thing, though why anyone would want to hire him only as a director, especially for this kind of film, is beyond me.
Burton has DEFINITELY fallen from back in the day…but so has Polanski.
And while I liked Sweeney Todd more than I expected to, you’re right in that someone who’s made two relatively recent stinkers like POTA and CATCF should be regarded with suspicion, “a few rungs” indeed.
Polanski made Oliver Twist and The Ninth Gate. I don’t think Apes or Charlie were THAT bad…they were fine, sort of medicore. But I liked them for what they were.
I do wish Burton would come back to where he used to be…but at the same time I don’t think that’s possible simply because he was so great because his style was so new. He’s not he kind of director to drastically change his style, so now we’re used to him. But I do think he had some balls to present Willy Wonka the way he did.
And while quite a few of those directors are working with their go-to actors again: Scott/Crowe, Burton/Depp, Scorsese/Leo the one I am really excited about is Greengrass/Damon. Universal hasn’t really impressed me too much in the past few years, PE being the major exception, so hopefully they haven’t botched up Green Zone as well.
And while I hate the fact that they are remaking every horror movie of my youth, I am looking forward to the Crazies.
Great, let’s all start comparing Polanski to Burton because somehow the two names ended up in the same paragraph.
But since we are on this most bizzare subject, I do have a problem with putting Burton over Polanski. I will not say anymore out of respect to Burton (but will merely point out that when it comes to body of work comparisons, his otherwise perfectly respectable output will come up short).
Also, I didn’t find anything wrong with Oliver Twist. Good freaking movie.
I dunno Perm…the closing shot of Honest “Ape” Lincoln still haunts me to this day…as does Depp’s terrifying performance in CATCF. I think Polanski’s highs are higher and Burton’s lows are lower but that’s me.
Despite Lex’s protestations that this is the year of K-Stew…it is the YEAR OF DAMON.
I can’t decide whether I’m more excited for “Green Zone,” “True Grit,” Eastwood’s “Hereafter” or “The Adjustment Bureau” (based off the Philip K. Dick story).
And hey…we might finally get Lonergan’s “Margaret” this year which has turned into Hollywood’s version of Dr. Dre’s Detox album.
Polanski crests on his great movies and not Bitter Moon or Frantic. Not that those movies are bad, but they’re not Chinatown. Or Edward Scissorhands.
Perm, the first two thirds of Frantic is my favorite Polanski ever. I am not even fucking kidding you. It was the first Polanski film I’ve seen and I still remember the details of how it happened and how amazing I thought the sequence when Ford’s wife dissapears was. Or how much I loved the scene in the disco.
The ending was very dissapointing but everything else was ace.
I don’t even understand the point you are trying to make. He “crests” on his great movies? What director doesn’t crest on their best work (be it great or shite)? At least the guy made great movies.
I’m not even the guy’s biggest fan. I wouldn’t you know, list him among my favorites. Or just list him. Still, it’s interesting how we keep having these debates on here, Perm.
I’m not complaining mind, just find that interesting.
Even Polanski’s lesser works generally are very engrossing or watchable though (full disclosure: Ive only seen 8 of his flicks)…I really enjoy Frantic….but there are flicks in Burton’s canon I couldn’t imagine turning on…his early work (other than the amazing Vincent) consisted of Disney stuff like Frankenweenie, Peewie’s Big Adventure, and a TV Hansel and Gretel movie.
Also…while some of Burton’s work has aged well (Scissorhands, Beetlejuice) stuff like “Batman” doesn’t hold up well at all (especially in comparison to Nolan’s films).
Polanski has some work that doesn’t hold up over time…I think Rosemary’s Baby falls into that category personally…but other stuff like Chinatown, Tess and even Repulsion feels fresh by comparison.
Repulsion is actually my favorite Polanski.
And by cresting, Gonzo, I mean aside from The Piano the guy hasn’t really made that remarkable a movie since the 70s (obviously disagreeing on Frantic). But everyone still refers to him as a great director…and I’d say sure, he was back then but I don’t know if he still is. While yeah Burton has his duds, he’s still cranking out a movie ever few years so he’s bound to have some misfires. I’d say Polanski was uneven back in his heyday as well (I hate Fearless Vampire Killers SO much). But if Polanski was making as many movies as Burton, I’m sure he’d have a lot more stinkers on his resume.
But I’d still put Burton’s early output up against Polanski’s for sure..of course Burton will get less respect because Polanski is more serious and likes downer endings and critics lap that shit up, while Burton has stop motion talking snakes.
No love for Death and the Maiden? I love that movie.
That’s nonsense, Perm.
First of all, it’s not like Polanski has been terribly unprolific.
Second, he actually REGAINED his great director status thanks to the Pianist (a movie that won him an Oscar, among other thing) and that was only two movies ago. Prior to that, I think it’s fair to say that his reputation wasn’t quite as high. The important test, I think, would be to see if he actually keeps it. Oliver Twist clearly didn’t do much to damage his reputation and now it looks like Ghost Writer will not, either. If, however, the public decides to that he is being blah, well then you may have a point.
I don’t know what your cutoff point for early Polanski really is but Che? was pretty damn interesting and so was Knife in the Water. Beyond that, I just don’t know but I think you are being too hard on the guy. One way or the other, the guy managed to maintain some reputation despite all the shit that’s being thrown at him (even if he deserved it). I’d say that’s some accomplishment. And again, let’s see if he keeps it.
Notice that I haven’t said anything bad about Burton.
Oh and because I’m really interested in this: Is Coppola still considered a great director? What do you folks think?
I think Coppola and Polanski would be considered great directors, no matter what mistakes, the masterpieces secure the place in history. Bogdonivich and Friedkin have their place no matter how many They all Laughed and Jade’s they put out. I look forward to a new Russell Crowe movie more than a new Al Pacino movie but that doesn’t mean Pacino is not a better actor.
I love Ed Wood and Scissorhands but wouldn’t call them masterpieces, while Chinatown and Rosemary would absolutly make the list.
@Gonzo, @Perm: Most every movie these days is released with name-checking, Academy Award Winner/Nominee or a Legion of Doom trailer. That makes most every movie just one more piece of routine product. “The Ghost Writer” is no exception.
Star power counts for nothing. Having an auteur as a director counts for nothing. The public can’t find out for themselves — Hollywood has to shove it down our throats. It’s no different from NBC showing everything in the Olympics on tape delay.
Remember that the next time some right-wing pressure group attacks Hollywood.
Chucky, I think both Perm and I would love to know what what you wrote above has to do with anything, and more specifically to your own comments and our responses.
In your classic fashion, you just went from calling a nuclear attack on the “motion picture industry” to outlining the necessity of the very thing that they are doing.
Tetro wasn’t that bad. Agree that Coppola could do almost anything and wouldn’t hurt himself too much…though some of Brian de Palma’s recent work certainly tests that theory. And Lasse Hallstrom’s.
I would agree Gonzo…the test is does Polanski make ANOTHER great movie? But I don’t mean to say that Polanski is bad at all, in fact I think he’s pretty great when he’s not making Vampire Killers. But I had to disagree with your notion that you can’t even compare them. I say why not, Polanski is kind of a thriller/horror director and Burton is a fantasy guy. They’re not that far off in a lot of ways.
I don’t know if Coppola is still a great working director. I haven’t see his last few movies, but if we’re talking his stuff between Apocalypse now and his self-finances new movies, I think he’s a shadow of his glory days. His good stuff is mostly merely “good,” like The Outsiders or Tucker. I did love The Rainmaker though, and I think Dracula is a fucking great movie if they’d take out he boring romantic subplot that wasn’t in the book anyway. But I need to see his new stuff since that’s more pure Coppola. Have you seen them Gonzo? I just heard so much terrible stuff about Youth Without Youth I sort of forgot about it an never watched it.
And Chucky…sorry, but again as many people have told you, the movie itself and the marketing of it are two different things. Think of your favorite movie and they still had to sell it, and they probably did it in ways you hate. But you can’t understand that because you’re stupid.
Wow. DP likes Shutyter Island and not Ghost Writer? I’m starting to think he’s a great reverse-barometer for me.
“But I had to disagree with your notion that you can’t even compare them.”
Sorry if it seemed like that’s what I meant but I was merely pointing out that was a pretty random thing to do. Sure, when you pause and think it makes *some* sense. (You probably know what I mean though – it’s kind like when people on the forums start debates based on something that wasn’t at all premidited. Usually turns into something nasty. Anyway, I’m glad I was wrong.)
The reason I asked about Coppola was because I was interested in gauging people’s pereception of him and his reputation. I am frequently, rather stunned by how little it takes to start badmouthing someone or, start elevating someone to amazing heights. I understand why it happens but still, it makes me very sad, especially in cases when the filmmaker in question did absolutely nothing wrong just allowed himself to make a movie with a smaller appeal or just gone quiet. Fans can be very unforgiving when their “auteur” shows a range that doesn’t include them.
Back to Coppola. To me, he is unquestionably a great director. And, no, unfortunately, I haven’t seen either YWY or Tetro. Like you I was a bit put off by the receiption it gotten and allowed it to slip by me (a similar thing happened with Gilliam’s Tideland) but I was really interested in seeing “Tetro” on a big screen but was unable to find it playing anywhere near me. I think I’ll watch both of the films at home at some point soon.
In any case, I willingly admit that there has been a decline in his output that first started post Apocalypse Now. It was never the same. As I am typing this, in the back of my mind I am thinking that the experience he had may be in someways actually make him a more fitting comparison for Polanski, who really suffered and went through a lot (I wasn’t really thinking of this of when I brought up his name though).
So, no, most (but not all) of Coppolas post 70s work left me unstirred. Too me, ultimately, greatness is best measured by the best work and to ability to get there. So I still think of him highly.
(Plus the guy gave us Sophia Coppola whose work I totally dig. I though MA was absolutely amazing and couldn’t believe some of the reviews I’ve read.)
I’ve enjoyed Coppola here and there over the years. I have a soft spot for Bram Stoker’s Dracula, if only because it’s visually stunning and the most faithful to the novel of the major film versions (but then, I loved Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein). And, if I may, The Rainmaker is one of the most entertaining legal dramas ever made. It’s certainly not up there with Twelve Angry Men or that ilk, but it’s wonderfully fun and compelling with a terrific cast of top-notch character actors who all ‘showed up to work’. It may or may not be a great film, but it’s absolutely a terrific movie.
As for Tim Burton, I grew up as the biggest Burton fan around (I saw Ed Wood on opening night and took it personally when Mars Attacks flopped). But, with not a little sadness, I must admit I’m not the least bit excited about Alice in Wonderland. Part of it is the advertising campaign, which seems to be mixing Lord of the Rings type adventure with Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter hogging the spotlight like Mike Myer’s The Cat in the Hat. But I think that I realize that Tim Burton is basically going to spend the rest of his career doing ‘Tim Burton’s version of… (insert famous property)’.
Big Fish may have been adapted from a novel, but it at least felt original and dealt with themes outside of the whole ‘outsider struggling to fit in’ bit. It was jolting to see a Tim Burton movie that was actually set on planet Earth. Sweeney Todd was pretty great, but he had been wanting to make that for at least fifteen years (to be fair, it turned out much better than Scoresese’s Gangs of New York). It just seems that after the scare of the twin flops (Ed Wood and Mars Attacks!) combined with the daggers hurled at him over Batman Returns, that Burton decided to not venture too far outside his safe zone and the safe zone of conventional Hollywood franchise pictures. I would argue that Sleepy Hollow was very much the ‘ultimate Tim Burton movie’ (for better or worse), and that everything after that just felt like a retread in one form or another.
I still dig the ‘f-you’ ending of Planet of the Apes, and I enjoyed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but Burton really doesn’t have that much new to say and there isn’t all that much that he can do to surprise us at this point. On the other hand, he’s married with two kids and seems reasonably content. It’s tough to maintain your rep as king of the outcast geeks when you’re 50 years old, one of Hollywood’s few marquee directors, and have achieved a sense of personal success in the bargain. Perhaps, and this goes for formally miserable comics like Jim Carrey, a slight neutering of the trademark impulses is a small price to pay for an entertainer whom you respect actually being happy.
That was longer than intended… apologies.
No one should say that Coppola or Polanski aren’t great directors because they still aren’t making great movies. Anyone with runs like they had, are great directors. Simple as that to me. But like Tarantino says, in a lot of ways film is a young man’s game and a lot of these guys get too old, out of touch, lazy, tired, or just repeat themselves too many times. That’s Burton’s problem now…you see a Burton movie, you know what you’re getting. Same happened to John Carpenter and DePalma. But somehow Spielberg and Scorsese still have the juice. But they mix up genres and style a bit, which I think is essential.
Burton is a sad one for me though, since I grew up on his movies. But now, I rarely see them in theaters. I was hoping Sweeney Todd would revitalize him, and maybe Alice will be good. But he’s just gone to the well too often now. He really should make another Ed Wood or hell, even Mars Attacks (without the box office bombing, of course).
is this the right thread to discuss ‘identity’ meets ‘stay’ by way of ‘angel heart’ in arkham asylum — i mean ‘shutter island’?
Agreed Perm and Scott…makes you wonder if Clint Eastwood and (until recently) Lumet are human.
Those two are safer though, so I can see them not burning out. Eastwood’s style basically boils down to locking down the camera, put the shot in focus, do a few takes and move on. Which is why he lives and dies by his material…if he has the script of Unforgiven he’s going to deliver you a great movie. If he has Blood Work, he’ll deliver something pretty bland. He doesn’t elevate his material. Lumet’s sort of the same, although I thin he’s great with actors. But basically as directors, they’re a little more journeyman-ish. Which isn’t a bad thing, I think some of the great directors are like that, especially when they were tied directly to studios.
But there never seems to be a real fire in them, like Coppola HAD to make Apocalypse Now even if it destroyed him. So to me, as good as they are…they’ll never quite be in the realm of Coppola back in his day, or Polanski, or Burton.
Which is why Scorsese and Spielberg are the real surprises to me…because they are still doing different things, different genres, changing their styles. It’s like they’re still hungry.
Perm, I think Tarantino is wrong. I also believe that the statements he made were made at least a decade ago – during the time when he, himself was relatively young. Point is, Quentin has always been the time of guy to say that he would retire before he gets too old (kind of like that The Who song – and look at Pete Townshend now working on a musical about old age with a slightly different perspective).
I always found those types of arguments very defeatist, if not ageist. The trick of staying good in this game is passion. Spielberg, Scorsese and, probably, Eastwood still care. They still like making movies and I believe that this is where the juice ultimately comes from. In the same way, I think Coppola just doesn’t care as much anymore. It’s not that he cannot make great movies, it’s just that his interested in making a very particular kinds of films, every so often. These days, wine could be his juice too (no pun intended).
Mixing up genres/coutnries helps as well. I think Woody Allen understands that now and knew about this for a long time.
I honestly believe that Spielberg is as good as he’s ever been, and overall he is virtually peerless. Scorsese is probably as good as he was from 80s on. Miyazaki’s Ponyo is still sharp and a work of a master. There are many other such examples (and I almost included Ridley Scott but he sort of just lost me lately).
So to me, when Tarantino talks about film being a young man’s game, he simple reveals another one of his own complexes(predjudices) and possibly even limitations. Tarantino is a guy of very particular talents and I can sort of see how in his case, becoming too detached with the current times might mean almost everything. I don’t know. Nor can I really can’t claim to know what being on American Idol meant for him.
Don’t get me wrong, people do get out of touch, dull, tired, weird or whatever. But this happens at almost any age. In many ways older filmmakers’ main challenge apart from getting fresh material, is suppresing the urge to become too hip in order to keep up with younger generations. Those who are truly great, manage to stay ahead. Others play catch-up and more often than not the results are terrible.
P.S. I have been very critical of Burton past few years but even I think you might be a little to hard on him this time, Perm.
Agree on Eastwood disagree on Lumet.
Turran has a full-on rave for “Ghost Rider” and Dargis is heaping praise on it too. 79 on Metacritic…not too shabby.
But I think a lot of directors DO age out of it. Making a movie is so much bullshit and so trying…not the actual shooting as much but also what you have to go through to get there. I mean, that’s partially why Gene Hackman quit, he didn’t want to put up with the shit that as a young man, he would have. Because at a certain point you say why bother, who cares just give me a check and here are the remake right to The Fog.
I think Coppola does care, but the studio system broke him. Now he seems happy to make his art films that no one really wants to see. I can dig that, that’s what you want to do when you get old, say fuck it and do exactly what you want, time’s too short for horseshit.
If anyone has potential to keep relevant actually I think it IS Tarantino…for the main reason that he is relatively detatched from the times. All of his influences seem to be from the 70s. He’s not making Tony Scott super stylized movies, or faced paced slick entertainemnts. He makes slower paced talky pictures that are all about the specific characters…and that doesn’t go out of style. Tarantino is a great director, but he’s a writer first and I could see him being like one of those novelists still cranking out material when they’re 80. Of course there’s a big difference with directing a movie for 3-4 months vs writing a book at home with your cat on your lap and a bottle of scotch nearby.
And I’m not meaning to be hard on Burton…but like I said, Burton is Burton. I’ll still see his movies but they’re not must-see pictures in the theater for me any more. You know basically what you’re getting…if anyone would like to take a bet that his next movie won’t star Depp, Carter or maybe Christopher Lee in a small role, and won’t be dark yet whimsical, and be wonderfully art directed with weird trees and Gothic houses, and have haunting somewhat sad music and striped socks, I’ll throw down with you. Of course knowing me, Burton will read this and decide to remake Porky’s and fuck me over. Dear Mr. Burton, please don’t do that, could you make Dark Shadows (with Johnny Depp)?
Ethan, Lumet’s body of work trumps Eastwood and does so at least twice over. Eastwood may be a better older age director but Lumet had a longer run.
Plus, can’t really argue that the guy’s pretty sharp.
Perm, again I agree but you can’t just ignore the pecedents of those who remained great. The same is true in every proffesion and not just artistic ones, either. If you don’t think writing a novel doesn’t take stamina, try writing one.
And I still say that Tarantino’s comments reveal more about himself than they reveal about actual insight. During this year’s director’s roundtable he brough up the idea of retiring yet again – he didn’t get much support, especially from Cameron, who, at least now feels that he can do it for as long as he can. More importantly, he wants to.
And I also have a somewhat different reading in regards to Tarantino’s influences. To limit him to just 70’s (though he totally aborbed a lot from that decade, I agree) would be wrong. And Reservoir Dogs really is a remake of Ringo Lam’s (very 80s) City on Fire. And it is better than the original. This is what he does. He takes things, many times shamelessly, and filters them through himself and often improves on them. And it takes time too, Tarantino has not been a very fast filmmaker though his pace seems to be picking up.
More importantly while I understand what you meant by saying that he’s detached, to me he’s a very very deliberate kind of detached. It’s still zeitgeisty. Lastly, I do believe that he needs other feelmakers like Scorsese or Takashi Miike around him to borrow energy from. More than anything else, I don’t think he can afford to detach himself from them. I hope this makes sense. I think Tarantino is very talented and could be very good even with other people’s material. Yet, there is something inherently secondhead about him that makes me believe that he needs other people and their material. I really hope I don’t come off as too negative here.
By the way, since you brought up Tony Scott. To me he is an example of a guy who plays catch-up, albeit in his very own way. No he’s not in the forefront and what’s worse, it sometimes seems like he’s overcompensating for it. Don’t get me wrong, his technical skills are in check and are still there – he’s just gotten dull for me (though I never was a big fan to begin with).
And as for Burton. Yep, what you see is pretty much what you get. But, it does seem like he’s learning new tricks every now and then, at least.
From a directing standpoint I agree (though certainly not twice over). From a cinematic body-of-work standpoint…it’s much closer and getting closer by the year. Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven will stand the test of time just as well as Network, Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon.
I agree Eastwood doesn’t have a signature style and is very straightforward…but directing two WWII epics back-to-back…one in Japanese no less, is astonishing at his age. Not to mention Eastwood co-produces almost all of his work, something Lumet doesn’t do (though he has written a few of his films)…and starring in and directing a modern racial drama in the same year as a period piece. And as much as I try, I can’t forgive “The Wiz.” š
I’m not ignoring the precedents of those who were great…I said guys like Coppola and Polanksi and Burton can be called great directors…even if they never make anything worthwhile from here on out, you can say they’re great. But I might say it in past-tense, like “Hitchcock was great, and so was John Carpenter.”
As someone who has written long form works (some scripts and some mini-series) and has worked on movie sets…I still say movies are tougher. Like the guy who’s directing Clash of the Titans, kind of a throwaway blockbuster…said in some recent article he’s exhausted and working twenty hour days and they’ve been scaling mountains to get the shots. Stephen King, while ridiculously prolific, said he writes about six hours a day. Filmmaking is just physically taxing, you have to be on set and no napping, and then the actor doesn’t want to say the lines as written and the sun’s going down so you have toe figure out which shots you don’t need. Pain in the ass, I prefer writing personally.
That’s why I like Woody Allen, he once said that when it’s cold outside he’ll just change the script to shoot indoor because he likes to be comfortable. I like that, it’s funny. Seems like he’s being a pussy but I’ve been there, I’d rather be in a nice coffee shop shooting a scene than be in New York Feb weather.
Tarantino ABSOLUTELY needs other people’s material to take from. The guy’s career is built on taking other scripts and concepts and characters and reworking them brilliantly to create something new. But look at the references he mostly uses, they’re not of recent vintage. It’s less Miike and more Five Fingers of Death. Watch that movie and you’ve seen a lot of Kill Bill’s ideas. Yeah he’ll take from an 80s HK action picture, but he’s probably not going to take from The Rundown.
And Tony Scott…there is a man who’s gotten old but refuses to believe it. He tries so fucking hard to be hip, but there’s juuust a tiny bit off about it, he’s definitely trying too hard. He used to be pretty rock solid, now he’s either medicore for me, or just shitty.
“Tetro wasn’t that bad. Agree that Coppola could do almost anything and wouldn’t hurt himself too much…though some of Brian de Palma’s recent work certainly tests that theory. And Lasse Hallstrom’s.”
Well, I never caught up with Redacted, I thought The Black Dahlia was goofy genre fun, and I have no problem saying that Femme Fatale is one of the best films of the decade.
LATER ERA DE PALMA POWER
The fact is most directors are only as good as their scripts and stories, so it takes a lot of “auteurism” to cover other deficiencies.
“I’m not ignoring the precedents of those who were great…I said guys like Coppola and Polanksi and Burton can be called great directors…even if they never make anything worthwhile from here on out, you can say they’re great. But I might say it in past-tense, like “Hitchcock was great, and so was John Carpenter.”
I just want to make sure we are on the same page in regards to this point. I understand that it may not be intentional (altough it very well could be) but by bringing up these names you seem to be denying the very point I’m trying to make. It’s not about whether or not once great directors should still be considered great.
No, what we seem to disagree on is that great directors can remain great directors, even in at advances age. That’s what I meant by precedents.
I guess I’m a little less of an ageist than most but it kind of itks me a little when people look make sweeping statements like the ones mades by Tarantino. I think people like Eastwoord (even if I’m not a fan of his) could rightfully take an objection.
Yes, writing is an incredible ammount of work but people do it. Somehow.
I do agree with you about all the other stuff though.
Tetro AND Youth Without Youth were both good, inventive films and if they had been made by some other, non-canonical filmmaker, they would have gotten a lot more praise. Everything Coppola does is under the shadow of ‘it’s not as good as Godfather II.’
Well, definitely good directors can REMAIN good directors. It just seems like there’s a whole lot of precedent that a lot of them don’t. And in a way, I think the more artistic ones who have a burning passion are the ones to flame out, like Coppola. They burn bright, but they burn fast. Of course that’s not age, he was going downhill way before he got old.
Which is why Eastwood will never stop, because he came from tv and he keeps things sort of easy for the most part. He finds a script, likes it, makes it quickly and on budget. He doesn’t direct Blood Work any different than Unforgiven. The guy is simply a workhorse.