Jetée

... also illustrated. (too inside?)


“At the Movies”- starting in the front row, left to right: Terry Gilliam, Alfred Hitchcock,
Stanley Kubrick, Wes Anderson, Jim Jarmusch, Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Hal Ashby,
Woody Allen, Paul Thomas Anderson, Werner Herzog, Michel Gondry, Martin Scorsese,
David Lynch, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, François Truffaut, Sidnet Lumet


Assuming you know of and admire the various works of the above, how do you feel about the above image? Does any particular director stand out to you? Should any of the directors' be omitted from the tributary, in your eyes, because you think their films are not up to par with the other featured luminaries? Who have you never heard of before, of those mentioned and seen above? What film do you think could have gathered all of these great (debatable) directors from all decades, and did you think they enjoyed it?




-- image courtesy of the filmwatcher.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

oliver9184

I think: Terry Gilliam isn't good enough to be a part of that group. Wes Anderson, Michel Gondry and Jean-Pierre Jeunet could be good enough in the future but haven't yet reached the peak of their careers. As I said somewhere else Hitchcock is/was vastly overrated but his reputation and influence can't really be denied. I hardly know anything about Jim Jarmusch.

If you're going to have David Lynch, where's Brian de Palma? If you're going to have Wes Anderson, where's Alexander Payne? If you're going to have Michel Gondry, where's Alfonso Cuarón? If you're going to have Hal Ashby, where's Mike Nichols? What about Roman Polanski?

What film are they watching? It hasn't started yet. Each one of them has been told different. Gilliam thinks it's going to be Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium. Hitchcock thinks it's going to be My Own Private Idaho. Kubrick thinks it's going to be AI: Artificial Intelligence. Anderson thinks it's going to be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. Jarmusch thinks it's going to be Speed 2: Cruise Control. The Coens think it's going to be every single one of their films, in full, non-stop and back to back. Hal Ashby thinks it's going to be Edward Scissorhands. Woody Allen thinks it's going to be Gladiator. P T Anderson thinks it's going to be Super Mario Bros: The Movie. Herzog thinks it's going to be The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Gondry thinks it's going to be The Princess Bride. Scorsese thinks it's going to be Looney Tunes: Back in Action. David Lynch thinks it's going to be High School Musical. Jeunet thinks it's going to be Emmanuelle in Space. Truffaut thinks it's going to be Mrs Doubtfire. Sidney Lumet thinks it's going to be Flubber.

But what is it REALLY going to be? A secret unreleased live action version of Shrek starring Klaus Kinksi as Shrek and Scatman Crothers as Donky. Will they enjoy it? Yes, but they'll all pretend not to. Except Werner Herzog, who was responsible for it, and who promised to destroy it but didn't; and who will loudly guffaw throughout even though he knows all the jokes, because he wrote them.

Baraka_Guru

With the exception of the sleeping Hitchcock, Allen is the only director not really looking at the screen. If I'm not mistaken, Allen doesn't like to watch his final products, and so he seems more concerned here about how others are reacting to it, assuming he thinks it's going to be his film that's screened.

Besides Allen, Kubrick, and Hitchcock (and Burton and Tarantino), I'm not all that aware of films while being consciously aware of their directors. Much of this I think has to do with being relatively unfamiliar with film. There is much I haven't seen, and with some directors here, I haven't seen any of their work at all.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Jetée

Thank you both for contributing. It has been highly entertaining, and I hope this can continue.

oliver, that was really a lot of thinking going into my whole list of queried suppositions, but I couldn't help notice when you went down the listing of what each director thought they could have all been brought here as one to watch, as a whole, most of the films you mentioned would rarely be looked upon as enjoyable cinema, perhaps to any sort of seasoned film critic, but as you progressed with this, did you imagine yourself as each director, and what could possibly be my (their) one secret indulgence of a film not remarked as great, but it's good enough for me (___, the director?). Either way, I had a very well-deserved chuckle.

Baraka, I agree with you on that point of myself not being a true connoisseur of film, and that's why usually, the only films I really inherently recognize as belonging to any of the above directors is when they are marketed that way, a la Tarantino, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Allen, and at times, the Coen Brothers (at least for me; I've gotten wise to their formula). I wasn't aware of the fact that Woody Allen has a predisposition not to watch his own final products (I wonder if he could be a perfectionist? but then he might also be a self-defeating one at that) so that is a keen insight to be aware of, and learn just now.

Though it took a little time, I am really pleased this topic wasn't immediately forgotten about, and with the opening two replies, it brings me hope to see that this could possibly blossom even further.

Thanks guys.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

Jove

I have no preference in film directors and just because a film was directed by *insert popular film director* or won an *insert name of award* does not make the film excellent. In fact, it could just be an average film with an average story with average acting, but attach a popular director or actor and everyone likes it.

Examples include A Serious Man, Crazy Heart, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood.

Pearl Trade

Haven't seen the other two, but No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood were both great movies. There Will Be Blood was better for acting and story, but No Country was not a bad movie by any means.

Yes, some directors are better than others, but my watching of a movie is not influenced by the director. I look at other things, like storyline or actors or how interesting it looks at the time What exactly does a director do, anyway?

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

telekinetic

"No Country" is the REASON I like Coen Brothers, and I don't know the directors of A Serious Man, Crazy Heart, or There Will Be Blood, but liked them all in about that order, descending.

__________________
twisted no more

oliver9184

Jetée: some of those suggestions were semi-serious but most of them were downright stupid or something as far as possible from what I suppose that director would want to watch. Not too much thought went into it I'm afraid!

A few years ago when I was studying film, having just found out about auteur theory, I would place much more importance on a film's director than I do now. I would try to follow a director's career in order, indiscriminately watching good and bad. I follow particular stars/actors far more these days. I will sit through a film I know will be bad for the sake of watching a particular star but the same couldn't be said for a particular director, anymore.

You can make a great film without a great director; to make one without either great acting or great writing (or both) is, I think, rare to the point of anomaly. Everyone notices and comments on bad acting and writing; when did you last see a bad bit of directing? If there is such a thing, surely nobody except a film director or maybe a cynical critic with an agenda to pursue would notice. Bad directing to Joe Schmoe would be if you didn't see what you were supposed to see, which NEVER happens. The work of the writer(s) and actors is solid and tangible whereas the work of the director is (not always but often) vague and abstract. Part of the director's job, I think, especially these days, is to be seen - on both sides of the camera - to be spinning magic and making things happen almost by sheer force of will. A lot of it's flim-flam. How many films are sold as coming "from visionary director ----"? What does that mean? That the director has either vision, foresight, or both. One would hope so. Great films used to be made by competent directors who kept their vision to themselves, and concentrated on telling their actors how to act, and the photographer what to shoot. I'd welcome a return to that sort of work ethic; and it would surely save money too.

BUT, having said that there's a few directors I follow closely (and probably watch all the future films of, sooner or later) because I've been very impressed with their output the last few years, and because they've managed to be independent and fend off interference from their financiers: Alfonso Cuarón, Martin Scorsese, Alexander Payne, Darren Aronofsky, maybe Brad Bird.