Jump to content

The 30 Harshest Filmmaker-on-Filmmaker Insults In History


Justin Hayward
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Sustaining Member

I say leave this stuff to the, "If you can't do, teach" guys, but that's just me :)

 

http://flavorwire.com/200745/the-30-harshest-filmmaker-on-filmmaker-insults-in-history

 

Look at the whole Bergman on Welles...

 

"For me he's just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of - is all the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie's got is absolutely unbelievable. Aghed: How about The Magnificent Ambersons? Bergman: Nah. Also terribly boring. And I've never liked Welles as an actor, because he's not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories, you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that's when he's croaks. In my eyes he's an infinitely overrated filmmaker."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think there are two (actually three) schools of thought on film. One is a thought of technical achievement, one is the artistic merit and significance, and the other is the sheer entertainment value.

 

Citizen Kane was a technical masterpiece. I dont think it was culturally relevant or overly entertaining (unless you get off on technical achievement, which some film "snobs" do.) To be honest, when I was a film student, I watched this movie with my family and they were left speechless on how this could be such a praised movie in film school. But they are looking at film from the perspective of wanting to be entertained. To them, it would be funner to watch a modern comedy or tearjerking drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two (actually three) schools of thought on film. One is a thought of technical achievement, one is the artistic merit and significance, and the other is the sheer entertainment value.

 

Citizen Kane was a technical masterpiece. I dont think it was culturally relevant or overly entertaining (unless you get off on technical achievement, which some film "snobs" do.) To be honest, when I was a film student, I watched this movie with my family and they were left speechless on how this could be such a praised movie in film school. But they are looking at film from the perspective of wanting to be entertained. To them, it would be funner to watch a modern comedy or tearjerking drama.

I think it's culturally relevant in looking at the life of a media mogul in western society, even today. The men that seem as if they have everything. But to me that was one of his only top films and I think it gave him a pretty big ego.

 

Pretty funny list though, I wonder what went down behind the Gallo on Coppola, after all he did work with him on Tetro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I think it's culturally relevant in looking at the life of a media mogul in western society, even today.

 

Okay, maybe I misphrased that. I meant to say culturally significant, not culturally relevant. Anyone can find relevance in anything if they are looking. But significance comes from a large group of people having awareness of something that they hadn't previously thought about, didn't know, or just supressed but are now forced to deal with due to the powerful message. AKA Boyz in the Hood is a movie that makes you look at a problem at a particular moment in history and it would take a really close minded person to dismiss such a movie as just an urban fairy tale. Citizen Kane, IMO, doesn't have that sort of quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like Bergman and Welles met at a party and didn't get along. Citizen Kane was entertaining. Much of what Welles and Toland did were innovative for that time but have become common or even outdated by today's standards. We've seen everything in used in other films and it just looks ordinary to most viewers. I loved the story, the acting, the script, the music. It was all around a really good movie, if not great. Acting is a different beast now. Most actors go to acting school and many don't come from the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My parents were not film snobs by any means, and they both loved Citizen Kane. Then again, they didn't grow up with cheesy barrages of explosions and other action movie cliches that are almost a requirement of cinematic storytelling now.

 

Oh, and no shakey camera, steadicam, scenes that last more than 3 seconds before a cut, how dare they actually have FUN making a movie? (Instead of shooting a thousand angles of everything and making the crew's life a living hell. . .)

 

 

Tom, what about "Kane" is dated? Don't you dare say B&W :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

I did not expect to actually get any agreement to my point of view on here. Then again, I hope you folks do realize that you are the type of people who are naturally going to appreciate Citizen Kane. And I also happen to know, via my family members who actually lived during that time, that the movie was not generally well received by the public. You can make me out to be a dissenter, which I am not because I appreciate the film, but that doesn't mean we can change history and make it out to be more regarded than it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it a commercial failure?

 

Then again, a lot of my favorite current movies have been the same. "Synechdoche, NY" comes to mind. A lot of people called it pretentious. Roger Ebert named it one of the greatest movies of the 2000s. No that is not why I like it, but I suppose it lends credence to the pretentiousness argument ;-)

 

 

For better or for worse, a lot of artists aren't accepted in their own times. There is a long list of movies that had limited success but enjoyed widespread fame and even rereleases in later years.

 

I won't lie, I find "Kane" a bit dry at time, but there are some moments of real suspense, and some very very clever photographic tricks going on that I really appreciate! I love movies that aren't aimed at the IQ 80 or the semi-preoccupied twittering teenie bopper.

 

I like movies that tell stories that don't have neat endings, easy-to-understand meanings.

 

 

 

I don't think it has gotten worse, just the bad movies have been lost, thrown in studio bonfires, swept under the rug, but I am really annoyed with the formulaic approach to storytelling. Movie X did well so let's add twist Y and use Z instead of A as the lead actor. There was a zombie movie out whose trailer at least was very clearly likening it to "Gattaca" a couple years back that really disappointed the hell out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was 16 or 17 I rented Kane and despised it. "This is the greatest film of all time? it is putting me to sleep!"

 

Many years later I rented the laserdisc and tried at again, knowing my tastes had matured and realizing that Kane was credited with numerous filmmaking techniques. Rewatching it I was impressed with how it was shot, but the story still left me a bit cold. it's a good film, but not a great one.

 

What is also is, is a film that did break ground on numerous fronts and therefore, worthy of respect and study.

 

Is saying the word "Laserdisc" showing my age? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

When I was 16 or 17 I rented Kane and despised it. "This is the greatest film of all time? it is putting me to sleep!"

 

Many years later I rented the laserdisc and tried at again, knowing my tastes had matured and realizing that Kane was credited with numerous filmmaking techniques. Rewatching it I was impressed with how it was shot, but the story still left me a bit cold. it's a good film, but not a great one.

 

What is also is, is a film that did break ground on numerous fronts and therefore, worthy of respect and study.

 

Is saying the word "Laserdisc" showing my age? B)

 

 

"Renting" may be showing your age, based on some conversations I've had with younger people this week who watch but won't pay.

 

To what extent do any people who were disappointed by Citizen Kane, or any other legendary film, think that part of the letdown might be due to such high expectations?

 

I watched Stagecoach again this week. It's great. I realized too how many of the shots in it have been repeated so many times through the years, especially with tv westerns, that for anybody who sees Stagecoach after years of exposure to hundreds of Stagecoach-influenced films and tv shows, it's going to look more familiar than it should, through no fault of its own.

 

On the other hand, something that is really good and original is likely to hold up well, isn't it? I think that we hope so, because if something seems to lose its luster then that questions if anything has inherent value or is just completely relative. If movies keep being made, what will it take for something to be considered the greatest film of all time ten thousand years from now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

DMX-iT

FJS International

Film Gears

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...