the oscars / best director

[John Holland]

Paul Greengrass should have got best director for United 93 , dealing with mostly non actors and making a movie like that is what true film making is all about . Scorsese should have won for loads of other of his films , but not a remake called "The Departed "

[Max Jacoby]

I completely agree, but what do you expect, it's the Academy...

 

Although I find it ironic that they gave the best director award to a director who had no control over one of his main actors. Jack Nicholson basically directed himself as anyone involved in the production will tell you.

[Brad Grimmett]

I thought Paul Greengrass' work was incredible, but I think he suffered because the movie was released so early in the year. I also think films that get more nominations have a better chance to win the bigger awards because they're perceived by the voters to be better films, whether that's true or not.

Anyway, I'm glad Greengrass was awarded a nomination. He's certainly an incredible director, and he seems to be getting better with every film he makes.

I liked the Departed, but I didn't think it was the best film of the year, or the best directing of the year. Not to knock Scorcese, but almost any director could get great performances out of that cast!

[Robert Lachenay]

Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year. The whole thing was kind of a joke and, in all honesty, I'm glad Scorsese won. Had Ken Loach been up there, it would've been a different story, but we all know that would never have happened. Scorsese has arguably put out at 2 of the top 100 films ever made and has given an incredibly strong piece nearly every time around for the past 38 years (nearly). Greengrass did well, but it didn't blow me away given the subject matter he had to work with and the enormously collaborative nature with which he approached the project. Personally, while I admire Untied 93, I didn't feel he set himself apart from the others at all. Ken Loach, Rachid Bouchareb, Avon Asizu and Almodovar all could have filled in those spots last night (and should have), having completely overshadowed the nominated directors. None of those guys were up there, nor would they have been in a million years for thier work last year, so I'm diggin' that Marty got his Oscar. He did just as well as the rest of his competition and--as we see on every good morning talk show and newspaper head line--"it was a long time a'comin'."

 

Just IMO though.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Nicholas Jenkins]

I don't really think one of these directors is better than the other... they're all incredibly good, but different. The Oscar is a nice way to help unite the community and celebrate good films from the year, but of course whatever the "academy" deems as good. It's fun and entertaining. It's only people and people's opinions about things that can't really be judged categorically at that level.

 

I guess I enjoy some of it because I know how much these folk (and most any filmmaker) want one of the little buggers. It just feels good to have someone say "Good Job".

[Joseph Nesbitt]

agreed, Marty has really gotten jipped over the years, the oscars is kind of a joke anyways, it's more about popularity than actual talent, In my opinion the Departed wasn't Scorsese's best work but the fact it won him the oscar was great. Hopfully the other directors can take a page from Scorsese's book and wait they're turn, if the keep putting out good movies then they will get the oscar someday.

[James Steven Beverly]

Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year. The whole thing was kind of a joke and, in all honesty, I'm glad Scorsese won. Had Ken Loach been up there, it would've been a different story, but we all know that would never have happened. Scorsese has arguably put out at 2 of the top 100 films ever made and has given an incredibly strong piece nearly every time around for the past 38 years (nearly). Greengrass did well, but it didn't blow me away given the subject matter he had to work with and the enormously collaborative nature with which he approached the project. Personally, while I admire Untied 93, I didn't feel he set himself apart from the others at all. Ken Loach, Rachid Bouchareb, Avon Asizu and Almodovar all could have filled in those spots last night (and should have), having completely overshadowed the nominated directors. None of those guys were up there, nor would they have been in a million years for thier work last year, so I'm diggin' that Marty got his Oscar. He did just as well as the rest of his competition and--as we see on every good morning talk show and newspaper head line--"it was a long time a'comin'."

 

Just IMO though.

 

Eh...There is nothing humble about your opinion, I actually find it rather pretentious. None of these highly accomplished directors is worthy of an Academy award but 4 somewhat obscure European directors are. Amazing! How very generous of you to admit that Martin Scorsese might have actually made one or two pictures worth the time it took you to watch them. I'm sure he would be thrilled to hear you approve. No doubt, Scorsese's entire body of work has been taken into account when the votes were cast but because this is the highest award for filmmaking in the world, (and don't hand me some bullsh#t about the Grand Jury prize at Cannes being the highest award in the world because it's not) that probably SHOULD be a factor when deciding who deserves to win. You seem to be of the opinion that anything not made by a group of disgruntilled sociallists, on a shoestring budget with a decidedly overblown sense of self inportance and that stands on a intellectual soapbox, morally head and shoulders above the unwashed masses isn't worth the film it's printed on, let alone worth the time it takes to watch it. Isn't it a CRIME that movies people ACTUALLY WATCH are nominated instead. Get over yourself. You're not the first person to discover European art films and just because it has a budget larger than 75 bucks doesn't make it BAD or mean it has no SOUL! Scorsese himself is an expert on European cinema and has been influenced by it's greats like Fellini and Bergman, BUT the European greats were influenced by the American greats like Hawks, Ford, Huston, De Mille and others.

[Robert Lachenay]

Eh...There is nothing humble about your opinion, I actually find it rather pretentious. None of these highly accomplished directors is worthy of an Academy award but 4 somewhat obscure European directors are. Amazing! How very generous of you to admit that Martin Scorsese might have actually made one or two pictures worth the time it took you to watch them. I'm sure he would be thrilled to hear you approve. No doubt, Scorsese's entire body of work has been taken into account when the votes were cast but because this is the highest award for filmmaking in the world, (and don't hand me some bullsh#t about the Grand Jury prize at Cannes being the highest award in the world because it's not) that probably SHOULD be a factor when deciding who deserves to win. You seem to be of the opinion that anything not made by a group of disgruntilled sociallists, on a shoestring budget with a decidedly overblown sense of self inportance and that stands on a intellectual soapbox, morally head and shoulders above the unwashed masses isn't worth the film it's printed on, let alone worth the time it takes to watch it. Isn't it a CRIME that movies people ACTUALLY WATCH are nominated instead. Get over yourself. You're not the first person to discover European art films and just because it has a budget larger than 75 bucks doesn't make it BAD or mean it has no SOUL! Scorsese himself is an expert on European cinema and has been influenced by it's greats like Fellini and Bergman, BUT the European greats were influenced by the American greats like Hawks, Ford, Huston, De Mille and others.

 

Dude...I just said that, in my opinion, the people the academy nominated did not give the best direction of the year. The Departed was one of the 5 best films I saw last year...Scorsese is one of my favorite currently-working directors (he was also the revolutionary who introduced contemporary DeM music into film scores), however Loach's direction in The Wind that Shook the Barley, Rachid Bouchareb's in Days of Glory and Almodovar's direction in Volver (none of these two directors are AT ALL "OBSCURE" as you say) were far better efforts than any of the academy's nominees last night. These films actually WEREN'T made on a "shoestring budget" either...and I'm not "simply appreciating them because they are european cinema." I felt that they were MUCH better directing efforts and that's my right.

 

And actually...though I forgot it was an '06 film because I didn't see it until 07, David Lynch probably gave the best direction of the year (far above what the academy nominated IMO) with his great Inland Empire (especially giventhe improvisation of the production and his debut on DV). Amazing movie...Lynch in top form (all the good in him and none of the bad).

 

As I said: my opinion. Also...Fellini was in no way influenced by Hawks, Ford, Huston or De Mille. Nor was Bergman. I think you're thinking of people from the french new wave and the italian movement that prompted it (a movement that included Antonioni, NOT Fellini as far as where they derived thier influence). ThoseAmerican greats you named were influenced by Chaplin and Eisenstein and others (those dang "obscure european directors"). Get off my case...just because I disagree with the Academy doesn't mean I'm some pretentious, socialist wind bag. I would also say that none of the people nominated for best supporting actress and best screenplay truly were the best in those categories either. But it is what it is and it's no big deal...the oscars are a celebration...they're for fun and I had fun watching them.

 

 

 

 

And P.S.,

 

Who said I have to be humble?

 

I'm not smart...I'm not intellectual...but that doesn't mean I'm going to hidemy opinions on film in a film discussion forum.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Greg Gross]

I am glad that "Marty" finally got best director and I was sort of pissed off

that he got passed over so many times. Lets be happy for him and you know

he's not getting any younger. Maybe Mr. Nicholson did direct himself but here's

a question for you. Obviously "Jack" is at the top of his craft. So did he really

direct himself or is it just that he used his craft, portrayed the character as he

saw it. Maybe(you guys are closer to knowing than me) just maybe "Marty"

stayed out of his way and left him develop the character. I prefer to believe

that "Jack" used his acting skills,craft to achieve the ultimate story. I want to

believe that they had a strong script,story to work with. It may be a re-make

but it sure as hell turned out to be a great visual story. There were so many

turns and twists in the story and everytime I thought I was on top of it, it all

got tossed up in the air again. Does anybody know if "Marty" is a "Hitch" fan?

 

Greg Gross

[Will Earl]

Almost as a side note: What qualities do you look for in qualifing the Best Director title?

 

Is it something craft related? They way they told the story, the performance they got out of the actors, they way they worked with their crew - is there some other quality that you can define?

 

...or is it based more on opinion and personal preference?

[James Steven Beverly]

Dude...I just said that, in my opinion, the people the academy nominated did not give the best direction of the year. The Departed was one of the 5 best films I saw last year...Scorsese is one of my favorite currently-working directors (he was also the revolutionary who introduced contemporary DeM music into film scores), however Loach's direction in The Wind that Shook the Barley, Rachid Bouchareb's in Days of Glory and Almodovar's direction in Volver (none of these two directors are AT ALL "OBSCURE" as you say) were far better efforts than any of the academy's nominees last night. These films actually WEREN'T made on a "shoestring budget" either...and I'm not "simply appreciating them because they are european cinema." I felt that they were MUCH better directing efforts and that's my right.

 

And actually...though I forgot it was an '06 film because I didn't see it until 07, David Lynch probably gave the best direction of the year (far above what the academy nominated IMO) with his great Inland Empire (especially giventhe improvisation of the production and his debut on DV). Amazing movie...Lynch in top form (all the good in him and none of the bad).

 

As I said: my opinion. Also...Fellini was in no way influenced by Hawks, Ford, Huston or De Mille. Nor was Bergman. I think you're thinking of people from the french new wave and the italian movement that prompted it (a movement that included Antonioni, NOT Fellini as far as where they derived thier influence). ThoseAmerican greats you named were influenced by Chaplin and Eisenstein and others (those dang "obscure european directors"). Get off my case...just because I disagree with the Academy doesn't mean I'm some pretentious, socialist wind bag. I would also say that none of the people nominated for best supporting actress and best screenplay truly were the best in those categories either. But it is what it is and it's no big deal...the oscars are a celebration...they're for fun and I had fun watching them.

And P.S.,

 

Who said I have to be humble?

 

I'm not smart...I'm not intellectual...but that doesn't mean I'm going to hidemy opinions on film in a film discussion forum.

 

No one said you had to be humble or hide your opinion, but if your going to make statment like "Eh....none of the directors nominated were the best directors of the year" and "The whole thing was kind of a joke" you better expect to take a few hits for such an opinionated statement, especially when you say "Ken Loach, Rachid Bouchareb, Avon Asizu and Almodovar all could have filled in those spots last night (and should have), having completely overshadowed the nominated directors. None of those guys were up there, nor would they have been in a million years for thier work last year," when Rachid Bouchareb''s "Indigènes" was nominated for this year's Best Foreign Language Film and Pedro Almodovar"s "Todo sobre mi madre" (All about my Mother) WON the 2000 Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. This shows me there might be a flaw or two in your opinion like it's not that the Academy didn't feel they weren't good directors, just not good enough to be nominated in the director's catigory and the fact that "Indigènes" didn't win Best Foreign Language Film and there were other foriegn directors nominated in the best director catigory tells me that the Academy didn't feel Bouchareb was even the best European director this year. As for your other comments, I seem to remember an interview I heard somewhere where Fellini SAID he was influenced by Ford, but I could be wrong, YOU being the expert on foreign films an all. It's hard to argue with Lynch being a great director but the fact that he improvised this particular production and shot on DV is not what makes him a genuis nor does it make him worthy of an Academy award and sense he wasn't even nominated, I guess I'm not alone in that opinion. The Oscars are far more than a frivalous celebration and hardly something done just for fun. A win will add an average of an additional 30 million dollars to box office and can give actors, directors and various crew a much greater choice of film projects. And as for Chaplin and Eisenstein, Chapin had a studio and made movies IN HOLLYWOOD. He was in the English equivalent of vaudville when he was discovered and signed with Mack Sennett at Keystone studios in Hollywood where he made his first movie, Making a Living (1914). He made 35 films there then moved to Essanay in 1915 and did 14 more, then jumped over to Mutual In 1918 he joined First National which later became part of Warner Bros. studios and then in 1919 he helped formed United Artists with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith. So I would hardly call him a European director. Eisenstein was Russian, EASTERN European, not European and although great, Griffith and DeMille were conteporary and far more influental. In fact here's a little something from IMDB I thought you might like "Though Eisenstein wanted to make films for the common man, his intense use of symbolism and metaphor in what he called "intellectual montage" sometimes lost his audience". If you lose your audence, then all your "art" is nothing more than publicly held intellectual masterbation, self-gratification at the expence of others and I don't know about you, but to me THAT is NOT the definition of a great director. B)

Edited February 27, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[David Sweetman]

this is the highest award for filmmaking in the world

Wrong, wrong; the highest award is the film itself, it is its own end. Everything else is arbitrary and meaningless.

 

I agree with Lachenay in that the films he cited and their directors actually had something worth saying.

[Robert Lachenay]

None of those guys were up there, nor would they have been in a million years for thier work last year," when Rachid Bouchareb''s "Indigènes" was nominated for this year's Best Foreign Language Film and Pedro Almodovar"s "Todo sobre mi madre" (All about my Mother) WON the 2000 Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

 

Look at what you quoted me saying. For the work they did THIS YEAR (not in 2000...all about my mother has nothing to do with anything), they would never have been nominated because thier films ( "Days of Glory," "Volver," "Sideache" "The Wind that Shook the Barley" and "Inland Empire") generated so few views and widespread American attention in comparison to "Babel," "The Departed," "united 93" and "Letters." The Academy seriously is not going to nominate someone who directed a film that only a very select group of Americans saw because it's counting on relating with the widespread public for ratings. The oscars are without a doubt, in large part about ratings...don't fool yourself to think they aren't.

 

"All About my Mother," and Almodovar's other film "Talk to Her" both ended up being incredible surprises as far as the amount of publicity and wide-spread attention they generated. Once again...as I've stated over and over: it's just my opinion.

 

This shows me there might be a flaw or two in your opinion like it's not that the Academy didn't feel they weren't good directors, just not good enough to be nominated in the director's catigory and the fact that "Indigènes" didn't win Best Foreign Language Film and there were other foriegn directors nominated in the best director catigory tells me that the Academy didn't feel Bouchareb was even the best European director this year.

 

Best film and best direction are apples and oranges.

 

As for your other comments, I seem to remember an interview I heard somewhere where Fellini SAID he was influenced by Ford, but I could be wrong, YOU being the expert on foreign films an all.

 

Welp, you certainly are wrong. I'm no foreign fil exprert, as you say, but I do know which way is up. Fellini said that h "greatly admired the masculinity and lack of pretense in Ford's work." He was in no way influenced by him, nor did he ever claim to be (in fact, at the height of Ford's influence, Fellini was a part of the Avanguardista and didn't even watch films.) He gained his film influece in part from the great neorealists such as Lang...and also a tenderness from Renoir and the man who played a large part in his mentorship: De Sica. There was also a lot of collaboration, which was the backbone in Fellini's sylistic development, though he really wasn't too greatly influenced by film or filmmakers, but rather literature and music. Much of his perspective, inspiration, and later stylistic psychological impressionism (which coined the term "felliniesque") was gained from reading the works of Jung, Dostoyevksy, Altermov, Hagis and Proust....and listening to Rachmononof (sp).

 

It's hard to argue with Lynch being a great director but the fact that he improvised this particular production and shot on DV is not what makes him a genuis nor does it make him worthy of an Academy award and sense he wasn't even nominated, I guess I'm not alone in that opinion.

 

I have a feeling you haven't seen Inland Empire yet.

 

And as for Chaplin and Eisenstein, Chapin had a studio and made movies IN HOLLYWOOD. He was in the English equivalent of vaudville when he was discovered and signed with Mack Sennett at Keystone studios in Hollywood where he made his first movie, Making a Living (1914). He made 35 films there then moved to Essanay in 1915 and did 14 more, then jumped over to Mutual In 1918 he joined First National which later became part of Warner Bros. studios and then in 1919 he helped formed United Artists with Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford and D.W. Griffith. So I would hardly call him a European director. Eisenstein was Russian, EASTERN European, not European and although great, Griffith and DeMille were conteporary and far more influental.

 

First of all, do you really think that giving me a brief biography of Charlie Chaplin (all things most of us already know) will help enforce your point? Charlie Chaplin was english...just because he was funded through hollywood (as were most european directors all the way up into the mid 60s, Hitchcock included) HARDLY makes him an American director. It only makes him a Hollywood funded director.

 

Also, you can't be serious in saying that friggen' Griffith and DeMille were (hahaha) "far more influential" than Sergei Eisenstein. There are only seven other directors who are in the same league as Eisenstein's influence, those being Welles, Kurosawa, Lang, Chaplin, Hitchcock, Renoir, and Godard.

 

In fact here's a little something from IMDB I thought you might like "Though Eisenstein wanted to make films for the common man, his intense use of symbolism and metaphor in what he called "intellectual montage" sometimes lost his audience". If you lose your audence, then all your "art" is nothing more than publicly held intellectual masterbation, self-gratification at the expence of others and I don't know about you, but to me THAT is NOT the definition of a great director. B)

 

 

Oh, my.... First off: IMDB isn't the final word. It's merely the generalized interpretation of whoever added him.

 

What "sometimes lost" Eisenstein's audience was censorship because his films were so powerful at the time that they could cause massive riots. I dare you to find a film with since that has had the raw impact to its audience upon its opening as Oktober and Potempkin. Eisenstein is someone who can, without embarressment, be compared to artists like Bahc, Beethovan, Michaelangelo, Dostoyevsky, Hegal, and Da Vinci. His impact upon the medium was THAT significant.

 

Sorry for all the typos, btw.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[James Steven Beverly]

Wrong, wrong; the highest award is the film itself, it is its own end. Everything else is arbitrary and meaningless.

 

I agree with Lachenay in that the films he cited and their directors actually had something worth saying.

 

Yes I will completely agree with that statement, and I never said the films he listed didn't have something to say or weren't good films just that their directors don't deserve to replace those that were nominated.

[James Steven Beverly]

Look at what you quoted me saying. For the work they did THIS YEAR (not in 2000...all about my mother has nothing to do with anything), they would never have been nominated because thier films ( "Days of Glory," "Volver," "Sideache" "The Wind that Shook the Barley" and "Inland Empire") generated so few views and widespread American attention in comparison to "Babel," "The Departed," "united 93" and "Letters." The Academy seriously is not going to nominate someone who directed a film that only a very select group of Americans saw because it's counting on relating with the widespread public for ratings. The oscars are without a doubt, in large part about ratings...don't fool yourself to think they aren't. "All About my Mother," and Almodovar's other film "Talk to Her" both ended up being incredible surprises as far as the amount of publicity and wide-spread attention they generated. Once again...as I've stated over and over: it's just my opinion. Best film and best direction are apples and oranges.

 

Ratings, are you serious? THAT'S your argument!? You actually believe academy members sit around and and ask themselves, "Hum, WHAT movie will give the awards show the best Neilson's if it wins best picture? HOW ABOUT "THE QUEEN" THERE'S a real sweeps week winner!. If they were worried about ratings they'd run a Sienfield, reunion show followed by the reschedualed superbowl. Good God, if you're going to try to bite my arguement in the ass at least field a dog that doesn't gum it's Kibbel. As for your OTHER statement, you infered that these guys are far too esoteric and innovative to EVER be considered for an Academy Award, when this is more ellitest bullsh#t. The fact is they have been considered and have WON at least in a catigory appropreate to the films they make IE European ART films so Don't hand me that "these guys are so ahead of the curve NO ONE can ever UNDERSTAND what they're trying to do let alone have the BALLS to honor them for their contribution. And as far as "Best film and best direction being apples and oranges, when Best foreign langage director becomes a catigory, as I feel it should at some point, best foriegn langage film is a pretty good indicator as to who is the best director in that catigory! You spout your opinion as tyhough it were a blanket statement that all should revere so don't hide behind that. If you've got something to say, say it with conviction and stand behind it!

 

Welp, you certainly are wrong. I'm no foreign fil exprert, as you say, but I do know which way is up. Fellini said that h "greatly admired the masculinity and lack of pretense in Ford's work." He was in no way influenced by him, nor did he ever claim to be (in fact, at the height of Ford's influence, Fellini was a part of the Avanguardista and didn't even watch films.) He gained his film influece in part from the great neorealists such as Lang...and also a tenderness from Renoir and the man who played a large part in his mentorship: De Sica. There was also a lot of collaboration, which was the backbone in Fellini's sylistic development, though he really wasn't too greatly influenced by film or filmmakers, but rather literature and music. Much of his perspective, inspiration, and later stylistic psychological impressionism (which coined the term "felliniesque") was gained from reading the works of Jung, Dostoyevksy, Altermov, Hagis and Proust....and listening to Rachmononof (sp).

 

And you can sit there by you own admission and say Fellini WASN'T influenced by someone he greatly admired? What world do you live in or are you just SO sure that everything American is crap and only Europeans can possibly have original ideas that you won't admit that he was influenced by other filmmaker. There is no doubt that Felini's style was unique to Felini or Feliniesque but if you can look at his films and NOT see the influence of other fimmakers INCLUDING Ford, you're just refusing to recognize the obvious.

 

I have a feeling you haven't seen Inland Empire yet.

 

No I haven't, but your argument was not that it was a great film but that it was a great film because he improvised production and shot on DV which is absurd as if to dimiss the fact that Lynch is increadible in any format he chooses to use, as though he's some kind of an underdog because he chose to use such a vial format as DV. Again ellitist arrogance.

 

First of all, do you really think that giving me a brief biography of Charlie Chaplin (all things most of us already know) will help enforce your point? Charlie Chaplin was english...just because he was funded through hollywood (as were most european directors all the way up into the mid 60s, Hitchcock included) HARDLY makes him an American director. It only makes him a Hollywood funded director.

 

He was ENGLISH!!!!??? Oh MY GOD THAT changes EVERYTHING :rolleyes: He wasn't just "funded" by Hollywood, his ENTIRE FILM CAREER was spent in Hollywood. Hitchcock started in England as a filmmaker and returned there to make films. There is no comparisionbetween the too EXCEPT that I would consider Hitchcock much more of an American filmmaker than English as well. MOST of Hitchcock's films had distictly American themes and values as did Chaplin's. That's pretty much where the similarities between the 2 end. There are many European directors that mantained their European roots throughout their careers dispite being funded by Hollywood, Lang being one of them.

 

 

Also, you can't be serious in saying that friggen' Griffith and DeMille were (hahaha) "far more influential" than Sergei Eisenstein. There are only seven other directors who are in the same league as Eisenstein's influence, those being Welles, Kurosawa, Lang, Chaplin, Hitchcock, Renoir, and Godard.

Oh, my.... First off: IMDB isn't the final word. It's merely the generalized interpretation of whoever added him.

 

I can say it in SPADES scooter. The epic quality of their films BUILT Hollywwod and without Hollywood, there would BE NO film industry today. Now, if you want to talk OPINIONS your list is a PRIME example of a MIS-GUIDED opinion. You MIGHT have forgotten ONE or TWO people on that list of yours and some that have NO business on it at ALL Including Sergei Eisenstein....LANG are you KIDDING ME? You wanna talk about directors that revolutionized the movie industry, How 'bout Kubrick? How about Speilberg? How about Lucas? How about Ford? How about Casevettes? As far as European directors go, I'll take a Fellini or Bergman over a Renoir or Godard any day of the week. Of course YOU being an film purest would NEVER lower yourself to include Speilberg or Lucas in this list DISPITE the fact that Speilberg created the blockbuster with Jaws and Lucas revolutionized the film industry with the use of computers in anamation and between them are the most sucessful directors in HISTORY, but what the Hell does an audeance know anyway, there just the ones buying the tickets.

 

What "sometimes lost" Eisenstein's audience was censorship because his films were so powerful at the time that they could cause massive riots. I dare you to find a film with since that has had the raw impact to its audience upon its opening as Oktober and Potempkin. Eisenstein is someone who can, without embarressment, be compared to artists like Bahc, Beethovan, Michaelangelo, Dostoyevsky, Hegal, and Da Vinci. His impact upon the medium was THAT significant.

 

Ya, Starwars or for that matter Sweet Sweetback's BAAAAAAAAADDDDDDAAAAASSSSSS Song. Eisenstein was no doubt an artist and influencal but Beethovan, Michaelangelo, freakin' Da Vinci for Christ's sake!!!??? Give me a break! THAT should be followed by "Once again...as I've stated over and over: it's just my opinion. " Otherwise it's just TOO abserd a statement to argue.

 

Sorry for all the typos, btw.

 

Well, nobody's pefrect.

Edited February 28, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Max Jacoby]

The epic quality of their films BUILT Hollywwod and without Hollywood, there would BE NO film industry today. Now, if you want to talk OPINIONS your list is a PRIME example of a MIS-GUIDED opinion. You MIGHT have forgotten ONE or TWO people on that list of yours and some that have NO business on it at ALL Including Sergei Eisenstein....LANG are you KIDDING ME? You wanna talk about directors that revolutionized the movie industry, How 'bout Kubrick? How about Speilberg? How about Lucas? How about Ford? How about Casevettes? As far as European directors go, I'll take a Fellini or Bergman over a Renoir or Godard any day of the week.

You two are obviously talking about two different kind of 'influences' here it seems to me.

 

Eisenstein was probably the most influential filmmaker when it comes to film theory and mise-en-scène with his Montage Theory. Saying that he has no business being on a list of inluential filmmakers is a statment that any filmscholar will dispute vigorously. The same goes for Renoir or epescially Godard. You may not like his films, but his intellectual influence on filmmaking is undeniable.

 

On the other hand people like Spielberg and Lucas have a huge influence on the film industry as well, but unlike the previous ones, it is largely technological, in the vein of the Lumière Brothers, George Eastman and Henri Chrétien for instance. Lucas has advanced cinema because of his development of all things digital (sound, effects, cameras), but from a purely film theory and mise-en-scène point of view he does in no way compare to any of the directors mentioned above.

[Robert Lachenay]

Yeah, I'm done posting about this. After reading James' last post, I don't feel I have anything more to say: this has become a dumb argument. I'm just going to reinforce two things (that are really irrelevant, given the original subject of this thread): Without Chaplin and Eisenstein, there would have been nothing. That's not a matter of opinion, it is fact. They were so far ahead of thier time in practicing genuine auteurship, mise-en-scène, and trying to articulate visceral, untangible, unfilmable things, that it wasn't until Welles, then post-time french-new wave (ie Godard and Truffaut) that this idea was seen again. Eisenstein's montage theory helped breathe life into film, just as Chaplins removal of the sterile theatricality of earlier films did. They are essentially the backbone of everything that came after...they are what gave directors the okay to direct. The fact that you mention Lucas in the same sentence as Eisenstein kills your argument right there. Regardless of the differences in thier influences over cinema, Eisensteins was invariably greater.

 

As far as the oscars: yes, it is about ratings (that doesn't detract from anything, but it's a fact). They pick films that a large portion of the public have seen so that the public can interact and relate with the show itself. No one would sit watching for 5 or so hours if they hadn't seen any of the material presented...there would be no way for them to relate and , as a result, no reason to watch. Didn't anyone else think it a bit funny that Eddie Murphy and Will Smith got a nom? They certainly played thier parts well, but I can think of at least 10 other people who belonged up there instead of them. From the perspective of a serious filmgoer: Yes, it is a bit of a joke how watered down the awards ceremony is. I can also garuntee you that Scorsese cares less about winning an oscar than most of the people in favor of him winning one did....in fact, he's probably more content with having won a palm d'or when Antonioni, Bergman, Truffaut, Godard, Coppola, Aiazaka, Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Bresson were in their peak form (and probably that he's arguably directed 2 of the top 100 films ever made).

 

But this is an argument I don't want to have. All I did was state my opinion (and I felt it was in a pretty level-headed way), and I get jumped on. Do some better things with your time, because your arguments are quite weak (eisenstein also dabbled in hollywood production, does that make him an American filmmaker too?) and actually just...there's no need for them...I didn't do anything to warrant them, merely stated how I felt about the Oscar director awards. There was no need for you to respond with a direct attack (and a quite uninformed one I might add).

 

Also...I do not at all feel that, "Everything in America is crap." Who are you? Cesar Rubio's midwestern Twin? I simply felt that, this year, the better directing efforts were from non-american filmmakers (Ummm...except for DAVID LYNCH, you know...because he'd be VERY American). I also really don't like associating one's nationality with his work....in this day and age (unlike 70 years before), that is completely irrelevent. I think Scorsese, Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson are some of the best currently working directors, and I felt Altman was probably top 3 in the world prior to his death. Don't make such assumptions you can't back up. And they aren't European "Art Films." Sorry. They were films with perfectly normal narrative storylines (minus Inland Empire, the only American film I mentioned), that had much raw and affecting impacts on the audience. Fricken' Greenaway=an "art film." Grow up and learn to appreciate different styles and ways of telling a story, because european films are hardly made up of "art films." (btw...have you not seen Altman's 3 women or Scorsese's After Hours?) I never said anything about these directors being ahead of the curve...and I can garuntee you that in sideache, days of glory, volver and the wind that shook the barley, you know EXACTLY what they are saying through thier work and they are a pleasure to watch. Get off your soap box...it has nothing to do with America vs Europe or "Art Films" vs Commercial Successes. These were the films directors I felt (as is my right, is it not?) gave far superior efforts. That's it...that's all there is.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Robert Lachenay]

What's with me never being able to edit these dang things more than once? Why after one edit do I "no longer have permission." Now my thing sounds all hostile...it's lame that I can't edit.

 

What I was going to add (as well as removing some things) is that your almost xenophobic hostility toward non-american films (or people who enjoyed them) makes you seem rather close-minded. I like the films for what they were, not who made them.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Arni Heimir]

Jack Nicholson basically directed himself as anyone involved in the production will tell you.

I find this gossip a little too hard to believe.

[Chad Stockfleth]

When you become a sustaining member, you are allowed more time to edit posts. Aside from that, you have to use the "preview post" function, or edit in your head before you pull the trigger.

[John Holland]

Oh dear i wish i hadnt started this topic now , everyone calm down .

[Robert Lachenay]

When you become a sustaining member, you are allowed more time to edit posts. Aside from that, you have to use the "preview post" function, or edit in your head before you pull the trigger.

 

Dang...

 

 

Oh dear i wish i hadnt started this topic now , everyone calm down .

 

Yeah, dude...I'm sorry. I didn't intend on it turning into this.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Cesar Rubio]

Eh...There is nothing humble about your opinion, I actually find it rather pretentious. None of these highly accomplished directors is worthy of an Academy award but 4 somewhat obscure European directors are. Amazing! How very generous of you to admit that Martin Scorsese might have actually made one or two pictures worth the time it took you to watch them. I'm sure he would be thrilled to hear you approve. No doubt, Scorsese's entire body of work has been taken into account when the votes were cast but because this is the highest award for filmmaking in the world, (and don't hand me some bullsh#t about the Grand Jury prize at Cannes being the highest award in the world because it's not) that probably SHOULD be a factor when deciding who deserves to win. You seem to be of the opinion that anything not made by a group of disgruntilled sociallists, on a shoestring budget with a decidedly overblown sense of self inportance and that stands on a intellectual soapbox, morally head and shoulders above the unwashed masses isn't worth the film it's printed on, let alone worth the time it takes to watch it. Isn't it a CRIME that movies people ACTUALLY WATCH are nominated instead. Get over yourself. You're not the first person to discover European art films and just because it has a budget larger than 75 bucks doesn't make it BAD or mean it has no SOUL! Scorsese himself is an expert on European cinema and has been influenced by it's greats like Fellini and Bergman, BUT the European greats were influenced by the American greats like Hawks, Ford, Huston, De Mille and others.

 

Well said James! :D

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

Also...I do not at all feel that, "Everything in America is crap." Who are you? Cesar Rubio's midwestern Twin?

 

What can you expect of somebody who wants to edit his posts, and "change" some things on his stupid comments when his ass its burning like hell? :D

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I find this gossip a little too hard to believe.

 

Why?

 

It's the same with Shatner.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'm just going to reinforce two things (that are really irrelevant, given the original subject of this thread): Without Chaplin and Eisenstein, there would have been nothing. That's not a matter of opinion, it is fact. They were so far ahead of thier time in practicing genuine auteurship, mise-en-scène, and trying to articulate visceral, untangible, unfilmable things, that it wasn't until Welles, then post-time french-new wave (ie Godard and Truffaut) that this idea was seen again. Eisenstein's montage theory helped breathe life into film, just as Chaplins removal of the sterile theatricality of earlier films did. They are essentially the backbone of everything that came after...they are what gave directors the okay to direct.

 

In some very old Kubrick interview, he said that Chaplin and Eisenstein are the two poles of filmmaking.

fortunately they're not mutually exclusive.

 

If one doesn't want to think of Eisenstein as an artist, you can think of him, along with Dziga-Vertov's camera mischief as the foundations of modern TV commercials.

So Sergei Mikhailovich also has a lot to answer for. His hands are almost as dirty as Stalin's.

 

Is the summer blockbuster really an artistic advance?

Ponder that as Hillary and Obama fight over who should reap those summer profits.