the oscars / best director

[Max Jacoby]

Star Wars is one of the greatest peices of art I've ever seen yet it's artist genius is completely lost on you.

Please name me one serious filmscholar who considers your beloved Star Wars to be in the same artistic league as the works of Eisenstein, Antonioni, Godard, Kurosawa or Welles.

 

The fact that you seem to consider Lucas (a very mediocre director) as the pinnacle of artistic creation is absolutely ridiculous, as is your obessession with epics as the highest form of cinema. You migt have seen a lot of these 'foreign' that you so readily dismiss as marxist and whatnot, but I doubt that you have actually understood them, because you seem to have a serious 'Hollywood' bias to the exclusion of everything else.

 

I really don't care if I come off as elitist saying this, but let's get real, Star Wars is a film for 12 year olds. It is frigging guys in plastic armor for fu**s sake!

[Hal Smith]

Please name me one serious filmscholar ..........The fact that you seem to consider Lucas (a very mediocre director) ...............Star Wars is a film for 12 year olds. It is frigging guys in plastic armor for fu**s sake!

Any other mediocre Directors you know of with two movies on many "Best" lists? "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars" both seem to be pretty well received as classics. I was 39, not 12, when "Star Wars" came out - and it blew me absolutely away. Yes, "Star Wars" is basically a Western, but there's a bunch of Westerns on many "Best" lists, ever see a few little films like "The Magnificent Seven", "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly", "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", etc, etc.? And, oh yes, another "Western" called "The Seven Samurai". Did you notice I mentioned two movies NOT made in America?

[Max Jacoby]

Any other mediocre Directors you know of with two movies on many "Best" lists? "American Graffiti" and "Star Wars" both seem to be pretty well received as classics.

And which 'Best' lists would those be? The AFIs? Where the A stands for 'American' if I'm not mistaken.

 

Like I said, the challenge still stands. Find me one serious filmscholar who considers Lucas to be on the same level as Eisenstein, Antonioni, Welles, Kurosawa, Godard et al as far as artistic influence goes.

 

Or alternatively find 'best of' lists that take into account the whole history of cinema from a truly international perspective voted for by an serious and international jury (that excludes obviously popular votes like imdb and such) and that mention Lucas on the same level as the above mentioned filmmakers.

 

If you like Star Wars than that's fine, as you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But doing this research will hopefully put things into perspective for you as you'll without a doubt find that you are pretty alone with your opinion.

[Hal Smith]

And which 'Best' lists would those be? The AFIs? Where the A stands for 'American' if I'm not mistaken.

Your comments are starting to feel like US bashing. I don't bash Benelux, how about you not bashing the US?

 

I'd try some Benelux jokes but they're so boring that any humor isn't very good.

 

If Belgium and Luxembourg got into a war, who would win? The Dutch.

 

See what I mean?

[James Steven Beverly]

Please name me one serious filmscholar who considers your beloved Star Wars to be in the same artistic league as the works of Eisenstein, Antonioni, Godard, Kurosawa or Welles.

 

The fact that you seem to consider Lucas (a very mediocre director) as the pinnacle of artistic creation is absolutely ridiculous, as is your obessession with epics as the highest form of cinema. You migt have seen a lot of these 'foreign' that you so readily dismiss as marxist and whatnot, but I doubt that you have actually understood them, because you seem to have a serious 'Hollywood' bias to the exclusion of everything else.

 

I really don't care if I come off as elitist saying this, but let's get real, Star Wars is a film for 12 year olds. It is frigging guys in plastic armor for fu**s sake!

 

So were the guys in Kerosawa's Ran and I don't really give a flyin' F#*k what some serious film scholar has to say although I'm sure if I looked, there would be some that would agree with me inphatically. I, however, don't blindly follow what some fosssilized academic happens to perceive in his cobweb encrusted brain as truth simply because he happens to have an entire alphabit of letters after his name. I've been an artist my entire life and I don't need ANYONE to tell me what art is or is not. I also never said epics were the piniacle of artistic creation OR that they were NOT the piniacle of artistic creation, ONLY that that have as much artist value as ANY OTHER cinematic style. I also never dismissed foriegn films only the bias towards them as the ONLY form of art in cinema. I actually find many foriegn films increadible AND many that just plain BLOW. I completely understand every film I've seen and appreciate all of them for what they are or are not. It's YOU that don't understand art. You look at a great epic like Starwars ans see only a movie for 12 year olds, without looking at the depth contained within it's epic themes. The carefully crafted inteplay of ideals and universal themes that permeate the film. Star wars wasn't the most successful film in history because of the revolutionary special effects or the movie serial appeal. It was the most successful film in history because of the mythic, universal themes and relateable charatures contained within those revolutionary special effects and fantastical story. You say Lucas is a mediocre filmmaker. I find this absolutely abserd. How does a mediocre director make the single most successful film in history, not to mention an artist triumph like American Graffitti? You are ellitist and I think a very limited view of art. If I were to suggest anything, it would be to open your mind and expand your horizons. Artistic and financially successful are NOT mutually exclusive and something doesn't have to have a scene at the end where leading lady dies of some terrible desease or commits suicide to be art. SOMETIMES a princess can give the two heros a medal. Lucas is in deed on a par with Eisenstein, Antonioni, Godard, Kurosawa AND Welles. His acchievements will live as long as theirs do and may have more impact in the long run than any of them.

[Max Jacoby]

I was referencing to the AFI's list of 100 Top AMERICAN movies, which obviously excludes most of the filmmakers that I mentioned.

 

As for your reference to Benelux, it is quite hypocritical that you say you won't do any bashing and then do it anyway, don't you think?

[Hal Smith]

As for your reference to Benelux, it is quite hypocritical that you say you won't do any bashing and then do it anyway, don't you think?

Is irony lost on the Beneluxians?

[A. Whitehouse]

Wasn't Ran produced by George Lucas?

 

Sasha

[Max Jacoby]

Is irony lost on the Beneluxians?

Ah, the handy excuse of a posteriori irony...

 

 

Hey Captain,

 

If the numbers of typos in your last post is in any way related to the level of your blood-pressure, please chill out. You know I'd never forgive myself if I caused you a heart attack ;)

[Robert Lachenay]

is your obessession with epics as the highest form of cinema.

 

 

Which, to me, is funny, given how eisenstiein essentially mastered and reinvented the epic...even into talkies.

 

 

 

The The Lord of the Rings trilogy was as good as ANYTHING on your list and I've seen them all. So were Jaws, The StarWars series, Radiers of the Lost Ark, Preditor, Alien and Aliens, Titanic, and so, SOOO many others.

 

 

Haha...are you serious? As good as Ivan the Terrible, 2001, and Seven Samurai?

 

I mean jeez, dude....PREDATOR?? That's a friggen' B forest movie where Arnold rolls in mud and kills a early, early CGI alien they ripped off in lieu of the ALIEN releases. Hardly an epic or anything people should compare to 2001, Seven Samurai, or Ivan the Terrible pt2.

 

I dun' think sooo. I mean if you want to talk about one of the greatest epices of all time, Eisenstein's IVAN the TERRIBLE pt 2 is one of the back bones for every epic you seem to love so much.

 

I actually find many foriegn films increadible AND many that just plain BLOW. I

I think what your problem is is that you get too caught up with worrying about whether or not they're foreign. THEY'RE FILMS. Open your mind, man. Many Amrican films are good...many just plain blow...many film films are good...many just plain blow. A film's a film.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Hal Smith]

Ah, the handy excuse of a posteriori irony...

Pre, not post.

[Chad Stockfleth]

I completely understand every film I've seen and appreciate all of them for what they are or are not. It's YOU that don't understand art.

 

As defined by my dashboard widget: pre*ten*tious adjective - attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

 

I've always thought American Graffiti was kind of boring. Anybody else?

[Sam Wells]

Hey the film epic is an Italian invention anyway ("Cabiria"; "Quo Vadis ?")

 

Let's hear it for Giovanni Pastrone already :)

 

-Sam

[Cesar Rubio]

Friends:

 

Don't lose your time with a guy who disregard all awards...oh wait ALL, except a Theater Awards in England. That and only that Award, is genuine and his jury the only who knows what they are doing. And of course they must be the ultimate wisdom in Cinema...because they chose HIM!.....in your dreams buddy! :D

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Ken Cangi]

At least a few of the aforementioned directors, who are alive and reading this forum, must be getting woodies from all of the adulation.

[Robert Lachenay]

At least a few of the aforementioned directors, who are alive and reading this forum, must be getting woodies from all of the adulation.

 

Yeah...like good old Eisenstein. :huh: (whaaa??)

Edited March 2, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[James Steven Beverly]

Wasn't Ran produced by George Lucas?

 

Sasha

 

No, you're thinking of Kagemusha which he was an exectutive producer along with Coppola.

 

Ah, the handy excuse of a posteriori irony...

Hey Captain,

 

If the numbers of typos in your last post is in any way related to the level of your blood-pressure, please chill out. You know I'd never forgive myself if I caused you a heart attack ;)

 

LOL :lol: . good one, Max. When my mind starts racing my, spelling goes to Hell. FORTUNATELY, I have always had slightly low blood pressure and work out pretty much every day so I should be arund a LONG, LONG time to continue this debate with. I always enjoy fencing with you. B)

[Robert Lachenay]

No, you're thinking of Kagemusha which he was an exectutive producer along with Coppola.

LOL :lol: . good one, Max. When my mind starts racing my, spelling goes to Hell. FORTUNATELY, I have always had slightly low blood pressure and work out pretty much every day so I should be arund a LONG, LONG time to continue this debate with. I always enjoy fencing with you. B)

It's not really a debate....I mean what do you consider the "debate??" That George Lucas is more influential than Sergei Eisenstein? Potemkin and Oktober vs Star Wars and American Graffiti...hmmm...one formed a bunch of gung-ho, outer space, lackies and admiring critics and is to be thanked for the really faky cgi (which no one will admit) that plagues most motion pictures today....the other had to be withdrawn because it was so powerful that it started riots...then influenced the entire art of filmmaking and editig so heavily that, without those two creations, that filmmaking would never have evolved as it did and we probably wouldn't have had any citizen kanes, rules of the game, bicycle thief, a bout de souffle, on and on. And so it goes, you consider this a debate (a "debate" which completely strays form the initial debate), when it really isn't. I believe it was Greenaway who said that Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were the grandfathers who laid the groundfloor for thier children to work upon...and the children of those children threw it all to hell. No one is questioning the filmmaking abilities of Spielberg or Lucas, however your claim that they belong among Chaplin, Eisenstein, Lang, Kurosawa, De Sica, Godard, Hitchcock, Welles, and Bresson, as far as influence, is going to get some very, very hostile rections (just as saying that Lang and Eisenstein don't even BELONG on a list of most influential directors).

Edited March 2, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Cesar Rubio]

It's not really a debate....I mean what do you consider the "debate??" That George Lucas is more influential than Sergei Eisenstein? Potemkin and Oktober vs Star Wars and American Graffiti...hmmm...one formed a bunch of gung-ho, outer space, lackies and admiring critics and is to be thanked for the really faky cgi (which no one will admit) that plagues most motion pictures today....the other had to be withdrawn because it was so powerful that it started riots...then influenced the entire art of filmmaking and editig so heavily that, without those two creations, that filmmaking would never have evolved as it did and we probably wouldn't have had any citizen kanes, rules of the game, bicycle thief, a bout de souffle, on and on. And so it goes, you consider this a debate (a "debate" which completely strays form the initial debate), when it really isn't. I believe it was Greenaway who said that Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were the grandfathers who laid the groundfloor for thier children to work upon...and the children of those children threw it all to hell. No one is questioning the filmmaking abilities of Spielberg or Lucas, however your claim that they belong among Chaplin, Eisenstein, Lang, Kurosawa, De Sica, Godard, Hitchcock, Welles, and Bresson, as far as influence, is going to get some very, very hostile rections (just as saying that Lang and Eisenstein don't even BELONG on a list of most influential directors).

 

Why don't you get to WORK and influece the world like those guys.....I don't imagine your HEROES waisting their precious time with so much bla,bla,bla....And don't blame me for ruining a topic, that you said you were out of.

 

Please Robert, take this "critique" in the good way....learn to work with your hands instead of your mouth.

Teach us, but with YOUR talent. We might see your work one day and say...hey I know that guy! I even had a few words with him! ;)

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

[James Steven Beverly]

Which, to me, is funny, given how eisenstiein essentially mastered and reinvented the epic...even into talkies.

 

AS did Lucas in the 70s and 80s. You seem to think I have no respect for Eisenstiein. There is no denighing his genius, I simply feel his contribution is over-rated and most film scholors fail to recognize the impact the those filmmakers that parralelled and proceeded his work. Essentially you could go back to Edwin S. Porter and the Great Train Robbery to show the power of creating narritive and ellisiting emotion through editing. The scene when the guy points the gun at the canera and fires was revolutionary. D.W. Griffith expanded on that premace and Eisenstiein simply exstrapillated from that very solid base. Many others were doing similiar work at the time and eventually they work have found similar results. Eisenstiein's biggest contribution was that he defined the terms but like Freud, many of his theories now seem dated and out of touch. His movies had such impact at the time because of the political climate that existed in the 1920's. Marxism was a revolutionary, though miss-guided concept and overwhelmingly popular with the masses of oppressed people in post Tzarist Russia. Combine that with a new style of filmmaking done by admittedly a master and it's no wonder these films were so popular and had such impact for the times.

 

Haha...are you serious? As good as Ivan the Terrible, 2001, and Seven Samurai?

 

Absolutely! NONE of these movies had the impact on the greneral population that he Magnificent Seven, The The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jaws, The StarWars series, Radiers of the Lost Ark, Preditor, Alien and Aliens, Titanic had. Box office receipts alone are in the BILLIONS of dollar not to mention the impact on popular culture. 2001 change the way Sci/Fi was done but so did Forbidden Planet, which I would credit as the FIRST modern Sci/Fi movie, though I could make arguments for the War of the Worlds, The Thing, Solaris and even Lang's Metropolis, though that was more of a film geared to it's time but the effects and some of it's themes would lend themselves to modern interpritations. The movies you mention mainly inspired other filmmakers with their originality. Many elements were incorperated into far more sucessfull films.

 

I mean jeez, dude....PREDATOR?? That's a friggen' B forest movie where Arnold rolls in mud and kills a early, early CGI alien they ripped off in lieu of the ALIEN releases. Hardly an epic or anything people should compare to 2001, Seven Samurai, or Ivan the Terrible pt2.

 

Dude they're still making Preditor movies. Hollywould userped the "B" movie genra with the phenomena of Jaws. Again, BEING a "B" movie does not exclude it from being good or art. It's impact on it's audiance is what makes it both. One cannot allow one's self to be bound by conventional definitions of what "art" is suppose to be. If that were so, there would be no Worhal, Van Gogh, Pollack, Piccasso or Elvis' painted on velvet. Maybe we could live without the last one, but if it meant that Worhal's Tomato Soup can or his silk screens of Marilyn Monroe might be questioned as true art, I'll leave it on the list. Besides if something has endured for 22 years, there's got to be SOMETHING that speaks to the human soul and I believe it goes back to the mythic qualities I mentioned before. Preditor is modern myth. It's the equivalent of Hercules battling the Hydra, Odyseus battling the Cyclops, Beawulf battling Grendal or Saint George battling the Dragon. Modern myth when crafted in a well told epic IS art.

 

I dun' think sooo. I mean if you want to talk about one of the greatest epices of all time, Eisenstein's IVAN the TERRIBLE pt 2 is one of the back bones for every epic you seem to love so much.

I think what your problem is is that you get too caught up with worrying about whether or not they're foreign. THEY'RE FILMS. Open your mind, man. Many Amrican films are good...many just plain blow...many film films are good...many just plain blow. A film's a film.

 

Georges Méliès' 1904 Le Voyage dans la lune ( a Trip to the Moon), DW Griffith's 1915 Birth Of a Nation (though mis-guided in it's racism) and Cicile B. DeMille's 1923 version od the Ten Commandments were the back bone of every Epic I mentioned. You can even mak an argument that Edwin S. Porter's 1903 The Great Train Robbery was truely the birth of the epic. You could actually argue that narritive film was born of the epic and owes it's very existance to the epic. When I speak of "European film", I really mean a style of personal, charature driven style of filmmaking that many wrongly cionsider to be the only form of art. That term is actually incorrect in it's aplicaton as one could also catigorize independent film making as generally eather exploitive or charature driven. I believe situation driven peices with interesting charatures are equilly valid as art. I also find a bias towards the smaller, charature driven pieces as the only true art form condesending and closeminded. That is not to dismiss the quality of these films just the attitude of individuals towards them who maintain this view of cinematic art.

[James Steven Beverly]

It's not really a debate....I mean what do you consider the "debate??" That George Lucas is more influential than Sergei Eisenstein? Potemkin and Oktober vs Star Wars and American Graffiti...hmmm...one formed a bunch of gung-ho, outer space, lackies and admiring critics and is to be thanked for the really faky cgi (which no one will admit) that plagues most motion pictures today....the other had to be withdrawn because it was so powerful that it started riots...then influenced the entire art of filmmaking and editig so heavily that, without those two creations, that filmmaking would never have evolved as it did and we probably wouldn't have had any citizen kanes, rules of the game, bicycle thief, a bout de souffle, on and on. And so it goes, you consider this a debate (a "debate" which completely strays form the initial debate), when it really isn't. I believe it was Greenaway who said that Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were the grandfathers who laid the groundfloor for thier children to work upon...and the children of those children threw it all to hell. No one is questioning the filmmaking abilities of Spielberg or Lucas, however your claim that they belong among Chaplin, Eisenstein, Lang, Kurosawa, De Sica, Godard, Hitchcock, Welles, and Bresson, as far as influence, is going to get some very, very hostile rections (just as saying that Lang and Eisenstein don't even BELONG on a list of most influential directors).

Actually you've turned it into a battlefield, WHICH is fine. I'm always happy to take up a lance and tilt at a windmill or 2, but again, I wish you would eather quote me correctly or at least re-write my word more eloquently. What I actually said was Lucas may prove to be more influential in the long run than Eisenstein and that Lang and Eisenstein don't belong on the short list of influencial directors, that there are other's that would take the top 7 places before them and I really don't give a good God D#mn what Greenaway had to say. I can think for myself and I don't need Greenaway or anyone else to interpret film history FOR me. BTW, I also happen to think Citizen Kane is an over-rated move as well. I feel a Touch of Evil was Welles' real masterpiece as was Psycho for Hitchcock's true masterpiece though many film scholars concider it to be "Vertigo" . I am not claiming Spielberg and Lucas deserve to be listed alongside the greats, I'm INSISTING. They have completely altered the course of film history. Thier films have stood the test of time and they have influence vertually EVERY filmmaker that has come after them. As they asre contemparary filmmakers, STILL very much working and their legacy is still being written, you lack the vision of distance from their work to understand the remifications of it's true impact. I, however do not suffer from this affiction. I can see the monumental change their work has already brought and can understand that in the times to come their names will be spokenm with the same reverence as Cassevettes, Hitchcock and Ford and Yes Chaplin, who is the only one on your list along with Godard I feel deserves a guaranteed spot on the short list.

Edited March 3, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

As defined by my dashboard widget: pre*ten*tious adjective - attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

 

I've always thought American Graffiti was kind of boring. Anybody else?

 

I never really cared for the Monet's Water Lillies, I find it completely un-inspiring, does mean it's not art?

Edited March 3, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

I think one needs to make the disctinction between art and entertainment. Entertainment is indeed made for the general public (in the case of movies, this is the Teen and Twen crowd) and its success can be meassured by its popularity and box-office.

 

On the other hand there are films that do not aim to entertain people, but are pieces of art. The average Joe will in general not like such films (if he sees them in the first place), because they do not conform to his expectations (i.e. to have a good time). That does not mean that the average Joe is not intelligent enough to appreciate an art film (because he is), but appreciation of art is not something that is innate, but must be acquired. I do not necessarily mean getting a certain knowledge (because I think good art should be universally understood), but an open-mindedness towards the different experiences that cinema can provide one with. Unfortunately many people do not want to make that effort.

 

For instance I find it incredibly disheartening to overhear people who refuse to see a film because it is in black&white. Around Christmas a magazine here in London even mentioned a Frank Capra film, but said that it being in B&W was a 'drawback'.

 

As such I value the opinions of the serious movie-goes and critics much more because they bring the open-mindedness necessary to not want a film to conform to their expectations, but to accept it for what it is.

 

See this is were we disagree completely. I believe there is no art without entertainment and I don't mean entertain as in must nessisarily make you feel good OR NOT feel good but JUST make you feel. Art must capture an audence and speak to it's soul. The more it does that the more universal the expirence is, the greater the impact of that art. I actually saw the colorized version of It's A Wonderful Life and found it MORE entertaining, because much like the sequence in the Wizard of Oz when Dorthy steps out the door and into Oz, color adds a magical quality to the picture that I think enhanced it. I don't know why Capra choose to film in B&W other than because most films of that era were shot in B&W, but perhaps he felt the diliniation between good and evil as embodied in George Bailey and Potter would be better served in tones of black and white with shades of grey, if so, I think this was a minor mistake on Capra's part. I also believe the controversy over the colorization was largely due to the fact that people don't like having their memories screwed with. The same controvesy arose when Lucas and Speilberg changed elements in their classic films, ET and Star Wars. But I digress. My point is art made for the artist alone in nothing more than intellectual masterbation, again self gratification with no thought other than one's self and often at the expence of others. Though all art is personal, artists must constantly be warey of allowing thier art to become so inaccessable as to alienate their audiances and lose their meaning in technique as was the case in some of Eisenstein's work. When art becomes so remote it no longer speaks to the human expirence, it ceases to be art and becomes self-gratifing egotism. At that point the artist has merely jerked off on the audeance, leaving them with the sense of being used and discusted. And that in my opinion is the greater sin.

[Robert Lachenay]

Alright...I know I've said it before, but this time I'm seriously finished with this thread and so-called "debate." I may be foolish, but this guy is a fool.

[James Steven Beverly]

Alright...I know I've said it before, but this time I'm seriously finished with this thread and so-called "debate." I may be foolish, but this guy is a fool.

 

And you accuse me of making personal attacks. What's the matter Robbie, you can't really defend your position so you have to withdraw with one final parting salvo? Well, to quote a line from my one of my favorite epics, Sin City, "Is that all ya got?" . You are right about ONE think, you're not very good at debating and even less adept at defending your pompous, ellitist comments other than quoting what OTHER poeple have to say. You've settled for the party line view of film history completely devoid of your own interpritaions. Really I expected much more from someone like you. Good luck with that original thinking of your's. You'll no doubt be JUST as successful as David Kahane, the writer in Altman's "The Player" .