To become DAVID FINCHER or STANLEY KUBRICK?

[David Mullen ASC]

These short films have only been seen by a few thousand people and will never have the press of ZODIAC...but, in the end, success is not always measured by the amount of zeros in a bank statement.

 

I can't understand why you seem to think that "Zodiak" is a typical low-brow mainstream commercial studio project just because it had a decent budget for production and marketing, as if someone who was only interesting in making a lot of money would think "I know... let's make a 3-hour period movie about an unresolvable murder case!" You're lumping "Zodiak" into the same category as a "Ghost Rider" or "Reno 9-11" just because they were all made by studios. Personally, I think any filmmaker that manages to wrestle some studio money into something that isn't a comic book adaptation or dumb comedy should be commended. You seem contemptuous of Fincher and the typical press that one would expect for a film like this, as if this was some sort of "sell-out" project for him, only designed to make himself rich. A sampling of the critical reaction suggests that this was an ambitious film subject to tackle.

 

It's great to set high standards -- I wanted to be the next Kubrick/Wells/Lean/Kurosawa, when I was in film school -- but over the years you learn that it's hard just to be the next Don Siegal or Robert Wise, if you're lucky -- so you stop looking down on people who fail to be the greatest that ever walked the Earth and start admiring the mid-level artists to do a lot of decent work. Fincher, to me, is like a Ridley Scott, an intelligent filmmaker who tackles subjects that interest them, who has strong technical skills, but is ultimately more of a solid craftsman than a cinematic genius, and will always be alternating between overtly commercial fare and more esoteric fare (with a commerical bent) that personally interests them. But there's no shame in being good at something, but not groundbreaking. Most of us barely end up being competent at something...

[Robert Lachenay]

I don't see where people are coming from in accusing Fincher of being some sell-out, big studio whore. He's hardly that nor does he ever claim his films to be high-art. He's a very competant filmmaker who has succeeded in making some memorable films that have gained cultural significance in thier unexpected cult-followings. I don't think he should be commended for "wrestling some studio money into something that isn't a comic book," as that's done all the time (Paul Thomas Anderson should be DEEEEPLY commended for Magnolia, however)....but I also think it is ludacris to even insinuate that Fincher is some sell-out, money-grubbing hack, comparable to Bay. There's some auteurship to his films, I just find him overly sleek and aggressive...however in sporadic strokes on each. He is simply not yet refined enough or committed enough to his own style to evolve into the category of a great director...but he's hardly a sell-out, faux-auteur, money-grubbing hack.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Kim Vickers]

I don't see where people are coming from in accusing Fincher of being some sell-out, big studio whore.

 

I'm not sure anybody's accusing him of anything. He's made a couple of very good pictures, a couple of duds.

 

For people of a certain generation, Fight Club is their Apocalypse Now, Seven is their Psycho. The trouble with this generation is that they can't tell the difference between David Fincher and Stanley Kubrick.

 

Hence this thread ;)

[Robert Lachenay]

I'm not sure anybody's accusing him of anything. He's made a couple of very good pictures, a couple of duds.

 

For people of a certain generation, Fight Club is their Apocalypse Now, Seven is their Psycho. The trouble with this generation is that they can't tell the difference between David Fincher and Stanley Kubrick.

 

Hence this thread ;)

I'm not entirely sure what generation you're talking about, but I can't even see similarities enough to draw such a comparison. Fight Club and Se7en hardly had the cinematic impact, resonance, or following of Apocolypse Now (or a better comparison would have ironically been A Clockwork Orange, though I'm quite certain that Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" made a closer draw to that than anything since) or Psycho, and I can't really see what comparison you have drawn into those two, either. Fincher's made some good pictures that gained minor-fratboy cult appeal...however none of that elevates his work to any higher status. As I said, I feel him to be a competent director, who has relinquished what discipline it may have taken for him to become great. I, in no, way see him in the negative light that the original poster and a few that followed apparently do. He's just Fincher.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[James Steven Beverly]

Albert Einstien once said "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." I have tried to learn as much as I can from every film I have ever seen, from Stanley Kubrick to Mel Brooks, from John Waters to Fredrico Fellini, from John McTiernan to Charlie Chaplin and I have learned from them all. I NEVER want to be known as the NEXT anyone. I want to be know as the first me. However art is not made in a vacumn. Inspiration and influence constantly surrounds us in many, many forms, including the work of others and we cannot nor should not ignor it. Even with the worst directors, there are moments when you might say, "hey, that there... that's interesting" and draw inspiration from it. To define art is like trying to draw the ocean. it's so vast and ever changng that you can only capture one small peice of it in one small moment that in the end is your own interpritation of what you've seen. I think that rather than trying to be like anyone in particular one should stand apon the monuments these giants and the little men that are not as great as them, have created and look out towards the new horizion to find your light in the ever setting sun. Only in that light can you find your own art and that art may not look like anyone elses, but that dosen't nessesarily make it any less valid as art. There is no such thing as true art or true artists, there is only the beauty that lyes in the eyes of the beholders and THAT is what makes it art. Stop worring about who's great, who's better and who's a true artist and start wondering what inside you has to come out. Draw from whatever sources help you express that which is within you and never compare yourself to anyone. Art is not a race where someone wins and someone loses because if one artist is not as skilled as another, we still are all richer for his contribution than had he not nmade the effort at all. There's room enough in this world for both Michaelangelo and Andy Worhal, Ludwig van Beethoven and Jimi Hindrix, William Shakespeare and Neil Simon and the world would be a poorer place had ANY of them not existed. So what are you really talking about here? In the end, if you've contributed something to art in the world that's all one can hope for, the most one can achieve and the best one can do. B)

Edited March 5, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Albert Einstien once said "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

 

Isaac Newton.

[Max Jacoby]

I'm not entirely sure what generation you're talking about, but I can't even see similarities enough to draw such a comparison. Fight Club and Se7en hardly had the cinematic impact, resonance,

I remember when I was in filmschool 'Fight Club' got released and some of the students were really impressed by it. I think the attraction of Fincher is that he makes films that are clearly stylish and very self-aware. As such it is easy for people to spot 'cool' shots in them. In that way they are very accessible to the film geek, who does not have to look very deep to find something, much like Tarantino's films.

 

Personnally I find Fincher to be the typical case of style over substance. I remember reading an interview with French director Cedric Kahn who said that he didn't like 'Seven' because he felt the director was constantly at work, trying to influence the audience.

[Robert Lachenay]

Ooooooooooooo....."Jacques Tati."

[James Erd]

Ooooooooooooo....."Jacques Tati."

 

 

Oui, Jacques Tati rules!

[James Steven Beverly]

Isaac Newton.

 

Yes, you're right , Einstien was quoting him at the time but even that was a rip off of Bernard of Chartres who said "We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness on sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size." There is no such thing as completely original, just our own unique inturpritation of the human expirence. B)

[K Borowski]

Huh? Fincher is about as contemporary as it gets.

 

More polar opposites in each direction would probably be Spielberg and Tarkovsky; Spielberg being cited as the number one highest grossing film director of all time, and Tarkovsky contending that the moment a director considers his audience at all, his film no longer is his own work of art, but only a commercial response to what the audience wants to see.

 

On a side note, I think Kubrick's greatest film is 2001, though oddly enough, Tarkovsky dismissed it, saying that true art must address man's moral condition. However, the several references within the film to Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," such as Strauss' song "Also Sprach Zarathustra," the theme of evolution, and the child at the end (a reference to 'the three metamorphoses'; first part of Zarathustra) lead me to believe the film does say something about man's moral condition - namely, that with the coming of the Ubermensch (Superman), morals are a thing that will be "overcome."

 

Anyway I prefer Kubrick's films to Fincher's...so I guess Kubrick...but I'm a firm believer that everyone ought to do his own thing, and I think there are still countless new things to be done. Kind of the Heraclitus idea that "you can't step into the same river twice."

 

I'd argue that Fincher is largely unknown by Joe Moviegoer. He'd probably have a lot more people who actually knew who he was if he'd come on the scene 3-40 years earlier.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'd argue that Fincher is largely unknown by Joe Moviegoer. He'd probably have a lot more people who actually knew who he was if he'd come on the scene 3-40 years earlier.

 

One could argue that most directors are unknown to Joe Moviegoer.

He will usually refer to a film by the star. As in a Brad Pitt movie.

[Robert Lachenay]

One could argue that most directors are unknown to Joe Moviegoer.

He will usually refer to a film by the star. As in a Brad Pitt movie.

"The Tyranny of the Actor."

[James Steven Beverly]

"The Tyranny of the Actor."

 

Man, you do love your Greenaway, don't you. Actors are never tyranical, their just constantly set apon and having they're art wrecked by idiotic, short sited, no talent directors who should leave the business and go into real estate......well of course with the exception of Shatner who actually IS tyranical, but fortunately he's not technically an actual actor! :D

[Max Jacoby]

Actors are never tyranical, their just constantly set apon and having they're art wrecked by idiotic, short sited, no talent directors who should leave the business and go into real estate......

Never tyranical?

 

That's not my experience.

[James Steven Beverly]

Never tyranical?

 

That's not my experience.

 

Well, when I'm an actor, I'm never tyranical....unless I'mm REALLY provoked like when I actually am forced to WALK to the set instead of having a PA pick me up in a golf cart or when they don't have a bowl of blue M&Ms in my trailer, OR when the director expects me to "Know my lines" BEFORE the camera rolls, like taping them to my leading lady's forehead for my closeups is SUCH an imposition! I hate that winny voice of her's anyway-"But it takes my skin when you rip the gaffers tape off", That's what the makeup department is for, Baby! GEES! One director got SO huffy when I threw my bowl of MIXED M&Ms at him just because HE happened to be shooting the stunt scene at the time. So see it's really the fault of no talent directors. I don't care HOW many "Academy Awards" for directing they have. Having all 6 in his office at the same time is just really gaudy anyway.....and he wouldn't even LOOK at my 26 pages of re-writes. I think an alien abduction would have really spiced up that modolin 18th century English love story. It was SO depressing, everyone dying except for that Florance Nightingale woman, but all I kept hearing was 100 million dollars this and Academy Award winning screen writer that like IIIII was to blame for them being 2 months over schedual JUST because they could never get my scenes right. Really....does he think all those little gold statues the covered that one wall made him a better writer than me.?! I'm SO sure! So I'm guess you can see my point.

Edited March 7, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Max Jacoby]

Obvisouly I can see your point.

 

Actors...

[Christian Appelt]

I'd like to add that any "commercial vs. artistic" approach in comparing filmmakers like Kubrick and Fincher is nonsense. Kubrick certainly was frustrated by the lack of success of his first films, and he tried very hard to make THE KILLING a commercial success. The similiarity in story, casting and atmosphere between THE KILLING and ASPHALT JUNGLE is striking, which doesn't make THE KILLING an inferior film.

 

I believe Kubrick was quite aware of star's power, after all, he could have found a very good but unknown actor for THE SHINING, but he chose Jack Nicholson.

Most people are not aware of it when they see BARRY LYNDON today, but in 1975 Ryan O'Neal was a top male star both in the US and abroad. There is not really a contradiction in making commercial films with an artistic vision. BUT first, Kubrick had to win the status that allowed him to choose and realize his projects the way he did and to get the names that made them "bankable".

 

To get back to the original question: I never wanted to become like Kubrick or any other director, but every time I see one of his films, I feel I learn something new or am reminded of something important. It makes no sense to imitate someone's style, you have to find your own style that comes out of your view of the world an artistic matters.

 

Even Ridley Scott who cleverly "borrowed" from BARRY LYNDON in THE DUELLISTS did not stop imitating Kubrick, he went on to experiment with different means of expression.

[Robert Lachenay]

Man, you do love your Greenaway, don't you. Actors are never tyranical, their just constantly set apon and having they're art wrecked by idiotic, short sited, no talent directors who should leave the business and go into real estate......well of course with the exception of Shatner who actually IS tyranical, but fortunately he's not technically an actual actor! :D

Ypu, well...that's not at all what Greenaway is referring to with his phrase "The Tyrrany of the Actor."

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I believe Kubrick was quite aware of star's power, after all, he could have found a very good but unknown actor for THE SHINING, but he chose Jack Nicholson.

 

When he took over 'Spartacus' he fired the German actress set to play Varinia because she was an unknown and replaced her with Jean Simmons.

 

Life mgazine did a brief story about her moment in the sun being cut short.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

[James Steven Beverly]

Ypu, well...that's not at all what Greenaway is referring to with his phrase "The Tyrrany of the Actor."

 

 

REALLY??!! I had no idea! :rolleyes: Come on, dude, lighten up already. :lol:

[Robert Lachenay]

REALLY??!! I had no idea! :rolleyes: Come on, dude, lighten up already. :lol:

I'm light and spunky! I'm like a diet pepsi or a fresca (oo-lala)! I was only saying...He meant that the celebrity of the actor detracts from the focus on cinema as an art form to the general public and thus reduces it and restrains it from being truly appreciated now or evolving later. He describes modern cinema as the "actor's playground and publicity manager." I imagined you knew that...I made that comment because you gave like three 5-paragraph essays in response to it that had to do with actors being tyrannical monsters or someting, and that was beside the actual point Greenaway was trying to make.

[Christian Appelt]

Leo Anthony Vale wrote

When he took over 'Spartacus' he fired the German actress set to play Varinia because she was an unknown and replaced her with Jean Simmons.

 

Sure, it must have been a personal tragedy for her, but to be honest, Kubrick did the right thing. That actress, Sabina Bethmann, did a number of films in Germany, and she neither had the beauty of Jean Simmons nor was an enlightened player. Casting her was definitely Kirk Douglas mistake, and Kubrick corrected it for good.

Douglas admits in his autobiography that hiring Simmons was in contradiction to his "language plan" that all Romans should be played by British and all slaves by Americans... :)

[James Steven Beverly]

I'm light and spunky! I'm like a diet pepsi or a fresca (oo-lala)! I was only saying...He meant that the celebrity of the actor detracts from the focus on cinema as an art form to the general public and thus reduces it and restrains it from being truly appreciated now or evolving later. He describes modern cinema as the "actor's playground and publicity manager." I imagined you knew that...I made that comment because you gave like three 5-paragraph essays in response to it that had to do with actors being tyrannical monsters or someting, and that was beside the actual point Greenaway was trying to make.

 

In otherwords Greenaway is pissed off a star might get credit for what he conciders his genius and that the public is praising the actor and not HIS art.....that is if you happen to be cynical as I often am about the motives behind director's comments who feel their art is underappreciated and read between the lines....theoretically speaking of course. As you may have guessed, I actually happen to totally disagree with Greenaway on this point. The reason that most people became stars is because they excelled in a film as an unknown and the reason most stars ARE stars is because they have to be very good actors in order to do that. Many stars do their damnedest to break type and be taken seriously AS actors. So when a great actor is involved with a great script, helmed by a great director, the film is greater than the sum of it's parts and much more interesting than if the material were handled by less talented people. In other words it actually increases in the magintute of art as the art of the script, the talent and the direction work in synergy to build apon each other, so I think Greenaway is missing the point of cinematic art. To catigorically state that there is no film that can be considered "real" art because a star is involved is pattenedly abserd. Chaplin's work IS art BECAUSE Chaplin was involved. His whole Cinema militans lecture toward a re-invention of cinema is basically an attempt to define what art is or more importantly what art is NOT and I don't believe there is such a thing as a definition of art. Art becomes art when an audiance SAYS it's art, not when it fits into the peramiters that some "expert" defines as art OR as what art should be. Definitions of cinematic art are about as useful to a filmmaker as a flashlight is to a blind man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As for my essays I played the tyrannical actor in the piece... well me and Bill Shatner. What I wrote was a monologe based on the premise in the line you threw out "The Tyranny of the Actor" . This assumes a tyrannical actor wouldn't have bothered reading Greenaway as he ALREADY has all the answers....someone TOTTALY unlike me....I don't REALLY like blue M&Ms :rolleyes:

[Robert Lachenay]

In otherwords Greenaway is pissed off a star might get credit for what he conciders his genius and that the public is praising the actor and not HIS art.....that is if you happen to be cynical as I often am about the motives behind director's comments who feel their art is underappreciated and read between the lines....theoretically speaking of course. As you may have guessed, I actually happen to totally disagree with Greenaway on this point. The reason that most people became stars is because they excelled in a film as an unknown and the reason most stars ARE stars is because they have to be very good actors in order to do that. Many stars do their damnedest to break type and be taken seriously AS actors. So when a great actor is involved with a great script, helmed by a great director, the film is greater than the sum of it's parts and much more interesting than if the material were handled by less talented people. In other words it actually increases in the magintute of art as the art of the script, the talent and the direction work in synergy to build apon each other, so I think Greenaway is missing the point of cinematic art. To catigorically state that there is no film that can be considered "real" art because a star is involved is pattenedly abserd. Chaplin's work IS art BECAUSE Chaplin was involved. His whole Cinema militans lecture toward a re-invention of cinema is basically an attempt to define what art is or more importantly what art is NOT and I don't believe there is such a thing as a definition of art. Art becomes art when an audiance SAYS it's art, not when it fits into the peramiters that some "expert" defines as art OR as what art should be. Definitions of cinematic art are about as useful to a filmmaker as a flashlight is to a blind man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As for my essays I played the tyrannical actor in the piece... well me and Bill Shatner. What I wrote was a monologe based on the premise in the line you threw out "The Tyranny of the Actor" . This assumes a tyrannical actor wouldn't have bothered reading Greenaway as he ALREADY has all the answers....someone TOTTALY unlike me....I don't REALLY like blue M&Ms :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, well...the Greenaway films that actually have worked (though I admit they are limited) truly are works of art and make anything spielberg or lucas has ever even imagined of making look like sitcoms, soap operas and bad sci-fi movies...beyond that, you can't really take any of the credibility away from Greenaway's comments, as he's probably the most knowledgeable film scholar alive today. You can say what you want, but you're not referring to one of my own comments, you're referring to one made by Peter Greenaway, who I'm sure could handle your petty comments.