List your current top five favorite directors and your favorite films by them.

[freddy47]

i kind of like it when directors don't simply spoon-feed plot to the audience but leave some questions unanswered and some lines to be filled in by the audience themselves.

Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't. IMO in Sunshine it didn't work. But we can simply agree to disagree. IMO I think what Danny Boyle was trying to go for was to break the trend of reality and delve into surrealism much like he did in Trainspotting in the toilet diving scene. It worked for Trainspotting it didn't really translate that well in Sunshine a movie that tried the best it could to be grounded in science even though it got the whole artificial gravity thing wrong lol. If you ask me Danny Boyle should have gone the extra mile and gotten a rotating set for the interior space ship shots like Stanley Kubrick did in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[freddy47]

Sorry, I kind of bypassed the limit

So, here's my top five:

Stanley Kubrick - The Shining
David Cronenberg - Naked Lunch
Roman Polanski - The Tenant
Jean-Luc Godard - Sauve qui peut (la vie)
G.A. Romero - Dawn of the Dead

God damn it loulou you have broken the cardinal rule of this thread! You shall pay for this blasphemy lol. I only kid. The reason I made the limit 5 is because I wanted people to be careful about who they put on their list. But I don't really care as long as some thought is put into it.

Also as I've said earlier in this thread I have yet to seen a Godard film. Which one would you recommend for a first timer?

 

[alasdairm]

Sometimes that works. Sometimes it doesn't. IMO in Sunshine it didn't work. But we can simply agree to disagree. IMO I think what Danny Boyle was trying to go for was to break the trend of reality and delve into surrealism much like he did in Trainspotting in the toilet diving scene. It worked for Trainspotting it didn't really translate that well in Sunshine...

i don't think it was surreal - i see it more as allegory (which can be surreal but isn't neccesarily surreal).

alasdair

 

[freddy47]

^I was about to agree with you until I found this interview with Danny Boyle about Sunshine. Specifically what he was trying to go for with the Pinbacker character.

But after seeing it now I really appreciate the leaning towards realism the film takes. I mean, it’s sci-fi, obviously, but there’s a feeling that this could conceivably happen.

Yeah, that was always the premise. Even though it’s ridiculous to think that somebody could literally go up and touch the sun, the drive throughout was to get you there by using realism. To say that this could happen, we can explain this, there is a shield and you could hide behind it. So we were just trying the whole time to get you there with realism. And some people find that Pinbacker [a character from the film] breaks the realism too much. Which is fair enough, but I always love taking a huge risk in films where you risk everything by doing something that breaks the pattern. Like, there’s a bit in “Trainspotting” where Ewan [McGregor] goes down the toilet, and people used to say, “You’ll never get away with that. It’s ludicrous.” But, in fact, people love that moment. So that was always the plan, to take you and see how far we could stretch realism. Push it as hard as we could.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

Milos Forman - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest ...

glad to see him on someones list. other than anna & godard, Loves of a Blonde has been the only movie in years to get me really, really excited about film.

 

[Shameful]

Let's see...

David Lynch - Blue Velvet
Jim Jarmusch - Down By Law
John Waters - Pink Flamingos
Quentin Tarantino - Reservoir Dogs
The Coen Brothers - The Big Lebowski

 

[alasdairm]

^I was about to agree with you until I found this interview with Danny Boyle about Sunshine. Specifically what he was trying to go for with the Pinbacker character.

i think danny boyle's agreeing with me surely, he's explicitly saying that the pinbacker character is not intended to be taken literally?

alasdair

 

[psood0nym]

This list of directors and the films would probably be somewhat different on another day, but reluctantly (and cheating):
Ingmar Bergman - Fanny and Alexander
David Lynch - Inland Empire
Tie: Werner Hertzog - Aguirre: The Wrath of God; Cohen brothers - Blood Simple
Hayao Miyazaki - Princess Mononoke
Tie: David Cronenberg - Existenz; Takashi Miike - Izo

Runner up/impulsive wild card: György Pálfi - Hukkle

Gaaahh!!

 

[freddy47]

i think danny boyle's agreeing with me surely, he's explicitly saying that the pinbacker character is not intended to be taken literally?

That is kind of my point. If you don't take the character literally the rest of the movie kind of falls apart in that you question what parts of the movie are really real. If you do take him literally the movie doesn't fall apart but you question the Pinbacker character even more.

Also when Danny said "I like to break the trend of reality" I think he meant he was trying to make it surreal especially since he decided to compare it to the toilet scene in Trainspotting which is a scene that isn't meant to be taken literally but works for the film and context.

My main point is that Pinbacker and not taking him literally does not make sense for a film that tries to ground itself in science. But again that just my opinion. In the end you can only say that its personal preference. We can sit here discussing this all day but it just comes down to you liking the film and not having any problems with it and me liking the film but having a problem with the Pinbacker character. Its simple as that.

 

[alasdairm]

it's a discussion forum - we're allowed to discuss things for the sake of discussion...



alasdair

 

[freddy47]

^I agree. But we might as well discuss what our favorite types of ice cream are and the merits or demerits of said Ice cream. Or better yet who's a better artist Da Vinci or Michelangelo? All it comes down to is personal taste. (For the record I like cookies and cream and Michelangelo myself)

All I'm saying is if Danny Boyle himself said what I was suggesting then its probably pretty certain that that was what he was aiming for as a film maker and artist. But I suppose we can interpret what he said in the interview differently. As I said I think he was shooting for a bit of surrealism which IMO didn't make sense within the context of the film.

 

[L2R]

^creativity and intention seldom go hand in hand. i've a theory about how most of true art quality is very unintentional.

 

[freddy47]

^Maybe. But the film making process is very methodical and deliberate almost scientific. Its pretty hard to mistake the artistic intentions of James Cameron or Steven Spielberg for example.

 

[Rated E]

Just a point I'd like to make in the Sunshine debate. I think the the toilet scene in Trainspotting was quite clearly a symbolic representation of Renton's need. It was surrealistic, but it was also quite clearly so. I think most people knew that this was only a temporary frame of fantasy, and that the narrative of the film was still based in reality. Boyle also used symbolic effects like that here and there (e.g. when Renton overdoses, he sinks into the floor.) And in regards to the baby crawling on the roof; this was an actual hallucination that Renton was having.

It's been a little while since I saw Sunshine, but to me it seems that the burnt-up crazy dude at the end had an actual bearing on the narrative (since he was part of the narrative). Which in my opinion means that it was part of the frame of reality of the film. Not a symbolic aside like the toilet swim in Trainspotting.

 

[freddy47]

It's been a little while since I saw Sunshine, but to me it seems that the burnt-up crazy dude at the end had an actual bearing on the narrative (since he was part of the narrative). Which in my opinion means that it was part of the frame of reality of the film. Not a symbolic aside like the toilet swim in Trainspotting.

Hence why I feel the film degenerated into a slasher flick instead of a thought provoking science fiction film.

 

[L2R]

^Maybe. But the film making process is very methodical and deliberate almost scientific. Its pretty hard to mistake the artistic intentions of James Cameron or Steven Spielberg for example.

yeah, well these guys aren't really the most creative of directors.

 

[freddy47]

^And your basis for that statement is?

Both have been awarded the Best Director Oscar as well as made films that have won Best picture and both have made astounding leaps in the field. James Cameron for example developed and advanced underwater filming technologies and is considered an expert in the realm of underwater filming. Hardly seems the accomplishments of someone who isn't creative. What does it take to become a "creative" director in your opinion? Does someone have to make films like David Lynch or Federico Fellini to be considered creative? Is anyone who makes films that are popular considered not creative?

 

[debaser]

Also as I've said earlier in this thread I have yet to seen a Godard film. Which one would you recommend for a first timer?

Sorry freddy for the late reply

I would recommend you to see Le Mépris (Contempt) or Vivre sa vie

 

[L2R]

^And your basis for that statement is?

Both have been awarded the Best Director Oscar as well as made films that have won Best picture and both have made astounding leaps in the field. James Cameron for example developed and advanced underwater filming technologies and is considered an expert in the realm of underwater filming. Hardly seems the accomplishments of someone who isn't creative. What does it take to become a "creative" director in your opinion? Does someone have to make films like David Lynch or Federico Fellini to be considered creative? Is anyone who makes films that are popular considered not creative?

well, SS is by far the most competent and versatile of all the blockbuster directors. he can tell a good story effectively, and his range is superb. however, he doesn't push any boundaries narratively. he's also hit and miss, and has made some pieces of shit.

cameron only differentiates himself from michael bay in his better taste in cliche and coherence in action sequences. although i thoroughly enjoyed t2 and aliens as a teen, all he actually does is work a "story" around technology that's available to him, technology that others create. there's nothing in either of his biggest grossing films, avatar and titanic, which distinguishes his actual directing. if you want to see more creative use of cgi, see robert zemeckis.

i still eat up films from both of these guys (thank god jc only makes one every blue moon these days, don't get me started on george lucas), but style and competence hardly count as creativity.

 

[freddy47]

well, SS is by far the most competent and versatile of all the blockbuster directors. he can tell a good story effectively, and his range is superb. however, he doesn't push any boundaries narratively. he's also hit and miss, and has made some pieces of shit.

cameron only differentiates himself from michael bay in his better taste in cliche and coherence in action sequences. although i thoroughly enjoyed t2 and aliens as a teen, all he actually does is work a "story" around technology that's available to him, technology that others create. there's nothing in either of his biggest grossing films, avatar and titanic, which distinguishes his actual directing. if you want to see more creative use of cgi, see robert zemeckis.

i still eat up films from both of these guys (thank god jc only makes one every blue moon these days, don't get me started on george lucas), but style and competence hardly count as creativity.

Ok that made more sense. I kind of agree with you on that especially that bit on Robert Zemeckis as I had a hard time between choosing him and James Cameron to put on my list. I agree that RZ is probably a more creative director than Cameron is in terms of storytelling and use of special effects which is why I'm considering replacing Cameron with Zemeckis on my top five list. Its just I have hard time deciding which I like more T2 or Back to the Future both films I adore to no end.

But I would disagree with you on the competence part. SS and Cameron I would say are more than competent they are technical masters. I agree that Spielberg is hit or miss but he knows his craft as does Cameron who like I said develops a lot of the technology he uses in his films himself.

So that bit

all he actually does is work a "story" around technology that's available to him, technology that others create.

is inaccurate IMO. Obviously he doesn't develop them completely alone but you've got to give credit where credits due.

I also disagree with you and your comparison between James Cameron and Michael Bay. Cameron is a capable story teller even if his stories are sometimes cliche. I say sometimes because he has had original ideas. The Terminator franchise is fairly original and I think The Abyss is also original. Michael Bay (although I enjoy some of his films for what they are) puts all his focus on action sequences most often to the detriment of good story telling. The last two Transformers films for example were absolute garbage devoid of anything close to coherence. While Avatar made sense even if the plot it used is an overused one.

But to end this in an agreeable way yes George Lucas needs to retire. He ruined Star Wars for me when he decided to make the Special edition Star Wars with all that bullshit CGI. And don't even talk to me about the prequels. Suffice it to say I cried tears of rage when they introduced the character of Jar Jar Binks.