The Mystery of the Missing Moviemakers
The article is by Sharon Waxman, who also wrote Rebels On The Backlot. Two big observations:
1) Just as she did in the book, she still has a tendency to insult filmmakers for being adventurous, as well as an eagerness to quickly label certain films "disasters" because it makes her argument easier and means that she doesn't have to explain the films' more complicated receptions. For example, The Fountain was not a box office success, but it made a big impression at Rotten Tomatoes, or at the very least didn't "sink without a trace." Likewise, "I Heart Huckabees" was not a flaming moneyball, but everyone I know has seen it and it certainly has its fans (including myself), so I would hardly call it "disastrous." But if she reduces these movies to piles of garbage right off the bat, then it means she doesn't have to write as much about them.
2) She mentions that the pace of current directors "is a far cry from the deluge of creative output from young directors in the 1970s". But there were all sorts of great directors who took their sweet ass time in the 70s, like Kubrick, Lucas, Bob Rafelson, and Bob Fosse. Even Coppola, whom she sites as an example of prolificacy, took five years on Apocalypse Now. They can't all be Altman. Hell, sometimes I wish Altman took a little more time on some of his movies, you know what I'm sayin'? Besides, our generation actually does have an Altman: Steven Soderbergh, who's been prolific as all get out. But her article sounds better if she doesn't mention that.
However, I think she does have a general point. Aside from Soderbergh, the other five directors from the book seem to have been taking their time, and I agree that I wish they were making more films. However, they're almost all currently at work on something: Tarantino on Grindhouse, Spike Jonze on Where The Wild Things Are, P.T. Anderson on There Will Be Blood. All these movies sound interesting to me, and I'd rather they make one great movie than five shitty ones. (Also, I hear the real reason David O. Russell hasn't made more movies is because everyone in Hollywood thinks he's a flaming jerk-ozoid.)
P.S. Were people really all that amazed by Boy's Don't Cry and One Hour Photo? Just a question - not my own personal opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I haven't seen Boys Don't Cry yet (number 20-something on my Netflix list), but I wasn't amazed by One Hour Photo. It was a decent movie, but I think it copped-out at the end.
Otherwise I agree with what you are saying. I like all of the directors you mentioned, and I wish they made more movies, but I would rather have good movies. Maybe there isn't enough room for that many good movies. If every movie was a classic, there would be no room for discussion.
'True to his creed — and in conspicuous contrast to his American counterparts — he is already at work on a new film, a sequel to “Hellboy.”'
lol?
Well look at Soderbergh and the "Oceans" movies, or Linklater and "School of Rock" and "Bad News Bears." They've made the cheesy blockbusters so they could go make the indie movies they REALLY wanted to make. They've traded consistency for financial leverage. It's one way of playing the game, I guess, and I wouldn't criticize it myself. It all ties into my earlier post about there being two completely different kinds of movies for two completely different audiences made by the exact same system. I prefer the consistent filmography myself, but they can't all be Tarantinos and take 6 years between movies and keep announcing projects they never start.
Sure, but is she really saying that we need more sequels to Hellboy?
Well obviously Sharon Waxman seems to flip-flop her critical ideas whenever it'll make her article/book more consistent. Mostly her talent is journalism, not criticism, which is fine. I happen to like the topics she writes on.
Post a Comment