Weekend Discussion (11/15): Directors that look great on paper, but execution is...

[Ezee E]

As I go through the credits list in the other thread, it made me wish that Gaspar Noe had another movie on his way. I'd be there on Day 1, sight unseen.

Then I thought about it. Only one of his movies (Irreversible) is masterful to me. His other full-lengths and shorts are all pretty mediocre, although Enter the Void has some amazing parts to it. All in all, he's really just alright.

Ridley Scott and Michael Bay trailers are all enticing. Ridley Scott hasn't had a great movie since Matchstick Men and Michael Bay's Pain and Gain is an exception to the rule.

What others are on this list?

Discuss.

[Spinal]

Francois Ozon. First thing to come to mind.

[Grouchy]

I don't understand the parameter, seriously.

For me all of Gaspar Noé's films are masterful in mise-en-scene. You might argue with their meaning (I wouldn't) but I think his cinema is patently a lot more interesting than Scott or Bay's.

On the other hand, Ozon is a fine craftsman who makes a lot of movies, some better than others. I really liked In the House.

[Boner M]

Michael Winterbottom. Consistently versatile, consistently half-assed.

[Ezee E]

Michael Winterbottom. Consistently versatile, consistently half-assed.

Good one.

[MadMan]

I loved Prometheus but I'm heavily biased.

[Pop Trash]

Ron Howard often manages to beach enticing subject matters and strong casts into mediocrity.

[Izzy Black]

Gaspar Noé I think is a great choice. On paper, he seems like an interesting experimental director with visual ideas. In execution, he hasn't made a single film that I consider good.

Michael Winterbottom I think is a first-rate director, so I can't go along with that one.

Ridley Scott is, I think, as inconsistent of a director on paper as he is in practice.

Conversely, Tony Scott is a lame director on paper (just read the synopsis and production notes to one of his movies), but I think he's great in practice. Although I know most people would disagree with me about that one.

To add another into the mix, James Toback seems like a really fascinating artist with interesting ideas about cinema on paper, but then once you see one of his shitfests, you realize he's a hack. But maybe there are a few people on here that like his movies. Even so, I feel like Toback fans come few and far in between.

[Izzy Black]

Ron Howard often manages to beach enticing subject matters and strong casts into mediocrity.
God this one is perfect. Great selection.

[Pop Trash]

God this one is perfect. Great selection.

Recommended reading:

http://thedissolve.com/features/the-conversation/172-the-ron-howard-enigma/

[Izzy Black]

Reading. Some funny zingers. Thanks.

[Irish]

Ron Howard often manages to beach enticing subject matters and strong casts into mediocrity.

Howard strikes me similar to Rob Reiner and Lawrence Kasdan. All three of them live or die by the quality of their source material (script, novel, historical event, etc).

I wouldn't call any of them mediocre, though. They get the job done & don't offer more. Their worst crime is a middlebrow sensibility coupled with an indistinct visual style.

Occasionally, all three of them have lucked into something good: Apollo 13, The Princess Bride, Empire Strikes Back, etc.

[Izzy Black]

I wouldn't call any of them mediocre, though. They get the job done & don't offer more. Their worst crime is a middlebrow sensibility coupled with an indistinct visual style.

Isn't that the very essence of cinematic mediocrity? Lol. Ron Howard is like the Anton Salieri of cinema. Very popular and competent in his own time, but never made anything truly memorable, groundbreaking, or classic, and dwarfed by the artistic giants of his day like Scorsese, Altman, and Kubrick.

[Irish]

Isn't that the very essence of cinematic mediocrity? Lol. Ron Howard is like the Anton Salieri of cinema. Very popular and competent in his own time, but never made anything truly memorable, groundbreaking, or classic, and dwarfed by the artistic giants of his day like Scorsese, Altman, and Kubrick.

Your attitude assumes that every movie has to be high art, and there's no value in being a draftsman. Given the demands of creativity in a larger sense and the movie business in general, "not fucking it up" is an accomplishment in and of itself.

[Izzy Black]

Playing it safe is something you can do in any medium - music, movies, literature, etc. I consider acts that play it safe, never exceed expectations, and don't have much of a distinctive artistic identity to be what I call mediocre. Hey, mediocrity isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like in Amadeus, Salieri is a very successful entertainer. You go out to the movies, you get your fill, and you go home modestly satisfied. On most nights, personally, I prefer something a little more ambitious.

[Irish]

Also: Salieri never made This is Spinal Tap.

Neither did Scorsese or Kubrick.

[Izzy Black]

Um, yeah. Not sure what your point is.

[Bandy Greensacks]

Mel Brooks
Oliver Stone
Robert Rodriguez
Rian Johnson

[MadMan]

Mel Brooks
Oliver Stone
Robert Rodriguez
Rian Johnson

I love From Dusk Til Dawn, JFK, Brick and most of Brooks' filmography.

[Bandy Greensacks]

Mel Brooks is a decent writer, but never had much visual sense at all. None of his films are more than mildly amusing genre exercises, for me.

I'll always think Stone sucks. Not sure what else to say about that.

From Dusk Till Dawn is the only Rodriguez film I truly enjoy. I attribute that mostly to Tarantino's involvement. The interest in grindhouse films is admirable, but he lacks the talent required to pull off intentional cheese. Have you seen Black Dynamite? That film is far more successful at capturing the grindhouse look and feel, and you couldn't exactly call Scott Sanders an auteur. I suppose you could make an argument that Sin City featured a unique look, but don't you have to attribute that more to Frank Miller and the effects artists than to Rodriguez himself?

Johnson did good work on Breaking Bad. I just think his films are stronger conceptually than as final products, and I don't understand the overwhelmingly positive response to Looper, which isn't any better than so many other recent middling sci-fi films.

[Skitch]

I'll always think Stone sucks.


You and I are friends.

[MadMan]

I don't watch Brooks' films for their visuals. I watch them to laugh. And yes I've seen and loved Black Dynamite. Still doesn't diminish From Dusk Till Dawn. I give both films the same rating. And I'm waiting for all of Breaking Bad to hit Instant Viewing so I speed watch all the way through. I will see Looper at some point.
I can't further comment on Stone because I've only seen four of his movies. But I really like what I've seen. Some of the hate he gets spurs me to watch more of his work just to see if his detractors are wrong.