Non-Contemporaries?
I don't wanna see some young punk shit director discuss Vittorio De Sica or Ingmar Bergman. I love when great contemporary directors are discussed by OTHER contemporary directors, not the flavor of the week (which probably tastes like shit anyway).
I doesn't bother me. At least the young directors have paid attention to their great predecessors, and aren't stupid enough to think that they invented the art of filmmaking themselves.
What *does* bother me is hearing films or art of the past being picked apart in terms of modern political correctness, and I'm an old Leftie. Anyone who does that needs to find something more valuable to do with their time, like saving the oceans or something.
I'm also a left-winger who I hate political correctness more than anyone else. I also think politically I disagree with most people who call themselves left-wingers.
I do like that young directors pay attention to the great ones, but if I'm watching a documentary on ingmar Bergman for example I like to have input from those who are not only great, and now only those who worked around the same time, but those who made movies about the same thing, and in the case of Bergman, movies about people and their relationships to the external world including their own internal neuroses.
Good thread...
But with all due respect, BH, who’s left to comment on these greats?...I suppose you could mean documented discussion from past greats that could’ve been captured by whatever medium that existed at the time of its recording....
It may be an entirely different discussion, but who is left as we go forward that would be considered qualified to comment and discuss the greats? ...I sincerely ask because I’m unsure ...I know Bogdanovich and Tarantino have the encyclopedic knowledge, but other than those two, I can only think of Scorsese and Jewison as guys old enough to be in the know....not sure if Corman qualifies....I’m still a neophyte compared to some of the posters here at MC when it comes to this particularly topic so I don’t pretend to know who remains and if they are qualified and respected enough to be taken seriously....
There's a ton of archival footage. And as you mentioned Peter bogdanovich, he's definitely the go-to guy for an Orson Welles documentary.Now, if they were making a documentary on Scorsese, I DO want him to mention all the old Italian directors he admires, and I have seen at least one documentary of his, and even though I'm not a fan of his, I do like his enthusiasm for those who came before him.
There have been quite a few documentaries that interviewed my so-called "Director of the Month", and now they're back to be almost unknowns. I've seen that in other forms (comedy, music) which give me that same feel. My thing is that if you're going to make a documentary on someone like Luchino Visconti, I'd rather have those who worked with him interviewed, as well as directors say of the neo-realistic movement, because they were encroaching new ground simultaneously, using the similar technology, and also living under the same time period. In the case I mentioned - post WWII, so they lived it, and understand it. Many of them worked with the same actors (De Sica, Visconti, Fellini, etc) which brings a more important element during an interview. It's usually (in my opinion) a no-good director who made money, and decides to "produce" who puts his money and his name on a picture, and will make sure he's interviewed as an expert. I wish I could bring an example, because I've seen so many director documentaries where the younger guy who is being interviewed was completely disliked and disrespected by the man he's discussing, as though they were best friends.
Ah, got it, I get what you’re saying, Hicks ...I hope PTA isn’t one of those “younger guys” in which you’re referring....I know he comes across as a bit arrogant (a director- who knew!) and he was armed with the great Day-Lewis and the flick was a lot to take, but I think There Will be Blood is a damn fine movie....I don’t think I mind hearing his thoughts on a few things....though, quite humorously, Fiona Apple mentioned a night where she spent hanging out with former flame PTA and Tarantino, with maybe some Columbian marching powder involved, and it was quite the evening, to say the least...but I digress....my point being, I know it’s hard for directors to keep their respective egos in check, but hearing them discuss influences and those that came before them is a great listen/watch for guys like me still trying to learn about the history of film and the process....I suppose a deep dive for you and similarly knowledgeable cinephiles requires a bit more credibility from sources, and i understand....nobody wants to hear from some flavor of the month hot shot who got some dough and an 8-ball from some studio and suddenly thinks he (almost never she, btw) is the gift we’ve all been missing....
It’s funny, sometimes when I read your posts, I hear them in a Bill Hicks voice...hahahahaha....makes them all the more interesting....good day, sir...
Ha -- I wish my username was MortSahlFan. I had some kind of trouble when I signed up, and probably just went with my 2nd favorite comedian (Bill Hicks).
I like PTA.. I think "There Will Be Blood" is the best movie made in the last 20 years, but I can't think of any other great movies that are newer. I've actually seen all his movies, but didn't care for the last three. I definitely would want him to be in a new documentary about Robert Altman because he knew him, and was the assistant director on Altman's last movie. I just wouldn't like it if the guy being interviewed for a future documentary is someone who is only there because he's made the most money in the last few years.
I'm going to respectfully disagree.
I think that if someone is making a film bio of a great artists, it would be appropriate to both include interviews with his or her intimates and contemporaries, and statements from younger people who can discuss what influence this person has had on the art form, and who can discuss how people working in the field see the artist today. Both points of view are valuable.
What *does* bother me is hearing films or art of the past being picked apart in terms of modern political correctness,
This! Or visual effects being judged based on modern cgi.
Better to have fans on a movie chat board do it than someone who actually directs films...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You read my mind, that was one of the examples I had. It seems like Spielberg isn't every one of these kinds of documentaries that bother me. To me he's just a businessman. I don't like any of his movies. They all feel counterfeit to me.
shareI think it is good when anyone discusses older filmmakers, rather they are contemporary directors or just fans.
shareI would prefer to hear another great directors opinion on the matter but I don't hate it if someone else has a valid opinion. Your opinion on Bergman is as valid as Tarantinos as far as I am concerned.
shareI don't know. I don't think I would be upset if Ariana Grande or Madonna or even Nickleback talked about Mozart. Just because they don't have the same talent it doesn't mean that they can't appreciate his music or have a valid opinion on it.
shareIf there was a documentary made on Mozart this year, there's only going to be a certain amount of documentaries in the first place, and even those are cut dramatically. you can see what I mean if you watch the entire 11-hour Sam peckinpah documentary entitled man of iron.
So having said that, wouldn't you prefer someone from Pink Floyd or the doors talking about Mozart compared to Madonna?
Honestly, no. There are people who study mozart who have no musical talent at all. It's more important to me what is being said, than who says it.
shareSo you prefer Madonna's opinion? Ok.
sharePlease don't put words in my mouth. I haven't heard Madonna speak on Mozart as this is hypothetical, but why do you automatically assume that someone like Madonna wouldn't have anything insightful to say? Like I said...
what is being said is more important that the person who says it
I'm not going to assume that Yo-Yo Ma has more insight than Apocalyptica or The 2Cellos or an elementary music teacher has. They have different experiences in life, education, and experiences. They all might have valid insights that are completely different.
I'm not. I asked a simple question and you replied with "actually no"
shareAll I meant with the honestly no, was that I dont have a preference. They all can speak and I'll save my judgement for what was said, not who was saying it.
shareAgain, with a documentary you only can interview so many people and you can only show so much of that.
shareI don't really understand your point. You are assuming that one group will have something more insightful to say when you don't know. If I'm watching a documentary, I want to hear the person who has the best, most insightful, most interesting thing about the subject. I don't care if it's Madonna or Roger Waters. It doesn't make a difference to me who says it.
If I am making the documentary, I would want to talk to as many different types of people that I can to see how Mozart has affected them or learn the knowledge that they know.
If we take it back to your OP, I'm not going to assume that someone who took a shit movie to get into the business knows nothing about film or the directors they are discussing just because they haven't "made it" yet.
I don't know why this is so hard for you. My point is that you aren't getting the most insightful people in this supposed documentary because finances are always a hindrance to the art. Dilettante are always hired because of their popularity at a certain moment.
shareI don't understand why it's so hard for you to understand that I used it as a hypothetical situation to explain why I don't have a problem with people other than a contemporary director talk about other contemporary directors.
The only point that I have tried to make is that I don't care who has something to say about one of their peers. To me, what is being said is more important that the person who says it. That's all. I don't care if it's in a documentary film, or in an interview for something they have put out, or in a ted talk, or on the street corner. I don't discount people just because they don't have the same talent as the person they are talking about.
Not at all. I don't mind movie buffs with no involvement in the art form other than watching movies discussing directors of the past on message boards, much less up and coming directors doing that.
shareNo , I tend to really respect a good director
As long as they are respectful and offer genuine criticism I don't have any issue with it
For all the beauty of any art you can reasonably make some comments on all of it