MovieChat Forums > Ron Howard Discussion > Ron Howard: Master or Journeyman?

Ron Howard: Master or Journeyman?

posted 6 years ago by PrimeMinisterX (8711)
56 replies | jump to latest

When you think of Ron Howard, do you think of him as a great director and a master of the craft? Or as more of a journeyman?

I have heard more than one person recently refer to Howard as a journeyman, and frankly that shocked me. In their view, he's the kind of director who can reliably and professionally turn in a competent film but none of his films are truly great.

My thought was: Howard? A journeyman? Really?

I don't think he's up there with the very best of the best--your Spielbergs, your Camerons, your Kubricks--but I think of his best work as being truly great.

Apollo 13 is a GREAT film. A great fucking film. Full stop.

Rush, A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man are all, if not great, certainly very, very good.

And then you have a whole cadre of films like Cocoon, Backdraft, Frost/Nixon, Willow and In the Heart of the Sea, which are solid.

I don't think the guy hits a homerun every time, but his best work (Apollo 13) can stand among the pantheon of masterpieces. And a great deal of the rest of his filmography is well above average.

But what do you think? Ron Howard: master or journeyman?

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 6 years ago

He's on par with Cameron. And Spielberg is pretty much the highest bar, so nobody really can top him. Hard to compare him to Kubrick because they are so very different,but Ron's a top 10 director for sure.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

I have a bit of difficulty putting Howard on the same level as Cameron.

While I think that Apollo 13 can hold its own against anything Cameron has made, certainly Cameron has made more films that are important to me personally and that have made a much greater cultural impact than what Howard has done.

Think about it: Cameron has The Terminator and T2, Aliens and Titanic. (Say what you will about Titanic, but it's a well-made movie and a technical marvel.) Just those films alone put him in rarefied air.

[–] wearsalan (5554) 6 years ago

I thought he was great as Richie Cunningham.

[–] stevewyzard (1591) 6 years ago

This reminded me of his appearance on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s, where Eddie Murphy called him, "Opie Cunningham!"

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Howard is a textbook journeyman.

But that is not (or shouldn't be) any dismissive label. Some of the greatest movies in history were made by journeymen (Casablanca, for example).

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

I would argue that according to the textbook a journeyman doesn't make one of the best films of all time. He doesn't have the skill.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Actually, what they have is skill. They can lack vision, art, genius, innovation, sensibility, or whatever. But skill? Well, that's what knowing the craft is about.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

I guess here's how I see it. . .

In combat sports, as you may know, the term journeyman usually refers to someone who is a competent fighter who will give anyone a challenge, but their wins come against mid-tier guys. They're never a title contender. They get smoked if they try to fight a Top 5 sort of guy.

When I apply this to film, and I think "journeyman," I think more along the lines of someone like Brett Rattner or Joe Johnston, not someone who made an all-time classic like Apollo 13 or who won Best Director for A Beautiful Mind. I mean, Howard is literally an Oscar winner.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

I see. Though in movies (in arts, in general), in my opinion the line is not drawn between medium skilled and high skilled, but between skilled craftsmen and people who have some special vision or talent. From my point of view, Howard is a craftman, Spielberg is (or was) something special, something more.

So you have people with some bloody special talent like Spielberg, or the Russo Brothers, or Clint Eastwood, or Nolan, or Edgard Wright, or James Gunn. Call them masters. And then you have journeymen like Ron Howard, or John Favreau.

And then you have people like Bret Rattner, who are far below the level of being a journeyman.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

Indeed. Well with the multiples of people I've seen call Howard a journeyman I think your definition may be the more accepted one when it comes to filmmakers.

On topic, I found this short article, which you may find interesting:

http://collider.com/journeyman-directors-explained/

Regarding Brett Ratner, I understand the sentiment but I do think The Family Man, Rush Hour and Red Dragon are all good, well above-average films. In fact, The Family Man is one of my favorite Christmas movies of all time.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Actually, after thinking about it, I'd say that I'd have to roll back and agree with your definition of journeyman.

The word applies to somebody medium skilled. However, in movies, the line is usually drawn between people who are just skilled, even if they are highly skilled and reliable, as the article says (Howard) vs talent and vision (Spielberg). And probably the same could apply to every art.

But you're right. That's NOT the definition of the word, so I'd say Howard is a craftsman, but (and I've changed my mind), not a journeyman.

With regard to Ratner... I have to agree about Family Man, lovely movie. Rush Hour? well... I love Hong Kong action movies from the 70s-80s, and Rush Hour doesn't look that good in comparison (though that's a personal opinion). If you never have watched them, give it a try https://www.filmdoo.com/blog/2018/01/04/top-10-hong-kong-action-films/. I'd suggest starting with Police Story (and the sequel).

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

Indeed. Well like I said, my idea of a journeyman is heavily colored by my many years of watching combat sports, and seeing the term applied to fighters who are skilled competitors but who will never be champion. So it's just difficult for me to apply the term, in film, to someone who's won an Academy award for direction.

Like I said, when I think "journeyman" one of the first names to come to mind would be Brett Ratner. To me, he seems like the quintessential journeyman. He knows the ropes and can competently make a film but he's never going to win an Oscar or be included in talks about the greatest directors of all time.

Regarding your list of Hong Kong action movies, I've seen The Legend of Drunken Master, Kung Fu Hustle, The Grandmaster and Hard Boiled. I'll have to put the rest on my list of movies to get around to one day.

As a parting note, since we're talking about directors who may not get the credit they deserve, another name I'll throw out is Robert Zemeckis. This guy made Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Cast Away, Contact and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, among others, but he seems to largely be forgotten today. His last film Allied, which I thought was a damn solid movie, only made $40 million domestically. His film before that, The Walk, only made $10 million domestically!

He crafted some all-time classics but no one seems to care about him anymore.

[–] FilmBuff (7237) 6 years ago

My first thought is-- I need to see some of Ron Howard's films. Of those you listed I've seen but one-- A Beautiful Mind. I checked imdb, and have also seen Solo, Gung Ho, Parenthood, and Splash.

My main takeaway from your post is that you list Spielberg, Cameron, and Kubrick, as the "best of the best." With that I firmly disagree. Spielberg is certainly among the great modern directors, but Kubrick? He made a few great films, but I don't think his body of work puts him among the best of the best. And then there's James Cameron? Really? He's fine at churning out crowd-pleasing action films, but come on. Best of the best? More like "one of many." Granted, I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, but even if those are fabulous masterpieces and not crowd-pleasing fluff, his body of work is still lacking.

So yeah-- Ron Howard? Can't say for sure, but my sense is that he's a credible director who can make a film that pleases the masses, but probably won't make anything that stands out as a masterpiece of film.

[–] ducksoup (3933) 6 years ago

While I'm in the other boat, those who think Kubrick was a great director but are puzzled with the fascination with Spielberg.

(Haven't really decided on Ron Howard as director, though I do love him in Arrested Development.)

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 5 years ago

Simply put, Spielberg has made some of the best films, and biggest cultural touchstones, of all time.

Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Close Encounters, Munich, Catch Me If You Can, Saving Private Ryan. . . The guy has just made so many films that are crtically acclaimed, commercially succesful and deeply satisfying to watch.

I think by nearly any criteria you can conjure, you have to conclude that he's the most successful filmmaker of all time.

[–] ducksoup (3933) 5 years ago

I did enjoy Raiders, but I would put it at the rank of popcorn flick. Nothing terribly insightful about human nature, no great work of art, just an enjoyable movie. Saving Private Ryan was good. The others you mention didn't grab me at all. (Well, Jaws I still haven't seen.)

I don't have to conclude anything. Do you mean you have to conclude?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 5 years ago

I am of the breed that does not feel like a film has to be very self-serious to be a truly great movie. A popcorn film, if done well, can be great because it entertains greatly by being expertly crafted. And I think that Raiders--or The Last Crusade, which is actually my personal favorite in the series--qualifies as a truly great piece of popular entertainment.

It is unthinkable to me that someone could watch Jurassic Park and not enjoy it, but to each their own I suppose. I think it's a masterpiece and one of the greatest films of all time.

You really should see Jaws. Not only is it a really good film but it's also just one of those movies that everyone needs to see so that they can be part of the cultural conversation surrounding it. It's a classic.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

First off, I can't believe you've never seen Apollo 13. How did that happen?!

You need to go watch that movie like . . . tonight. In my opinion at least, it's Howard's best and also one of Tom Hanks's best. It's a genuinely great movie.

Then go watch Rush and Cinderella Man.

Kubrick seems to be hit or miss for people. On another forum I used to spend time on, a discussion about the greatest director of all time broke out, and it ended up becoming an argument on who was better, Spielberg or Kubrick. I do think Kubrick is one of the GOATs. 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket are all excellent. But I can understand why others might disagree.

As for Cameron, one thing that's interesting about him is that he's not especially prolific, but when he does make a film he usually hits a home run or at least gets on third base. Terminator 2, for instance, is more than just a "crowd-pleasing action movie," it's a damn good movie. Period. Regardless of genre. Aliens is one of the best sci-fi movies of all time. The Abyss is thoughtful, intelligent science fiction that pioneered the use of computer generated imagery. Titanic, while of arguable quality narratively, was a technical marvel in its day and is still a thrilling watch. And True Lies . . . there's your crowd-pleasing action film.

Out of curiosity though, since you don't like two of the three names I tossed out, who would you name as some of the best of the best directors?

[–] FilmBuff (7237) 6 years ago

I'll make it a point to watch Apollo 13. I don't watch as many modern films as perhaps I should, so my favorites are skewed to the past, with a few modern directors whose work I tend to usually enjoy. In no particular order: Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges, John Ford, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Bros., Woody Allen, Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski, Wes Anderson, Clint Eastwood, Fellini, Truffaut, and Godard come to mind as makers of consistently great films. I find it impossible to think of James Cameron as worthy of that list. Kubrick at his finer moments, yes, and maybe Spielberg as well.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

Some of those names make sense to me and some do not. A few I'm not particularly familiar with.

I have been a Woody Allen film for years, for instance, but I don't think of him as a "maker of consistently great films." I do think he has made SOME great films. Annie Hall and Hannah and Her Sisters come to mind as truly great movies. But he's certainly made plenty that were merely pretty good and a few that weren't particularly good at all.

Go ahead and give Apollo 13 a look. It's impossible for me to think you won't appreciate it.

[–] FilmBuff (7237) 6 years ago

Woody Allen has made a film almost every year since the late '60s, so it isn't surprising that not every one is a great film, but enough of them have been that he comes to mind as one of the "great directors" in my book. He's directed at least a dozen pictures I'd rank as great movies, and even most of his so-so movies are still enjoyable to watch. Like most directors, he's not for everyone, but I appreciate his aesthetic and his humor.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Me too, Woody's great, but pretty much seems like he is dimming with this last efforts. They reach some pretty amazing heights, but the whole movies do not have a context that hangs together in the way earlier efforts did. I guess he could surprise, but Wonder Wheel to me had potential that is simply missed.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 3 years ago

I was very enthusiastic about Woody when I first discovered him. I became less enthusiastic when it became clear that he's obviously obsessed with adultery for some reason, and feels compelled to weave it into nearly every story he writes.

[–] ducksoup (3933) 6 years ago

Some who should be considered: Federico Fellini, Wong Kar Wai, Bong Joon Ho, Woody Allen, Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee, Joel and Ethan Coen, David Cronenberg, Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, Mike Nichols, Christopher Nolan, Roman Polanski, John Schlesinger, Quentin Tarantino, Spike Jonze, David O. Russell, James Foley, Jim Jarmusch, Jane Campion, Park Chan Wook

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Billy Wilder? David Fincher? Almodovar? Sidney Lumet? I could go on.

HEY !! WHERE'S JOHN FORD HERE ?!?

[–] filmgeek99 (656) 4 years ago

Good picks, but James Foley? What the fuck?

I'd personally swap him out for Paul Verhoeven.

[–] ducksoup (3933) 4 years ago

I was probably thinking of Glengarry Glen Ross.

[–] filmgeek99 (656) 4 years ago

Honestly, I think even M. Night Shyamalan is more accomplished overall.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 3 years ago

M. Night's run from The Sixth Sense to The Village was fucking amazing. I have gotten so much enjoyment from those films, especially Signs and The Village.

After that he started to lose his way, and while his career has largely recovered I don't like his more recent darker fare nearly as much I those earlier efforts.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I thought Apollo 13 was competent, but basically a kind of cinematic newsreel movie. I don't understand why that would be special to people, but whatever people like they like. It was critically acclaimed because it had all the "politically correct" elements needed for the Hollywood thumbs up.

I agree with what you said about Kubrick. 2001, Paths of Glory, and Spartacus, to me, where like the best a movie can get, but Dr. Strangelove was quirky, Full Metal Jacket and Shining, I just did not like. Kubricks flare made them watchable, but to me there was nothing there.

Terminator 2, Terminator, Alien, Aliens, and the Abyss were good, and I am still not really sure why these mostly action of horror movies rate so high with me other than they reached an intellectual level that was far about other such movies, like 2001. Did not like Titanic ... it was schmaltzy. True Lies was just kind of ugly even though the plot was kind of compelling technically.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

Not sure about Apollo 13 having the "politically correct" anything. It's simply an account of the 13th Apollo mission to the moon and I'm not sure where political correctness comes into it.

But I think the movie is brilliant. I first saw the movie in my teens when it was originally released and I have watched it several times since then. I think it's wonderfully directed and acted, and does a great job of getting the viewer emotionally involved in the characters and the mission.

I had never even heard of the Apollo 13 mission when the film came out so it blew me away that this dramatic series of events had even happened.

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

"Kubrick? He made a few great films, but I don't think his body of work puts him among the best of the best."

I can understand why Kubrick isn't to everyone's tastes (his films can be slow and strangely sterile) but to say he isn't among the best of the best... Not only is almost every film he made beautifully put together I can not think of any other director that succeeded in so many genres:

Crime
Drima
Sci-fi
Satire
Period pieces
Horror

Kubrick was a genius.

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Billy Wilder?

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

He did drama/crime, war and comedy. Not quite as diverse as Kubrick. Great director though - didn't realise the Lost Weekend was his.

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Neither, It think of his as a opportunist who is a professional and good at what he does but not a master or the flunky that the word journeyman implies. I think he is sincerely doing his best, but he just wants to make movies that are financially successful, I see no really great aspirations in his work, at most a kind of fake effort to seem artistic or meaningful. He is where he is because he hung around and grew up around the right people as opposed to having master talent, which is also not to say he does not have talent.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

His daughter is a masterpiece, so probably a master.

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

You oughta check out Wayne Gretzky's daughter. She's a real masterpiece. Makes BDH look goofy, (which she sorta does, but I'm not knockin' her. I'd LIKE to be knockin' her).

[–] wanton87 (934) 6 years ago

One would not have anticipated the offspring of Opie hitting the genetic jackpot. Yet against all odds, it appears that this unlikely event has indeed transpired :D

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Neither. He has his ups and downs. I'd say all his movies are well-crafted, and he seems to try to vary the tone of his films.
Closer to Master than J-man, but nobody hits a home-run every at bat. His movies seem rather safe, not very visionary or unique.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

I'd say you're right about him making "safe"--or perhaps the word I'd use is "conventional"--movies.

But occasionally he does show some real flair, though. One recent movie that comes to mind is Rush. There's a lot of cool stylistic stuff going on in that film.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I haven't seen that many films by him, but everything I saw indicates to me that he is a middle-of-the-road, mediocre director-for-hire. He seems to just do whatever the studios ask of him. He never makes anything remotely visionary or interesting.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 6 years ago

So what films have you actually seen?

As I said in the OP, I regard Apollo 13 as a genuine masterpiece. It's one of the greatest films of all time, in my opinion.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8711) 5 years ago

Rewatched Rush last night. There aren't many films that I'd call flawless, but I'm really not sure I can identify a single flaw in that film.

Howard may not always operate at the Master level, but when he made Rush, he did.