dagblog - Comments for "Elia Kazan Reconsidered"

You could be right about

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:27:07 +0000

You could be right about this; never really thought about it. Now I'll have to go watch all the Kubrick movies I've never seen-:) That's why I like these exchanges; they make me think about things I don't normally think about.

I'm not sure I "rate" directors exactly. I just like some, and am less keen on others. For a long time, I found it hard to figure out which pieces of a film were the director's doing. I don't mean to say I didn't know what the director's job is. But if an actor turns in a great performance, is that the director or the actor, or some combination of both, or were the stars aligned?

I tend to go film by film, rather than taking a broad sweep. One really good or great film will stick with me, and I tend to forgive the lesser efforts.

For example, I can watch Godfather I over and over and over again. Pretty unusual for me. But I found One From The Heart (if that's the right title) awful and, to quote Hal, unwatchable. But I still think Coppola is a great director.

I haven't seen all Kubrick's films. 2001. Clockwork. Liked and like both of those. Eyes I skipped. I may have seen pieces of Barry Lyndon. But if I run into a bad Kubrick film, it won't change my view of him.

Maybe it's because I think every good or great film is a small miracle that's come together at a favored time and place.

I saw that Kubrick cited

Ethanator — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:47:50 +0000

In reply to You seem to think I was

I saw that Kubrick cited Kazan as an influence in the Wikipedia entry I quoted from too, and almost included it in my response. Quite surprising to me, as they seem like very different film makers.

I really rate Kubrick higher than most directors because I don't think he had a stinker in his entire ouvre (Eyes excepted). Of course, part of that was that he made a lot fewer films than most of the great directors. But that, in turn, was because he was so meticulous in his approach. To be that obsessed with even the smallest details of his films, and yet never really fall into preciousness, is just an amazing achievement.

You seem to think I was

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:01:16 +0000

In reply to Fine. I'll stick with these

You seem to think I was arguing that Kubrick wasn't a great director. Not at all. I think I was arguing up above that even great directors make lousy films. My larger point was that making movies has so many "moving parts," it's easy for things to go off track or not turn out the way they were intended. So a bad movie, even a bunch of them, is not a sign that the person isn't a great director. IMO.

But I'm not making a rule out of this. If you think Kubrick only made great films, I certainly have no problem with your saying that. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying except that you like Kubrick. And so do I.

Edit: And here we come full circle because, apparently, Kubrick took as one of his influences none other than...Elia Kazan.

Yeah, it's entirely possible

Verified Atheist — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:42:30 +0000

In reply to Probably the latter (I read

Yeah, it's entirely possible that my later viewing of 2001 was tainted by my wife, who's generally less enthusiastic about science fiction in the first place.

One of my friends used to

Donal — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:33:11 +0000

In reply to Probably the latter (I read

One of my friends used to teach a college course in Science Fiction. He starts with 2001, and told me that students always comment on the silence. They've been conditioned by Star Trek and Star Wars to expect a swoosh sound as ships fly through space. So he explains that no atmosphere = no sound.

Probably the latter (I read

Ethanator — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:30:40 +0000

In reply to How is it passive-aggressive

Probably the latter (I read something into it). I just thought the "Bah" followed by "it ain't surprising" was a little dismissive of my interjection.

I would note that, for some reason, "Clockwork" was on one of the movie channels that came with my cable package nearly every single day a few months back. And, while it thrilled me when I first saw it in a film class in college, it came off as almost camp satire upon later viewings. My opinion of it has gone down considerably.

But I think "2001" is still one of the great achievements in film history. I feel bad that it's less appreciated now simply because the industry dumped tens of millions of dollars into making space travel seem more "realistic." None of the Star Wars films or their progeny got nearly as close to the feeling of actually being in space, IMO.

How is it passive-aggressive

Verified Atheist — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:16:46 +0000

In reply to "Bah. We obviously rate

How is it passive-aggressive to state that two people rate movies differently? I know it's especially true for me with respect to many dagbloggers as my tastes are somewhat philistine.

Either you're using an unusual definition of "passive-aggressive", or you've read something into what I wrote that was completely unintentional.

There's nothing wrong with a

Verified Atheist — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:14:00 +0000

In reply to Should movies "stand the test

There's nothing wrong with a movie that doesn't stand the test of time, but if it doesn't, then I don't consider it to be a "classic".

I'm with you on this. Make

Michael Maiello — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:34:00 +0000

In reply to Should movies "stand the test

I'm with you on this. Make art for your people. If it endures, great!

Should movies "stand the test

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0000

In reply to Bah. We obviously rate movies

Should movies "stand the test of time" or is it acceptable to just wow the audiences at the time?

Somehow I think there's place for both. In music we accept this - who would listen to "Frampton Comes Alive" these days?