Yuku free message boards

I suspect that a concerted search of local stores will unearth it. I may try that as soon as later this afternoon in fact...

Quote:

---

Ken, have you located a copy? Don't bother with Tower, they're letting it go for 16.99...

---

Not so far. Marc McLeod asked if I'd tried Barnes and Noble, but that's list price city. I can't bother with Tower in any case, since we haven't one.

Quote:

---

However, invariably this leads me to another question, namely how would one not familiar with a director's entire body of work (as well as, for that matter, details of his personal life, given that the majority of directors - Polanski obviously excluded - do not have the flashing neon signposts known to even the most elementary of viewers) be able to employ this method?

---

Now, that's tricky -- and it's probably impossible for a casual filmgoer, though they may, of course, use what someone like myself writes as a starting point for a guideline. It's an approach that only works on a personal level once you're familiar with at least a representative cross-section of someone's work. I am presupposing, though, that in the case of film fans, there's a tendency to see a film by a director and be intrigued enough to search out other examples of his work. That at least is my approach and it always has been. Generally speaking -- so long as we aren't talking about filmmakers who are obviously of the hired-gun variety -- the movies themselves should offer up enough information to be able to reach some kind of conclusion. And there is almost always some body of literature on the filmmaker if you care to search it out, so while a given filmmaker may not be as notoriously high profile as Polanski, the information is usually out there if you're interested enough to find it.

Quote:

---

Do you simply look for things in the work itself that stand out, such as reoccurring themes and the like? And when can you make the determination via this method that this IS in fact a theme reflective of the director personally, as opposed to merely an avenue chosen to explore for reasons altogether different (such as studio insistence, for example)?

---

Looking for -- or even just stumbling on -- recurring themes, similar approaches to scenes, similar approaches to material is a starting point. The latter part of your question is a more likely possibility if you're dealing with an old Hollywood director where studio insistence would be more common -- where in fact being a studio director was common (I can't think of anyone who currently fits that category because studios just don't employ house directors anymore). And while the studio imprint is going to be on those films, it's not unreasonable to draw some conclusions from the films -- assuming you see a number of them and a number of films from other directors made at the same studio at the same time.

Quote:

---

Further to this point - what other directors can you point out that reflect this unique slant of yours - namely, that their 'best' or most-acclaimed film is not (in your opinion) their best work given the lack of real lifeblood therein?

---

The easy one there is Ken Russell. WOMEN IN LOVE simply isn't, in my book, anywhere near his best film, though it's the most universally praised. Leo McCarey won an Oscar for directing THE AWFUL TRUTH in 1937, and it's not undeserved, but I think he made an even better movie the same year, MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW. I could go on with examples of Richard Lester and John Boorman and not have to pause to give it much thought. I don't, however, think my slant is especially unique. You'll find it in most instances where someone is talking about a filmmaker -- or even an actor -- who is of particular importance to them. Barbara Leaming maintained that CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT was a better film than CITIZEN KANE. A lot of people make a similar claim for THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. And these judgments tend to be fluid. Prior to Pauline Kael stubbornly refusing to accept A NIGHT AT THE OPERA as the ne plus ultra of Marx Bros. films, it was the conventional choice. Then mood and taste swung to her side and DUCK SOUP became the major choice. That could -- and perhaps should -- change again. Changes in perception and deeper understanding of these movies is part of what keeps them alive and vibrant.

Quote:

---

And lastly who in your opinion is the most personal of all directors (past or present) with the fewest examples of deviating from this method? Conversely, who is the most acclaimed director IYO that consciously steered clear of this approach?

---

Virtually no one really qualifies. The problem is that nearly all directors have peak periods when their clout to make the films they want is at its highest. Sternberg, Mamoulian, Whale, all had this. Russell had it. Lester had it. Often times, a director pushes personal filmmaking too far and they get knocked down to a degree where their freedom is impinged (Sternberg with THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN, Lester with THE BED-SITTING ROOM, Russell with LISZTOMANIA, etc.). Or it can simply be changing fashions or a lot of factors. Exceptions might be made for Hitchcock, Preston Sturges (only because when he fell, he really fell), Lubitsch, and maybe Billy Wilder.

I'm not sure what you mean by directors who steered clear of this, though I'm guessing you mean something like who never made personal films and still made great movies. If so, the easy answer is Michael Curtiz.

Quote:

---

I would be inclined to believe this as well Richard (I mean, when the credits start to roll, either you liked it or you didn't regardless of how true it was to the director) although, naturally, using other barometers (such as Ken's) to evaluate films is what makes discussions such as these so compelling to me, personally.

---

It's largely a difference in taste and what you're wanting from a film. I'll almost always not only value a personal film more than an impersonal one -- warts and all -- but I'll usually like it better (I might even like the warts).

Quote:

---

How funny, we are in complete agreement about Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, two almost universally loved Polanski films.

---

REPULSION just doesn't work for me. I can see the craftsmanship, but it doesn't ever become anything more than an exercise in style. It doesn't help that I don't give a damn about the characters. ROSEMARY'S BABY is just plain boring in my book.