quote:

---

Originally posted by Philipp:
Well, the question is up there, who knows the answer? It is a crime to art!!

---

What would you have had them nominate him for this year? GANGS OF NEW YORK got bumped to 2002.....

And one could argue that Bringing Out the Dead was a crime against art...... Or at least a crime against time well spent....

Maybe they just wanted to keep it light.

How else could directors like Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckis, and James Cameron win? They're good technical directors, they know how to fit the parts together into something resemebling coherence, but they are not artists.

I'm not putting these men down. I'm just making a point that there have been and there are some great artists working out there who have never been and never will be recognized. It's because the movies are too much of a business, run by people who are not artists.

Do the numbers - the best director award has only been given out 74 times. How many directors are there in the world? And how many of them will be in the right place at the right time, and have the multi-million dollar backing of a mega-media studio to gather support for them?

I begin to think that the only truly meaningful awards given out on Oscar nights are those documentary / short subject / animated short films, because those awards actually require people to view the film before they can cast a vote on them. Not so, all the other awards. Plus, these films are by people working to create so much with so little, who do it for the joy and art of it, not for any money - because as we know, we never get to see these films anyway, unless you happen to hang around after the big-budget movie credits on Showtime or HBO.

The Oscars are and have always been about mediocrity.

"How else could directors like Ron Howard, Robert Zemeckis, and James Cameron win? They're good technical directors, they know how to fit the parts together into something resemebling coherence, but they are not artists."

Hmmmm, I disagree with you there Greg.
The definition of art and artist from Encarta dictionary is as follows. I've put in bold what I feel relevant to the directors you mention. In Ron Howard's case this would apply to "Apollo 13" in my opinion.

art 1 [aart ] noun (plural arts)

1. creation of beautiful things: the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example in painting, music, or writing

2. beautiful objects: beautiful or thought-provoking works produced through creative activity

3. branch of art: a branch or category of art, especially one of the visual arts

4. artistic skill: the skill and technique involved in producing visual representations

artist [rtist ] (plural artists) noun

1. creator of art: somebody who creates art especially paintings, drawings, or sculptures

2. performer: a professional entertainer

3. "skilled person: somebody who does something with great skill and creativity

4. person good at something: somebody who is very good at doing something (slang)

I think anyone who can present a "vision" of the world be it a novel, painting, poem or movie is an artist...it just boils down to whether you like their work or not. I was amazed while watching the Abbys DVD recently to see James Cameron's "original draft" to "The Abyss" movie...it read like a novel in content and length and thats before he even starts to direct the film..he has to create a vision of his own original idea. I also think Cameron and Zemeckis have made some of the most commercially artisic films over the last 20 years Battle Beyond the Stars (Art Director no less!!) Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2,The Abyss, Titanic, Back to the Future trilogy, Romancing the Stone,Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Contact etc

Just my thoughts on the subject. After all, these guys hardly need me to come to their defense do they?

Gae

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gae:
In Ron Howard's case this would apply to "Apollo 13" in my opinion...

...I think anyone who can present a "vision" of the world be it a novel, painting, poem or movie is an artist...

...I also think Cameron and Zemeckis have made some of the most commercially artisic films over the last 20 years...

...Just my thoughts on the subject. After all, these guys hardly need me to come to their defense do they?
[Message edited by Gae on 03-25-2002]

---

First thing I want to say about Ron Howard is "The Grinch."

About Zemeckis, all I need to say is "What Lies Beneath..."

Not films I would want to say I made before or after I won my Academy Award.

As far as art, I look to a body of work as evidence of artistic talent. The best artists will meld a long consistent string of works that show some artistic value while at the same time as meeting the needs of the commercial market to which they are beholden.

My view of films tends to be much broader than the last five to ten years. Visionaries like Vincent Minnelli who had a consistent body or work that both lifted the art form (films) and were able to meet the needs of the commercial market are the artists of which I think about. The same with people like Sidney Lumet who has made some of the most scathing appraisels of society of the last 40 years AND has had reasonable commercial success. He has always balanced art with the making of the buck.

I don't feel that Howard, Zemeckis, Cameron and the like fall into this category. They seem to tip more toward the commercial side of the equation, making films that will make money, but yet do little to uplift the art or to add value to what they produce.

It does bug me to no end that SO much is put into films such as theirs, yet so little is derived from it, apart from the ability to make a dollar for the studio.

Many filmmakers have found ways to balance this equation - Scorcese, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Welles, Wyler, Wilder, Hawks, Ford, Lean, Eastwood, Leone, Ivory, Wise, Lumet, Spike Lee, Sayles, Allen, Hitchcock, Arthur Penn, Altman, Rafelson, Capra, Frankenheimer, Redford, Benton, Attenborough, Ritchie, Kasden, the list goes on and I've left a lot of names out. But as I look at many of these names, many are still alive, and contenporary, yet unable to get a film made.

My gripe is not necessarily with Howard, Zemeckis or Cameron as individuals. It's with a system that allows these men to make mediocre films (i.e., not holding them up to a standard that I do know they are
capable of), while not allowing any of the remaining talented filmmakers above to practice their craft. Why - because they can't open big on opening weekend.

It's a mentality in filmmaking right now - get them in the opening weekend and take their money before they find out what slop has just been dropped on their plate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Bryant:
First thing I want to say about Ron Howard is "The Grinch."

About Zemeckis, all I need to say is "What Lies Beneath..."

Not films I would want to say I made before or after I won my Academy Award.

---

Yeah, but I'm sure that for EVERY Oscar-winning director, you can point to a stinker film they made before/after the Oscar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Bryant:
First thing I want to say about Ron Howard is "The Grinch."

About Zemeckis, all I need to say is "What Lies Beneath..."

Not films I would want to say I made before or after I won my Academy Award.

Yeah, but I'm sure that for EVERY Oscar-winning director, you can point to a stinker film they made before/after the Oscar.

Dan

---

Yeah, but these guys have enough history of their own in particular and of the film industry in general behind them to know better...

I'm serious, how could Howard and Zemeckis have made these films when they read the script? Was the money just too enticing?

Or even worse, the scripts were better (at least in the case of What Lies Beneath), but then Howard and Zemeckis proceeded to make them a lot worse?

You're right, every director is entitled to their clinker, but I think these guys (while not making a string of clinkers) have also not made a consistent body of good to great work.

Just too much money bein' made here. These guys have the power and clout in Hollywood to make better films. I just don't think they are choosing to.

quote:

---

I'm serious, how could Howard and Zemeckis have made these films when they read the script? Was the money just too enticing?

---

(Quoting myself...how weird...)

It takes the better part of a year to make a film. An average filmmaker is going to make maybe 30 to 35 films in their lifetime. How do you live with yourself when you have put a year of your time, effort, heart and soul into something that absolutely stinks?

Granted, I can see maybe a couple of weeks, we're all entitled to that...but an ENTIRE YEAR?

How do you live with yourself when you have put a year of your time, effort, heart and soul into something that absolutely stinks?

But what stinks to one person is entertainment to another . Its all relative to how you respond to it. Most of the directors that you mentioned in the list were "totally" commercial directors in their day...like Hitchcock for example. Its only through the passing of time that their movies have been recognised for their artistic quality, as well as commercial value. Lets face it...whether you like it or not, Hollywood is primarily concerned with making entertainment in order to make money. But the artist, like Hitchcock has always tried to manipulate the system to produce his art. Hitchcock was notorious for being at odds with the big wigs financing his movies. Also, I dont equate a film as "art" just because it is politically stimulating, controversial,different to the mainstream or harder to understand. Art can be found and seen anywhere and everywhere if you recognise it, even in the mainstream...from a Chuck Jones cartoon to ILM's CGI work in Phantom Menace. Its all art whether you like it or not or think its good art or not.

The same with people like Sidney Lumet who has made some of the most scathing appraisels of society of the last 40 years AND has had reasonable commercial success. He has always balanced art with the making of the buck.

I don't feel that Howard, Zemeckis, Cameron and the like fall into this category. They seem to tip more toward the commercial side of the equation, making films that will make money, but yet do little to uplift the art or to add value to what they produce.

These days, personally, I dont look at the world through the eyes of a left-wing, radical idealist student who only values things that are politically revolutionary or different to the mainstream. Sidney Lumet, for example, not only makes politically interesting films but he also makes films which are enjoyable to watch, if you like his type of gritty film...which I do. Personally, I think that some of Cameron and Zemeckis' films are artistic, but thats just my personal opinion. On the other hand take an artist like "Andy Warhol" who has made the most abismally pretentious and boring films ever in the name of so called "art". Take a movie also like "Citizen Kane" which is widely regarded as one of the greatest of movies and artistic triumphs in the history of films. Technically, this is true, but personally, I dont really like the film and so I wouldn't put myself through it just for that reason. Anyone who watches a movie just because it is clever or artistic but is actually painful to watch, like some "Art" movies, are either sado-masochistic, political radicalists or pretentious, in my opinion...and I'm a graduate in Art. As regards "Citizen Kane" it just doesn't do anything for me. I can appreciate how clever it is, and how revolutionary the techniques were for the time, but overall as a film it leaves me cold. Now, ask me about "Casablanca" which is a commercial film from Hollywood and I would prefer it over "Citizen Kane" and say it is more artistic in its music, photography, acting etc than "Citizen Kane" because it all comes together as great art..it works. That is just a personal choice too. I would watch "Jason and the Argonauts" which was a commercial success and get more artistic pleasure out of that than "Citizen Kane" too. I also dont always equate a "commercially unsuccesful" or independent film as a sign of good art, although sometimes it is true e.g The Wicker Man, "The Offence"
90% of movies to come out of "Hollywood" are stinkers of movies, but every now and then, visionaries and artists come through the system. On this list I would add Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2,The Abyss, Titanic, Back to the Future trilogy, Romancing the Stone,Who Framed Roger Rabbit,Contact and Apollo 13. I guess its personal as to which movies you think are artistic and you like and which ones you dont.

Just my few thoughts on the subject.

Gae

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gae:
But what stinks to one person is entertainment to another . Its all relative to how you respond to it. Most of the directors that you mentioned in the list were "totally" commercial directors in their day...like Hitchcock for example. Its only through the passing of time that their movies have been recognised for their artistic quality, as well as commercial value. Lets face it...whether you like it or not, Hollywood is primarily concerned with making entertainment in order to make money. But the artist, like Hitchcock has always tried to manipulate the system to produce his art. Hitchcock was notorious for being at odds with the big wigs financing his movies. Also, I dont equate a film as "art" just because it is politically stimulating, controversial,different to the mainstream or harder to understand. Art can be found and seen anywhere and everywhere if you recognise it, even in the mainstream...from a Chuck Jones cartoon to ILM's CGI work in Phantom Menace. Its all art whether you like it or not or think its good art or not

These days, personally, I dont look at the world through the eyes of a left-wing, radical idealist student who only values things that are politically revolutionary or different to the mainstream. Sidney Lumet, for example, not only makes politically interesting films but he also makes films which are enjoyable to watch, if you like his type of gritty film...which I do. Personally, I think that some of Cameron and Zemeckis' films are artistic, but thats just my personal opinion. On the other hand take an artist like "Andy Warhol" who has made the most abismally pretentious and boring films ever in the name of so called "art". Take a movie also like "Citizen Kane" which is widely regarded as one of the greatest of movies and artistic triumphs in the history of films. Technically, this is true, but personally, I dont really like the film and so I wouldn't put myself through it just for that reason. Anyone who watches a movie just because it is clever or artistic but is actually painful to watch, like some "Art" movies, are either sado-masochistic, political radicalists or pretentious, in my opinion...and I'm a graduate in Art. As regards "Citizen Kane" it just doesn't do anything for me. I can appreciate how clever it is, and how revolutionary the techniques were for the time, but overall as a film it leaves me cold. Now, ask me about "Casablanca" which is a commercial film from Hollywood and I would prefer it over "Citizen Kane" and say it is more artistic in its music, photography, acting etc than "Citizen Kane" because it all comes together as great art..it works. That is just a personal choice too. I would watch "Jason and the Argonauts" which was a commercial success and get more artistic pleasure out of that than "Citizen Kane" too. I also dont always equate a "commercially unsuccesful" or independent film as a sign of good art, although sometimes it is true e.g The Wicker Man, "The Offence"
90% of movies to come out of "Hollywood" are stinkers of movies, but every now and then, visionaries and artists come through the system. On this list I would add Aliens, Terminator 1 and 2,The Abyss, Titanic, Back to the Future trilogy, Romancing the Stone,Who Framed Roger Rabbit,Contact and Apollo 13. I guess its personal as to which movies you think are artistic and you like and which ones you dont.
[Message edited by Gae on 03-26-2002]

---

(Sorry for the full quote, I tried to edit, but couldn't cut anything without cutting your message...)

Maybe I should re-define this as "something resembling art."

You are absolutely right, Hollywood is a business, charged with making a return on the money of it's investors.

But Hollywood also has an obligation to society to return something of value. If not, they should be manufacturing deodorant.

I was thinking about Norman Jewison's acceptance speech several years ago for his Honorary Oscar. He admonished everyone to "make good stories."

This happens little in films lately. There is no story. It's essentially a two hour long roller coaster ride. But the context of the roller coaster is the ride, not what you happen to see as you ride it (if you are able to see anything). As you ride the coaster, you're not admiring the scenery. Rollercoasters are not about the scenery, they're about the ride.

But movies are not rollercoaster rides. They have fast parts and slow parts, and they are about a lot more things.

Terminator I and II are rollercoaster rides, and great ones at that. But I don't want to ride only rollercoaster rides. I also like the train ride, and the boat ride and the ferris wheel, preferably all in the same film.

This is what I get on about lately, there seems little in films lately that differentiate them from deodorant. It's manufactured, marketed and sold in the same way.

But films are so much more. I don't expect Andy Warhol from films (nor do I think i would want him, he's too far out on the extreme.) Nor do I need every film to be Citizen Kane, too many films like that take away from the uniqueness of that film.

But I would like to see more of Witness, Three Days of the Condor, The Sand Pebbles, Night Falls On Manhattan, and so on; films that entertain AND leaves me feeling like I've invested my time wisely and left the theater a somewhat better person. If for no other reason than they've taken a story and done it in such a way that it's a much better thing than it was when it started.

I think that's what I mean by "something resembling art." I'm talking about something that enlightens me, touches my emotions, teaches me something, and so on.

A great deal of films lately, I walk out of feeling cold and untouched. Many films lately are this way. They've lost their way. I'm simply demanding that Hollywood return to that balance they had for many decades, the balance between commerce AND art; the balance that they seem to have lost in the past several years, where the commerce is all that seems to matter.

A great deal of films lately, I walk out of feeling cold and untouched. Many films lately are this way. They've lost their way. I'm simply demanding that Hollywood return to that balance they had for many decades, the balance between commerce AND art; the balance that they seem to have lost in the past several years, where the commerce is all that seems to matter

Greg, I agree with you totally.. thats why more often than not these days I watch most of my movies on TCM....coincidently, at the moment I'm watching "An American in Paris". Tonight, I am looking more forward to seeing a re-run of "The Marathon Man" than any current Hollywood movie I've seen advertised. I think its a worrying on-going trend recently towards globalization, where all the movies coming out of Hollywood are the same type of clones of each other. And what is it with all this violence and profanity? Who really believes that most people want to continually see this type of movie. Its all part of the dumbing down of audiences to become less fussy over what crap is thrown at them...but we know better dont we? Still, occasionally a great movie makes its way through all the s**t and dross. Even the BBC was criticised recently for dumbing down many of its programmes. Gae

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gae:
Greg, I agree with you totally.. thats why more often than not these days I watch most of my movies on TCM....coincidently, at the moment I'm watching "An American in Paris". Tonight, I am looking more forward to seeing a re-run of "The Marathon Man" than any current Hollywood movie I've seen advertised. I think its a worrying on-going trend recently towards globalization, where all the movies coming out of Hollywood are the same type of clones of each other. And what is it with all this violence and profanity? Who really believes that most people want to continually see this type of movie. Its all part of the dumbing down of audiences to become less fussy over what crap is thrown at them...but we know better dont we? Still, occasionally a great movie makes its way through all the s**t and dross.

---

Yes, we are in agreement on many things. I own Direct TV for two reasons now (three if you count Babylon 5 on Sci-Fi) - The Independent Film Channel and TCM.

TCM has got to be one of the greatest channels ever put on. I can't tell you how many films I've seen on TCM that I've probably been avoiding for so many years.

As soon as you said An American in Paris, the first image that popped into my head was Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron dancing by the Seine. How's that for "something resembling art?" I just don't see anything like that today. Instead, I'm treated to the violence and language which you mentioned.

Mind you, I do like big action films - if they are done well (ala T1, T2 or the Abyss). But those are far and few between.

And you are also right, great films do slip through occasionally. But there seems to be a increase in the proportion of s**uff to great films. Seems in many years past, the proportion was much more even; but now it's much more lopsided on the side of s**uff.

But in all this talk about who Hollywood hands awards out to, no one has come against the initial premise.

There are obviously people who enjoy movies that don't really satisfy our need for creative artwork. Even I'm guilty of that with my Vin Diesel fetish. I think the problem however is Movies are taking the same road as music. Actual "substance" is old school and appearance is everything.

Was anyone else totally disappointed with movies like A.I.? All I saw was computer generated graphics, the actual story line seemed not to be the point at all, it was just there to keep the movie going.

It seems today movies like CBS shows are trying to go for a person's guilty pleasures instead of their primarily artistic ones. Watching a popular movie these days is like sneaking off to the living room when no one is there and catching a glimpse of "Days of our lives.."

That seems to be the main reason I find myself changing the channel to Sundance more often than not. Or IFC.

Despite all the troubles between MS and HW on Gangs, MS is going to work with HW again on The Aviator. Gangs cost a lot to make and MS was so thankful that someone allowed him to make it, especially when it didn't become a hit, that he feels he owes it to HW.

Plus, MS, who has a kid now, is feeling financially insecure and wants to work. MS is also getting up in years. Between the need for cash and the lack of money-making hits, expect MS to whore around big time until he becomes the next Renny Harlan.