9 Responses to “Something New Has Been Added: The Film Directors Checklist”

1. Rob on January 14th, 2008 4:12 pm

   Why so low for Jerry Lewis?

2. Scott Marks on January 14th, 2008 6:18 pm

   So low? You make it sound like I have him sandwiched between Arthur Hiller and Michael Winner. Jerry’s in the second tier for crying out loud. First off, all of the comedic directors in the Rat Pack are better than Jerry. I also tried to go for a career overview. While I enjoy all but one (”One More Time”) of the films that Jerry directed, his growth as an artists pretty much halted in 1965. You cannot compare “Hardly Working” or “Cracking Up” to the Paramount days.

3. Scott Marks on January 14th, 2008 7:14 pm

   Jon Oye writes: “One issue I wanted to address: am I not seeing things, or is Howard Hawks nowhere to be found on your Film Directors Checklist? After initially reading through it I didn’t recall seeing his name, and couldn’t find it on subsequently skimming the list. Surely he rates somewhere between Inheritor and Noble Personage.”

   Oy, Jon! I feel like Jake LaMotta in “Raging Bull” banging his head against the wall and wailing, “I’m so stupid! I’m so stupid!” I expected to overlook a Guatemalan import or two, but one of the geniuses that I cut my teeth on? Definitely The Rat Pack. Thanks for keeping me honest, Jon (and your words of encouragement in my quest to flatten spielberg).

4. Art on January 15th, 2008 2:11 pm

   That’s a great addition to your site. I want to mention your comment on the Lord of the Rings films, that you did not make it through any of the films of the trilogy. Thank god I found a person who had the same experience with the Lord of the Rings. Everyone that I met who watched the film would start saying that it is one of the best fantasy films of all time and I would not dare to say that every single one of them was really boring and the visual effects look so unrealistic.The worst thing is that a lot of young people in film schools consider these films as the best examples of great filmmaking. I felt like something was wrong with me but it’s good to find out that you are sane in insane places. I guess good marketing can really brainwash young people’s minds.

5. Scott Marks on January 15th, 2008 4:08 pm

   Hey, Art - I remember having the same battle with a lot of your classmates over “Star Wars.” Every generation discovers their own effects driven fantasy monstrosity to latch on to. I saw the first two reels of LOTR and hit the exit door, never to return for any of the sequels. The storytelling is abysmal, a fact that a lot of these films seem to be proud of. Who cares if the film tells a story so long as it looks good and moves at a fast clip. CGI is alike a pacifier for the masses. Only saw one “Harry Potter” film because I was paid to review it. Never saw one of the “Jurasstink” pictures, quit after the first “Matrix” and wish I never ventured into the Caribbean. The problem with most contemporary fantasies is that they have no idea that in order for a fantasy to work is must be connected in some way to reality. When the author of “Stardust” found himself painted in a corner, he’d have one of his characters magically invent a town to escape to. If they can do that, why not just have them cast a spell on their enemies and put an end to their problems? Forget about “f–k.” The dirtiest word in Hollywood today is “logic.” Maybe during the strike some of the screenwriters took time to read screenwriting manuals or watch old movies in order to brush up on their craft. As much as I hate this strike, there is a part of me that hopes it sends a message that even though they are getting screwed out of royalties, a lot of the writers don’t deserve a penny for the pablum they produce. Were it not for subtitles, I’d have lost my mind ages ago.

6. Joel Wicklund on January 15th, 2008 9:23 pm

   Excellent addition to the site, Scott. I don’t envy the upkeep on such a database, nor the self-punishment you will surely inflict for the inevitable missed man, but as a reader I think it is well worth the effort.
   Naturally, we part ways on some of the classifications and on a lot of the + versus - choices (a minus to “Opening Night” and “Killing of a Chinese Bookie” ??? My favorite Cassavetes’!), but I found myself in agreement with your choices 75-80% of the time.
   I would nominate a few additions:
   Laurent Cantet — Only 4 features so far, but all superb and distinctive.
   Michael Haneke — Though I find “Funny Games” to be his “A Clockwork Orange” (nasty without that much to say), I think several of his films are must-sees and, at the very least, he’s worth arguing about.
   Kiyoshi Kurosawa — Uneven and, like a lot of Asian directors, too prolific, but when he hits the mark (”Seance,” “Pulse,” “Cure,” “Serpent’s Path”), he’s fantastic.
   Larry Fessenden — Yeah, I know. I’m like his agent or something.
   There are surely lots of others I’m forgetting, but on the whole your list really covers the bases. I might argue with the dismissive use of “craftsman.” I use that as a high compliment. “Competent Technicians” might cover that category better.
   While I guess I’m an “auteurist” to an extent, that Lewton documentary got me thinking about the value of the theory applying to directors only. Even when it does, sometimes it doesn’t seem to match up with the director’s “signature.” Michael Almereyda (one of your “One or Two Hit Wonders”) made a film called “The Eternal” where he didn’t have final cut and was seriously unhappy with the finished result. I think it’s his best film. Should I re-evaluate because the director/author can’t claim it as his own? Of course, there are a million cases like that.
   Great stuff, Scott. You should send a link to Sarris.

7. Scott Marks on January 16th, 2008 2:12 am

   Thanks, Joel. Before I get to your comments, I must once again thank Jon Oye splashing a tidal wave of cold water. How in God’s name did I forget Leo McCarey??? I mean, I’ve seen “Duck Soup” over 200 times. “Make Way for Tomorrow” is one of the most moving emotional experiences I’ve yet to experience. Okay, so I’m not perfect.

   Craftsman. My definition comes from Godard. “If you want craft, make a table.”

   I have seen only one film by each of the four directors that you mention, so my comments aren’t valid. In time.

   The term “auteur” does not always apply to directors. Look at any of the films from Hollywood’s golden age and within a reel you can figure out which studio it came from. That certainly implies authorship. As much as I despise s–tberg I own a copy of “1941″ for William Fraker’s astonishing cinematography. And I’ll watch anything that Val Lewton or David O. Selznick produced. Most films have an auteur lurking somewhere in the credits, and in most cases it is the director. Most, but not all.

   What if a director is not happy with the finished product? I am sure that Hitchcock would have much rather talked about “To Catch a Thief” than the box office bomb “Under Capricorn,” but that doesn’t make me worship the latter any less. Directors may be God, but they are not always right. How many times have you watched deleted scenes on a DVD and said, “You know, I’m glad they weren’t in the finished picture?” Invariably they stink, yet the director filmed them. Does this make the studio the auteur because they called for the scenes to be axed? In that sense, film truly is a collaborative medium. Even top talent needs to be checked occasionally. (I sure wish someone would have talked to Marty before “The Departed.”)

   As for sending a link to Andy, I have an anxiety attack just thinking about it.

8. James Shimek on February 4th, 2008 8:31 pm

   Excellent addition, indeed! I have to force myself not to look at this portion of the site while at work or else I’d never get a thing accomplished. One question — is Charles Burnett anywhere on this list?

9. Scott Marks on February 4th, 2008 8:36 pm

   I purposely left him off so you would have something to post. ;)

Leave a Reply