Scott's hands-on approach to the art direction and storyboarding really helped him achieve his vision for the film, a process he refined as he worked on Blade Runner, achieving even better results there, IMO. Some might call his achievements revolutionary in some way. I would argue they were at least evolutionary in their approach, and the design was unique thanks to Moebius being on board.

That's all I have for now, unless you care to elaborate further on your very brief retort.

Are you saying the film is re-/evolutionary because Ridley Scott took an atypical hands-on approach in its production?

An evolutionary hands on approach specifically in relation to the artistic elements of the film ie the art direction, scope, atmosphere, and design, yes. As for revolutionary, I am not sure I would be one of the people that would use that term, as i am not so sure it was truly revolutionary. Some would (and have) argue that.

If you would like to address Iro's (and now my) query as to why you disagree, perhaps your stance would become a bit more clear as to why you disagree?

Vincente Minnelli was doing this in the late 30s and throughout the 40s, being frequently praised for it in press at the time for his dedication to overseeing the scripting process from the beginning, to conceptualizing musical numbers, staging choreography, set design, lighting, costumes, et. al. He was even routinely reprimanded for breaking the production studio taboo of staring through the viewfinder for extended periods of time while shooting. But he's only one of many directors since at least the 1920s who were widely known for micro-managing their vision from pencil to screen.

I didn't disagree, I just said I'm not sure about it — mainly because I have no idea what they meant by the film's "artistry" since the term is extremely broad and vague. But if they meant it like you've defined it here (a hands-on approach to art and scenario design during productuon), then yeah I'd most definitely disagree since that hasn't been significantly rare since shortly after the Ford Model T debuted.

I read it before (liked it) and read it again. I like that you put in suggestions, and I totally agree with a pre-story of them in school and being influenced. I'd add that it might make Stewart's role believable, and to see exactly how the boys got the idea of an Ubermensch. In the movie, Jimmy Stewart plays his typical straight-arrow kinda guy that you can't even believe the boys were ever influenced by him.


I did like the movie in real-time. I don't think Hitchcock was looking to scare his audience. It just seemed like a domestic hide-and-seek game. I gave it a 7/10, but I don't really remember what I liked about it. It was pretty colorful for 1948, though.


I also remember your "Network" (and read it again a few minutes ago) review.. Out of curiosity, what specific recommendations would you make? I know you felt that the social messages were like a sledgehammer, but I don't know another way considering this was the media, where an anchorman is going to be explicit by diagnosing the social ills and giving his solutions.. Same with the Ned Beatty speech, which is one of my favorites. I don't think you could allude or hint at these conversations between the many characters.

Matt, Thanks for reading my review. I wouldn't call my review of Rope my best writing, but I think it's atypical of my stuff...I like James Stewart too btw. Usually he's just perfect in the movies he's cast in, Rope being one of the few exceptions.

I wish I could give you a thoughtful reply about what didn't work in Network for me. But I've only seen it once and so long ago that I don't remember anything about it. Who knows maybe one day I'll watch it again.

Admittedly, I said it was an artistry that "few films of its ilk have matched" so the ilk I was referring to is actually other horror films more than anything else and in that regard it goes above and beyond just about anything else in the genre to become transcendent, primarily on the basis of how it develops its characters, monsters, and settings (especially considering how many horrors prior to that settled for some variation on the haunted house or any isolated location but hadn't really taken it to space the way that Alien did). If Vincente Minnelli was making movies about aliens on spaceships in the 1930s then I'd concede the point.

Re: Directors Who Disliked Their Own Movie/s
 

Honestly surprised this is on its second page and no one has mention Spielberg and Hook.

You're welcome.. Yeah, try it again.. It's in my Top 10. I'd love to re-read your review :)


Again, it's one of those movies that are more relevant today.

It's funny how Spielberg did get mentioned but only by someone who thinks he's too good for Spielberg movies.

Perhaps not disliked so much, but Orson Welles seems a little dissatisfied with the final output of Touch of Evil in this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjwqsmcH9sk

Fair points all, and thank you for the knowledge on Minnelli, which I hadn't learned about before. That said, Minelli's achievements are more evolutionary in a directorial sense as far as technique, and maybe a bit less so as far as art direction in the way I mean. I may not be articulating my meaning well enough.

Scott elevated both science fiction and horror in a way that he achieved a level of detail and vision that hadn't previously been reached. He does owe some of this to Moebius as far as the creature and alien ship/world building is concerned, but his almost obsessive attention to tiny details really created a sense of realism that wasn't seen in the genres before. He did even more of this on Blade Runner. He achieved this by almost taking over the art direction position completely, much to the chagrin of the guy holding that position at the time. Some examples would be the complex level of detail of the interior of the Nostromo when compared to say The Discovery in 2001, or in Blade Runner, Scott insisting on having printed instructions on the parking meters, which could never be legibly read on camera.

If you have examples of people who had used these techniques before him, which may well exist, I would love to check out their work, if only to see the progression before his work, and to check out what had perhaps influenced him to attempt to elevate these concepts/approaches.

Just quickly, to illustrate that i am apparently not alone in thinking along these lines. I did a quick google search and very quickly ran across several articles on Scott, and his approach to art direction and vision in these films:

A Visual Analysis of Ridley' Scott's Alien Series

Re: Directors Who Disliked Their Own Movie/s
 

Just reading the Scott/Alien thing going on.

You know that Alien looked the way it did because of Star Wars?
After Lucas released his monster on the world, Scott said "It's about time I did something that looks like that"... and he elaborates about how sci-fi before Star Wars was always sets made from chrome and silver foil with white moulded plastic and soft lighting.

Re: Directors Who Disliked Their Own Movie/s
 

Just had a quick search... surprised to see Guillermo del Toro say he didn't like Mimic.
Sure it's a bit hokey, but del Toro has said he almost quit making Hollywood movies because of it. Apparently he didn't like Weinstein either during the production.

It's been awhile since I read about Orson Welles and Touch of Evil...but...I remember that the studio edited the film against his wishes because he was out of the country at the time. That pissed him off! and that's what he's most likely referring to, the studio cut of his film. Luckily for us, Orson kept detailed notes about scene placement and the Touch of Evil was eventually restored to the way Orson had originally intended it to be.

Re: Directors Who Disliked Their Own Movie/s
 

Orson has a habit of changing his story, but he once said "The Trial" was the one that wasn't interfered with. At another time, he said the same thing about "Chimes at Midnight".. But he also says he had complete control over "Citizen Kane" but never got a contract even close.

I've tried watching The Trial twice and shut if off both times. Last time I made about 30 minutes into the film.

I think I gave it a 6/10.. It was very suffocating, and I never liked Anthony Perkins. He's always nervy. Quite a process to expose the problems of bureaucracy and inherent guilt.


I prefer watching an interview with Orson.

Re: Directors Who Disliked Their Own Movie/s
 

Didn't Tony Kaye want his name taken off American History X? I can't remember the details (or be bothered to look them up) but I remember it became a big thing.