Filmmakers beyond criticism

Tools    





Rollerball looks far worse than Nomads and Medicine Man, but can't say much more since I haven't seen any of them.

Anyway, I guess my answer to the question is no. There are filmmakers I'm always willing to give a chance no matter how much crap their movie gets (I got deeply disheartened by the poor reviews to De Palma's Domino, but will still get around to it eventually), but none that reach any kind of immunity. I love Tarantino, but won't give him a pass for his weak effort Death Proof, nor do I think it's impossible for a director to make something bad.
Yes there are those who without fail have always come out with something good (Nolan is definitely one of them), but that doesn't mean that the possibility of them ever slipping up is non-existent. I just happen to be very hopeful or at least curious whenever he has something new on the way since I admire his style.
It just has never happened. A director making 9-10 good-great movies then completely going off track. Usually they go off track after 4 or 5 movies not 9 or 10.



Ah. So you're saying you think some directors are so good for so long that, when a movie is bad, people should assume it's not their fault?
I am just saying if a director is so good for so long then he/she has figured out a way to pick and choose right projects that play to their strengths and to make movies that use their best instincts. Its all about developing strong artistic instincts. At max, luck and preparation can get you to 5 great movies but not 10.



It has never happened that a director makes 8 or more great movies and then go off tune completely.
You're making a subtle logical error here that you've made before. Remember when you talked about how great blockbuster never flop? Same idea. Maybe the above has never happened (which may or may not be true, but again, we'll assume it is for the sake of argument), but if so, you should be able to spot the problem: we wait until they've either continued to make great films or not to make the proclamation. It's backwards-looking, and not predictive. It's easy to achieve a perfect explanation if it's crafted to exclude all possible counterexamples.

As I pointed out in that other thread (multiple times, with no response), this is what statisticians call "overfitting" (I would highly recommend Googling it). It turns out it's shockingly easy to come up with an explanation for events that have already happened. In this case, it's probably the film cutoff. It could've been five or 10 instead of eight, for example, but the specific nature seems designed to exclude those aforementioned counterexamples.

OR, of course, any counterexamples will be met with "some of those films aren't great." The problem, as always, is theories that are completely unfalsifiable.



I am just saying if a director is so good for so long then he/she has figured out a way to pick and choose right projects that play to their strengths and to make movies that use their best instincts. Its all about developing strong artistic instincts. At max, luck and preparation can get you to 5 great movies but not 10.
Is that a no to my question, then?

I mean, feel free to expound beyond a yes or no, but actually getting a yes or no, as well, would really help clear things up. Which is obviously necessary given how confusing most people find these numerous theories.



I can’t contribute anything near as comprehensive as the above (@Yoda, hat off to you), but I will say Roman Polanski (personal issues aside) had been consistently great for decades, doing well with audiences and critics alike more or less, until The Ninth Gate. That does look pretty bad, compared to the rest of his work, and it’s his nineteenth film (not eighth or ninth). Bitter Moon from seven years earlier wasn’t so great either. Yet he seems to have returned to his pre-Ninth Gate level since then, especially with Ghost Writer and The Pianist, so the cutoff does seem arbitrary. I’m not a huge fan of Polanski, but I do think some great directors can make a one-off awful film and get back in the game after that.



Welcome to the human race...
No.....my point is, after attaining a certain level of consistency and success in their quality of work, filmmakers become immune to film criticism because they have shown enough depth in their work to never fall off. So even the so-called negative criticism is not warranted....i don't count nomads or medicine man to be on the same level as die hard/predator/red october and 3 consistent movies is too little of a sample size to call anyone a great director.
But that's just my opinion....if you think nomads or medicine man to be great movies then thats okay.
No, they don't. I already mentioned John Carpenter - he had a great 10-film run from 1976-1988 (including some of my favourite films of all-time), but even that doesn't mean that I think the work he did afterwards was automatically immune to criticism (and I write this while using an avatar from Escape From L.A., one of his most critically-reviled films). I think Yoda is right about it being more about giving directors the benefit of the doubt in the face of negative criticism without necessarily forcing yourself into thinking that a director just stops making bad films altogether once they've made x good films in a row. That just sounds like denial and confirmation bias more than anything else.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



I mean, this is a common theme in most of these threads: the search for some mythical rule or objective standards to bring mathematical precision to the artistic domain. I guess I can understand that on some level, since the unquantifiable is always a little disconcerting and certainty feels good, but it doesn't really work in these areas.



no, as far as I can tell. there always something worth criticizing, I think.

PS: Nolan is a hack.
bree! IT'S NOT REALLY SAY ANYTHING.
__________________
"Фильм призван вызвать духовную волну, а не взращивать идолопоклонников."



Are there any directors that are beyond critics for you ? meaning, even if critics are divided on the film, I will watch it no matter what because a critically divided film by this filmmaker is 100 times better than the best film by almost all other directors ?

For me it's Chris nolan, Tarantino and to a certain extent Scorsese. Because to me, these filmmakers always aim at making an entertaining movie and add to that their incredible talent and skill, if a critic didn't like it then he/she just didn't get it and it's not that the movie is objectively bad.

For me that's the case with tenet. Even though some critics are not hot on it, I know that Nolan is too smart for them and no way in hell can any number of critics deter me from watching it. His track record is too strong for criticism.
I don’t know if it’s possible for anyone or anything to be beyond criticism.

But I do know it’s possible for someone to be beyond saving...



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
bree! IT'S NOT REALLY SAY ANYTHING.
Thanks, Miss Ob(li)vious!
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



There are very few perfect films out there. So yes, every director is worthy of criticism. Nolan is the most overrated director of all time in my opinion, but that's just 1 person's view. Kubrick is rightly revered worldwide but Eyes Wide shut has many critics.



Nolan is the most overrated director of all time in my opinion
Never finished a single one of his movies.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Never finished a single one of his movies.
Not saying there’s anything wrong with not finishing films, but I think one can’t judge a director without seeing most of his/her work. At least give them the benefit of doubt until then.



Not saying there’s anything wrong with not finishing films, but I think one can’t judge a director without seeing most of his/her work. At least give them the benefit of doubt until then.
Not judging anyone. Simply stating a fact. Take your point up with @ScarletLion not me.



I don't think any director beyond criticism...there are several directors whose work I respect, but every director has had a misstep at some point, at least the ones whose work I've seen.