Absolutely WORST directors ever.

Tools    





Considering that a movie like The Blair Witch Project can be good even though a teenager could potentially write it, I'd have to say that inexperience is a person's own problem. In Manos there was hardly a story and the driving scenes were less entertaining than the boring rock climbing scenes of Lost Continent or the constant Frankenstein walk in The Beast of Yucca Flatts.

It's like the difference between a cheap restaurant pizza and a disaster made by someone who never made a pizza before because it's their first time. He could have made comedic short films instead of Manos, then maybe somebody would've noticed him and set him on a path. Instead, he thought he should jump to the top and make something legendary, and it didn't work. He's as guilty of not using what he had as Michael Bay, except Michael Bay movies have more story and better actors. And I'd rather stare at a CGI apocalypse than a boring road, so I'd still justify Roland Emmerich even though he's a sellout.
But that's not "laziness". I'm not really arguing about the quality of the film now, but rather that the issues with Manos are not a result of "laziness".
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



But that's not "laziness". I'm not really arguing about the quality of the film now, but rather that the issues with Manos are not a result of "laziness".
Just to clarify, maybe Warren should've done things differently, maybe he should've approached the film a different way, prepared better or whatnot, but then again, so do other filmmakers with studio clout and better resources. The point is that I don't think he was lazy. He thought he could do a film and went to work at it, even though he had all the odds against him. That's the opposite of lazy, I would say.



We might go way back and mention Sam Newfield, said to be the most prolific director of the sound era. His output is somewhat dubious, but he probably made at least 250 movies, nearly all of them deservedly forgotten. One that is not forgotten but lives on in infamy, showing up in late night college presentations (where I saw it a long time ago) is/was The Terror of Tiny Town, a low, low budget western entirely cast with little people.

I'm not sure just what makes someone the worst director, but this one deserves consideration.

I don't care for westerns... but I might watch this one!

I was impressed with the bartender drinking a glass of beer that was at least twice as big as his stomach... but we also have another case of time travel on film... at 1:52 the bartender pulls another guy out from under the bar and the guy is wearing a mask (covering his nose and mouth) and it doesn't look like a neckerchief that an old west robber might wear, but the same kind we've all been wearing for a year and a half - and this movie was from 20 years after the Spanish flu!



Just to clarify, maybe Warren should've done things differently, maybe he should've approached the film a different way, prepared better or whatnot, but then again, so do other filmmakers with studio clout and better resources. The point is that I don't think he was lazy. He thought he could do a film and went to work at it, even though he had all the odds against him. That's the opposite of lazy, I would say.

He barely even wrote a story, though. Much of it was random and underdeveloped.



Many reasons to dislike a director's work. But one is the amount of passion. A technically bad director has still directorial "goodness" in my eyes if there is something sincere, authentic, passionate about his or her attempt at making a movie. And this is often the case in extremely naive, clumsy, amateurish low budgets attempts. The "kid's work" analogy is good.

In contrast, a soul-less filmmaker with a lot of money and technical knowledge, applying a book of recipes both for the cinematography and for the thematic marketing, will look much worse, much more "fake" or "dishonest", to me. I'll clearly prefer the former, as an artist and as a movie director.

Something to do with... judging intents, or something ?

While it obviously makes a lot of sense why people judge the 'acceptability' of a film on how well it hangs together, how legitimately professional a product it seems to be, and (ultimately) if we can see all the money that has been spent on it up there on screen, I really don't get what any of that has to do with making it a better experience than something that is slapdash, or amateur, or looses its way a bit, or looks like a cheap piece of junk.



To me it's like judging painting on the quality of the paints being used, and not the quality of the brushstroke. Or how well the words of a novel have been formatted on a page, and not the qualitty of the words themselves.



But then again, I'm sure I've been kicked in the head by a few horses in my life, so that might explain my thickness in regards to embracing the qualities of something that 'looks like a movie' simply because it 'looks like a movie'. I'm comfortable with something that seems like it doesn't deserve to play in the sanctity of a 'real theater' because that has nothing to do with what a movie can do. At least, not how I understand movies. For me it's enough to just see something beautiful or interesting in the work of those who use film to record their enthusiasm towards filming something. Anything. No matter how dusty or beaten up it seems to be.



So, If something is just going through the motions, and by default is boring because of it, why should it get any pass whatsoever? What does that have to do with art? And how isn't it really really easy for some six year old with a handful of cash to do a better job of at least showing us something of worth?



*shrugs hopelessly at the mysteries of the universe*



Think of it this way. If you're gonna make a movie, I'd rather have it look like a movie instead of looking like a bunch of cosplayers. Besides, I hardly consider a budget an excuse. Hell, Nolan's Following and Rodriguez's El Mariachi were filmed on a few thousand dollars while Birdemic had 10000, Eegah had 15000 and Manos had roughly 20000.



Think of it this way. If you're gonna make a movie, I'd rather have it look like a movie instead of looking like a bunch of cosplayers.

This seems to assume the people with the money aren't the phonies. And that the way a film looks is of some irrefutable substance. It is a position I not only disagree with, but one that I honestly don't even understand beyond the most superficial of readings.



I would suggest that maybe the people who get out into the street and make film from the compulsion to want to make a movie, even though they probably know no one will ever care about it, and they will likely never make any money from it, are the ones who are the real deal. That the fact they are less beholden to the interests of market tested audiences and don't need to cater to anyone else but their own impulses is of some vital importance. That, even through their lack of formal training might make there movies look visually unappealing, their amateurism can at least stumble upon interesting new ways to speak through the language of cinema.


A hack filmmaker with a lot of money is only going to become more of a hack. Even a hack with no money, has a chance to make something interesting, even if it is by mistake.



Now this isn't to say all low budget movie films are all created equal. Or that even some of the best ones don't have moments which are trying to even the most patient of viewers. But at least there is a hope that they might offer something beyond what I've already been given a million billion trillion times before. And hope is a necessary ingredient for me when I choose a movie to watch.


Also, just for clarification, what does 'look like a movie' even really mean. I take this mostly as shorthand for 'money'. And since I like to think of art as being for and by the people, the closer we can get to destroying the need for money as part of our theater experiences, the better. Just like music, painting and writing, directing needs to be an art that anybody can do. Not just those with connections.



Think of it this way. The Following was made by a man who knew that all he needed was to film walking around the city by including a fairly psychological purpose. Instead of trying to create something new with the small amount of money he had, he used the world around him to create something "good" as opposed to new. There was a story, and there was always a purpose for the cameraman to go where he needed to go. Christopher Nolan proved that he was no amateur.


Now take a look at Transformers. Built for kids, has some story but not a lot, but a lot of effort is put into the focuses of the movie, even though the effects are a marketing gimmick. Have you ever seen as much effort and detail put into it? SOME people tried at what they were doing for their portion of the film, and the actors tried to. This means the dollar value had some purpose to it.


Then you have a movie with very little purpose at all, a new creation made for the sake of being new with no story consistency or decent acting, where no one is putting any real effort into it. At least the effects, actors and cameramen of the Transformers series have effort. I can even vouch for Seventh Son as something that can be watched for one reason: the atmosphere they built up was a successful one. No effort was put into Manos when the Following (which had a third if Manos' budget) had lots of payed off effort. Budget doesn't excuse Manos at all.


To me, judging a movie based on the budget is misguidance. You either overcome budget problems or you don't. Following did, Manos didn't. You either put the big budget to good use or you don't. Iron Man did, Seventh Son didn't. Either way, what really matters is this: are their any successful aspects of the movie? Considering that Transformers movies fixate on great effects and cinematography where movies like Manos don't and has very little purpose, here are two things that beats Manos already.



1) "Good" and "New" are not mutually exclusive. Also, when I say a movie is giving us something new to see, I'm not speaking simply as novelty. But new in a way that it offers us a different way to look at what a movie is, how it speaks to us, and how it lets us look at elements in a different light. It can make something that appears mundane seem beautiful. Or something that seems necessary, seem redundant. New is a biproduct of an artist simply being honest with us. Or letting his guard down. Or mistakenly giving us a peek into who they are, what they want to say, and what makes them unique as a person or a performer. All the fundamental elements of art. None of which necessarily rely on narrative or studied technique. The kind of things you will struggle to ever find in Transformers.



2) You seem to be elevating 'effort' as something of value to an audience. There was probably a lot of effort put into the guy who delivers the boxes of popcorn kernels to the concession stand. They're heavy! But, we don't consider this as being anything to do with art. Because effort and art have virtually nothing to do with eachother.



3) Is there value to the work that is put into the special effects of something like Transfomers? Sure. And they can be appreciated on their own. And they can be instructional to those who want to get into special effects. These things aren't irrelevant, and on their own may even be considered artful, but they play only tangentially into whether or not the movie itself has anything to say. A movie is a product of many different things and how they interact. Pulling out one element for inspection is not a good way to get an idea of what a movie as a whole means to a person.


4) You seem to want to strip movies that you don't like of having a purpose, when that is dependant on what we bring to the conversation. Transformers, as much as I might not like it, has purpose if someone is inspired by it. And this can inspire even me, if that person, can explain why it mattered to them. I still don't have to like the movie, but it still has a 'purpose'. You also seem to be assuming there is no effort in movies you want to dismiss, but as Thief has already pointed out, we're really not in any position to talk about effort. Or assume laziness on the part of the artist. There are a lot of movies I would almost guarantee you would dismiss as being 'lazy', that I would guarantee are absolute labors of love by those who made them.



4) I'm not judging a movie on budget. I like all sorts of movies, big ones, small ones, smart ones and stupid ones. I am simply going to bat for movies that are being dismissed because of their cheapness or apparent amateurism. And then having them called 'pointless' or 'lazy'. I think there is an important thing to learn from a philosophy towards art that tries to understand all sorts of different films. Even the ugliest and most unloved ones that are out there. And for someone who wants to be a film critic, while I don't think it's important for you to actually like any of these movies, it would go a long way to understand why others might see the value in them. Or why some distrust films that appear to simply be going through the motions, and have no apparent heart to them beyond the 'effort' of the labourers who toiled on them.



2) You seem to be elevating 'effort' as something of value to an audience. There was probably a lot of effort put into the guy who delivers the boxes of popcorn kernels to the concession stand. They're heavy! But, we don't consider this as being anything to do with art. Because effort and art have virtually nothing to do with eachother.

If you reread my statement, I called attention to the pay-off present in The Following. Not all movies full of effort are instant successes, with an example of my recent discoveries being the thorough but clunky Youth Without Youth, which presents a frustrating narrative. Besides, I'd rather watch a movie that tries and fails as opposed to a movie that didn't try at all.



3) Is there value to the work that is put into the special effects of something like Transfomers? Sure. And they can be appreciated on their own. And they can be instructional to those who want to get into special effects. These things aren't irrelevant, and on their own may even be considered artful, but they play only tangentially into whether or not the movie itself has anything to say. A movie is a product of many different things and how they interact. Pulling out one element for inspection is not a good way to get an idea of what a movie as a whole means to a person.

I judge a movie by the goal it sets for itself and decide whether or not the sacrifices made to reach it were justified. The goal of a Transformers movie is simply to be a blockbuster, and while much of the originality is sacrificed, there's still something enjoyable, especially in comparison to Manos. Now a higher-budget movie has every ability to be terrible, but I haven't seen that just yet. The highest I've seen would be Underdog with a 25 million budget, but at least Patrick Warburton can be funny by just being himself. For an absolute zero, 20 million for Disaster Movie.

4) You seem to want to strip movies that you don't like of having a purpose, when that is dependant on what we bring to the conversation. Transformers, as much as I might not like it, has purpose if someone is inspired by it. And this can inspire even me, if that person, can explain why it mattered to them. I still don't have to like the movie, but it still has a 'purpose'. You also seem to be assuming there is no effort in movies you want to dismiss, but as Thief has already pointed out, we're really not in any position to talk about effort. Or assume laziness on the part of the artist. There are a lot of movies I would almost guarantee you would dismiss as being 'lazy', that I would guarantee are absolute labors of love by those who made them.
Not true. I always take the purpose into account, but if you think movies like Transformers are empty shells, then you should read this. Harold Warren felt that it was "not difficult to make a horror film" and cited it as an easy venture into success, making a bet with a coworker that he could make his own horror movie. He sold himself out instantaneously by adding a gimmick to a horror movie: flashy cult that worships an original god and haunts a hotel. The purpose of this movie was to show off and win a bet that he could make a horror movie on his own. He made the movie because his inexperience got in the way of his judgment.


4) I'm not judging a movie on budget. I like all sorts of movies, big ones, small ones, smart ones and stupid ones. I am simply going to bat for movies that are being dismissed because of their cheapness or apparent amateurism. And then having them called 'pointless' or 'lazy'. I think there is an important thing to learn from a philosophy towards art that tries to understand all sorts of different films. Even the ugliest and most unloved ones that are out there. And for someone who wants to be a film critic, while I don't think it's important for you to actually like any of these movies, it would go a long way to understand why others might see the value in them. Or why some distrust films that appear to simply be going through the motions, and have no apparent heart to them beyond the 'effort' of the labourers who toiled on them.
Personally, I don't care if you see value Manos. I explained my opinion and I don't think you're "wrong" per say. In fact, if someone loved Manos for the "so-bad-it's-good" quality (which in my opinion is more rooted in subjectivity than most film-related discussions) then I'd consider myself an idiot to blame him. But Warren was known for his amateurish behavior. He miscalculated the struggles and sacrifices needed to film a proper movie all because he thought it was too easy to do.


Wrong. Dead wrong. Even in the 1960's, original horror movies were not easy. Horror has probably struggled more than any film genre because of originality issues, acceptable content issues, and on occasion, religious issues. This guy thought it didn't take much to be all that and a bag of chips. He was essentially an early Tommy Wiseau, except he didn't have the wacky vibrant personality to match his pretentiousness. At least The Room tried to have a realistic plot. Tommy was at least smart enough not to make a horror movie because it was "easy."



I know all about Warren, and the history of his making Manos.

Is it a great movie? Definitely not. Was Warren wrong about the ease of creating a horror film? Yup. But is it better than Transformers? Indubitably!

Does Transformers allow us to witness an actor destroy his legs by mistakenly wearing his prosthetic goat legs backwards beneath his pants? Prosthetic goat legs we will never even see? But will linger like a tragedy forever in the gait of the doomed John Reynolds?

Nope.

As far as I know, Transformers didn't pointlessly disable anyone for its supposed 'art'.

These are the kind of tidbits that haunt whatever lack of talent may be on display here. Along with Warren using a camera that ran out of film every 30 odd seconds, which will refuse to allow the movie to ever settle into a proper rhythm. This is obviously something that does not help the film work as a piece of narrative filmmaking (and who cares about that anyways) but that allow it to exist as an artifact of a misguided artist, working on a misguided premise.

As I stated before, I consider Manos "fairly decent" at best when it comes to amateur films or 'outsider art'. What can be seen by the audience has a strange, off balance quality, and is vaguely creepy if you allow it to seep into you like a musty odour. As a result, I vaguely enjoy watching it. But, just as importantly, it has a handful of qualities not tied simply to its filmmaking. It tells a story outside of what is simply on camera. Your anecdote of the bet someone made with Warren being one of them.

Ultimately, films are more than story. They can even be more than what is recorded on film. They can have a second life as we talk about them, build our own stories and thoughts around them, and Manos has lots to talk about when it comes to the intersection of what is actually in the movie, and what we learn about the movie by reading up on it.

Films deserve more than being considered successful only when they live up to their intentions. They can be their own little universes we can dissect and think about.



True, but the only question I have concerning Manos is... Why? If horror movies specifically are considered to be easy, one must assume that the trick is to be really scary. And when it comes to movies about cults, I honestly got more scares out of The Da Vinci Code.



True, but the only question I have concerning Manos is... Why? If horror movies specifically are considered to be easy, one must assume that the trick is to be really scary. And when it comes to movies about cults, I honestly got more scares out of The Da Vinci Code.

For me horror films are simply the perfect outlet for articulating a society in decay. Science fiction can be very similar in that way, but I like the particular cinematic trappings of horror more. It also invites more weirdos, nihilists, sleazoids, exploitation hacks and poets than most genres.



If they are scary, great, but hardly a necessity. As for Manos, as mentioned, it isn't remotely scary, but the resultant film (with all of its many many limitations) has an eerie effect. Not scary, but...off...and that's good enough.



I adore "off," but to me Manos is off for the sake of it as opposed to applying a purpose other than instant success that was never reached. Eraserhead, another seriously low-budget movie, uses actual symboliosm and visual parables. That, and the creepy atmosphere was SERIOULY overpowering.



I adore "off," but to me Manos is off for the sake of it as opposed to applying a purpose other than instant success that was never reached. Eraserhead, another seriously low-budget movie, uses actual symboliosm and visual parables. That, and the creepy atmosphere was SERIOULY overpowering.

Part of me would like to think the Lynch would understand the small kernels of worth in Manos. Probably wouldn't, but a dreamer must dream.



And, for what it is worth, I think Lynch is a bit of an abstract touchstone to what I find interesting about Manos. While Lynch intentionally evokes the mundane in his art. Manos unintentionally includes it, because it doesn't know how to edit it out. It's that mundanity that allows what seems 'off' to work. And just because one is masterful, and the other kind of sadly funny, doesn't mean we shouldn't canonize both.



But, obviously, Eraserhead is a million times better. Even when factoring in unintentional value.



To me, that means the aspect that was not meant to be there has no built-in life to breathe, and the only reason there was room for it was because of lack of overall depth.



To me, that means the aspect that was not meant to be there has no built-in life to breathe, and the only reason there was room for it was because of lack of overall depth.

This is where you and I will clearly differ. I do not care a smidge if something is meant to be there or not. If it is an accident or a result of their complete incompetence. All that matters is that it somehow had an affect on me. Sunsets don't look that way on purpose either. I wouldn't discount them if they turned out to be some cosmic accident.



Now this doesn't mean I discount the intent of a director. I don't think there is an element of a Kubrick film that isn't completely deliberate, and I don't think anyone comes even close to him beyond maybe Dreyer (another guy who is all about intent). Intent can heighten things incalcuably. It also tells you alot about how talented the director really is.



But it is still far far far from necessary for me. More a bonus, than anything



Then it's at the point to where we've disclosed our personal preferences in full detail. I guess we've diverged quite a bit.


Though I'll say this in Warren's defense. It takes more than one bad movie to be the worst. If it's constantly churning one unwatchable movie after another like Uwe Boll or Barry Mahon, that's different. And I'm certain that Warren learned from the reception, even though it would be interesting to see a second movie out of his head.