When you binge on a specific director...

Since I have a lot of free time thanks to the pandemic, I can watch around 3 movies a day. And I want go be more experienced in specific directors, the good and the bad, because discussing directors is a big part of cinema's forums. So everyday I check out at least one movie by a specific director until I feel like I'm experienced enough. Sometimes I save room for two directors at once if a director's prolific enough, like Roger Corman.


Right now I'm exploring the highest-rated movies of Orson Welles that I haven't seen yet (with The Trial being hard to soak for it's effective toxicity), and today I got serious about checking out several films in the unrealistically prolific filmography of Jesus Franco. So far, really not impressed. Finished up the first Jesus Franco movie I found on YT, The Girl from Rio, which bored me. And now I'm halfway through Welles' The Trial. Yikes... It's very engrossing, but hard to swallow!

As much as a fan of Orson Welles that I am, I tried watching The Trial twice and shut it off twice. Once after 30 minutes, the second time I was more than half way through it. I just couldn't finish it. Yet other people say they love it. What other Orson Welles directed movies have you seen?

Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, Chimes at Midnight, The Lady from Shanghai, The Stranger, The Magnificent Ambersons, F for Fake and Journey Into Fear (that last one was uncredited). I haven't gotten to Othello or Macbeth yet.


I've got 35 minutes left in The Trial. I've been taking it slowly since I have an anger issue pertaining to false accusations. But I'm not gonna deny that the dream-like state with which the movie is written makes all the difference.

You're 'welles watched', that's most all of his big ones.

Thanks. I really got serious about him. I still plan on checking out his Shakespeare movies and his documentaries about making his movies.

See you in 20 years.

__________________
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.

Not necessarily. A: I'm nine years in. B: Not every great director is prolific. Tarantino and Nolan have only a handful. C: I'll watch two in one day if I feel the need. In the last three months I've seen almost 200 movies.

I can literally NOT believe this. I'm getting through both Orson Welles and Jesus Franco movies yesterday, and I plan on doing the same today and maybe tomorrow. Orson Welles is incredible. Franco is one of the worst directors I've seen. Don Quixote, one of Welles' unfinished movies... of all the people they could have gotten to finish editing the movie, they got Jesus Franco. Is this a sign, God?

What are you in for?
Some are beyond prolific. Then again, I'm not sure if binging entire filmographies is that good. Several films - sure, but binging John Ford or Yasujiro Ozu is kind of pointless. You end up rating films as compared to the director's other films and not other movies in general.
Oh, you're kidding. Sorry, I thought you were serious.
Not bad for a rookie.
He's an auteur and much better than Nolan.

I never said I was binging the entire filmography. I typically go for the best, worst and most popular.



Let's not go there. But if you want better examples, Leone and Tarkovsky.




"Autuer" could justify any poor plot, bad acting and terrible lighting. I don't believe in using the term since it's so easy to fake.

You clearly do not get Franco. It's OK. He'll never be for you.

Unless you're watching one of his many ****ty films. That may be the reason, too.

"You clearly do not get" is an common excuse without explanation that could justify anything without definite proof. I could make the assumption that you "clearly do not understand Tarantino or Nolan."


And for the record, I just started Vampyros Lesbos, and the plot is so predictable.

Worth noting that "you don't get" could either mean "you don't understand" or the more conciliatory "they're not on your wavelength."

Or it could mean his movies can't be understood.

You don't watch movies like this for the plot. You're like a person who watches a silent film for the sexy voices of actresses. Looks like the names of Nolan and Tarantino weren't random. You'd probably dislike all these superior films Tarantino ripped off because they have a predictable plot. LOL.
This. But not only that. You clearly do not get what Franco is going for, Keyser. He's not aiming to tell a thrilling story full of twists. That's a very low target to be aiming for. If you were trashing some of his more garbage movies, then fine, but Vampyros Lesbos is actually one of his masterworks. Yet another proof that quality exploitation cinema is as demanding as quality arthouse (Vampyros Lesbos is a cross between these two).

I don't wanna derail the discussion exactly, but I'm curious about this idea, because I often make similar arguments to you about blockbuster films, which you find less compelling. I wonder why you think there's a skill to well-made schlock, but not well-made popular culture.

I agree this applies to quality blockbuster films, too. It just doesn't always appear to blockbuster films you deem quality.

The schlock argument is a conceited one. There's nothing you must "get" except for good taste.

This so called masterwork has a terrible night club performance at the beginning. I've seen better night club performances on local tv episodes of police dramas. And it doesn't justify bad acting or bad direction. You talk about taste but you easily deny similar "schlock" of higher quality. Bram Stoker's Dracula has sexy vampire scenes and it still has more effort put into it. Hell, Twilight has more effort.

Wait? People are faking bad acting and terrible lighting to be considered auteurs?


Just wondering if any of them have succeeded in their quest yet? Because, admittedly, that does seem kind of easy so there has got to be tonnes of them.

No, calling oneself an auteur to immediately justify the poor quality of their art.