A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers
Reply to Topic
I mean, this is the direct quote I’ve found from Eggers thus far: “*Honestly, I can’t stand watching*The Witch*now,” he sighs. “It’s not that it’s bad, and the performances are great, but I was not skilled enough as a film-maker to get what was in my brain on to the screen. In*The Lighthouse, I was able to do that. And*The Northman, I’m proud of the movie, but not everything is quite what I hoped it would be. So I would like to do something with the scope and scale that I can actually get what’s in my imagination on to the screen.”
Seems fairly reasonable. Unless I’m missing something.*
Seems fairly reasonable. Unless I’m missing something.*
X
User Lists
I don't think that anyone is saying artists can't discuss their own works in negative terms.
Really the conversation here is more one of tact and gratitude.
If the extent of Eggers' comments are what MKS quoted above, I'm fine with it. Because that statement makes a clear delineation between the movie itself and the efforts of the people involved and his own emotions about it.
Now, suppose his honest opinion of the film was that Taylor-Joy's performance was stilted and disappointing. Should he be allowed to say that bluntly? I mean, he's allowed to say what he wants. No one is censoring him. But I would find such a statement unnecessarily hurtful and off-putting. Obviously there is value in an artist honestly evaluating their own work and sharing those raw emotions/thoughts. But there is also value in not hurting the feelings (and possibly the careers) of people who have made an effort on your behalf or who have supported you financially/career-wise.
Really the conversation here is more one of tact and gratitude.
If the extent of Eggers' comments are what MKS quoted above, I'm fine with it. Because that statement makes a clear delineation between the movie itself and the efforts of the people involved and his own emotions about it.
Now, suppose his honest opinion of the film was that Taylor-Joy's performance was stilted and disappointing. Should he be allowed to say that bluntly? I mean, he's allowed to say what he wants. No one is censoring him. But I would find such a statement unnecessarily hurtful and off-putting. Obviously there is value in an artist honestly evaluating their own work and sharing those raw emotions/thoughts. But there is also value in not hurting the feelings (and possibly the careers) of people who have made an effort on your behalf or who have supported you financially/career-wise.
The comment in question was Egger's saying he hated the movie he made. And how this makes him a douchebag because others might feel he is questioning their taste for liking a movie he hates. That's what my response was to, and I responded because I thought it is weird to be calling people names when the quote in question seems more about an artist being disappointed in their own efforts. How I don't agree that the feelings of his fans should by some kind of necessity come before his own feeling of what he did or did not accomplish. That he should be able to have those doubts without those who enjoy the Witch feeling less about themselves. Because, obviously.
At no point was this a comment about Anya Taylor Joy. Or the screenwriter. Or the editor. Sure, maybe we can open a door and consider it was possible he was including some/all of them in his criticism. But until I see that kind of clarification (and as it's been shown, it seems he very much was not talking about the efforts of others), it's at worst a completely understandable comment by a director who feels like he failed in his intentions, and that he may have imperfectly articulated in an interview.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I never intend to offend you. I like you. But Tak said what I was trying to say much better, so I quoted it.
And I may be gettin' way ahead of myself. What I originally said was that I felt Eggers was too self-serious to direct Viy, which is a very funny film, and I used his quote from his New York Times interview as the example:
"I didn’t expect a boring pilgrim horror movie to be successful, that’s for sure."
"You find your movie boring?"
"I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story."
... in light of his previous negative remarks about the film. And my concern was that he was either becoming or was the kind of narcissist that Lennon was, who took pleasure in showing disdain for the tastes of his own audience and certainly of critics. I mean, let's be honest, Lennon took pleasure in showing disdain for literally anyone. And Eggers repeated comments had me worrying we were seeing the beginning of that from him. He definitely, from interviews I've read, has a high opinion of himself and of his role as an artist.
But I may have gotten a little carried away.
But then again, maybe I haven't. Because one thing that you and I always differ on, and I just re-read a conversation of ours last night from a previous discussion, is that I care very much how my words and actions make other people feel and I think everyone should have a certain amount of that. Because I feel pretty good about myself, I don't mind biting my tongue to spare the feelings of other people. My feelings are fine. I don't have to shit on you when you praise me. (Not you, crumbs, I can't imagine you praising me, but you get my drift.)
I don't think it's preposterous to not shout our emotional reactions to the heavens when they can be detrimental to others. I think that's being childish. He can, as Tak described, say exactly the same thing like an adult. And as Little Ash has shown in the other interview, he kinda has. But when it's followed by a harsher take in the Times interview along with some other statements that could indicate that he's been reading too many of his own press-clippings, I worry that a filmmaker I like may be a person I don't.
You don't have to "skirt around your true emotions", you can say whatever you want about your art... but that doesn't mean people can't think you're an ashole when you do.
And I may be gettin' way ahead of myself. What I originally said was that I felt Eggers was too self-serious to direct Viy, which is a very funny film, and I used his quote from his New York Times interview as the example:
"I didn’t expect a boring pilgrim horror movie to be successful, that’s for sure."
"You find your movie boring?"
"I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story."
... in light of his previous negative remarks about the film. And my concern was that he was either becoming or was the kind of narcissist that Lennon was, who took pleasure in showing disdain for the tastes of his own audience and certainly of critics. I mean, let's be honest, Lennon took pleasure in showing disdain for literally anyone. And Eggers repeated comments had me worrying we were seeing the beginning of that from him. He definitely, from interviews I've read, has a high opinion of himself and of his role as an artist.
But I may have gotten a little carried away.
But then again, maybe I haven't. Because one thing that you and I always differ on, and I just re-read a conversation of ours last night from a previous discussion, is that I care very much how my words and actions make other people feel and I think everyone should have a certain amount of that. Because I feel pretty good about myself, I don't mind biting my tongue to spare the feelings of other people. My feelings are fine. I don't have to shit on you when you praise me. (Not you, crumbs, I can't imagine you praising me, but you get my drift.)
I don't think it's preposterous to not shout our emotional reactions to the heavens when they can be detrimental to others. I think that's being childish. He can, as Tak described, say exactly the same thing like an adult. And as Little Ash has shown in the other interview, he kinda has. But when it's followed by a harsher take in the Times interview along with some other statements that could indicate that he's been reading too many of his own press-clippings, I worry that a filmmaker I like may be a person I don't.
You don't have to "skirt around your true emotions", you can say whatever you want about your art... but that doesn't mean people can't think you're an ashole when you do.
I'm on my phone (like I usually am), so I'm not trying to format this (I might try editing later)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/m...-northman.html
Were you surprised by the audience that found your first two films?
I felt that “The Witch” [2016] would get some distribution and hopefully get enough good reviews that maybe someone would let me make another movie. I didn’t expect a boring pilgrim horror movie to be successful, that’s for sure.
You find your movie boring?
I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story. But in theory, no, I don’t find a movie like that boring. In fact, I watch movies that are much, much more boring than my two films with great pleasure.
But it does sound like you have the self-awareness to be able to say, “This is how my work might be perceived by a mainstream audience.”
“The Witch” got a lot of [expletive] for false marketing of a horror movie. I mean, I think it’s a horror movie, but I can understand how people looking for a certain formula weren’t satisfied. But with “The Northman,” it’s challenging because I’m trying to do both.
I felt that “The Witch” [2016] would get some distribution and hopefully get enough good reviews that maybe someone would let me make another movie. I didn’t expect a boring pilgrim horror movie to be successful, that’s for sure.
You find your movie boring?
I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story. But in theory, no, I don’t find a movie like that boring. In fact, I watch movies that are much, much more boring than my two films with great pleasure.
But it does sound like you have the self-awareness to be able to say, “This is how my work might be perceived by a mainstream audience.”
“The Witch” got a lot of [expletive] for false marketing of a horror movie. I mean, I think it’s a horror movie, but I can understand how people looking for a certain formula weren’t satisfied. But with “The Northman,” it’s challenging because I’m trying to do both.
I suspected and I think his follow up statement confirms that he was being facetious (and ironically phrasing how he he'd imagine the general public reception of the movie) in describing The VVitch as being boring (though admittedly not in hating the film. Though as I mentioned above, that isn't surprising).
He probably should have clarified those delineations again. My guess is since he probably already did that with another interview, there's a mixture of repeating himself fatigue setting by this point. I'm just speculating here. He might be someone who really likes getting elaborate in his explanations once and then gets bored (and self conscious) repeating himself. IDK, he's a different person from me who's operating in a public space, but I know I can get like that.
I've also heard that Eggers, in print comes off as pretentious, but in the actual interview comes off as very self-deprecating. I think that was on reference in another article (comments) I read where he referring to using cg as a moral sin.
He's a bit of an oddball.
Last edited by Little Ash; 05-16-22 at 11:51 PM.
Reason: marked up quoted article
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm on my phone (like I usually am), so I'm not trying to format this (I might try editing later)
I suspected and I think his follow up statement confirms that he was being facetious (and ironically phrasing how he he'd imagine the general public reception of the movie) in describing The VVitch as being boring (though admittedly not in hating the film. Though as I mentioned above, that isn't surprising).
He probably should have clarified those delineations again. My guess is since he probably already did that with another interview, there's a mixture of repeating himself fatigue setting by this point. I'm just speculating here. He might be someone who really likes getting elaborate in his explanations once and then gets bored (and self conscious) repeating himself. IDK, he's a different person from me who's operating in a public space, but I know I can get like that.
I've also heard that Eggers, in print comes off as pretentious, but in the actual interview comes off as very self-deprecating. I think that was on reference in another article (comments) I read where he referring to using cg as a moral sin.
He's a bit of an oddball.
I suspected and I think his follow up statement confirms that he was being facetious (and ironically phrasing how he he'd imagine the general public reception of the movie) in describing The VVitch as being boring (though admittedly not in hating the film. Though as I mentioned above, that isn't surprising).
He probably should have clarified those delineations again. My guess is since he probably already did that with another interview, there's a mixture of repeating himself fatigue setting by this point. I'm just speculating here. He might be someone who really likes getting elaborate in his explanations once and then gets bored (and self conscious) repeating himself. IDK, he's a different person from me who's operating in a public space, but I know I can get like that.
I've also heard that Eggers, in print comes off as pretentious, but in the actual interview comes off as very self-deprecating. I think that was on reference in another article (comments) I read where he referring to using cg as a moral sin.
He's a bit of an oddball.
I never intend to offend you. I like you.
I'm more bothered by people biting their tongues and not speaking their mind. Of course, there are limits. I'm no fan of personal attacks. But being clear in ones feelings about what one is talking about is paramount to me. Sometimes nuance needs to be abandoned. Sometimes hyperbole needs to be employed. If someone hates something that I love, while it definitely at times can make me sad, that is where you find the best discussion juice.
And my concern was that he was either becoming or was the kind of narcissist that Lennon was, who took pleasure in showing disdain for the tastes of his own audience and certainly of critics.
I was taking issue with the fact that, in this constant pursuit of empathy we hear about, there is always a rush to assume to worst about people. And the fact that an errant comment about an artist hating their own work, the kind of comment I have read a thousand times by a thousand different artists, was now causing offence just seemed a bit much. Like, can you be considered a shitty person for saying anything now? Even if it is just about yourself, we have to assume others are being slighted? Like, ugh.
Because one thing that you and I always differ on, and I just re-read a conversation of ours last night from a previous discussion, is that I care very much how my words and actions make other people feel and I think everyone should have a certain amount of that.
But, as far as I'm concerned, while I don't want to insult anyone personally, I don't have the same tact with their arguments. If you put an opinion out there, and I see a flaw with it, I'm going to let you know that I think I saw a weakness there. Not to shame. But because we all need to have our arguments bruised up a bit. A point of view that doesn't have a broken nose or two, is not much of a point of view. We need to see what we are saying through the eyes of others. Both the positive and (particularly) the negative aspects.
Not you, crumbs, I can't imagine you praising me, but you get my drift.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm more bothered by people biting their tongues and not speaking their mind. Of course, there are limits. I'm no fan of personal attacks. But being clear in ones feelings about what one is talking about is paramount to me. Sometimes nuance needs to be abandoned. Sometimes hyperbole needs to be employed. If someone hates something that I love, while it definitely at times can make me sad, that is where you find the best discussion juice.
And it's just this general jumping to conclusions I am finding frustrating. I was only trying to shade in other ways to view Eggers comment, one that has nothing to do with the work of others, nothing to do with undermining the appreciation of his fans. A way to look at it that is more empathetic to what Egger's may be alluding to, possibly artistic insecurity, instead of zoning straight in on how careless he is being with the feelings of others.
I was taking issue with the fact that, in this constant pursuit of empathy we hear about, there is always a rush to assume to worst about people. And the fact that an errant comment about an artist hating their own work, the kind of comment I have read a thousand times by a thousand different artists, was now causing offence just seemed a bit much. Like, can you be considered a shitty person for saying anything now? Even if it is just about yourself, we have to assume others are being slighted? Like, ugh.
The suggestion here seems to be that I don't care about how my words make people feel. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no interest in making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But believe it or not, I go through great pains at times to remove all sorts of comments that (while I happen to know they are completely innocuous or completely joking) if read improperly could upset people. That's never my intent.
But, as far as I'm concerned, while I don't want to insult anyone personally, I don't have the same tact with their arguments. If you put an opinion out there, and I see a flaw with it, I'm going to let you know that I think I saw a weakness there. Not to shame. But because we all need to have our arguments bruised up a bit. A point of view that doesn't have a broken nose or two, is not much of a point of view. We need to see what we are saying through the eyes of others. Both the positive and (particularly) the negative aspects.
You say this like I'm out there praising anybody. I'm not in the praise business. Mainly because (and very pertinent to this particular conversation) I have a deep discomfort of receiving praise myself. It only either causes me to be embarrassed or to distrust the person who is delivering it. So I speak to others like I want to be spoken to. I try and engage with them honestly. And with no frivillous and unneccessary pats on the back.
And it's just this general jumping to conclusions I am finding frustrating. I was only trying to shade in other ways to view Eggers comment, one that has nothing to do with the work of others, nothing to do with undermining the appreciation of his fans. A way to look at it that is more empathetic to what Egger's may be alluding to, possibly artistic insecurity, instead of zoning straight in on how careless he is being with the feelings of others.
I was taking issue with the fact that, in this constant pursuit of empathy we hear about, there is always a rush to assume to worst about people. And the fact that an errant comment about an artist hating their own work, the kind of comment I have read a thousand times by a thousand different artists, was now causing offence just seemed a bit much. Like, can you be considered a shitty person for saying anything now? Even if it is just about yourself, we have to assume others are being slighted? Like, ugh.
The suggestion here seems to be that I don't care about how my words make people feel. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no interest in making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But believe it or not, I go through great pains at times to remove all sorts of comments that (while I happen to know they are completely innocuous or completely joking) if read improperly could upset people. That's never my intent.
But, as far as I'm concerned, while I don't want to insult anyone personally, I don't have the same tact with their arguments. If you put an opinion out there, and I see a flaw with it, I'm going to let you know that I think I saw a weakness there. Not to shame. But because we all need to have our arguments bruised up a bit. A point of view that doesn't have a broken nose or two, is not much of a point of view. We need to see what we are saying through the eyes of others. Both the positive and (particularly) the negative aspects.
You say this like I'm out there praising anybody. I'm not in the praise business. Mainly because (and very pertinent to this particular conversation) I have a deep discomfort of receiving praise myself. It only either causes me to be embarrassed or to distrust the person who is delivering it. So I speak to others like I want to be spoken to. I try and engage with them honestly. And with no frivillous and unneccessary pats on the back.
But I think you are misunderstanding something about me and what I'm saying. This isn't about offense. This isn't some socio-political thing and this has nothing to do with the temperature of the times we're in. My comments are about how I, personally, react when I think someone's being an ashole. I hate it. I hate asholes. I always have. And to the degree that I can, in my professional life and my personal life, I have long considered it important to me to stand up to asholes and asholery. I especially hate it when the people acting that way are highly influential people. When I tell you I don't like Death Ship, it has nothing to do with this because we are in a forum, a context, where saying exactly what we feel about these subjects is why we're here. It has contextual relevance. I may even be helping people out by steering them clear of Death Ship, since we all only live so many hours. On the other hand, What John Lennon said offhandedly about Ringo Starr not even being the best drummer in The Beatles, in a terrible context to say such a thing, particularly about a friend, haunted Ringo's career for decades. Only recently has his legacy overcome John's insecurity at the fact that he may have been one of the great artists in the world, but he wasn't even the best musician in his own band. So he took it out on George and Ringo. And the fans. And anyone else he could. John was a very insecure artist and he coped with that by being a jerk to other people. And that sucks. And I don't like that. When I see people who are famous and influential to their fan base (obviously) being inconsiderate of that fan base, it creates a reaction in me that maybe you're not such a nice person. And that may mean nothing about your art, but it matters to me whether or not people are decent people. It just does.
Now Eggers may just be an insecure artist who's still learning how to speak publicly, and he may have a good point and I think the way he says it in the earlier interview is better than he handles himself in the NYT. But when I went after him there was also an element of, "Really, dude?" to it. You make a movie that is pretty much universally praised and you say you hate it? Do you really? Or is that just a cool thing to say? Are you already such an auteur that you hate work you do that people accept as great because it's still not great enough for you? Sure, you may have frustrations that even though you made a really good movie you still didn't quite get your vision on the screen... welcome to Art, kid, hope you're tough enough to enjoy the ride. 'Cause now that the movie you say you are proud of has bombed majestically, you're probably either going back to making Indies or you're gonna have to work for Marvel, and then how much are you gonna hate your work?
You say this like I'm out there praising anybody. I'm not in the praise business. Mainly because (and very pertinent to this particular conversation) I have a deep discomfort of receiving praise myself. It only either causes me to be embarrassed or to distrust the person who is delivering it. So I speak to others like I want to be spoken to. I try and engage with them honestly. And with no frivillous and unneccessary pats on the back.
I said that because, as you say here, it's not your personality to praise. And I know that about you. It was supposed to be a joke among two people who may be different but have been talking to each other for a long time.
Well, I hope you're right. It's hard for me to pull for artists who are asholes, even when their art is good. I hope he doesn't put me in that position.
- You find your movie boring?
I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story. But in theory, no, I don’t find a movie like that boring. In fact, I watch movies that are much, much more boring than my two films with great pleasure.
- But it does sound like you have the self-awareness to be able to say, “This is how my work might be perceived by a mainstream audience.”
“The Witch” got a lot of [expletive] for false marketing of a horror movie. I mean, I think it’s a horror movie, but I can understand how people looking for a certain formula weren’t satisfied. But with “The Northman,” it’s challenging because I’m trying to do both.
I hate “The Witch,” but that’s another story. But in theory, no, I don’t find a movie like that boring. In fact, I watch movies that are much, much more boring than my two films with great pleasure.
- But it does sound like you have the self-awareness to be able to say, “This is how my work might be perceived by a mainstream audience.”
“The Witch” got a lot of [expletive] for false marketing of a horror movie. I mean, I think it’s a horror movie, but I can understand how people looking for a certain formula weren’t satisfied. But with “The Northman,” it’s challenging because I’m trying to do both.
I'm not being rhetorical in that query. I see it happen a lot, often don't know why it happens, and we have a concrete case of it happening here, so I kind of want to pick it apart why that interview seemed to be selectively misread (at least partially misread to be misleadingly quoted in a selective manner).
ETA: Written before the last two posts, which kind of informs my guess as to what happened, but I'm still curious to see it deconstructed a bit.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
My comments are about how I, personally, react when I think someone's being an ashole. I hate it. I hate asholes. [...] I have long considered it important to me to stand up to asholes and asholery.
Now Eggers may just be an insecure artist
who's still learning how to speak publicly
Cause now that the movie you say you are proud of has bombed majestically, you're probably either going back to making Indies or you're gonna have to work for Marvel, and then how much are you gonna hate your work?
It really sounds like I read the correct articles first. But the quotes in the interviews I read made it sound like, he did The Northman almost more as a personal challenge to himself, but he wants his next film to go back to doing smaller things (or at least, the next thing is a smaller thing).
I'll put this out there partially as a reason why he might care about being able to do a bigger action-adventure movie even if he prefers smaller movies. Going back to Kubrick (because, sadly, with me, all concrete examples go back to Kubrick for some, tired reason), a person might not want to be someone who makes movies which are all about the big, summer, blockbuster special effects, but, if you want to make something like a 2001, you're going to need to know how to direct a movie that has groundbreaking special effects. Or some analogous aspect.
Last edited by Little Ash; 05-17-22 at 08:19 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
X
Favorite Movies
Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?
__________________
A hundred percent death proof.
Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140
A hundred percent death proof.
Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140
So, Crumbs is alluding to a phenomenon I've really noticed in discussions about filmmakers and things they say about movies, where people take statements in print in such a literal, contextualess (I know, not a "word" - Imeanwhatarewordsdotheyexisthowlonghavetheyexisteddotheymeananythingletsfindout), kind of absolute/concreate way, that often puzzles me. In this case, I'm actually curious how in quoting the article, you left out the next two immediate lines that deflated "the boring" descriptor.
I'm just wondering why your quoting of the article didn't include the bolded parts, which were immediately followed what you did quote? Did you come across the article quoting those specific parts (presumably in outrage or in denigration of The Witch?)? Was it a quick skim and you just happened to miss those parts? For some reason when reading, they nor their possible ramifications just didn't stick? e.g. Maybe because, they didn't undermine the fact that he now hates The Witch, and that was your primary take-away, and the emotional response to that made it hard to realize the initial negative description of it wasn't his actual opinion of it, nor the reason why he actually dislikes it (because the memory wants to grasp to reasons, but since there actually weren't any given, grasped to the ironic, and thus false, one presented)?
I'm not being rhetorical in that query. I see it happen a lot, often don't know why it happens, and we have a concrete case of it happening here, so I kind of want to pick it apart why that interview seemed to be selectively misread (at least partially misread to be misleadingly quoted in a selective manner).
ETA: Written before the last two posts, which kind of informs my guess as to what happened, but I'm still curious to see it deconstructed a bit.
I'm just wondering why your quoting of the article didn't include the bolded parts, which were immediately followed what you did quote? Did you come across the article quoting those specific parts (presumably in outrage or in denigration of The Witch?)? Was it a quick skim and you just happened to miss those parts? For some reason when reading, they nor their possible ramifications just didn't stick? e.g. Maybe because, they didn't undermine the fact that he now hates The Witch, and that was your primary take-away, and the emotional response to that made it hard to realize the initial negative description of it wasn't his actual opinion of it, nor the reason why he actually dislikes it (because the memory wants to grasp to reasons, but since there actually weren't any given, grasped to the ironic, and thus false, one presented)?
I'm not being rhetorical in that query. I see it happen a lot, often don't know why it happens, and we have a concrete case of it happening here, so I kind of want to pick it apart why that interview seemed to be selectively misread (at least partially misread to be misleadingly quoted in a selective manner).
ETA: Written before the last two posts, which kind of informs my guess as to what happened, but I'm still curious to see it deconstructed a bit.
To me, it seemed like he was ramping up on this point and it still does, but I hope he's not. I'd just be a lot happier if he said something like, "I know The Witch was very well received but there are some things I wish I had done better." That's a much more thoughtful and mature way of stating it, in my eyes. Like, recently I read a contemporary interview with Coppola and he was just so grateful for everything in his career and he basically had no regrets seeing everything as part of the process. Of course, when he was younger, Coppola thought diamonds came out of his ass. I guess it's just a young (male) director thing, but you don't always see it and I wonder what makes some of them, seemingly more the "auteur" types, act more aggressive in this way.
I feel like this is somehow an attack on my username.
Reading some of his comments and explanations of now feeling like he's a real director after The Northman, it does read a lot like, "I've finally gotten over my imposter syndrome."
The dude, reportedly, went off for five minutes on shark vaginas during a Q&A for The Lighthouse. My gut says he's someone who's never going to learn to speak publicly. At least, not entirely. At least, not in the way we mean here.
Has it bombed? I don't pay attention to the box office. That's unfortunate.
It really sounds like I read the correct articles first. But the quotes in the interviews I read made it sound like, he did The Northman almost more as a personal challenge to himself, but he wants his next film to go back to doing smaller things (or at least, the next thing is a smaller thing).
I'll put this out there partially as a reason why he might care about being able to do a bigger action-adventure movie even if he prefers smaller movies. Going back to Kubrick (because, sadly, with me, all concrete examples go back to Kubrick for some, tired reason), a person might not want to be someone who makes movies which are all about the big, summer, blockbuster special effects, but, if you want to make something like a 2001, you're going to need to know how to direct a movie that has groundbreaking special effects. Or some analogous aspect.
Reading some of his comments and explanations of now feeling like he's a real director after The Northman, it does read a lot like, "I've finally gotten over my imposter syndrome."
The dude, reportedly, went off for five minutes on shark vaginas during a Q&A for The Lighthouse. My gut says he's someone who's never going to learn to speak publicly. At least, not entirely. At least, not in the way we mean here.
Has it bombed? I don't pay attention to the box office. That's unfortunate.
It really sounds like I read the correct articles first. But the quotes in the interviews I read made it sound like, he did The Northman almost more as a personal challenge to himself, but he wants his next film to go back to doing smaller things (or at least, the next thing is a smaller thing).
I'll put this out there partially as a reason why he might care about being able to do a bigger action-adventure movie even if he prefers smaller movies. Going back to Kubrick (because, sadly, with me, all concrete examples go back to Kubrick for some, tired reason), a person might not want to be someone who makes movies which are all about the big, summer, blockbuster special effects, but, if you want to make something like a 2001, you're going to need to know how to direct a movie that has groundbreaking special effects. Or some analogous aspect.
Yeah, it apparently has made back like 10% of its budget. Bummer.
I don't quite follow the username comment
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I don't quite follow the username comment.
Yeah, it apparently has made back like 10% of its budget. Bummer.
Yeah, it apparently has made back like 10% of its budget. Bummer.
I can't remember the last time I looked at the box office numbers of... well, any movie. But since I guess it's relevant for his future career, I'm seeing:
Budget: 70-90 million
Box office: 58.4 million
That's... probably bad at this point... I'm guessing? I really don't know how to interpret box office numbers. Or budgets either.
I saw some articles how it seemed to climb from bombing up to something more respectable looking in a manner that's unheard of these days. But I don't know if "more respectable" means "makes the investors feel good about giving him money and will want to give him money in the future." Such as good, "RoI" does or even, "profitable."
Well, here's to hoping that it doesn't prevent what's next.
e.g. I've never heard any word of a new Robert David Mitchell movie after Under the Silver Lake.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I can't remember the last time I looked at the box office numbers of... well, any movie. But since I guess it's relevant for his future career, I'm seeing:
Budget: 70-90 million
Box office: 58.4 million
That's... probably bad at this point... I'm guessing? I really don't know how to interpret box office numbers. Or budgets either.
I saw some articles how it seemed to climb from bombing up to something more respectable looking in a manner that's unheard of these days. But I don't know if "more respectable" means "makes the investors feel good about giving him money and will want to give him money in the future." Such as good, "RoI" does or even, "profitable."
Well, here's to hoping that it doesn't prevent what's next.
e.g. I've never heard any word of a new Robert David Mitchell movie after Under the Silver Lake.
Budget: 70-90 million
Box office: 58.4 million
That's... probably bad at this point... I'm guessing? I really don't know how to interpret box office numbers. Or budgets either.
I saw some articles how it seemed to climb from bombing up to something more respectable looking in a manner that's unheard of these days. But I don't know if "more respectable" means "makes the investors feel good about giving him money and will want to give him money in the future." Such as good, "RoI" does or even, "profitable."
Well, here's to hoping that it doesn't prevent what's next.
e.g. I've never heard any word of a new Robert David Mitchell movie after Under the Silver Lake.
I am disappointed, I haven't seen the film but I assume if the guy who made The Witch and The Lighthouse made it, and with great looking trailers, it's probably pretty good. And I want good movies to be successful so they keep making them.
Reading more of the interview, I think it's very likely that what are meant to be self-deprecating remarks are coming off more as flat and dismissive.
I mean "In theory, no, I don't find a movie like that boring"?
At the very best, I think that he seems to show a tendency for being thoughtless in how he talks about things that are collaborative efforts.
If I had done any kind of significant work on The Witch and then read the director saying "I hate The Witch, but that's another story", I'd be pretty disappointed and upset. (Then again, maybe the people who have worked with him understand how he tends to talk and don't take it personally, who knows.) My gut is still that it's disrespectful, and hopefully unintentionally so.
I mean "In theory, no, I don't find a movie like that boring"?
At the very best, I think that he seems to show a tendency for being thoughtless in how he talks about things that are collaborative efforts.
If I had done any kind of significant work on The Witch and then read the director saying "I hate The Witch, but that's another story", I'd be pretty disappointed and upset. (Then again, maybe the people who have worked with him understand how he tends to talk and don't take it personally, who knows.) My gut is still that it's disrespectful, and hopefully unintentionally so.
X
Favorite Movies
X