Do You Hate It When Historical Directors Are Discussed By Their

Non-Contemporaries?

I don't wanna see some young punk **** director discuss Vittorio De Sica or Ingmar Bergman. If I'm watching a documentary on a great director who has been dead for years, I'd like to see those other greats, someone who is in his class, and also closer to the times they lived, not the flavor of the week (which probably tastes like **** anyway).

The only director alive today who's well versed enough in cinema history to intelligently discuss the great directors of the past is Peter Bogdanovich.

Nope.

For a few reasons:

1) There are many contemporary directors who have a solid understanding of film. Taika Waititi is on the younger side for a director, but I would happily listen to him discuss his influences. Ditto Jordan Peele, Greta Gerwig, or Leigh Whannell.

2) A younger director discussing someone from generations earlier is cool because it shows that the influence of someone like Frank Capra (whose last film was from the 1960s) is still alive 60 years later.

3) I feel like there is often the opposite criticism--if a younger director only discusses more recent directors, people scoff and go "De Palma?! Pffft! That's your reference? What about Bergman?! What about Lang?!"

4) The participation of a "hot" director can bring interest to a story. You can bag on someone like Tarantino all you like (and heaven knows I often do), but you cannot deny that he's helped to bring many films (like Lady Snowblood) to a higher profile. If a younger director is genuinely passionate about a director, I say let them talk them up--it might create interest in a younger audience who might otherwise be hesitant to watch "old" movies.

I will agree that if you want testimony about the impact of an author at the time they were working, then, yes, it can add a layer of authenticity to hear from someone who actually experienced it. But if you want to understand historical context, someone who has done a lot of research can do a splendid job.

Was there a specific interview or documentary that made you feel this way?

Yes, and the recent Ben Mankiewicz interviews of Bogdanovich on TCM's The Plot Thickens podcasts (free to listen or download) are a good case in point.

Also there are many books, articles, videos etc. which contain commentary by and about Welles, Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, etc.-- contemporaries reflecting upon contemporaries. Fascinating insights.

I think quite the opposite. To me it would be scary if modern-day directors (good or bad) didn’t reference the greats. Or even acknowledge that they ever existed. I love it when young directors, e.g., acknowledge Ingmar Bergman. I think he would too if he were still with us.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

This is the same OP who started a thread dedicated to quotes from filmmakers trash-talking each other, right?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I know what you mean, and you make good points, but yes, there have been quite a few documentaries that interviewed my so-called "Director of the Month", and now they're back to be almost unknowns. I've seen that in other forms (comedy, music) which give me that same feel. My thing is that if you're going to make a documentary on someone like Luchino Visconti, I'd rather have those who worked with him interviewed, as well as directors say of the neo-realistic movement, because they were encroaching new ground simultaneously, using the similar technology, and also living under the same time period. In the case I mentioned - post WWII, so they lived it, and understand it. Many of them worked with the same actors (De Sica, Visconti, Fellini, etc) which brings a more important element during an interview. It's usually (in my opinion) a no-good director who made money, and decides to "produce" who puts his money and his name on a picture, and will make sure he's interviewed as an expert. I wish I could bring an example, because I've seen so many director documentaries where the younger guy who is being interviewed was completely disliked and disrespected by the man he's discussing, as though they were best friends.

Ah, I agree, but that's the opposite of what I'm thinking... For example, if they were making a documentary on Scorsese, I DO want him to mention all the old Italian directors he admires, and I have seen at least one documentary of his, and even though I'm not a fan of his, I do like his enthusiasm for those who came before him.

But just because someone hasn't gone on to be successful doesn't mean that their understanding or appreciation of an older filmmaker is wrong.

But there's a fundamental problem here. Anyone Visconti's actual age would now be 114 years old. And someone a generation below him would be 84-94 years old. Say some fresh-faced 20 year old worked with Visconti on his final film--that person would now be 64 years old. Give it another 20 years, and restricting interviews to actual contemporaries will leave you with no one left.

I mean, if you're making a biography, yes, it makes sense to get as many primary sources as possible. But if you're wanting to understand someone's influence on film at their prime, I think that someone with a strong historical understanding can do a good job.

There are video clips that are 114 years old


I wish I would have added in my initial post that I don't like when 99% of the interviewers are those who never met the director, didn't work around the time, and seem to know very little, and only chosen because they are the modern money-makers.

Don't worry, your disdain for anyone or anything more recent than the Carter administration is well-known around these parts so you don't need to spell it out in every single post.

But seriously, isn't that just the way of things? There's only so much archival material from the old days to begin with and, like Takoma said, if the creators in question are old/dead enough then their contemporaries and/or colleagues will be in a similar condition and you can't get new material from them anyway. The idea of who knows "enough" to warrant being interviewed also sounds a little questionable.

Look, I'm not opposed to a good old-fashioned curation of archival material. I Am Not Your Negro does an absolutely fantastic job of crafting and contextualizing using almost all archived footage.

But a big part of a retrospective report on someone is understanding the lingering impact of their work. I think that contemporary voices are important for this aspect.

Worse, it's never good to fall into the trap of "the good old days". Art is always evolving and changing, informed by its past. It's fine to love/prefer work from a certain era, but art becomes stagnant if it does not move forward. Any great director is a link in a chain. There is what came before and there is what came after, and both are important to understand someone's legacy.

And, frankly, if you rely solely on archival footage you run the risk of never hearing from people who were more marginalized at the time, but who might have powerful things to say about the impact of certain directors/films.

Most documentary filmmakers want to sit down and interview people. A great Ken Burns primary source bonanza is all well and good, but most documentarians want to be in the room with their interviewees.

Again, which documentaries are you talking about here?

No, because anyone and everyone has their opinion.

__________________

Imagining a Vischonti documentary where the interviewees are contemporaries are dudes like De Sica or Fellini but they end up spending the whole time complaining about how shallow he is for making film after film about self-absorbed aristocrats.

First question. How has art evolved? I would say it's devolved. And I don't only mean movies, but music as well. I don't read fiction (I prefer biographies), but from other message boards and people I know who do read fiction complain about writers today and always seem to revert to people like Thomas Wolfe, Faulkner, Shakespeare.. Most of my laments of the last 40 years (I'm almost 40) is to find people who might say, "OK, 99% of it is crap, BUT, maybe you'll like this". I keep giving "new" stuff a chance, bending backwards, even elevating them because I'm surprised by anything great being made in my lifetime. Even here, I'll give an extra point (1-10) if something is decent, and I'll do the reverse for an older movie. I can be pretty harsh on a director because I expect more from them.. I have spent a lot of time trying out newer stuff, and usually I'm let down. Why do I keep doing it? Because I'd like to see something great made in a time I was alive, especially post-2000, when I became an adult and was conscious of what was happening. I would be familiar and maybe more in-tune with something I lived through. Also, I have always wanted that feeling I see in others who look forward to a new movie by a director they love, or a new album, or seeing a concert of a band in their prime, as opposed to me having to settle for half the band, or bands from the 60/70s who can't deliver the same performance because of age. The last great movie is now 12 years old (There Will Be Blood), but it isn't anything new in terms of art-form. It has a fine script (adapter from a great book and author, Upton Sinclair, despite the movie only interpreting the first 100 pages) and a great performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, but I have no problem with that. I just don't think there's been any evolution in a long time, but again, it's no problem if there's something tangible. "Buffalo '66" is more than 20 years old, and I like it more, but its also a movie that takes place in modern times, as opposed to "There Will Be Blood" which takes place between 1894-1928.



A few days ago, I was looking up documentaries online, and passed on it because the "stars" were directors I didn't care for. I remember looking at the IMDB page to see who was included, and there was no one I was interested in. On the flip side, I've seen some good ones on directors such as Luchino Visconti, Ingmar Bergman, John Cassavetes.. Even some who aren't my favorites (Fellini, Sam Peckinpah, Orson Welles, Fassbinder). Speaking of favorites, there are NONE of my very favorite, Vittorio De Sica. The one on Bresson was actually in Dutch, and out-of-print (luckily, there is the web), nothing on Capra. There's one on John Huston, no where online. Nothing on Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Aki Kaurismaki, etc.. But there have been times I'm watching something that is say five to ten years old, and the "new" guy on the block is no longer even talked about - it was just a commercial fad.


You mentioned leaving out those who were marginalized at the time.. I'd love to see people who weren't as "big" then, but because of availability, are brought closer just by process of elimination. I never said I wasn't interested in what other actors, editors, or anyone else they worked with, including the families of these people. I just said I'd prefer a certain kind of director. Not just those they knew, or those who were competitors, but those who matched the quality, too.

The reason I'm so serious about this is because I have nothing left. I only love music, movies, and comedy. I'm not interested in anything else. The things people say they love (family, money, video games, sports) don't interest me at all. My traveling days have been over for years, so there's more of urgency and time I can dedicate to the few things I do like. I'm also a musician, writer, and so its extra important to find great stuff, wherever I can, from whatever part of the world... But what happens after 20 years (when I first started to "study" movies), is I become more self-aware of what I like, and with the limited time we all have, I'm going to go with the probabilities -- I'm not going to deprive myself of the only pleasure I get out of life.

Well, I would say that the advent of sound in film is an evolution. I would say that the advent of color in film is an evolution. I would say that the wide-spread availability of subtitles (allowing one to hear the original actor's performance and still access content made in a language one does not speak) is an evolution. I would say that the strides made in special effects/CGI is an evolution. I would say that our understanding of how stories can be told (from several points of view or in a non-linear fashion) is an evolution. I would say that the technological advances that have allowed many people to make films entirely independent of a studio system is an evolution.

I read about 50 books a year and about 3/4 of what I read is contemporary. There is plenty of great fiction being put out today across multiple genres: drama, mystery, sci-fi. If you can't find good fiction, you aren't trying very hard.

You have to keep in mind that most films OF ALL TIME are kind of garbage. I watch plenty of movies from the 40s and 50s that are straight up trash. And not fun trash. But any time you are talking about art from several decades removed, culture has done the job of elevating the good stuff and forgetting about the chaff. The same thing is true of music and books.

I think there is a lot of compelling and/or wildly enjoyable cinema from the last 20 years: 3-Iron; Hot Fuzz; Lilya-4-Ever; Moonlight; Into the Spiderverse; The Man from Nowhere; Volver; Zodiac; The Florida Project just to name a handful.

It's fine to like what you like. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect movies to be the same as they were in previous decades. If you go in with that as your metric/expectation, you will always be let down. If you go in hoping to encounter something new and different, you might be pleasantly surprised. I seriously don't know how someone could fail to appreciate the immersive, seamless stuntwork in The Man from Nowhere, the innovative use of animation techniques in Spiderverse or the ground-level intimacy of The Florida Project.

I more or less agree. There’s a ton of contemporary fiction from which to choose. I never think of writers who have left us when I read a book. I take the book as it is & hope for the best.

matt: doesn't have time to explore new movies and find contemporary directors he loves even though he's only scraped the surface

also matt: has time to write super-long posts about how modern movies suck

__________________
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.

I've seen a lot more than you think.. I don't make any record of any bad movies because I don't want to give them another mention for the google. After years of self-awareness, I figure to go with the probability. I've seen 8 Bergman's in the last three days, despite seeing most of them, and enjoying that world.
If you give suggestions of new movies you think I WOULD like, I'll give them a chance. I'm not going to deprive myself from pleasure. It would be nice to have directors to look forward to, also. Of course, Kaurismaki, Loach, and Leigh are probably retired (again).

I just did yesterday in another thread. It's hard to recommend you something given your inherent hate for most contemporary cinema, so it'd be best if I just recommended every (new) film I rated at least 4.5 on RYM. If you really wanted to discover new movies, you'd have done it before, when I said the same in another thread.

But to makes things easier, here are two lists of my favourite films I rated 5 and 4.5 stars, respectively, sorted by "newest first:

https://rateyourmusic.com/film_colle...nio/r5.0,ss.ed
https://rateyourmusic.com/film_colle...nio/r4.5,ss.ed

Enjoy!