Reply to Topic
While reading the thread about Nolan vs Fincher (link at bottom of post) I noticed the arguments seemed to be subjective--each member seemed to defend the director he/she liked by asserting their styles were superior.
This led me to wonder, how does one objectively declare the superiority of a director? What, in fact, makes a great director? I realize these questions have been hinted at in the auteur/homage discussion, but I want to raise this as its own thread.
If we are to assert the value of film as art, we must have objective criteria by which to judge the artist--the director. A film director combines some aspects of theater directors (acting, staging, setting, blocking, etc.), aspects of photographer (shot structure, lighting, framing, cutting, etc) , and some which are uniquely film (editing, mixing).
It is easy to say a great director simply accomplishes all of these tasks well, but this arguments seems to fall apart too easily. For instance, a director who shoots nothing but documentary films because he cannot handle actors cannot be deprived of a great directing status. Likewise, Kevin Smith's directing job in Clerks is uncanny, despite some major lighting problems. So certainly, these do not make adequate criteria.
Having faith in my taste, I watched closely five films I consider to be amongst the greatest in American Film History (I chose to stay with American films because my knowledge is of them is above average, but my knowledge of foreign cinema I consider lacking). I tired to vary the genre of films so I could look for an overarching simiilarity: High Noon, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Star Wars, and Halloween.
What was striking was the consistency of each of these films. Each film set forth, for lack of a better word, a thesis. These directors then used the ENTIRE FILM to explore that thesis. For instance, Lucas's thesis seemed to be the eventual triumph of humble good over arrogant evil. Consider then, the costuming-the Rebels had faces, the Imperials had masks. Consider the staging--a lone Han Solo covers the escape of the Millennium Falcon by placing himself at odds against a squad of stormtroopers--them arrogantly in the open, him desperately seeking cover. Consider the shot framing--the way Vader seems to always enter from the gate of some foreboding hell.
It was not simply a thematic consistency which makes these movies and their directors great. Nor is it there exploration of film as its own device in creating art, and not just a way to tape theater. It is the entertainment value. I am not going to sit here and tell you this is the most important aspect of directing. While rare, a movie can be entertaining while poorly made, and well made but dull (which probably happens more often). However, being able to grab and hold the attention of an audience is an imporant aspect of a director.
This led me to wonder, how does one objectively declare the superiority of a director? What, in fact, makes a great director? I realize these questions have been hinted at in the auteur/homage discussion, but I want to raise this as its own thread.
If we are to assert the value of film as art, we must have objective criteria by which to judge the artist--the director. A film director combines some aspects of theater directors (acting, staging, setting, blocking, etc.), aspects of photographer (shot structure, lighting, framing, cutting, etc) , and some which are uniquely film (editing, mixing).
It is easy to say a great director simply accomplishes all of these tasks well, but this arguments seems to fall apart too easily. For instance, a director who shoots nothing but documentary films because he cannot handle actors cannot be deprived of a great directing status. Likewise, Kevin Smith's directing job in Clerks is uncanny, despite some major lighting problems. So certainly, these do not make adequate criteria.
Having faith in my taste, I watched closely five films I consider to be amongst the greatest in American Film History (I chose to stay with American films because my knowledge is of them is above average, but my knowledge of foreign cinema I consider lacking). I tired to vary the genre of films so I could look for an overarching simiilarity: High Noon, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Star Wars, and Halloween.
What was striking was the consistency of each of these films. Each film set forth, for lack of a better word, a thesis. These directors then used the ENTIRE FILM to explore that thesis. For instance, Lucas's thesis seemed to be the eventual triumph of humble good over arrogant evil. Consider then, the costuming-the Rebels had faces, the Imperials had masks. Consider the staging--a lone Han Solo covers the escape of the Millennium Falcon by placing himself at odds against a squad of stormtroopers--them arrogantly in the open, him desperately seeking cover. Consider the shot framing--the way Vader seems to always enter from the gate of some foreboding hell.
It was not simply a thematic consistency which makes these movies and their directors great. Nor is it there exploration of film as its own device in creating art, and not just a way to tape theater. It is the entertainment value. I am not going to sit here and tell you this is the most important aspect of directing. While rare, a movie can be entertaining while poorly made, and well made but dull (which probably happens more often). However, being able to grab and hold the attention of an audience is an imporant aspect of a director.
__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot
I only mentioned Nolan as a short example, but I did mention others. I mentioned legends like Kubrick, Noeg and Hitchcock. I do talk about other stuff.
