Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,185
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 741
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:51:58 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Who actually are the best directors?

Started by Shoulders?-Stomach!, April 17, 2012, 12:49:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thenoise

JESUS FRANCO

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001238/

194 films to his name (and counting), and every one of them good, or at least, genius.

MojoJojo

Nolan's lack of humour is an interesting thing to contemplate - with Batman, it's one of the few ways to go. The base concept is so ludicrous[nb]has anyone pointed out it's not a very good bat costume? Presumably the only reason anyone knows he's supposed to be a Bat is because he keeps on saying "I'm Batman" all the time[/nb] that it's hard to make it work. Burton's fantasy is one way, but that's uniquely him, and even there I think there is a tone problem. And if you go the humour route, the entire concept collapses and you end up with panto. You basically need a lot of people blind to how ludicrous it is; in real life Batman would be scary in the same way Boris Johnson is scary, an obvious lunatic who is inexplicably successful.

But then it's not just Batman, but everything he's done. And I also think of the Joker in TDK... the Joker is like Nolan's female characters - more of a concept personified than an actual character, and again no actual humour.

I suppose I'd say Nolan is very good within his limits. It's actually a pretty special talent to be able to work round his weaknesses, rather than letting them completely ruin his films. It does sort of suggest he's not going to improve much though.

Talulah, really!

Quote from: shiftwork2 on April 24, 2012, 02:38:32 PM
Nobody has ever managed to explain the significance of Kubrick's repeated use of the Christmas tree throughout Eyes Wide Shut.  It's a recurring image, a visual leitmotif if you will.  What does it mean?

Christmas Trees are, of course, standard MONARCHMINDCONTROLZOMGNEWORDERBLUEMYMONDAY symbols of Satanic Snake worshipping cults.

The tinsel represent the snake descending from what ever snakes on a higher plane they exist on, down through the tree of life to consume the sacrificial offerings. Obviously.

The whole film is awash with occult symbolism[nb]As is every other film in existance apart from "Carry on Cabbie" curiously enough.[/nb], mirrors, masks, hooded figures, pentangles[nb]what a great band they were![/nb], etc, etc. Google "Occult symbols" "eyes wide shut" and lo and behold as if by dark magic numerous rabbit holes[nb]http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/eyes-wide-shut-occult-symbolism.html
for example[/nb]will appear down which you can fall in to a strange wonderland (as in "I wonder what sort of people believe this stuff" and then "However when you see all this popping up again and again you can't help wonder if there isn't something odd going on. )

The snake on Superman's chest is classic example, like the Fed-Ex arrow once you know it's there you can't unsee it!

That space at the top right that's its eye and it's looking right at you!









MojoJojo

The Christmas Tree is obviously a moon rocket.

Can I just apologise for the "good within his limitations" comment? I might as well have said "he's good if you like his films" and 73%.

shiftwork2

The use of Christmas trees at Christmas is a red herring.  Several trees are present.  One at the apartment, another at the big fuck-off Christmas party, one at the doctor's office, and one at Domino's rented room shortly before she offers Dr Harford one of her luxury shortcrust deep-filled mince pies under the mistletoe.  So what do they symbolify?

astrozombie

Quote from: thenoise on April 24, 2012, 06:46:50 PM
JESUS FRANCO

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001238/

194 films to his name (and counting), and every one of them good, or at least, genius.

Ha! I was just thinking of posting his name myself.

Franco is a class director, I wouldn't agree that they're all great, "The Devil Hunter" is a stinker and I was never too keen on "Oasis of the Zombies" either, however "99 Women", "Bloody Moon", "Barbed Wire Dolls", "Vampyros Lesbos" and the Fu Manchu movies he made are all great. If you can get over the extreme low-budget and tit's-for-tit's sake elements they are great movies. His style is so prominent, I have never seen another director who can use zooms so brilliantly. Also the use of music in his films is fantastic.

I love to imagine Franco in the prime of his career. I love how his meetings were more or less a producer (usually Erwin C. Dietrich) sat with Franco and telling him, "Look, this studio needs about seven lesbian vampire films, four women in prison pictures and a couple of slasher films, here's a tenner, come back to me next week with all of them." and he'd just shoot off to West Germany and pump them out.

Aside from Takashi Miike I can't really think of any really prolific director's like that working today. You'd think with new digital media there'd be a tonne of them.

thenoise

Dietrich has some great stories to tell, how Franco and his actors would flee a hotel without paying and tell Mr Dietrich that his finished film was in the safe - he would pay the bill, and sure enough, no film :-)
And he'd not only finish a film on time and on budget, but film another one along side it in secret and sell it to someone else.  He's not really a conman though cos he just used the money to make yet more films!

Amazing how digital technology hasn't caused a boom in independent film-making, in the same way that cheap(er) film equipment did in the 70s.  Or maybe it has and I just haven't noticed.  Kids today are more interested in shooting 5 minute youtube skits than proper features AMIRITE??!?!?!?

Sam

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on April 23, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
but to complain that the art form as a wider entity doesn't have more of those films seems to be a slightly wilful misinterpretation of how they're made.

I don't want more films to be made like this, just a little more understanding and less hostility about this style of film from people who are well informed about most other media, but filmically illiterate. For example, when The Tree of Life came out and was championed by the critics of The Guardian, every article they wrote was full of ignorance and hatred in the comments section of the website. You could understand the level of trolling on YouTube etc but Guardian readers should know better!

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on April 23, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
And I'll also recommend against the level of analysis Sam recommends about film, as down that hole leads to the miserable analysis-for-its-own-sake trap of postmodernism.

You misunderstand me again. Such analysis is after the fact and very much generalised contemplation, an attempt to understand why you appreciated it so much and what the conditions were in which that arose. I don't sit with a notebook whilst watching a film, and I don't have much taste for acadedemic film criticism. However, I like to know why I like something, and going down that 'hole' leads to an even greater understanding and love for things, certainly not misery.