Masters in the Making
It was September, 2000 - my first premeditated attempt at the Toronto International Film Festival. At this early date the internet was, at least to me, still a rumour, and with nary a blog nor Wikipedia to consult, the collection of films that filled my program book were unknown commodities waiting to be discovered. Left to my own devices, feeling my way through the sweet con of synopsis hell, I found myself drawn to one page in particular: poised in the still was a tattooed man with cryptic phrases across his chest and arms, of whose blurb promised stylish, suspenseful and even philosophical qualities. I bought my ticket for the film mere days before reading an unfavorable review in the local free press (NOW magazine, I think), and by the time I had entered the cramped basement theater of the now defunct Uptown Cinema, my expectations for the film were pretty low, I knew none of the talent, heard nothing positive about the film, and the very venue reeked of a sense of failure. By the time I had left, however, I was a devout believer in the greatness of the then little known director, Christopher Nolan, and his little known soon-to-be modern classic, Memento.
A big part of why I bother writing at all about film is because of such eureka encounters, going in blind and being caught in the maelstrom of new talent. It would happen again the first time I saw Paul Greengrass’ Bloody Sunday and Todd Field’s In the Bedroom (oddly enough in the same theater, and in the same far-too-close first row). The internet being what it is today, it becomes perhaps harder to get to this point of intimate contact with unfiltered greatness, but it is of course still possible. Cinema needs its heroes, these auteurs, whether or not such a thing can realistically be said to occur in the creation of a film, the mythic importance overrides reason, and this cult of celebrity, when oriented towards proven talent rather than passing fancy, is nearly as important as what happens inside the screen.
The passing of Stanley Kubrick has left a sizable hole in the mythic world of film auteurs; Spielberg, Coppola, Herzog, Scorsese, are not getting any younger, and with the departure of Antonioni, Kurosawa, Kieslowski, and Fellini, the hole is getting wider. The contenders for Kubrick’s mantle need to make themselves known, and where better to look then at the budding filmmakers who put their heart and soul into their first features, the eventful out of left field introductions to new ways of seeing which boldly diverge from the familiar talent-for-hire fare.
This collaborative post is an attempt to pinpoint the masters in the making of recent years, to find filmmakers who demonstrate unique visions that have yet to breakthrough into the Christopher Nolan stratosphere, but who clearly have the ability to get there. Such masters tend to be writer/directors able to fashion an auteur-like imprint on the films they contribute to. Our list is short and open-ended, so wherever obviously lacking please add your own considerations to the comment section.
See our picks under the seat
Steve McQueen (Hunger): While this film may not be released in North America during 2008, I did have the opportunity to catch a press screening of it at TIFF. Co-writer and director of this first feature, McQueen takes what is in many respects a saturated genre, the prison drama, and makes something visually new and narratively ambitious. Hunger is a depiction of the Irish Republican hunger striker Bobby Sands as he deteriorates body and soul onscreen, but really it is far more than that, as it peers into the prisoner revolts leading up to the hunger strikes, and wallows in the indecencies surrounding human suffering for political causes. The twenty minute single shot conversation between Bobby Sands and his spiritual advisor nestled in the middle of the film, although radical in its bravado is more than a gimmick, serving as the essential philosophical underpinning of the whole story. -MIKE
Brad Anderson (Transsiberian): Hardly a newcomer, Brad Anderson has a cult following with his 2001 horror film, Session 9, and 2004 dark and sardonic suspense thriller, The Machinist, which unfortunately got more notoriety for the emasculated star, Christian Bale, than for the film itself. As writer/director of Transsiberian, Anderson continued on with the Hitchcockian flourishes he employed in the Machinist, making a return to form of the kind of old fashion suspense stories that filmmakers today seem to resist. With nods to The Lady Vanishes, Anderson nonetheless forms an original story of tight quarters and cultural fears as an American couple get caught up in a narcotics investigation on the Transsiberian express. Look out for his next film, All Lost Souls, which IMDB reports to be yet another horror film. -MIKE
Bryan Bertino (The Strangers): With virtually no credits or bank account to his name, Bertino managed to procure a couple of fairly high profile stars, put them in what is generally a conventional type of film and then turn it into an extremely effective thriller complete with jump-scares that would normally be considered cliché. Though early comparisons were made to the French scare fest, Ils, it became clear that other than a home invasion premise, this movie was just a bit higher up in scale than at first expected. Instantly upon release, bloggers and critics alike gave the film fairly high marks, but even the dissenters admitted that they looked forward to more from Bertino as he clearly showed a penchant for atmosphere and mood manipulability. His next feature, Alone, starring Nicole Kidman (who is no stranger to the frightful genre) is already hotly anticipated by many in the horror sub culture. I am among them and I think if given nearly carte blanche in terms of direction, prepared to be terrified in a way that few have been able to replicate in years past. - ANDREW
Ben Affleck (Gone Baby Gone): People are still surprised when the name is mentioned as a director for quite an amazing little film from 2007. “That Ben Affleck?” they say. Yes, that Ben Affleck. Again, taking what could be a fairly derivative narrative, Affleck, in his first time on the other side of the camera weaved a complex tale with several layers of intrigue and subplots that could’ve very easily completely fallen apart or at the very least been a convoluted mess. But no, Affleck seemed to be able to get to the heart of each of his characters for a depth uncommon in this day and age. Adding to the story were a series of ethical dilemmas presented to the audience in such a way that they weren’t construed as preachy or presumptuous; simply a story line with heart, depth and kept audiences pondering about for days afterwards. Keeping it close to home seems to have given Affleck a talent no one could’ve believed or imagined. If he is one of the few mediocre actors that for some reason has this knack of presenting great cinema (Eastwood), then if I had my way, he’d never be anywhere but behind the camera for the rest of his career. - ANDREW
Lance Hammer (Ballast): There’s a magic about certain locations; a mood and emotion that some attempt to capture with story telling that is only partly successful. Rarely does a film come along that makes you feel like, for the running time and long after, you’re living in that place, and in that mood but Lance Hammer’s debut Ballast does exactly that. The film doesn’t simply settle for bringing you intimately close to the characters and their stories; it captures the emotion of the place as well, as if the Mississippi Delta itself is a character (an integral character) in the story. Hammer is a careful planner, deliberate and steady with his characters and camera but what’s most impressive about his first feature is the sureness – the belief that what’s been captured will speak for itself without added embellishment. It takes guts to let the people and place speak for itself and Ballast does just that. This feels like the polished work of a man tired of the Hollywood system yet it’s only Hammer’s first film. Can it get much better than this? I expect that the answer is yes and I can’t wait to see what comes next. - MARINA
Jonathan Glazer (Birth): The temptation to write off music video directors still lingers in cinephile circles, despite the artistic success stories of David Fincher and Michel Gondry. Coming out of the UK with the compulsively watchable heist film Sexy Beast, boistered by off-beat pacing and a compelling cast at their best (Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone, Ian McShane) Jonathan Glazer upped the ante considerably with his sophomore film Birth. Showing prowess and confidence with the long take (showcased mightily in the opening shot of the film, and also in a long-reaction shot of Nicole Kidman in a conflict of belief), and a confident tone which smoothly transitions between icy and warm. Glazer has found an interesting middle ground between Stanley Kubrick and Roman Polanski with a deft touch for transcending genre and going into stark original territory. All it will take is for a major break-out film that taps into the right balance of multiplex success and arthouse sensibility. A familiar yet startling original resume (see also his commercial, music video work) suggests this may happen sooner rather than later. -KURT
I particularly like “Next Stop Wonderland” - though I admit to finding Hope Davis just gorgeous in that film, so that probably tilts the scales a bit…B-)
Comment by Bob Turnbull — November 19, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Comment by kurt — November 19, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Comment by rot — November 19, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 19, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
“film auteurs; Spielberg, Coppola, Herzog, Scorsese”
Spielberg is an auteur? What are his trademarks? I guess John Williams music.
“with the departure of Antonioni, Kurosawa, Kieslowski, and Fellini”
No Bergman? Fail.
Comment by Henrik — November 19, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
That’s a good question, sort of why I dislike the auteur tag, even though I did definitely dredge it up. There is something Spielbergian to his films though, but its hard to articulate.
Comment by rot — November 19, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
To put it in perspective, this whole exercise is to try and pinpoint the latent greatness of the filmmaker early in the career, it would be like seeing Spielberg’s Duel or Scorsese’s Mean Streets and calling it then.
Comment by rot — November 19, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Comment by rot — November 19, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
In the meantime, be sure to check the schedule for upcoming screenings in your area (if you’re in the US that is):
http://ballastfilm.com/screenings
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 19, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
You guys should talk about up-and-comers who didn’t end up panning out, like M. Night Shyamalan. What a joker. His movies blow. Hard.
Comment by Andy — November 19, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Screaming kids, broken homes, shinning lights / over exposure, dolly in/zoom out, bookends, 50’s suburbia… bluntly stated morals at the end.
Comment by Rusty James — November 19, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Thematically Munich is the same movie as Saving Private Ryan.
Characters faced with impossible moral dilema. “I hope we’re doing the right thing!”
Lots of pondering.
Characters all do bunch of heroic stuff.
Scene of plodding exposition a character literally says the words “you did the right thing”
“Problem solved!!! Horray!!!” Award winning music. The End.
I like spielberg a lot. But this is a trend in his “serious” films that diminishes them for me.
Comment by Rusty James — November 19, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Too me, that whole movie led up to the conversation at the end when the guys talk about how pointless the whole escapade was to begin with. As I was watching the movie, that was kind of what I was hoping for. It was a sophisticated way to say, ‘If everyone kept taking an eye for an eye…’
But I understand why some people may not have liked the movie. I just happened to enjoy it.
Comment by Andy — November 19, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
And Rusty beat me to the punch of Spielbergs auterist stuff. There is quite a bit.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 19, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Of the scope of what we are looking at here, with respects to ‘master’, its a broader scope than the great mythic figures of cinema, I was thinking more of a Nolan level of achievement and above.
It would be interesting to look at potential successors to Kubrick, is there that level of experimental event cinema happening anymore? The person that most appears to be in line with the temperament of Kubrick is director Todd Field (of Little Children, and actor in Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut). He appears to be a stoic chap in Q&A’s, very committed to film as art, and with his adaptation of McCarthy’s Blood Meridian to the big screen, this could be an experimental event in the making.
as for Spielberg, I do not think I would ever not see a film by him, even after the debacle of Indy IV.
Comment by Mike Rot — November 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
“its a broader scope than the great mythic figures of cinema, I was thinking more of a Nolan level of achievement and above.”
I don’t understand. You think Nolan is above Bergman?
Calling Kubrick films experimental filmmaking rubs me the wrong way. There is something derogatory in the term that seems to diminish his name. I mean, it’s not hard at all to be experimental.
Comment by Henrik — November 19, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Comment by Andrew James — November 20, 2008 @ 12:51 am
But to answer your question I do not rate Nolan above Kubrick, I meant on the lower level of the idea of Master I would put Nolan, Kubrick on the higher level. At the level of Nolan I think the above listed masters in the making can be rated… I was originally going to call the post ‘Who will be the next Kubrick?’ but it didn’t sit well with us.
I guess it is not hard to be experimental but its hard to be experimental and an event, and Kubrick was able to do that.
Comment by rot — November 20, 2008 @ 7:41 am
Comment by rot — November 20, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Comment by kurt — November 20, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Comment by whitechapel — November 20, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
ugh. Reductio ad absurdum is the dumbest form of argument. Inarguably, the guy has themes and motifs running through his prolific body of work. If you’d like to comment on them then be clever about it.
There are many valid criticisms against Spielberg, but you’re a million miles (1,609,344 kilometers) off the mark.
Man, it’s good to have this site back. Fuck elections. As Goon said “Politics, lulz”
Comment by Rusty James — November 20, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Comment by Rusty James — November 20, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Oooo, Tommy Tykwer! Perfume: The Story of a Murderer… one of the most interesting movies I’ve seen in years. An almost perfect film adapted from an even better book.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 20, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Comment by kurt — November 20, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
There should be a list of films that do not age well the more times you watch it… I would put Run Lola Run in that camp… great the first and second time I saw it but I just cannot watch it anymore.
Comment by rot — November 20, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
JGL solves that problem for me.
Comment by Rusty James — November 20, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Bullworth
Comment by Rusty James — November 20, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
The Hitcher (original ’80s version)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 20, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Also, the fact none of you picked Andrew Dominic or John Hillcoat means this entire excercise is a failure.
Comment by Matt Gamble — November 20, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
And I did not contribute to this article. Had I contributed, Andrew Dominik would have been my pick, since 80% of movies that I find out are being made I suggest Andrew Dominik should be the director. Especially any and every Cormac McCarthy adaptation from here on out (i.e. Cities of the Plain, The Crossing, an All the Pretty Horses remake, Blood Meridian, etc.).
As far as Hillcoat, I’ve only watched The Proposition, which is a movie I wet myself over every time I talk about it. Which is why it sickens me to have to wait even longer for The Road.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 21, 2008 @ 12:54 am
I have hopes for Rian Johnson too. “Brothers Bloom” disappointed me, but I still liked it. I’m hoping it’s a film that might grab me more the second time around.
Tarsem is an interesting candidate. He certainly has a sense for amazing visuals.
And though I haven’t seen his second feature “Taxidermia”, Gyorgy Palfi’s first film “Hukkle” is enough for me to keep an eye on him for awhile.
Comment by Bob Turnbull — November 21, 2008 @ 1:25 am
Comment by rot — November 21, 2008 @ 7:51 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 21, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 21, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Gamble, this is to be a feature that we go into from time to time. So because you didn’t see your pick this time, doesn’t mean he won’t show up in the future.
kluvubi
Comment by Andrew James — November 21, 2008 @ 9:34 am
If we were to pull back on this masters in the making thing beyond the last couple years I would have as #1, Shane Carruth, director of Primer. here is a person that made a brilliant film on practically no budget… and IMDb shows nothing for his next project, which is such a shame.
Comment by rot — November 21, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 21, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Tarsem is a solid choice. He would clearly model the auteur theory.
Comment by Matt Gamble — November 21, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 21, 2008 @ 11:12 am
I think I’m now convinced to finally watch The Assassination Of Jesse James.
Comment by Bob Turnbull — November 21, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Comment by kurt — November 21, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Hustle & Flow
Black Snake Moan
nuff said right there. And he wrote both of those two.
His earlier films are said to be good as well, but they are generally unseen and unreviewed, so I assume every IMDB comment is a distant relative
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
As for this time, while I can still nitpick it was a lot more enjoyable. Being more familiar with Amy Ryan now her performance actually seems even more impressing because it doesnt feel like acting, it seems so natural. I forgot how funny and snappy so much of the writing was. And in addition, this looks so much better on DVD. On the big screen it looked more plain, and also apparently the print I watched was wayyyyyy darker, because there were a number of scenes where it was hard to place what was going on and now its crystal clear.
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008 @ 10:01 pm