An interesting question was posited to me the other night and one I actually didn’t have to think about too hard to come up with my own personal answer. After proclaiming Jack White as the musical artist of the decade, someone asked me who I thought was the director of the decade. Without batting an eye I said, “The Coen Brothers.” After a little bit more contemplation I came up with a few other contenders for that title which I’ll get to in a second. But it’s hard to argue against Joel and Ethan Coen; is it not?
Seven quality films released from 2000 to 2009 (plus a great segment in the 2007 anthology picture, Paris je’taime). Those seven films have garnered eleven Oscar nominations and four wins. This doesn’t even include the Oscar nominations A Serious Man will almost certainly receive this year; likely including a best picture nod. If you take any stock in The Golden Globes, the Coens films in the past ten years have collectively received twelve noms and three wins. Not to mention the countless commendations they’ve received from various critics choice awards and entertainment ceremonies. Adding weight to all of this is 2007′s No Country For Old Men; which, beyond its deserved Oscar win for best picture, many fans and critics consider to be one of the top films of the decade (if not the top film).
So based on sheer number of films, quality of said films, recognition and awards, coupled with the uncharted amount of entertaining BTU’s of joy per theater, it is really hard (and I actually think incorrect unless I’m forgetting about somebody) to argue against this duo as the directing/storytelling masters of the decade. And for this exercise maybe irrelevant, but if you tack on the entire history of The Coens work (or even just the two films prior to the start of the millennium) it’s even more obvious as to how prolific these guys actually are and continue to be.
So let’s throw out The Coens for a second. If they weren’t around, I think the conversation could get much more interesting and individual directors could be a little bit more difficult to defend or choose from. First of all, if the director didn’t release at least 3 films in those ten years, you’d almost have to throw them out. I mean sure, Terrence Mallick’s The New World is certainly a masterpiece. But in terms of affecting a decade, his mark is but a smudge of greatness on a canvas of great film making. Not only does there have to be three or more films released, but they should all be consistent in quality and marksmanship if you will.
I’ve picked out a handful of said directors that meet this criteria. I’m not claiming these guys (yes, all guys) to be the only ones deserving to be talked about here and I’m not ranking them in any order. Rather, I’m throwing out some suggestions of persons that meet the above criteria and worthy of being labeled as the director of the decade.
M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN
Probably the most controversial of all the possibilities. Fans of M. Night are fervent in their defense for the love of his films. Detractors don’t just criticize, they savage. For me personally he’s very hit or miss. Some aspects of his movies I really, really like. Other things bore me to tears and occasional outbursts of anger. Either way, Shymalan has produced five films over the past ten years which have averaged over $100 million at the box office. If nothing else, he has an imaginative streak in him and he’s maybe the most compelling film maker for conversation starters. Again though, his lack of consistency in subjective quality and the fact that he’s earned ZERO major awards (unless you count a much deserved Razzie for Lady in the Water) kind of counts him out of the running for this particular honor.
STEVEN SPIELBERG
Funny as it may sound, Spielberg is actually the last person I thought of for the award. Nothing he’s done in ten years has really stuck with me and I haven’t seen any of his films on too many top ten lists of the decade. But simply by reputation alone you have to give the guy some thought right? So let’s see: director of seven feature films (plus a 7-minute short starring Tom Hanks nobody saw), averaging about $150 million at the box office with two Oscars and two Golden Globe nominations. The box office numbers are skewed however due to Indiana Jones IV. Take that movie out of the mix (which was pretty much raked over the coals by everyone) and you get a slightly less impressive number of $122 million per film average. For someone who grossed closer to $250 million in the 90′s and even more than that (adjusted for inflation) in the 80′s, it’s easy to see that Spielberg has begun to lose a little bit of his luster in the eyes of movie goers – both critically and from sheer ticket sales numbers. Still, up until Indy IV he churned out several above average features – some of which were really adored – including Munich, Catch Me if You Can and Minority Report. But is this enough to anoint him director of the decade? I think his time has passed for that distinction. Oh, and I just remembered he was an exec. producer on both Transformers flicks. Fail.
PAUL GREENGRASS
Here is a guy I might be able to get on board with. Fans of action pictures haven’t got much to bitch about with Greengrass and his Bourne franchise – some arguing they are the best action movies of the decade. He directed my personal favorite film of the decade in United 93 and started the decade with the quite amazing Bloody Sunday; which feels sort of like a really good dress rehearsal for United 93. His box office numbers are decent and an Oscar nomination for best director definitely puts him in the running. Consider too that he had only directed one major film prior to the year 2000 – don’t know if that means anything other than the fact that so far he’s put out nothing but four films of excellence (five if you count what is looking like essentially Bourne IV in Greenzone that although hasn’t been released yet, was completed in 2009).
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
If not for the Coens, it’s likely this is the guy I would pick to bestow the honor of RowThree’s director of the decade award upon. Right out of the gate in 2000 with mementO everyone knew we were dealing with someone special. After a relatively successful remake of Insomnia he took a dead and battered (frankly, completely shitty) franchise and sparked new life into it where everyone thought there was none. Batman Begins became an instant hit and was proclaimed by many to be the best comic book superhero movie of all time. That is of course until he and Heath Ledger topped the love for that movie with 2008′s The Dark Knight. Between those he snuck in a smart sci-fi thriller of magic and intrigue that was tragically underseen at the time but amidst a sort of clash with Edward Norton’s The Illusionist became sort of a new classic after its release on DVD. Not only did he direct all of these pieces, but he’s been nominated for screenwriting awards as well; having conceived all of his films beyond just constructing them. Really nice box office numbers, loads of award nominations (including several Oscars) and 4 out 5 films in the IMDb top 100, I’d say this is a pretty impressive decade for Mr. Nolan. And the best part? It doesn’t look like he’s going to stop; with Inception and another Batman film on the way.
WES ANDERSON
Completely adored by his fans and the unique style and tone of each of his four films released this past decade (plus the Hotel Chavalier short film) earned Anderson the distinct honor of being the first guy to pop into my head (after Joel and Ethan of course) on a gut level when considering contenders for the directing artist of the decade. If for no other reason, you’re going to see several of his films (Tenenbaums, Mr. Fox and maybe even Life Aquatic) show up on several top ten of the decade lists. And to be honest, to get just one movie into a list like that is quite the achievement. To get two is nearly unprecedented I would venture. That alone might be enough to qualify him. However, his box office numbers are pretty dismal ($19 million for a film on 2300 screens? Ouch.) and I would bet that most people (“most” meaning those that don’t go to movie blogs all day and spend time analyzing this stuff) would not have a clue who Wes Anderson is if you mentioned the name in casual passing. That again could be mistaken for a strength by some around here, and maybe it is, but he’s just a little bit too distancing and since he sort of does the same thing over and over again (which I’m not saying is a bad thing!) sort of disqualifies him for the label of daring. So alas; as much as I personally like Wes Anderson, when put up against the likes of Nolan or Spielberg, while he is worthy of being in the conversation, he can’t be at the top of it.
SAM MENDES
I was pretty quick to eliminate this name right away. He was a clear choice to consider, but after looking at his filmography of the past ten years (four films), there was an immediate gut level reaction of, “umm… no.” But to indulge inner curiosity, I looked over the films and while beautiful, with a couple of them garnering major critical acceptance, they just don’t stick out as all that prolific or memorable. I just think that too many people would argue strongly against this choice railing that most of his work is rather pretentious (particularly Revolutionary Road), doesn’t earn the emotion it is supposed to instill, rings completely false and is frankly kind of boring. Now I personally do not fit into any of these categories. But the very fact that I can see why these criticisms might be valid for so many people and the fact that there isn’t one title in here from 2000-10 that truly stands out as a masterpiece, I can’t with good conscience even think about giving Mendes the title of director of the decade.
JUDD APATOW
The funny thing about Apatow is how few films he’s actually directed. I can name about ten comedy movies that I automatically label as Apatow films, even if he had no hand in directing them. He has written and produced several but only directed three. Heck, I’ve mistakenly labeled a few films (Land of the Lost or Step Brothers for example) as Apatow movies even if he had absolutely nothing to do with the production. Now, one might just brush that off as ignoramous Andrew but I would argue that A) a lot of people make the same “mistake” and that B) the fact that I do that says an awful lot about this director. The second half of this decade is loaded with quality comedic films. Whether Apatow had a hand in them or not, people continuously labeling them as such show the influence Judd had after the release of just one directed film! Movie goers clearly love his work as it has averaged a strong $100 per film average at the box office (actually quite a feat for SFX-devoid comedies). So while I don’t utterly adore everything (or anything) Apatow has actually personally directed, seeing his influence frickin’ everywhere in several (meaning more than 10) quality belly laughers makes him more than eligible for this title.
DAVID GORDON GREEN
Speak the name David Gordon Green to just about anybody and they’ll respond with, “Who?” You’ll say, “ya know… the guy who directed George Washington and All the Real Girls and Undertow and Snow Angels.” A blank face stares back at you blinking. Then you say, “Pineapple Express?” “Oh yeah, that guy!” So this exchange should almost qualify the guy for the title right there. I mean look at the number of quality of films he’s released while at the same time delivering us an Apatow-like comedy that the main streamers fawn all over. Forget the awards and box office numbers and name recognition. In this case, we’re dealing with a man who is very likely going to emerge as a master craftsman and become a household name one day long after he’s gone and people will say, “where the hell was I when all of these films were going on?” And you’ll say, “exactly.”
DANNY BOYLE
As an initial reaction I kind of feel like Danny Boyle shouldn’t even be considered. But then thinking about what he’s done in cinema in terms of genre diversity (adventure/thriller [The Beach], beautiful horror [28 Days Later], family comedy [Millions], sci-fi spectacle [Sunshine] and then of course a twisty drama/romance/adventure [Slumdog Millionaire]). So in ten years, he’s released two excellent films (one of which was a redefining of an entire sub-genre in 28 Days Later), two mediocre films and one that launched him into super-stardom and received eight Oscars – including best picture and best director. So it seems to me that you can’t delve too far into the discussion of the decade’s most prolific directors and not come across Danny Boyle’s name.
LARS VON TRIER
I’ve saved this name for last since quite honestly I’m not all that familiar with his body of work. Of course there are the arthouse favorites Dogville, Manderlay and Dancer in the Dark that everyone’s heard of, but there are many out there (even among our little circle of trust here in the third row) that absolutely loathe these films. His foreign endeavors I’m embarrassed to say I know very little about, but I know Chacun son Cinéma is brought up quite regularly when discussing “best of” lists. Of course for me the capper is this year’s Antichrist which is not only an artfully gorgeous looking film, but also a bit of a genre bender exhibiting some Lynchian qualities while maintaining cohesiveness despite its lack of restraint. It’s safe to say that if the question was “Who is the best art director of the decade,” Von Trier would be at the top of the discussion.
So now I open it to the floor: who might be considered director of the decade and what sort of criteria did I miss (or which of my criteria is flawed) that one might include in coming up with such a claim for one person. Are any of these directors above worthy of the title? Or did I miss an obvious choice?
*all box office numbers are from boxofficemojo
*all other info is exclusively from Wikipedia articles and the IMDb
Peter Jackson?
Werner Herzog? I’ve only seen Grizzly Man of his from this decade, but I’ve heard good things about Bad Lieutenant, Encounters at the End of the World and Rescue Dawn.
Also Darren Aronofsky? Not everyone liked The Fountain, but some did and Requiem For a Dream and The Wrestler were incredible.
Also, although I love the Coen brothers and they’d certainly be one of my top choices, they did make their two most derided films this decade, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, so I wouldn’t instantly assume they’re the best.
Herzog is an excellent choice. Maybe just for his pure veracity in the absurd. Lots of titles had his hand in them as well. Poor oversight on my part.
Chris Nolan is the most consistent on the above list imho
I’m cool with the Coens as title holders. I wasn’t a big fan of “Burn After Reading”, but I love just about everything else they’ve EVER done. Oh, and their short film in “Chacun Son Cinema” is even better than the “Paris Je T’aime” one.
Not keen on holding box office as any kind of measure for director of the decade, but I know you’re just including it as part of the discussion points for all those listed.
Here’s some I think you missed, including the first one who is my own choice for director of decade:
Steven Soderbergh – Mainstream, art house, experimental, proponent of new technology, driver of new distribution possibilities, works his own cameras, intelligent speaker on film and film history, etc. Yeah, I love the guy. And I don’t necessarily love all his films. But with the 1-2 Oscar punch of Traffic/Erin Brokovich at the start of the decade, the audience pleasin Ocean’s Eleven, the art/heist sequel Ocean’s Twelve, the gorgeous Solaris, Bubble & The Girlfriend Experience, the controversial Che and even something goofy like Full Frontal (most hate it, I like it a great deal) all have different aspects to them. I think he has moved forward the art of filmmaking more than any other English language director I can think of in the past decade.
Takashi Miike – Directed 45 titles (~30 of those being actual feature films whole others were straight to video or TV mini-series). Many were genre-bending, some were quickies, some were fascinating, some were not…But I find he’s always doing something interesting when it comes to telling his story visually – short cuts due to editing, camera placement, framing, etc. I don’t know when this guy sleeps.
Kiyoshi Kurosawa – Seance, Pulse, Doppelganger, Retribution and Tokyo Sonata are all definitely Kurosawa films – speaking of framing, no one quite frames his actors within other frames like he does. Tokyo Sonata is probably his first true dramatic picture (away from genre forms) and he did it magnificently (I had some quibbles about one of the story arcs late in the picture, but nevermind). can’t wait to see where he goes next.
Michael Haneke – Hard to skip over him. He’s riviled in some circles, but “Code Unknown” and “Cache” alone should enable him to participate in the discussion. I haven’t seen “White Ribbon”, but it’s also received much critical acclaim (and that’s not mentioning “The Piano Teacher” and “Time Of The Wolf”). Though the “Funny Games” remake confused, concerned and confounded many, he still has the ability to provoke. I’m not sure I always like what he does, but I’m kinda glad he’s out there (like von Trier) to keep discussion about film, its form and its possibilities going.
Chan-wook Park – Vengeance trilogy. ‘Nuff said. Oh, but don’t forget JSA and his two recent efforts (considered lesser, but always visually captivating and original in their approach to story).
Pedro Almodovar – How did you forget Penelope’s biggest fan?
Claire Denis – I can’t say I’m her biggest fan (really liked 35 Rhums, but Beau Travail still escapes me – haven’t really grasped her intentions yet), but she is provocative, respected, a critical-darling, etc. That doesn’t mean she’s the best, but she has to be in the conversation. I think the term “elliptical” was meant to be used with her films…
Others: Kim Ki-duk, Gus Van Sant, Richard Linklater, Hirokazu Kore-eda, Werner Herzog, Zhang Yimou, Jia Zhang-ke, Guillermo del Toro
To a lesser extent: Tom Tykwer, Nicolas Winding Refn, Darren Aronofsky, Bong Joon-ho
Some might also say Johnnie To, but his films always miss their mark with me a bit – great moments, but also filled with bad comedy and overwrought emotions.
Michael Haneke is a good pick, but I just think he’s too divisive and too many people are out to kill him.
Wook-Park I can get on board with completely.
Claire Denis – I don’t know who that is = need enlightening.
the ones in your “others” list I did consider, but ultimately the others just won over. Any of them could have probably taken Von Trier’s spot though.
Dammit, I keep forgetting to login first! My comment is missing my smiling face!
Dave, I for one loved “The Fountain”.
“Dammit, I keep forgetting to login first! My comment is missing my smiling face!”
Fixed
Oh and Miyazaki! He only just managed 3 releases this decade, but god I love everything he makes. Ponyo’s not out over here yet though.
Speaking of animation, I would have put Brad Bird in, but Iron Giant just snuck into the 90′s, so he only did 2 this decade. Same with Andrew Stanton, I love Wall E and Finding Nemo, but animators can’t churn them out like live action directors can.
And to wave the British flag how about Shane Meadows? I thought This is England was a little overrated, but it’s still very good and Dead Man’s Shoes was awesome. Somers Town was pretty good too and I’ve not seen Le Donk and Scor-zay-zee but it’s supposed to be very good too. I know it doesn’t sound like a massive endorsement, but plenty of other Brits would sell him more successfully.
WTFFF!? Of course Soderbergh should be included! I forgot about my favorite living director? Kill me now.
um, easy, Spike Lee
25th Hour
When The Levees Broke
Inside Man
Bamboozled
or a tie with Gus Van Sant
Gerry
Elephant
Last Days
Milk
Paranoid Park
but my headspace right now, watching and LOVING Freaks & Geeks, I would totally be on board with Judd Apatow too, good choice Andrew.
seriously, I don’t think I have enjoyed a television program as much as Freaks & Geeks… The Wire might be a better show, more profound, but Geeks feels like home to me. Couple episodes left…
Haneke, Van Sant, Jackson, Greengrass. I’m fine with all of those choices.
Kurosawa, Kim Ki Duk and Park Chan wook, David Lynch and Werner Herzog all are highly relevant.
I’d put Michael Haneke at the top though.
Off of your list I would go with Nolan as my first pick. I’d also add Johnnie To because anyone who can come up with Election 1 and 2, Exiled and Sparrow in one decade is doing pretty well in my book.
“Again though, his lack of consistency in subjective quality and the fact that he’s earned ZERO major awards (unless you count a much deserved Razzie for Lady in the Water) kind of counts him out of the running for this particular honor.”
Yeah, unless you’re able to create thoughts and opinions in your head.
Who writes this stuff?
“His foreign endeavors I’m embarrassed to say I know very little about, but I know Chacun son Cinéma is brought up quite regularly when discussing “best of” lists.”
Chacun son Cinéma is a bunch of short segments, supposedly edited together. Triers segment is about him murdering a critic with a hatchet. It’s hardly even a movie. And when you say foreign, do you just mean movies not in english?
“It’s safe to say that if the question was “Who is the best art director of the decade,” Von Trier would be at the top of the discussion.”
All directors are art directors. Some just are shitty artists.
“And when you say foreign, do you just mean movies not in english?”
Yes; or produced outside of North America.
i.e. – Apocalypto is not a foreign film. It is a foreign language film.*
* = though I seem to remember something about that movie not being eligible because of where it got its finanacing from or something. But you get the idea of what I mean.
“All directors are art directors. Some just are shitty artists.”
I see your point, but I don’t believe all directors are art directors. Michael Bay is not creating art unless he says it is art – which I would bet he would just call it cool shit to look at. If that’s your definition of art, then fair enough. Some people are creating a product. Not art. I know its a small semantic difference, but a difference to me nonetheless. And no smaller of a nitpick than you actually calling attention to it.
There is a reason why some theaters are called an art house cinema and some are called multi-plexes. If you can’t see the difference, then I apologize for being so vague.
I don’t know how you have this conversation without Uwe Boll.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
House of the Dead
BloodRayne
Alone in the Dark
BloodRayne II: Deliverance
Maybe the most influential movies based on video games since Super Mario Bros.
My choice for director of decade is Ridley Scott.
He made the wide variety of filmes during the last decade and worked with many actors and actresses.
Gladiator -Russel Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Djimon Hounsou
Hannibal -Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman
Black hawk down -Josh Hartnett, Eric bana, Sam Shepard
Mathcstick men -Nicholas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Alison Lohman
Kingdom of heaven -Orland Bloom, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton
A good year -Russel Crowe, Marion Cotillard, Albert Finney
American Gangster -Denzel Washington, Russel Crowe, Josh Brolin
Body of lies -Leonard Dicaprio, Russel Crowe, Mark Strong
“There is a reason why some theaters are called an art house cinema and some are called multi-plexes.”
yeah, people don’t like to think for themselves, so in order to sell something, you have to throw a label on it.
Film is art Andrew. Though americans hate to acknowledge it.
Sadly it is the American film distribution system that has gone art-house, multiplex, drive-in (and well, in the 70′s there was grindhouse).
But there are some chains that mix and match. The AMC chain here tends to play both blockbusters and artier fare in a ‘multiplex’.
I’m going to agree with the Coen Brothers, and while I don’t think he’d even be in the top ten, with only three films and two documentaries, I can’t let this thread go on with so many mentions and not one for Scorsese, who did some great directorial work with Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and The Departed this decade – as well as his Bob Dylan and Rolling Stone docs.
I don’t want to get into the art/non-art discussion, really, but David Bordwell posits an “art film” genre in his books on narrative, suggesting that what we consider an “art film” is separated from other films by specific narrative structures. I haven’t read him enough to decide what I think about that, and we should probably think of a different term for it than “art film”, but with that thought in mind, an “art film” is not the same thing as a “film that is art.”
Yeah but David Bordwell is not something to be considered a standard (although universities seem to think so). The best thing he ever wrote was the introduction to The Man Who Heard Voices.
He is writing for people who need something to teach, he is not writing about movies, as much as inventing stuff to teach about movies so that universities can keep film programs, and have something to judge exams by.
On the directors, obviously I’m cool with the Coens taking the crown. Among the others, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan would be top of my list. (But Nolan’s 2006 magician film is The Prestige, with Bale and Jackman, not The Illusionist – both are good films, though!)
You left off Almodovar and Soderbergh? Huh.
Ha Jandy. Funny. If you read carefully, I mentioned that Nolan’s film was in a clash with The Illusionist. But I guess I didn’t mention the title of The Presitge. Ah well.
As for art vs. non-art. A guy just pointing a camera at something with very little intent or care about how it looks or feels is not the same thing as somebody like Von Trier who makes a point to get things to look good (as he sees it) in his own artistic way. A guy just wanting to show you an arm being chopped off being it looks “like, totally gross” is not an art film director (to me anyway).
David Bordwell is the devil.
Not a big deal or anything but just to clarify: His name is Lars Trier. The Von is a joke on the snobbery in filmmaking,
Hey, you’re right! I totally didn’t catch that. That’s what I get for skim-reading at work.
“He is writing for people who need something to teach, he is not writing about movies”
“David Bordwell is the devil.”
Really? Did you guys have him stuffed down your throat in school? Have you read his blog? What about “Planet Hong Kong”? Or “Poetics Of Cinema”?
He certainly approaches film in a more academic manner, but he’s still talking about movies. About why certain methods are effective, narrative techniques, stylistic choices, etc. I haven’t read his more general “textbook” publications, but I think he still communicates a strong passion for the art form.
Andrew, Claire Denis is a French director whose films are very much “art house” in nature because they aren’t straightforward narratives (at neither of the ones I’ve seen are and her others don’t sound like they are either) and she doesn’t necessarily explicitly tell the viewer relationships between characters. “White Material” is her latest and it was at TIFF this year. She also made “Trouble Every Day” and “L’Intrus”.
And Mike, though I don’t really agree about Spike Lee (I didn’t care for “Inside Man”, though “25th Hour” is good), “Freaks And Geeks” is indeed an excellent show. Those last few episodes will be hard to watch knowing that you’re almost done…
I read alot of him in school, and I read his book “The way hollywood tells it” where he proves that hollywood storytelling hasn’t changed much during its existence, right down to counting the average length of a cut in a movie up through the ages. Movies aren’t cut faster in Hollywood nowadays, contrary to popular opinion is his conclusion.
I read his blog to see if he was somebody worth the teaching (his books Film Art and Film History are basic books for university courses all over the world, and they’re not bad for schoolbooks, those aren’t the issue), and the first post I read he was defending National Treasure and blockbusters in generel, and the second post I read he was claiming Bergman to be overrated. Coffin nailed.
To me its definitely Chris Nolan, and I think as his career continues history would look back on this decade as his
regarding Bordwell, this post explains my position: http://www.rowthree.com/2009/04/22/the-filmosophy-manifesto/
and I am opposed to academia in general, a preoccupation with the tools to the point of overlooking the purpose. I enjoy reading Film Comment sometimes but like I think I said in a different thread, craft and technique are so low on what I deem important about cinema, that I just can’t be bothered with it.
I have one episode left of Freaks and Geeks, kind of depressed.
Thanks Mike…I’ll dive into it more later and try to comment back in the original thread (don’t want to hijack this one). I expect there’s going to be disagreement though…B-)
I don’t think you need to know, understand or care about things like technique or context to enjoy film. I do believe that adding those topics to the conversation or your thoughts about a film can definitely make things more interesting. It gets into “why” you had a personal reaction to the art form – why did I feel so tense during that scene? why did I choke up there? why did this film work and that one didn’t?
More later…
“It gets into “why” you had a personal reaction to the art form – why did I feel so tense during that scene? why did I choke up there? why did this film work and that one didn’t?”
all fictions, and you can either play with these fictions in a reductive manner, like a engineer looking at the structure of the universe, or you can really give in to the fiction and unearth/create something about you, you never knew.
as mentioned in that post “one does not feel form and content separately, but as a functioning whole which when whole ceases to be the sum of its parts.”
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, rot. I love looking at things academically and if it weren’t prohibitively difficult to get a job in the humanities doing anything other than teaching composition, I’d be in academia now.
Obviously academia can easily go too far toward overvaluing theory and criticism rather than the work itself, but it’s because of academia that we have the vocabulary to even discuss things. You wouldn’t be using the term “fictions” the way you just did if you didn’t have some background in theory.
The thing is, some films are better at generating the reactions you have than others. And some films are successful at generating specific and similar reactions from large groups of people. There is SOMETHING about these films that makes them do that – it’s nonsensical for you and I (and lots of other people) to both react the same way to The New World and then say that reaction is totally personal and subjective has nothing to do with how Malick has made the film. There are reactions that are personal and subjective – like the way I love Australia because I love epic western vistas and Australian accents. I won’t deny that experience, but it doesn’t come from the film. The experience I have watching The New World does come at least partially from the film, because I have no personal emotional connection to Native American culture.
Theory and craft and technique and academic criticism help us to talk about that SOMETHING. It doesn’t have to be reductive. It’s one approach, one avenue, one portion of a reaction to a film.
Ha! Jandy agrees with me (actually, since she phrased it so well, I guess I should say that I agree with her)! So there!
How’s that for reductive…
Just for the sake of equality, I’ll add Julie Taymor in as a female addition to the list for Frida and Across the Universe.
I considered Julie Taymor. She’s visionary and frankly, quite awesome. Unfortunately just too divisive. AtU is one of the more visually interesting and experimental films of the decade. And I think it personally turned out great. It’s in my top 100.
I agree that Park Chan-wook, Steven Soderbergh and Pedro Almodovar deserve consideration for the title. I’ll also add one that, surprisingly, I haven’t seen mentioned here yet: Quentin Tarantino. In this decade, he gave us Kill Bill, Death Proof AND Inglourious Basterds, all of which signifying a fairly new direction in his career (i.e. genre riffs that are way more ambitious and uber-cinematic than his three nineties films).
@Jandy, @Bob, “Obviously academia can easily go too far toward overvaluing theory and criticism rather than the work itself, but it’s because of academia that we have the vocabulary to even discuss things. You wouldn’t be using the term “fictions” the way you just did if you didn’t have some background in theory.”
I enjoy these discussions, I think there are a small few of us who actually do, so lets get nerdy about this…
when I talk about academia I mean exactly the overvaluing you are saying is merely one aspect, so I think right there, semantics need to be clarified. I don’t mean the tools one uses to reason (I do not think academia has a monopoly on them, they just perhaps use them more often). I mean instead a pervasive spirit of overconfidence that what they are doing is in fact an essential component of what makes what they are critiquing significant. Unchecked this kind of behavior can lead one to believe that there is a causality between these perceived mechanisms of the work and the purpose, if not the ‘art’ of the work itself.
Its not the vocabulary that bothers me, its the intent underlying use… controlled terminology like ‘fictions’ is perfectly acceptable when we are trying to communicate an idea (although I think poetics are just as valid when trying to convey an experience of a film). But when you use these terms and this way of reasoning to insinuate that because of a, b and c techniques this film = great (and great means more than technically great but something you would deem belongs in the top ten films of the year), and you are not just ‘playing’ but actually believe that to be the case, then I think you are unduly reductive and derogatorily ‘academic’. Writing reviews for a particular audience has a mercantile logic to it, you want to describe what your going to get, the nuts and bolts, and the audience being film geeks, you will inevitably discuss the technique and may withhold any kind of personal exploration of the themes or the ideas the movie puts forth… I understand that… my problem is how that mercantile logic and the immersion into academia can make us forget entirely what is of real value in a film, not the how it was made, but the what it is trying to get across, the experience of the film (largely as it intends it to be)
SOME films are acceptably reductive, by design… and I use him a lot as an example but I think what the films of Tarantino are thinking of largely is form and content and how they relate to other examples, it is the geek equivalent of this academic preoccupation with being clever. Kill Bill being the worst offender of this kind of self-awareness.
I have been interrupted so I will leave it there.
9 times out of 10 the film is not thinking about how it relates to other films, it is thinking out its story, not the structure but something dramatic to be felt. There can be nuance drawn out by pointing to structural elements, and Frampton talks about that in the linked post above, but its done as a means to an end, not itself an end. I have read a lot of critical essays about films that are about the essay more than the film, about finding associations that best illustrate the author’s ability to source, to identify terms and to link them. They seem to be saying something profound but all they are doing is dissecting the carcass, leaving the essential meaning of the work neglected.
ask not how it is filmed and how it relates to other films but what it is thinking, what do all these many parts aspire to resonate in the audience… surely not nods to its own clever subtexts? How shallow is that?
I’m happy to give the title to the Coens, also. A Serious Man, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Wasn’t There, O Brother, Where Art Thou? – forget about it!
I ranked Paul Thomas Anderson as the best director working today a while back (in terms of what they’ve done before, the stage they’re at now and what I believe they have to offer the world of film in the future) but his There Will Be Blood is the only true masterpiece he has of the last 10 years (Punch Drunk Love I really like, though), with his other two, Magnolia and Boogie Nights, being in the ’90s.
Other contenders for director of the decade for me:
Christopher Nolan (he’s going to be around doing GREAT things in film for a long, long time)
Werner Herzog
Park Chan-wook (for his Vengeance trilogy alone)
Takashi Miike (no one else like him)
Paul Greengrass has done some great things these past few years, too, what with the second and third Bourne movies, and, of course, United 93.
Oh, and Lars Von Trier should automatically be ineligible because of his nonsense Antichrist
Why do I get the feeling I’m going to get lambasted for that last comment?