Best Director

[flipp525]

So I find it rather condescending and arrogant saying that whoever dismisses them ''knows better'' than all of us who supposedly wait for some big name critic to tell us what to like and what to consider masterpiece.

No more arrogant and condescending than your telling me that I "dissent just for the sake of dissent."

taki15, it looks like you're relatively new to this board so, as one of the decade-plus veterans here, let me impart something to you: Damien is definitely one of the best film resources around here and is hardly known for putting out dissenting opinions just for the sake of being difficult or self-congratulatory. He's written books including "Inside Oscar", an excellent resource for Academy Awards trivia as well as a comprehensive look at the nominees/winners year-by-year. I'm not his publicist or anything but I felt the need to jump in and defend against an unwarranted attack.



Edited By flipp525 on 1172608758

[Reza]

I remember years ago reading an interview with him where he said he "marginally" prefers women to men.

Not unlike Richard Burton who despite the womanizer tag also enjoyed sex with men in his youth.

[taki15]

Maybe what I said was wrong. But I never said that my opinion is the right one, nor that I ''know better'' than those who disagree with me.

[Damien]

Daniel, I would have voted for Coal Miner's Daughter in 1980.

One thing that works in Lawrence of Arabia's favor is Peter O'Toole's rather sexually ambiguous screen presence. I remember years ago reading an interview with him where he said he "marginally" prefers women to men.

[Damien]

So I find it rather condescending and arrogant saying that whoever dismisses them ''knows better'' than all of us who supposedly wait for some big name critic to tell us what to like and what to consider masterpiece.

No more arrogant and condescending than your telling me that I "dissent just for the sake of dissent."

[Penelope]

Now, as a representative for the (minority?) straight male bunch of the group, the only one of those films you mention that I adore, Penelope, is Lawrence of Arabia. It is interesting that you mention that film, because I have never thought of it in masculine terms before. I think it is almost the opposite of a "masculine" film, in that Peter O'Toole's performance is in no way traditionally butch, the violence and action are kept at a minimum, and the protagonist has no villain to fight, only himself. In the end, he doesn't even get the valiant death in battle, but dies in a motorcycle crash years later.

Not to mention the fact that T.E. Lawrence is rumored to be homosexual.

FilmFan: Remember that Lawrence is a decade before The Godfather and thus before violence become so extreme (though, to be fair, the violence in Westerns and Gangster films had always been a masculine milieu). But, it's always seemed to me that Lawrence, like the later films, is obsessed with the idea of masculinity--in a way, it presages the films of the 70s and 80s, and its easy to see why it was such an influence on those filmmakers--my own disinterest in the film aside (it's my least favorite of Lean's films--hell, I much more enjoyed Ryan's Daughter than Lawrence).

And anonymous, those rumors of Lawrence's homosexuality are precisely why it's so interesting in this context. Historians acknowledge that T.E. Lawrence was homosexual and that he had a relationship with an Arab; Lean's film, however, completely reverts the issue--Lawrence's quest for masculine identification is compounded by what appears to be a rape at the hands of his Ottoman captors--this is the only hint of homosexuality in the film, and thus the fear of male rape--of being "de-masculinized"--becomes a primary theme in the film.

[flipp525]

But for me, the one who was robbed that year was Jonathan Demme, who wasn't even nominated for Melvin and Howard, which wasn't even nominated for Best Picture.

Totally agree, Damien. I love Melvin and Howard and own the DVD. It's not a pretty film but there's something really quirky and interesting about it and I just love the screenplay. Luckily, Mary Steenbergen was rightfully acknowledged for her wonderful supporting performance (in a year with a relatively weak slate of actresses, too -- I mean, Diana Scarwid?)

I hadn't checked into this thread yet and was surprised to see how vitriolic it had gotten. So if you don't agree with someone else's taste in directors, you're an idiot now? I mean, if that's not the epitome of an on-line sandbox, I don't really know what is.



Edited By flipp525 on 1172594286

[dws1982]

I'm probably the only one who would've voted for Coal Miner's Daughter of the nominees in 1980. Not only does it have Spacek in one of her greatest roles, the details of rural life are dead on, and it's one of the absolute best portraits of a working marriage I've ever seen on film. I think it's just a lovely movie.

[anonymous1980]

Now, as a representative for the (minority?) straight male bunch of the group, the only one of those films you mention that I adore, Penelope, is Lawrence of Arabia. It is interesting that you mention that film, because I have never thought of it in masculine terms before. I think it is almost the opposite of a "masculine" film, in that Peter O'Toole's performance is in no way traditionally butch, the violence and action are kept at a minimum, and the protagonist has no villain to fight, only himself. In the end, he doesn't even get the valiant death in battle, but dies in a motorcycle crash years later.

Not to mention the fact that T.E. Lawrence is rumored to be homosexual.

[FilmFan720]

Count me in on the Raging Bull was not robbed camp. I agree with Damien that who was robbed that night was Jonathan Demme and Melvin and Howard, a fascinating portrayal of American life and the American dream much more riveting and thought-provoking than Scorsese's overrated film. I even love the choice of Ordinary People, a movie that has lost regard from the public only because "it beat out Raging Bull," much like the poor beating board-favorite How Green Was My Valley has recieved for "beating out Citizen Kane." As for GoodFellas, I think it is a fine film (though not top-tier Scorsese, who seems to do best with limited films of smaller scope), and probably the best of the nominees. The Grifters and Ghost fun but slight, and The Godfather III is underrated but no masterpiece (plus, Coppola had enough accolades at that point, too many if you ask me). Dances with Wolves is the lest of the bunch.

Now, as a representative for the (minority?) straight male bunch of the group, the only one of those films you mention that I adore, Penelope, is Lawrence of Arabia. It is interesting that you mention that film, because I have never thought of it in masculine terms before. I think it is almost the opposite of a "masculine" film, in that Peter O'Toole's performance is in no way traditionally butch, the violence and action are kept at a minimum, and the protagonist has no villain to fight, only himself. In the end, he doesn't even get the valiant death in battle, but dies in a motorcycle crash years later. As for Raging Bull, GoodFellas and The Godfather, they are all fine films but I am in no mood to return to them again and again (the incessant quoting of The Godfather drives me nuts, as people seem to see it as the second-coming of the Bible...so many better screenplays to quote from incessantly).

[Eric]

So for all the people who buy into the Peter Biskind view, I'm thrilled that this site has some idiosyncratic souls (Eric, DWS, rain Bard come immediately to mind) who know better.

I'm flattered. Of course, on my end anyway, the idiosyncracy comes in my thinking most of the Biskind crew are worthy of reevaluation. Well alright, maybe only De Palma and Spielberg. (Though One From the Heart made me think, for the first time since first watching Apocalypse Now, that I hadn't been giving Coppola enough credit.)

[Penelope]

Perhaps this is a simplistic statement--and I invite debate of the issue--but, for me, Raging Bull and GoodFellas fall within that Godfather/Lawrence of Arabia str8 man rubric--all four of those films are massively overrated in my opinion, with Raging Bull and Lawrence unconscionably boring and dull to experience. Back to my point, however: I think these films are favorites of str8 men because they present extremes of masculinity--film geeks get into them because they are fantasies (or wet dreams, if you will) of persevering butchness.

But give me Body and Soul any day; is it any surprise that Body and Soul features a homosexual couple on the sidelines while the later films are unrelentingly homophobic (in the classic sense of the word).

In retrospect, it should not have been a surprise that Lawrence is Monohan's favorite film--The Departed is just as much a str8 man's fantasy as the others (and that's partly why it's not nearly as good as Infernal Affairs).

[Big Magilla]

I'll join the chorus - Marty wasn't robbed - this was no make-up Oscar, they waited until he really deserved it to give it to him.

I concur that Body and Soul is a far better film than Raging Bull, probably the best boxing movie ever. It is certainly my favorite of the genre.

While I admired much of the bravura and bravado of Raging Bull, it is not, and never has been, the best film of the 80s or even the year 1980. Oscar got it right that year even if Redford's subsequent work hasn't lived up to Ordinary People, which today gets too easily dismissed as being a gloried TV movie, which it is not. GoodFellas gets my vote for best film of 1990 purley by default, 1990 being the single worst year in the history of the movies IMO. Godfather III may be more fun, but not whenever daughter Sophia opens her pouty mouth.

The truth of the matter is that no director, not even Hitchcock and Ford, ever made a good movie every time. I, too, looked more forward to the films Damien mentions than those of the au courant gods of the 70s and wept (figuratively speaking) when Minnelli's A Matter of Time and Polanski's The Tenant turned out so ghastly.

That said, however, I did appreciate Kubrick's misanthropic films, especially A Clockwork Orange, and most of Altman's, though when he was bad he was very bad. Pret-a-Porter aka Ready to Wear, except for the one scene with Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni reprise their Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow work, is arguably the worst film of any major director in the last quarter century.

The De Palma cult I never got, still don't, though I keep hoping he'll make another film I can like as unconditionally as I did Carrie. Obsession and Blow Out are two of his other films that I've always liked, and Dressed to Kill is one I've come to appreciate over the years, though I initially dismissed it because the murderer was so obvious.

Whereas Altman rebounded from his various misfires, I don't think De Palma ever quite rebounded from Bonfire of the Vanities, a shrill, justly reviled film, his one real attempt at a Hollywood blockbuster.

While some of his films do improve on second viewing - Femme Fatale being a prime example - I can't imagine ever liking The Black Dahlia. Yes, the cinematography was Oscar worthy, and the sets and costumes were decent, but I can't recall the last time I've seen so many hammed up, dreadful performances in one film. Any movie in which Josh Hartnett gives the most nuanced performance is in real trouble. Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, Scarlett Johansson, Mia Kirshner and Fiona Shaw were all worthy of Razzies, especially Swank and Shaw.

The last Oscar nominated film I saw (just before the Oscars actually) was coincidentally daughter Sophia's Marie Antoinette. I didn't hate it as I feared I would - the musical score is surprisingly quite effective, doesn't seem anachronistic at all, and the art direction and costume designs are exquisite, its Oscar for the latter well earned. But the damn thing goes on too long without the anticipated payoff with heads rolling in the end. This was a film that could have used a little De Palma grotesquerie to liven it up. if you ask me, which you didn't, but there it is anyway.

[taki15]

I can assure you Damien that I didn't expext Biskind or anyone else to tell me if Coppola or Scorsese are great directors. I agree with some of your views (''Raging Bull'' and the ''Godfather'' trilogy are completely underwhelming for me).

But to dismiss them outright as talentless or third rate directors is hyperbolic to say the least. I love ''Goodfellas'' and ''Apocalypse Now'' because they are excellent movies. It's that simple.

So I find it rather condescending and arrogant saying that whoever dismisses them ''knows better'' than all of us who supposedly wait for some big name critic to tell us what to like and what to consider masterpiece.

[Damien]

Damien, I respect your knowledge and opinions.

But it seems to me that many times you are the definition of the term ''reactionary''. You dissent just for the sake of dissent.

No I don't.

My film sensibility was largely influenced by Cahiers du Cinema and the subsequent auteurist movement in America. In particular, in college, there was an older student friend of mine who ran a film society (named George Robinson -- he has a very rewarding website) and a film professor named Mike Stern, who taught classes in Melodrama, where he turned me on to the amazing wonders of Sirk and Minnelli and Nick Ray, and Comedy, a class without a single Chaplin film being shown but much of Frank Tashlin's ouevre, as well as Hawks's comedies. (Today Stern is, along with his wife, the Road Food columnist for Esquire.)

One thing all of these influential people had was an utter disdain for Stanley Kubrick, as a director whose coldness and disdain for people was almsot self-parodistic. ANd they were right. Eyes Wide Shut s the first (and only) film in which Kubrik allowed some sense of humanity to shine though.

I was in college in the mid 70s, so I was there for the heyday of Coppola, Scorsese, the emergence of Spielberg. My gang of cinema friends and I were devoid of interst in them (although Scorsese was clearly the most inherently talented of them). As George Robinson pointed out, Coppola has no mise-en-scene. The mainstream reviewers might have been salivating over what to us was self-indulgent nonsense (Taxi Driver, Network, anything John Schlesinger was up to after Sunday Bloody Sunday, Cuckoo's Nest, Barry Lyndon et al), we just couldn't wait for Vincente Minnelli's A Matter Of Time, Polanski's The Tenant, Ken Russell's Valentino, Robert Aldrich's Twilight's Last Gleaming -- and as directors named Robert with a last name starting with "A" Robert Aldrich is infinitely more talented and rewarding than Robert Altman).

So, Taki, my opinions are in no way dissensions for the sake of dissent. They are based on analyses and study and reading and experience over three decades. On the other hand, other people seem just to fall in line with conventional "wisdom" without bothering to stop and take the time and effort to look at and seriously analyze for themselves what has been handed down as "masterpieces" (much of which comes from the curdled sensibilty of Pauline Kael).

So for all the people who buy into the Peter Biskind view, I'm thrilled that this site has some idiosyncratic souls (Eric, DWS, rain Bard come immediately to mind) who know better.