There's a great interview with Doyle in the Fall issue of filmmaker inwhich he discusses upcoming projects and the state of Asian and American cinema. Here's a few choice bits:
Doyle: ...Have you seen Shall We Dace?...The Richard Gere version.... It's the biggest piece of shit. You don't even know what the fucking thing is about. And with Shall We Dance, we're not talking art. We're not talking Kieslowski or Tarkovsky. We're talking mainstream Japanese film, and you (America) can't even get that right. Come on. Hello. In other words, you lost the fucking plot.
Filmmaker: Don't you think these bloated Hollywood films are an easy target? Do you watch any American Independent film?
Doyle: Does anybody? Hello! Come on. Come on, you can't be so naive that you don't know that the only thing they do in the US is look at the box office. It's not a film industry anymore, it's an accounting department. There's only two departments in American cinema- the insurance department and the accounting department. There are no filmmakers anymore.
Filmmaker: You don't think so?
Doyle: No absolutely not.
Filmmaker: There are no more filmmakers in America?
Doyle: Uh-uh. If Martin Scorsese can make a piece of shit called The Aviator and then go on to remake a Hong Kong film (Infernal Affairs, lensed by Doyle), don't you think he's lost the plot? Think it through. "I need my Oscar, I need my fucking Oscar!" Are you crazy? There's not a single person in the Academy voting department who's under 65 years old. They don't even know how to get online. They have no idea what the real world is about. They have no visual experience anymore. They have preoccupations. So why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator? And now he has to remake our film? I mean this is bullshit. This is total bullshit. I love Marty, I think he's a great person. And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let's appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost.
Next year Doyle plans to direct 2 films. One of which is a movie about a Japanese country music cover band who think they are on the run from the mafia when they have actually entered music hell.
Clearly, Doyle hasn't heard of PTA.
I've seen parts of Doyle's first film. It was pretty good, and predictably gorgeous to look at.
Thats a hilarious interview
I think he's being a bit melodramatic with his criticisms - still hilarious - what a drunk - a brilliant drunk if anything
I like his work as a cinematographer, but what an asshole. I really hope he fails as a director.
Quote from: analogzombieSo why the fuck would a great filmmaker need to suck the dick of the Academy with a piece of shit called The Aviator?...
And the other one is Tarantino. Oh yeah, let's appropriate everything. Are you lost? Yes, you are lost.
holy sheeeyat, that's brutal!
shaftr, why do you hope he fails as a director? which specific parts of the interview did you think were so detestable that you'd be compelled to say somethin like that?
he completely generalized american cinema. honestly, what about PTA?
Quote from: JimmyGatorhe completely generalized american cinema. honestly, what about PTA?
He mentions PTA later in the interview - he says " PTA is a talentless american faggot-boy".
What do you think about that?
I think doyle is argueable the best DP working -
I respect his honesty and bluntness in that interview - however I just remembered one fact that invalidates every comment towards american cinema he so boldly made -
He's shooting M. Night's next film - Meaning his opinions are essentially hypocritcal shit -
he's hypocritical brilliant drunk shit.
Honesty, if anything here, is funny.
The problem is he does seem drunk. He rants and raves and has little explanation for any of it. I don't mind harshness toward american cinema today, but explanation goes a long way. He was too pissed to do that. It makes those who are really disgruntled look bad.
And besides, the best version of Shall We Dance doesn't belong to the Japanese. It belongs to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.
being the hardest working alcoholic in the business does grant u sum validity, he makes good points. i don't think he believes his words will have amount to anything except maybe to piss ppl off a little, the fact is he sounds too funny to be taken very seriously. he prolly wouldn't deny that he's just raving for raving's sake. (and ravi's sake? :ponder: )
also the premise of his movie kicked my ass.
I bought Doyle's directorial debut, starring Asano Tadanobu and his best friend Kevin. It's called Away With Words. I found it on Ebay for about 7 bucks, it was widescreen but felt cropped.
I think Doyle does mean what he says, he's like Herzog that way, like a real dogmatic, physical, blue-collar type of filmmaker, and guys like that love to tell people how the world works and how cinema should be.
I read his book/ collage essay (written in Chinese) where he talked about trying to stir shit up shooting Van Sant's Psycho and Liberty Heights, he does despise bureacracy and hollywood. He usually doesn't talk like that though. He's usually a nice sweet drunk who likes to talk about romantic abstract things. Space, for example.
ps. did anyone attach a link to the interview yet? if not then here it is:
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/fall2005/features/wild_man.php
this guys a real peice of work:
"What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It's flustered; it's someone frustrated by his own ideas. It's like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can't do that."
the power of his words are too much to ignore. i'm converting to doylenism.
:(
Quote from: cowboykurtisthis guys a real peice of work:
"What are you going to do? Are you going to wait? I mean, look what happened to Kubrick. The more he waited — I mean, Eyes Wide Shut is a piece of shit, come on. It's flustered; it's someone frustrated by his own ideas. It's like cheese; it molded, you know? [laughs] Maybe 20 years ago it would have been more interesting, but it has no relevance anymore. And you can't do that."
You can see that philosophy manifesting itself in the sheer amount of work Doyle does. I can see where he's coming from, but I disagree.
Quote from: Pubrickthe power of his words are too much to ignore. i'm converting to doylenism.
:(
so, you share his opinion on eyes wide shut?
I didn't feel EWS shut was in any way stale - Maybe he feels Kubrick's style of telling a story is antiquated? Or is he directly criticising the subject? Meaning Kubrick's taste/interest in material is antiquated (considering when it was made)?
I felt he approached the film/subject just as he did with any other film. I felt that Kubrick's process/result was the same as it would have been 20 years prior. I feel all his work is pretty timeless.
Do you think, in essence, by Doyle's logic, other Kubrick films have not "aged" well? Without contextualizing WHEN his films were made, do they still resonate?
I feel they do - others may disagree.
I think out of most filmmakers of his generation, his films still seem very progressive, challenging and modern in their worldview and philosophies.
That being said, I disagree with Doyle.
P, make sure you respond to the above in futura bold.
Doyle talks some crazy shit, and while I disagree with him on a technical level, I know exactly what he's talking about. It's the same thing that makes Jim Jarmusch hate to have his films referred to as mainstream. It's a generalization of American filmmaking that isn't one hundred percent accurate but is nontheless fairly astute.
And I imagine if this was a video interview, as opposed to a transcript, it would make a lot more sense. Doyle totally knows how to sell whatever he's talking about. He's an incredibly lucid drunk.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: Pubrickthe power of his words are too much to ignore. i'm converting to doylenism.
:(
so, you share his opinion on eyes wide shut?
hello cowboykurtis, my name is pubrick, nice to meet u.
no i don't share his views on eyes wide shut. frankly i think he just invalidated himself, why does he want to attack great ppl so much? but i don't know much about his movies or other interviews he's done, or his philosophy if any.. so i can't invalidate him. he seems to hate the west, and probably drinks to forget he is a product of it. poor guy.
but seriously, i can see how he is like herzog, in the sense he creates a solid alternate viewpoint of cinema's future. i don't know what he's referring to when he calls EWS old. if popular response is any indication it could be said he was out of touch with popular taste, but that's always been proven to be everyone else's fault.
kubrick didn't even tackle any ideas which could "mold", and his approach to his subject matter was always progressive, highly original, and uncoventional. so i agree with u that they resonate regardless of their release date. maybe doyle doesn't see as much clarity in EWS as in his previous films, assuming he doesn't hate his previous films too, in which case he's just bored.
Quote from: Pubrick
hello cowboykurtis, my name is pubrick, nice to meet u.
lets just say I'm laughing at myself right now -- but to my credit, the only ounce of food I've eaten all day is one of those massive hershey's chocolate bars (a long day to say the least)
I'm sorry I ever doubted you - I couldn't catch the sarcasm, and thought for a second, that all hope was lost.
After reading that interview I can see myself sitting in a crowded movie theatre with him in the audience and just listening to him yell things out at the images on the screen.
Its strange...I disagree with so much that he's saying and yet still enjoy reading it. I guess thats how it is when you're dealing with a drunk genius.
In the interview he talks a few times about how the world sees American film, and I think he is speaking from that outsider looking in, point of view when he bashes American Cinema en mass.
I think he's absolutely right about Eyes Wide Shut, and Scorsese. EWS IS a mess. There are so many ideas swirling within it that the film can't contain, on contextualize them all. And poor Marty, Gangs of New York was dreadful, and The Aviator only feels so much better by comparison. And now he, one of our greatest filmmakers, is resorting to remakes for material? It's sad.
As for Tarantino, I understand the long running argument that his stuff is ntohing but direct lifts from other films, and that is true, but he does it so well. I see his work as more of a love letter to cinema. Maybe Doyle is just upset that Kill Bill's action sequences, while inspired by some of the films he has worked on, are many, many times better.
I used to just 'like' Doyle for his work, but after reading this, I now 'love' him for telling it like it is. A bit harsh, but damm he cuts to the meat of the problem. What's happening in American cinema is merely a reflection of the heightened zenophobia of American society and its rampant anti-intellectualisn. Look at the mainstream films released so far this year, tons of sequels, lots of comic book movies, a handful of video game movies, and tons and tons of remakes. Is there absolutely no interest, on the part of Hollywood, for unique or original stories? no absolutely not. Doyle is totally right about Hollywood being an accounting department.
dissing EWS + praising tarantino = INVALIDATED
at least doyle was consistent.
I find it interesting that people are sounding the death knell for American cinema, and citing all the bad movies made as an example. Go to ANY country and look at the shit they churn out. Asian cinema makes tons of crap every year, just like everywhere else. Face it, most films suck. It's so stupid when people start tearing into American movies and going on about big action flicks and the "current climate", etc etc. Let's be happy with the 3 - 6 decent films made, and forget about the rest, cos it's never gonna change. If it were possible to make every film "great", cinema would lose its power as an art.
you don't think cinemas go in cycles? the italians in the 50s, French in the 60s, Germans in the 70s, Iranians in the 80s, America in the 90s...etc.?
Doyle and his buddies aren't making "foreign films" or "indie films" in Asia, but they're big box office hits starring big stars, they're the mainstream movies over there. In some parts of the world, everyone gets to see the 3-6 great movies that came out that year, not just the hip people living near an indie theater.
Well Fuck Wong Kar Wai and American cinema. As was said it's time for M. Night baby!
and P you know Doyle is Australian right?
QuoteI left Australia when I was 18 and I've been a foreigner for 36 years. I think that's very important to the way I work because as a foreigner you see things differently. But I started making Chinese-language films so I regard myself as a Chinese filmmaker. I just happen to be white. Or pink, actually.
Quote from: peteyou don't think cinemas go in cycles? the italians in the 50s, French in the 60s, Germans in the 70s, Iranians in the 80s, America in the 90s...etc.?
Doyle and his buddies aren't making "foreign films" or "indie films" in Asia, but they're big box office hits starring big stars, they're the mainstream movies over there. In some parts of the world, everyone gets to see the 3-6 great movies that came out that year, not just the hip people living near an indie theater.
No, no, that's a good point. I was thinking about the cycles when I wrote my post, but still, that's the exception to the norm. A healthy, regular state of movies is the 3 - 6, not America from 1972 - 1976.
And even when you think of the French New Wave, the amount of decent productions was enourmous, but was it really any better than the previous decade, if you consider the films of Renoir, Cocteau, Melville, Becker, and Bresson? Maybe they made less films, and took a much longer time to do so, but leaving out every other single film, and just taking those ones by the directors I mentioned, from say 1948 - 1959, it's every bit as stunning as the entire New Wave body of work from 59-68. But if you go by the popular history, and even the Truffaut essays from that time before, it's as though they were so disgusted with French cinema, and it was dead, etc etc. Just like you hear people say all the time about American cinema. It's just an angry young man's bitching because he's actually got something to say, but no means to get it out to the world.
Really, I was responding to what Analog was saying, not Doyle.
But I dunno about EVERYONE getting to see the 3 - 6. I doubt it... I doubt if ANYONE sees the essential 3 - 6 in the year they come out, unless you gotta whole lot of free time and a REALLY open mind and some extra cash...
The fact that Dolye generalizes an entire culture of films is pretty ridiculous.
well, all cinematographers are idiots.
Quote from: Pubrickdissing EWS + praising tarantino = INVALIDATED
at least doyle was consistent.
you seem to be totally preoccupied with invalidating someone's opinion or thought process more than you are with discussing the issue. I mean you mentioned above that you can't yet invalidate doyle's argument b/c you don't know too much about his philosophy. does that mean that you are automatically looking for a reason to disregard his statements merely b/c you do not agree?
I don't see how finding worth in Tarantino's process while also holding the opinion that Eyes Wide Shut is not up to the Kubrick standard, and is quite muddled in places, are two negating lines of thought.
i think you are invalidated. :elitist:
Quote from: SoNowThenI find it interesting that people are sounding the death knell for American cinema, and citing all the bad movies made as an example. Go to ANY country and look at the shit they churn out. Asian cinema makes tons of crap every year, just like everywhere else. Face it, most films suck. It's so stupid when people start tearing into American movies and going on about big action flicks and the "current climate", etc etc. Let's be happy with the 3 - 6 decent films made, and forget about the rest, cos it's never gonna change. If it were possible to make every film "great", cinema would lose its power as an art.
no argument there. but you can't ignore the fact the American studio system is doing nothing more turning out lacklustre product after lacklustre product. It's all driven by market research and so engineered that it drains all emotion and feeling from just about everything out there. I don't think it's the death knell, but we are in a serious down cycle at this point and its related to the corporatizing of Hollywood that began in the 70's. Movies are now just another product. this mentality combined with fewer and fewer small, non-chain theaters is narrowing our choices as cinema goers.
Thank god for dvd, and the home market. And while there are some great independent filmmakers working today a lot of what they are doing is more of a farm system for the studios. Besides, I was speaking in terms of Doyle's comments on the state of American cinema as seen from the outside. As someone who only sees the big Hollywood picture.
I do agree that it's not going to change. It's the result of the paradigm shift in the way the public at large thinks of movies, and how our culture has changed in relation to its entertainment. However, there will always be a market for thoughtful, and provoking movies because there IS an audience (us). The thing is that these films will continue to get smaller and smaller and artists will continue to have less resources to draw on to create their vision. Look at someone like Gilliam or Scorsese. Their most recent studio films have been the archetype of what happens when too many decisions are made by share holders and board members.
Now don't get me worng, I love a great popcorn flick as much as joe schmo, but also like variety, something that is sorely lacking from the cineplex these days.
SoNowThen's original point is the one I like best. Most of the films that do get released really are crap. Stanley Kauffmann once said if only 95% of the films released were crap, it was a good year. He margined that 3% would be good and only 2% would be exceptional.
But, I don't believe in film cycles being the be all end all for quality filmmaking. I find much of the work for the 70s American Indepedent scene to be overrated. Similiar to the 90s scene. The best decade is the 1960s, but a lot of films made during the French New Wave don't excite me.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetSoNowThen's original point is the one I like best.
That settles it.
I hereby declare today to be SoNowThen Day.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetSoNowThen's original point is the one I like best. Most of the films that do get released really are crap. Stanley Kauffmann once said if only 95% of the films released were crap, it was a good year. He margined that 3% would be good and only 2% would be exceptional.
.
But I don't think you can use that very true reality to dismiss DOyle's comments. He has a point, a) What the fuck is Scorsese doing? and b) Hollywood's current mainstream product is reflective of the general decline of the American Empire
I think his basic point is that a culture's mainstream art can always be used as an indicator of that society's current state, and that going by that, America is in deep trouble.
Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore but a drunken one who speaks the harsh truth about cinema)
Quote from: analogzombie
I think his basic point is that a culture's mainstream art can always be used as an indicator of that society's current state, and that going by that, America is in deep trouble.
Well, that is ridiculous. A lot of times great art comes from tumultuos times (ie Soviet Montage).
well, America isn't exactly tumulous right now. If anything it's comfortable and it's comfortably pissing on a lot of the other nations. that's not the deep trouble analog was speaking of, I think.
I think he was referring to the trouble that our culture is in. We're a generation of phillistines.
Quote from: analogzombieQuote from: The Gold TrumpetSoNowThen's original point is the one I like best. Most of the films that do get released really are crap. Stanley Kauffmann once said if only 95% of the films released were crap, it was a good year. He margined that 3% would be good and only 2% would be exceptional.
.
But I don't think you can use that very true reality to dismiss DOyle's comments. He has a point, a) What the fuck is Scorsese doing? and b) Hollywood's current mainstream product is reflective of the general decline of the American Empire
I think his basic point is that a culture's mainstream art can always be used as an indicator of that society's current state, and that going by that, America is in deep trouble.
The mainstream product has always been awful. In 1968, I think Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was the top film of the year. Or something much worst than that. This isn't a developing story. It's really the only story.
The Scorsese point is better. He's not only reducing himself to a lesser director, but like other profile directors, he is finding introspection and depth in genre changes. I agree this problem is most terrible in America. While other countries have great directors film really personal projects, the state of American Cinema is one of sick reverence for the bloated career of Alfred Hitchcock.
One thing I can't understand, how is Tarantino any better? I don't care how well he does his films. He's been doing these films his entire career. He is not only making genre works, but he's making genre works for a specific audience only. He's not challenging himself to progress at all.
For as much as I dislike Eyes Wide Shut, it was Kubrick making an art house film. He made a true effort. He doesn't deserve the same disregard as Scorsese.
Quote from: JimmyGatorI think he was referring to the trouble that our culture is in. We're a generation of phillistines.
whats a philistine? : )
Quote from: A Matter Of ChanceQuote from: JimmyGatorI think he was referring to the trouble that our culture is in. We're a generation of phillistines.
whats a philistine? : )
it's a guy who doesn't care about books or interesting films and things.
Hmm, how is Hero any less bloated and slam-bang than Gangs Of New York or The Aviator?
There will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
Quote from: SoNowThenThere will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: SoNowThenThere will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.
definitinley. it's seems like he is sleepwalking his way through these movies. we need that one last masterpiece from marty.
right.. so how bout that christopher doyle
Quote from: killafilmand P you know Doyle is Australian right?
yep. try telling
him that.. :yabbse-lipsrsealed:
Quote from: analogzombiei think you are invalidated. :elitist:
i wasn't really serious, i mean, the equation is a bit stupid. but seriously Tarantino is crap.
it's funny, we all keep saying that even if we disagree with doyle we see his points or sumthing like that. maybe we do agree with him a little. it would be great to be a raving genius saying whatever u want and having credentials to back it up at least technically.
but i still don't know what doyle is all about, can sumone link me to sum AMK-like archive of doyle-isms? is he just a good cinematographer or is he really at the forefront of all things cinema. i guess his movies speak for themselves, but if that were the case he would prolly be a kubrick and not so vocal about how much he hates the white man. his agenda intrigues me.
Quote from: peteyou don't think cinemas go in cycles? the italians in the 50s, French in the 60s, Germans in the 70s, Iranians in the 80s, America in the 90s...etc.?
Iranians ? :shock:
I would've said the americans in the 50s, America in the 60s, America in the 70s, America in the 80s, America in the 90s ... but that's mainly because when you saw Fellini you have pretty much seen all the italian cinema easily available.
Quote from: SoNowThenHmm, how is Hero any less bloated and slam-bang than Gangs Of New York or The Aviator?
yeah, but 1) he didn't direct Hero and 2) he also poked jabs at Zhang Yimou. He also shot psycho in color.
QuoteIranians ? :shock:
uraniuns?
Which brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:
is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???
Quote from: SoNowThenWhich brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:
is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???
no, it is terrible. So many bad casting choices followed by a really tacky color scheme that just seems to cheapen everyone.
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: SoNowThenWhich brings me to a question tha's been on my mind for a long time:
is the Psycho remake actually worth viewing???
no, it is terrible. So many bad casting choices followed by a really tacky color scheme that just seems to cheapen everyone.
*remembers an old argument with Budgie*
She'd say you were missing the point.
I'd say the point was worth missing. Film should never had been made.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: SoNowThenThere will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.
I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.
What's Doyle's reaction to Hero opening at No. 1 with $18 mil? Did he think American popular taste was so atrocious just then?
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: SoNowThenThere will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.
I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.
Comparing The Aviator to Casino, is there really a progression of storytelling? I think Scorsese switched genres and had a less stellar filmmaking show with The Aviator. In turn, while I liked it, its a dissapointment for Scorsese.
Also, I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here.
As a film, the Psycho remake was a real disaster. As an experiment, it was an odd sort of success, and for that reason I'd recommend it. I read an interview with Viggo Mortensen where he said Van Sant wanted to remake it again, which would be even more interesting.
Anyway: Doyle has talked about how he like to try different films with different filmmakers in order to learn things. He's implied that he did not enjoy the experience of working on most of the American films he's shot - Psycho, Liberty Heights, the upcoming Merchant Ivory film - but he always talks about how he takes those experiences for what they're worth and learns from them.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: SoNowThenThere will be a critical re-appraisal of all the late Scorsese movies. They are solid.
I agree The Aviator is solid, but it is also effortless for Scorsese. He needs to push himself.
I don't think this a valid comment - It doesn't matter who's at the helm - a film of that scale requires effort - orchestrating such scope and magnitude into a "solid" story is easier said then done, even for Scorsese.
Comparing The Aviator to Casino, is there really a progression of storytelling? I think Scorsese switched genres and had a less stellar filmmaking show with The Aviator. In turn, while I liked it, its a dissapointment for Scorsese.
Also, I'm not really sure who you're arguing against here.
yours truly -
Criticising him for not having a progression in storytelling is somewhat of a moot point.
How are you discerning storytelling - structurally,visually, emotionally?
Was Casino a progression in "storytelling" from Goodfellas?
When looking at a director's progression are you judging based on the subject he chooses to tackle, or how he chooses to tackle that subject?
I thought hte effort was pretty Bravura - The craft and execution was impecable. Probably my favorite film last year.
Scorsese's approach to a film of this size (from the technical craft to the character arc) was about as progressive as it could be (all considering) - You have to contexualize the effort - Making a 100 million dollar film about a reclusive man with OCD, has somewhat of a built in governer on its scope and creative "liberties".
First off, Casino is a progression from Goodfellas. Where Goodfellas is the simple strand of the life of one person in the mob, Casino is the grand story that details many people and many elements of the mafia take over in Las Vegas and its eventual fall.
Second off, Casino brings in wider filmmaking. I'll call it the Minnelli sweep that has more articulated scene set ups, pan shots and everything, thus making the filmmaking epic. Unlike Goodfellas, Casino has the background of Las Vegas being just as much of a character as anyone else. Casino has to have filmmaking to play to that.
From Casino to The Aviator, I'm not sure what progress is being made. They both fall in similiar realms of the Hollywood epic. One can be critical of The Aviator while holding up Casino. Casino, at the time, was progression of Scorsese to doing the Hollywood epic well. With The Aviator, I see a film made in a similiar strand that doesnt further delve or intensify. It passes by all the main points of its story as Casino does and wraps up quite nicely. Scorsese is content to make another well crafted film. With his recent history, its nothing new.
How he tackles the film and all, I better state the fact that for the talent of Scorsese, he didn't make The Aviator knowing the potential of his filmmaking ability can do, but what it already has done. I guess I have high expectations for someone I really do admire.
The difference between Casino and The Aviator is that he actually told a story in the latter.
out of context quotation time!!Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 04, 2005, 12:32:40 PMFilm should never had been made.
Quote from: Ultrahip Lobster Supper on November 04, 2005, 01:07:47 PM
What's Doyle's reaction to Hero opening at No. 1 with $18 mil? Did he think American popular taste was so atrocious just then?
hahaha
Cinematographer Christopher Doyle Tackles 3D in 'Rabbit Horror'
Source: THR
Cinematographer Christopher Doyle will dive through the 3D looking glass for the first time, right into The Rabbit Horror, director Takashi Shimizu's upcoming multimillion-dollar film about a boy and his scary stuffed toy, producer and sales agent Fortissimo Films said Friday.
Boarding Rabbit as executive producer and picking up worldwide rights excluding Japan at AFM, Fortissimo chairman Michael Werner said the film, which bows in the summer, represents a return to Shimizu's classic horror style, evoking hits like The Grudge.
"We are thrilled to be part of this amazing collaboration between one of the world's masters of the horror genre and one of the world's most visual and inspirational cinematographers," said Werner, who negotiated world rights with Rabbit producer Satoru Ogura.
Rabbit is the first collaboration between Shimizu and Doyle and marks Doyle's first use of 3D.
Set against the backdrop of a boy's crumbling family, the film explores the his dangerous relationship with a stuffed toy animal that comes to life.
Currently in postproduction, Rabbit is was written Sotaro Hayashi, Daisuke Hosaka and Takashi Shimizu and stars Hikari Mitsushima (The Villain) and Teruyuki Kagawa (Tokyo Sonata).
Esther Yeung, Fortissimo's director of marketing and Asian acquisitions and sales, also helped close the rights deal and also will executive produce.