Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore)

[matt35mm]

SoNowThen's original point is the one I like best.

That settles it.

I hereby declare today to be SoNowThen Day.

[analogzombie]

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 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.

[SiliasRuby]

Christopher Doyle (not just a cinematographer anymore but a drunken one who speaks the harsh truth about cinema)

[SHAFTR]

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).

[pete]

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.

[JG]

I think he was referring to the trouble that our culture is in.   We're a generation of phillistines.

[Gold Trumpet]

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 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.

[A Matter Of Chance]

I think he was referring to the trouble that our culture is in.   We're a generation of phillistines.

whats a philistine? : )

[JG]

I 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.

[SoNowThen]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

There 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.

[JG]

There 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.

[Pubrick]

right.. so how bout that christopher doyle

and P you know Doyle is Australian right?

yep. try telling him that..

i think you are invalidated.  

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.

[Pas]

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.?

Iranians ?  

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.

[pete]

Hmm, 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.

Iranians ?  

uraniuns?