OK, I've heard this thrown around by armchair directors all of the time, about how certain films are considered self-indulgent crap or whatever. What I would like to know is what is your definition of Directorial Self-Indulgence? Filmic examples are welcome.
irreversible
"heavens gate" should be shown to all directers who make a great film, and are about to get to work on the follow up.
just because you have total control, does not mean you should go nuts.
use your power wisely
irreversible! yes, ohmigod. if there was EVER an example of directors self-indulgence it is that movie. so manipulative.
OK, I'll check out Irreversible.
Keep these coming guys!
I don't know that "manipulation" or what seems to be a juvenile desire to shock or offend really counts as "self-indulgence."
It all depends on the context. I mean, I guess my definition of self-indulgence would be similar to that of Todd Haynes:
"I never really feel comfortable doing what I think motivates a lot of film-makers, which is to say, 'Look how cool this is. Look how cool this character is; look how cool this girl is, this relationship is, this music, this moment. Don't you wish you, the viewer, could be like them.'"
Of course, Tarantino has mastered the art of doing something close to that without it feeling like he's depriving you of something- in fact, like you are in cahoots with him as to the enjoyment of what's cool on the screen- whereas Guy Ritchie would be a case in point re Haynes's view. I would call the Guy Ritchie brand of "look how cool" self-indulgent, because it really does seem like he's doing it only to show how cool he is, how much better he is than us and even his material, how "hip" he is.
I guess that makes my definition of self-indulgent direction an excess of personal style, or style done to the point of being overwrought, or badly done style, which actually detracts from the film experience as a whole.
Funny thing about self-indulgence: I myself aspire to be known as a director who is "self-indulgent". Point in case, a few of my fav directors who are constantly labelled as such: PTA, Godard, Fellini, Scorsese, DePalma (though I think most of his movies suck, his directing is fun to watch). So as we all can see, self-indulgence to most critics = lots of camera movement. Or so it seems. I know that's not the case, but people seem to think if someone dollies a lot, he's self-indulgent.
But Godardian, don't you think all early Godard films constantly say "look how cool this is" or "look how cool this girl (Anna Karina) is" ? I love that.
Quote from: SoNowThenFunny thing about self-indulgence: I myself aspire to be known as a director who is "self-indulgent". Point in case, a few of my fav directors who are constantly labelled as such: PTA, Godard, Fellini, Scorsese, DePalma (though I think most of his movies suck, his directing is fun to watch). So as we all can see, self-indulgence to most critics = lots of camera movement. Or so it seems. I know that's not the case, but people seem to think if someone dollies a lot, he's self-indulgent.
But Godardian, don't you think all early Godard films constantly say "look how cool this is" or "look how cool this girl (Anna Karina) is" ? I love that.
Not in the way Haynes means, because there's an almost unparalleled autocritical dimension to everything Godard ever did. It's hardly like he's unskeptical of what he's showing us. The act of showing is given equal sway in most of Godard to what's being shown.
Those people who equate lots of camera movement with self-indulgence must not realize how much more difficult it is to set up shots with those movements... for most of the directors you mention (and as an aside, I think a lot of De Palma's movies are great, particularly
Blow Out), all that movement is so graceful and appropriate, it feels more like audience-indulgence than self-indulgence.
Another area where the phrase pops up a lot is in discussion of Bergman's work, with all his (to his critics) endless moaning about god and emptiness and the search for meaning in a meaningless universe and so on, all of which are obviously quite personal subjects for Bergman, and many have attacked him for "indulging" them publicly to an audience that should be over those things. This is not the way I feel, mind you- I love Bergman- but more than once have I had the spectre of Diane Keaton in
Manhattan recalled to me in the course of a conversation when Bergman came up.
I agree, those moments are totally graceful and appropriate.
But DePalma is a good focus for a Self-Indulgent discussion. I just watched Blow Out for the first time. Like I said, I love watching his visuals, but it just struck me as frustrating that almost all his stories play like horrible B-movie overplotted made-for-tv stuff. And I like the guy. I think Untouchables and Sacrface are particularily good, but Blow Out's last chase just destroyed the movie for me. The first act was amazing, then it just went cheap twist after cheap twist. The very end went back to super-cool again, but too little too late for me. But since you like it, I thought you could explain through your eyes what you thought about it. Because, like I said, DePalma is just too good a director to be ignored, I just wish he'd get a writer. That's why I wanna see Obsession. Schrader is about the best writer you could hope for.
Quote from: SoNowThenThat's why I wanna see Obsession. Schrader is about the best writer you could hope for.
If you've seen "Vertigo", you've seen "Obsession". Even they admit to ripping off the storyline.
Nope. Haven't seen.
But every single thing DePalma does is a Hitch rip-off (which I'm totally cool with). I just wish he'd rip off the whole movie, rather than always inventing his own overblown 3rd act. I really could have loved Snake Eyes... then came the truck crash and the rain. Fuck.
He ain't a bad director, either. I think when people talk about "self-indulgence," they are probably holding Dreyer/Bresson/Schrader up as ideals of restraint. But in those guys' films, restraint is a style, and a beautiful one- they find stories that match the style.
I love Affliction and Autofocus, but I have a lot of studying up to do on Schrader. I'm dying to see his Patty Hearst movie, 'cos I'm fascinated by that story anyways. And I haven't seen Mishima or American Gigolo, either. I've seen/heard American Gigolo dismissed by so many people I respect, it's hard for me to imagine it's not the cheesy misogyny-fest it's cracked up to be. Still, I like everything of his I've seen...
I've not seen Obsession, by the way. I think de Palma works in a similar way to Godard; he goes through b-movie tropes like it's a trunk from wardrobe department, trying them on and disarding them, often within a single film. Of course, Uncle Jean had more noble aims than de Palma does, but still... it's fun to watch a director whose MO is nothing more or less than (expertly) tweaking the nose of film history.
I love the way you said that, because I'm finishing up my new feature script right now, and that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. Tweaking the nose of film history, with Godard as my jumping point (particularily his pre-occupation with Hollywood crime noir).
Yeah, Schrader is amazing. You have cool taste in film, 'cause people usually look at me crook-eyed when I say how much I like Autofocus. I think Affliction is his best, and Blue Collar is great (get the dvd, PS commentary!!). I wanna see Light Of Day w/ Michael J Fox (absolutely a fav of mine). Unfortunately, I just saw Touch... I don't know why Paul did that movie. It just didn't work. Oh well, he's still amazing.
But Godardian, please.... I wanna hear your thoughts on Blow Out, particularily the final act. I've never actually read anything that gets past the halfway point in discussing that film.
I will have to re-watch the film to get that detailed... which doesn't sound like a bad proposition. Give me the weekend to do it and get back to it here.
Sweet. Or just PM me.
Try to work in Snake Eyes and Femme Fatale too, cuz I loved both of those until the end as well.
Funnily enough, I have 200 dvd's, and the only DePalma I own is Mission Impossible...
It's oop.
So I'm sure that means they're making a Special Edition, which I'll wait to buy.
Quote from: SoNowThenIt's oop.
So I'm sure that means they're making a Special Edition, which I'll wait to buy.
Don't bet on it anytime soon. Although I don't know why Universal has let this go OOP for so long. It seems there would be a demand from all the up and coming rappers who watch MTV's Cribs and want to copy their peers' tastes. But the Collector's Edition has outtakes and an awesome 'Making Of' doc. I guess they could add a commentary, but De Palma has yet to do one (that I know of). He should though, his contributions to his other discs (Carrie, Dressed To Kill, Casualties Of War, Obsession and Femme Fatale) are very insightful. If anything, Carlito's Way and Untouchables should get the Spec. Ed. treatment.
QuoteTry to work in Snake Eyes and Femme Fatale too, cuz I loved both of those until the end as well.
I'll go along with you on the Femme Fatale ending. I LOVED it all the way up until the ending.
*SPOILER WARNING ABOUT FEMME FATALE*
I know. Could have been the best neo-noir in so long, then went to the "all a dream" easy way out. When she got shot on the bridge, I went numb, thinking this was gonna be one of my fav movies of the year, then... it was not to be.
Oh yeah, I forgot Casualties. I LOVE that movie.
The pacing and mood of Femme Fatale doesn't really set up for neo-noir in the real sense. It is very like a dream film, where the story touches upon situations that could be in any other film, but never really is one because it explains nothing. One of the great focuses in neo noir is the explanation upon explanation in following a story that builds to some dramatic conclusion. The results can be good, but the viewing capabilities for long periods of time seem diminished with how obvious the story usually is. Femme Fatale is De Palma's best film in my opinion because it uses his mastery and command of directing in a way to bring interest in almost any story he touches, whatever their final merits, and does it in Femme Fatatale in a way that teases to the possibilities of what the movie can mean. Movies sadly are forgetting art is based off the foundations of an open work, where interpretation is not definite and for each viewer personally. Though the ending suggested a dream ending, I wasn't convinced that explained anything, but only add another level of curiosity to the whole movie on what it can be really about.
~rougerum
Ahhh, GT you ol' hound dog...
Yeah, I know Femme Fatale built the dream-state the whole way through (the fish tank stood out as being a cool thing...), but -- I dunno -- maybe I'm a purest, but if you wanna do a dream movie, do a dream movie. Maybe this one was sold as a neo-noir to me, so that's why I was disappointed. Cuz it COULD HAVE been a great neo-noir. I just like that word: neo-noir. Neo-noir, neo-noir...
No, the bridge should have been the ending, because the femme fatale brought the hero to his knees, but he manages to take her with him, a la Double Indemnity (which DePalma had shown us at the start). I just thought that would be the logical circular ending point. Not that I didn't think the epilogue was neat, I just thought it belonged in a different film. Oh well.
I'm confused by your definition of "purest". If you admit that Femme Fatale was built around a dream state, then how would it be of purest qualities to add something real, like the ending of a neo noir, to it? In the context of this movie, the only real purist thing to do was to see the film finish out on the structure that it has the entire way through, which the movie does. You may have seen it a different way and expected differently with how you followed the story, I can't argue these things. I do suggest you watch the movie again with my place of thought in tact and try to look at the film as an experience that never really identifies anything and when it comes to its ending, it identifies actually very little that is revealing about anything. Femme Fatale is a movie that is about the possibilities of what it can be. Truly a fascinating movie considering the pure talent De Palma has in directing.
~rougerum
I will indeed watch it again with that in mind. Though it is hard to concentrate when Rebecca R-S is so hot.
BTW, what I meant by "purest" was that I went into it wanting to see a noir, and by the time I figured out the dream stuff, it was far into the movie, and I was pissed that it had deviated from what I wanted. It's silly -- I know -- but I really just wanted the noir, pure noir, because that's what I was interested in watching and writing at the time. Dream movies seem too easy to me, because anything goes. I like the rigidity of genre expectations of noir, hence "purest". But this is just my subjective definition, as an explanation of what I said. It was MY fault, not the movie, but you know how sometimes you're in a certain mood, and a flick just doesn't work for you? That's how it was.
It's not your fault. Its all subjective and nothing lies in fact this or that. It really doesn't matter what you think of the film, except if you can back it up with good reason. This discussion board acts as arguments between different reasons not to say if something is that way or not, but just find all the ways something can be looked at.
~rougerum
Yeah, most of my favorite directors are pretty much all the time called elf indulgent pricks...Scorsese, Tarantino, Coppola, Allen, PTA, Spielberg, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone...and so on and on and on...
My guess is that for some reason people who say this can't stand a director with a personal style, with personaly interests and artistical ambitions...
I wouldn't even call Guy Ritchie self-indulgent even though I don't like any of his movies cause he seems to be saying all the time: I'M COOL, THIS IS COOL, NO STORY, NO NOTHING, BUT SO COOL...still, that's his style, and a director shouldn't be really concerned about what people will think of his movie...
I think we all know how dissimilar opinions can be on the same film. Every person has one, and there can be interpretations you as a creator never intended or imagined someone would get out of your work. Some people think Rocky is the best movie ever and Magnolia the worst...the lesson is, DO AS YOU WANT...IS YOUR FUCKING MOVIE, WHY NOT BE SELF INDULGENT IF YOU WANT TO, YOU MAKE THE MOVIE FOR YOURSELF...
i would have to add my two cents by saying that there is self indulgent GOOD and self indulgent BAD. scorsese, pta, etc. ALWAYS have the audience in mind. as pta has said on numerous occasions that he has had high hopes for ALL his movies to be box office smashes. he desperately wants to connect with the pubic as well as the critics, BUT he refuses to pander to them. he wants to challenge them and give them something different, and gives them the credit (undue) that people will like it. if you want to call THIS self-indulgent, than i would classify this as the good kind.
however, someone who makes a movie without the audience in mind, (whatever audience that may be), would be self indulgent (in the BAD connotation). someone who makes a movie just to get under peoples skin, or to be controversial, or to piss people off without really saying something, and that really has no intention of making their money back. that seems like more self indulgent to me because they are making a movie with financers money for an audience that they know will not come to see it. they are spending someone elses money for their statement. i would say all the directors you named are always trying to make movies for (themselves sure), but always the audiences.
Quote from: themodernage02i would have to add my two cents by saying that there is self indulgent GOOD and self indulgent BAD. scorsese, pta, etc. ALWAYS have the audience in mind. as pta has said on numerous occasions that he has had high hopes for ALL his movies to be box office smashes. he desperately wants to connect with the pubic as well as the critics, BUT he refuses to pander to them. he wants to challenge them and give them something different, and gives them the credit (undue) that people will like it. if you want to call THIS self-indulgent, than i would classify this as the good kind.
however, someone who makes a movie without the audience in mind, (whatever audience that may be), would be self indulgent (in the BAD connotation). someone who makes a movie just to get under peoples skin, or to be controversial, or to piss people off without really saying something, and that really has no intention of making their money back. that seems like more self indulgent to me because they are making a movie with financers money for an audience that they know will not come to see it. they are spending someone elses money for their statement. i would say all the directors you named are always trying to make movies for (themselves sure), but always the audiences.
You're right...completely right...they have respect for the audience but never betray their instincts and their style, the way they think the story should be told...
they have the audience in mind, but they ARE first, always...