Overrated Directors?

[j_scott_stroup04]

I love Wild Strawberries!

Why can't anybody point out the fact that Schindler's List is almost, ALMOST in the same league as a Bergman film....
WAIT, no I take that back....scratch that.  I don't want to over-rank that film.  But still, you know the point I'm trying to make.

[cowboykurtis]

i love wild strawberries as well -- i was trying to make a point...

[Gold Trumpet]

My overrated list is too long, but let me go on record to say Oliver Stone is underrated.

[Alethia]

alot of really heated spielberg arguments have sprung up lately.....he is good, isn't he?

[godardian]

im just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous,  uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.

I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium (he unfortunately has become the gold standard of cinema to most of those whose opinions and decisions get films made), and the perception of him as an artist and his work is very, very deceptive. It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.

He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." He's a bland, pedestrian thinker and creator (this is where I guess you could say that yes, I'm critical of his technique, which does nothing but level everything it touches into its most Hallmark-"poignant"/bombastic/grandstanding/"feel-good" element- his films are professional, proficient mediocrity) who has come to define for the vast majority of people what film is/should be, and I'm strongly opposed to that exactly and only because I feel his films are subpar, middlebrow mush devoid of inspiration or passion.

I don't require films to be "intellectual," you understand, but Spielberg, clearly dissatisfied with his talent for escapist, mindless entertainment, is desperate to be "respected" as an artist. And that's just death for his films, which I feel have progressively become so dull and soggy and mundane that I've pretty much written him off.

Rather than being an artist who knows the business (which all artists with any self-preserving instinct must), he's a businessman disguised as an artist. I basically think he's closed more minds than he's opened, and in more important/directly influential places than anyone else in film. I'm certainly not jealous of his success; I am much more jealous of the success of, say, a Todd Haynes or a Hal Hartley. I guess I consider "success" the place where both art and a living are made; by that standard, Spielberg is not really a success. Yet, he's treated as if he's the most astonishingly successful, cinematically brilliant mind ever. Hence my feeling that that he's incredibly overrated.

But hey, I fucking hated Seabiscuit- very Spielbergian- too. If Gary Ross ever becomes "The King of Cinema" (really, Spielberg is "The King of Cinema" just like Michael Jackson was "The King of Pop"), I'll be just as outspoken about it, I can assure you. Right now, though, Gary Ross isn't overrated, because the applause for him isn't really all that deafening. Spielberg, on the other hand...

(And that's all I'm going to say about this here- there's a reason I never go the Spielberg item).

[godardian]

Spielberg
Scorsese
Hitchcock
Kevin Smith
John Hughes
Orson Welles
Ridley Scott
Atom Egoyan
Ron Howard
Sam Mendes

I would actually say Oliver Stone is underrated just because of how much hostility he's endured.

Oh, JB... not Atom Egoyan! And not Hitchcock!!!! And not WELLES!?!?!?!? Hughes, Smith, Scott, and Howard, I'm with you on... and Sam Mendes to a point, though I've really enjoyed both of his films (my world wasn't irrevocably rocked by them, though; here's where the true definition of "overrated" comes in).

You know who I think are kind of prone to being overrated, particularly on this board? Robert Altman and Jonathan Demme. Both have made very, very good films, but I feel both have some pretty glaring flaws and have made some pretty poor films, and I don't feel either are as fresh or radical as their most energetic proponents might have us believe...  NOT saying I dislike them by any means, just that I'm not as convinced they're so extra-special and unique and important as many claim.

Scorsese... well, I suppose he is overrated in the way that he's singled out for so much praise. I mean, he's great and has made some of my most favorite films ever, but he's lauded in a way that nobody could actually live up to.

[cowboykurtis]

im just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous,  uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.

I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium \It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.

He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." .

you answered my question -- your a mix between jealous and bitter.

[Gold Trumpet]

You know who I think are kind of prone to being overrated, particularly on this board? Robert Altman and Jonathan Demme. Both have made very, very good films, but I feel both have some pretty glaring flaws and have made some pretty poor films, and I don't feel either are as fresh or radical as their most energetic proponents might have us believe...  NOT saying I dislike them by any means, just that I'm not as convinced they're so extra-special and unique and important as many claim.

I agree completely, especially for Altman. When watching Gosford Park, I couldn't help but feel everything in the movie was what I already expected to come from Robert Altman. On more recent movies where his style of storytelling isn't so apparent (Dr. T and Cookie's Fortune), I just felt the stories were quite lame.

[NEON MERCURY]

burr steers
..ron howard is a great choice...
baz ...
fellini
.....i agree w/ payne...
oliver stone is badass

[cowboykurtis]

i agree with altman

[j_scott_stroup04]

Yes, Luhrmann is overrated.  The only thing worth noting is that his films are totally unlike anybody else's, but he stands as proof that isn't always a good thing.
Fellini?  IDK...

I agree with Godardian about how Spielberg has altered the minds of the common moviegoer into thinking that his movies are how movies should be, that is bothersome, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  It's not his fault that his movies are treated that way.  Maybe he just knows how to work the public, and still make the movies he wants to make.  I know you say that he's commercial and makes safe films and what not, maybe those are the films he wants to make.  For making the "safe" films that he makes, he sure knows how to pick them.

[godardian]

im just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous,  uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.

I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium \It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.

He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." .

you answered my question -- your a mix between jealous and bitter.

By your standards, then, anyone dissatisfied with the way things are (and who are skeptical of the status quo-enforcing people who've made them that way) is dissatisfied because they're jealous or bitter, and in no way because they expect more of the vast possibilities cinema has to offer?

In other words, I don't resent Spielberg's box-office success- I resent that he's created a standard whereby that kind of success is the only kind, and we're told to go to a film because "it's the #1 movie in the country!" which tells us nothing about the film itself. "The most popular and crowd-pleasing of anything is the best of anything." That's the Spielbergian way! Absolutely nothing wrong with being popular or crowd-pleasing- I wish every great film could achieve both of those things- but something VERY wrong with having those things as your main criteria, which it seems obvious to me Spielberg does.

Don't oversimplify my position by claiming I feel that something is automatically superior because it's less popular, either, please. My opinions aren't simplistic. I've really thought it through. Spielberg is a bad filmmaker no matter how popular he is or how much money he makes, but the fact that he's so well-respected is grossly disproportionate and fairly ridiculous. That's my position on it.

I lied about not saying anything more on the subject here, though apparently.  

[socketlevel]

Kevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.

look kevin smith had some good shit.  his later stuff is questionable but chasing amy was a classic with a great story.  i hope your not jumping on the band wagon because of his PTA slightings.  I'd have to disagree with the earlier comment about oliver stone.  oliver stone is one of the last american directors with a critique on political agendas (not to mention most of his films are outstanding) and he should be encouraged to continue with his brand of fiction/nonfiction.  he is only able to do this because of his body of work.  a new filmmaker in this day and age doesn't have the ability to send out messages of overt discord.  JFK is one of the greatest films of all time; top ten for sure.  the craft is amazing and it pitted itself against the very nature of dogma.  bully for him because it could never be done again, save michael moore.  too much control now and political correctness is at its strongest moment in history.

my list,

Fincher (slightly)
Scorcese (big time, same film over and over)
Spike lee (until Bamboozled, that film and 25th hour are classics)

-sl-

[©brad]

urghhhhfuckgrrrrrr.... overration threads give me rashes in bad places.

Spaceballs sucks

excuse me?

[soixante]

If you guage "reaching people" as a measure of excellence, then Richard Donner, with the Lethal Weapon quadrilogy, is a major artist.  That series made a billion dollars.  When I think of Spielberg, "storyteller" is not the word that comes to mind, considering the fat on the narrative of Catch Me If You Can and the murky incomprehensiveness of Minority Report.

My problem with Spielberg is not that he is a popular filmmaker -- my problem with him is that his films suck.  Jurassic Park made a billion, and it sucked.  Empire of the Sun and Always bombed, and they both sucked.  It has nothing to do with money.

concerning richard donner -- thats one idea,one success -- spielberg has had that size of success spaning an entire career, regardless of the genre. im by no means a spielberg fanatic, but one is ignorant if they dont recognize his acheivments. and again one saying that jurassic park "sucked" is far from a valid arguement. it did what it was trying to acheive: ignite the imagination and entertain -- its also considered one of the most groundbreaking films of this decade -- you cant go into every film expecting wild strawberries.

Actually, Richard Donner has directed many hits, going back to 1976 with The Omen, then Superman in 1978.

I disagree that Jurassic Park did what it was trying to achieve -- it didn't ignite my imagination, and it didn't entertain me.  That's in the eye of the beholder.  It's considered a groundbreaking film simply for technical reasons.  When I think of Spielberg, I think of special effects movies.  He makes a disproportionate amount of sci-fi movies, which is the most adolescent genre.  

It comes down to a director's sensibilities -- I feel that Spielberg's sensibility is prosaic and dull, and that he gears his films to the lowest common denominator in the audience.

Also, could you imagine a serious director like Roman Polanski following up an Oscar-winning movie about the Holocaust with a CGI dinosaur movie?  The bottom line is, I can't imagine a serious artistic director (like Scorsese or Altman) making a stupid dinosaur movie.